PIPER WINGSPAR BOLTS - NEED ADVICE

Z

ZackJ

Pre-Flight
Joined
Apr 28, 2019
Messages
61
Display Name
Display name:
inferno8428
So I just purchase a piper warrior - with a recent annual completed. Upon inspection with a borescope I found out that the bolts are rusted. Knowing that these are stressed structural supports. Id feel comfortable getting them replaced.
I got into aircrafts knowing the expense involved - but I was just quoted $12,000 per wing to get wingspars replaced. spending 12,000 on a wing on top of what I had planned for an avionics upgrade and engine overhaul puts me right at $84,000 - purchased the aircraft for 36k and I'm thinking what the **** did I get myself into.

If anyone out there has any advice on how to most efficiently rectify this - that would be awesome.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_032.JPG
    IMG_032.JPG
    90.5 KB · Views: 300
  • IMG_047.JPG
    IMG_047.JPG
    91.2 KB · Views: 288
  • IMG_041.JPG
    IMG_041.JPG
    82 KB · Views: 279
Nope - prebuy covered active AD's - bolts weren't addressed till I looked at it personally. This is my first aircraft and this has only been a very expensive learning experience.
 
Cheaper to part out. No way would any warrior be worth 84k :(. The term “pre buy inspection“, is totally undefined...call wentworth in Arkansas.

45k is tops, that puts you in the hole for some extra 39 k, beyond what you have in it now. Bitter lesson as to why annuals ARE actually cheap.
 
Last edited:
How much would it be for a complete repaint and corrosion treatment?
 
Have you actually had a qualified mechanic look at the bolts and spar attach points? Or did you diagnose this yourself with a borescope and call someone for a price "to replace wing spars"?

You appear to have some corrosion on the bolts themselves. The condition of the spar attach seems to be unknown at this time? I can't see it costing $24,000 to replace the bolts if that's all that is required.
 
Boroscope pics can make things seem scarier than they really are. 40+ year old planes can accumulate a lot of schmutz in crevices. Definitely a lot of rust on those bolts but it may be limited to the bolt head itself. Get a second opinion before you start parting your plane out.
 
Have not asked a qualified mechanic yet - this was self diagnosed 100% - will know more tomorrow. Right now I'm looking to wrap my mind around the costs associated with getting this fixed. I'm preparing my self for worst case scenario...
 
Replacing bolts is NOT the same thing as replacing spars, or spar attachments. I think you've got yourself wound up about something that may not prove to be all that serious.

What year is the plane and how many hours TT on the airframe?

And fergawdsake find an experienced Piper mechanic to look at it before you lose too much more sleep.
 
Where are you located, we may be able to suggest a reputable A&P knowlegeable with Cherokees.
 
1983 piper with 8500hrs TT - that’s what I’m hoping. In Florida WPB - if you guys know an experienced A&P mechanic, that would be awesome!
 
I work out of Lantana. I would recommend that you have the questionable bolts removed and inspected. Those are close-tolerance bolts, I believe, and if the load-bearing (shear) part of the bolt is free of corrosion and within dimensional tolerance, I would be comfortable just replacing them.
 
Man, I don’t have anything to offer but I sure hope it works out for you. I know your heart sank when you saw that.
 
I can’t see anything in those pics. Anything telling.
So far you’ve only done a quick looksee.
Thoroughly clean all the gradoo off the exposed parts of the bolts, spars, fittings.
Get a look at things with a bright light. Then decide your next step.

@ZackJ edit: I mentioned cleaning. There are specific ways to clean. Get someone who knows how; don't rush in there with your oven cleaner and steel brush. Don't assume you know how to do this.
 
Last edited:
Unit74 said:
Man, I don’t have anything to offer but I sure hope it works out for you. I know your heart sank when you saw that.
Click to expand...

Tell me about it... I broke the cardinal rule - fell in love with the first plane.
 
alfadog said:
I work out of Lantana. I would recommend that you have the questionable bolts removed and inspected. Those are close-tolerance bolts, I believe, and if the load-bearing (shear) part of the bolt is free of corrosion and within dimensional tolerance, I would be comfortable just replacing them.
Click to expand...

Hey - I’ll definitely reach out to you if you’re available. Send me your contact and I’ll get it to your location. Zackjacob1985@gmail.com
 
I'm with the others that you're getting worked up about what's likely a non-issue in the grand scheme. I'd recommend talking to Del Lehman at Mountain Airframe in Arkansas. He was recently (well, somewhat recently) posting on BT re: Piper wingbolts in relation to the accident last year. He's very knowledgeable.

http://www.mountainairframe.com/
 
ZackJ said:
1983 piper with 8500hrs TT - that’s what I’m hoping. In Florida WPB - if you guys know an experienced A&P mechanic, that would be awesome!
Click to expand...
35 yr old airplane, high hours in Florida......Definitely from a school. You really, REALLY need an experienced shop to examine everything, including inside the wings and behind the bulkhead and the spar under the back seat, not just the bolts. An annual is not always the same as a a prebuy by a potential buyers, as Dr B pointed out.

Oh well, many of us first time buyers make the same horrendous mistakes. Welcome to the club.

What about the engine and prop?

Spur of the moment purchase.....probably the same shop that’s been doing the work during the recent years also did the prebuy? Sorry, but I don’t have warm, fuzzy feelings about this.
 
Last edited:
You can have rusty bolt heads and nuts and upon removal find that the corrosion is limited to the exposed surfaces. Or you can pull the hardware out and find the the moisture has penetrated the bolt/aluminum interface and has been eating at the aluminum, which suffers worse than the bolt during galvanic activity. The bolts need to be taken out before you get too excited.
 
Ugh Pipers and their wings.
 
benyflyguy said:
If that wing was on the top of the plane where it’s supposed to be...
Click to expand...

Here we go with the Chev Silverado versus Ford F150 debate again, LOL.

Tantalum said:
Ugh Pipers and their wings.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with Pipers, or their wings, or the way they are made. I've owned five of them (still own one).

These planes (Pipers, Cessnas and, yes, even the much admired Beechcraft) were mass produced, and I don't think anybody expected them to still be in service this many decades later. Fatigue and corrosion accumulates over the years. Age, in humans and machines, has a way of exposing faults and defects. :D

I don't see the Piper issues as being much different from the Beechcraft spar carry-through web cracking problem. How would you like to deal with this:

The forward carry-through itself is a box beam with the top and bottom spar caps held in position by a forward and rear web, thus making up the box. Tension and compression loads of the spar are carried by the spar caps. The purpose of the web is to hold the spar caps in place. Spar web fasteners at the lower, outboard corners of the web are called Huck bolts. The Huck bolt area is one region of concern, and where at least half of the reported spar web cracks have been found.The flange of the web is the rounded area that creates a former to which the fuselage skin attaches. A number of cracks have been found in the “radius of the web,” or the rounded corner. The flange of the web material in the carry-thru becomes a bulkhead that actually attaches the wing to the fuselage. Structure in this area, while not necessarily carrying wing spar loads, is carrying all the loads between the fuselage and the wing. It’s generally considered benign for small cracks to exist around the Huck bolts or in the radius of the flange, so long as the cracks remain small and are confined to the lower part of the web material. Larger cracks, or cracks propagating to the upper parts of the spar web may present a more potentially hazardous situation as they may affect the load-carrying capability of the carry-thru section.

Under current rules the ADs call for dye penetrant inspection of the indicated areas on the front and aft sides of the forward carry-thru, beginning at 1500 total hours and, if no cracks are found, at every 500 airframe hours thereafter. There are currently no approved alternatives to the dye penetrant check. At least one shop earned approval to substitute an eddy current check some time ago, but that approval is no longer active. It’s important to note that to be done properly the dye penetrant inspection requires the area be stripped of all paint, cleaned scrupulously before and after the inspection and repainted.​
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
There's nothing wrong with Pipers, or their wings, or the way they are made. I've owned five of them (still own one).

These planes (Pipers, Cessnas and, yes, even the much admired Beechcraft) were mass produced, and I don't think anybody expected them to still be in service this many decades later. Fatigue and corrosion accumulates over the years. Age, in humans and machines, has a way of exposing faults and defects.
Click to expand...
haha thanks, it was mostly tongue in cheek like the "pull the chute!" or "wing was in the wrong spot" quips. Of course the Embry plane was not decades old, but may have been abused, carelessly maintained, etc. I also feel like build quality was superior in the older machines.. but maybe that's just pure speculation

Anyway.. the PA28 is probably the best all around combination of trainer and actual personal traveling plane, in my opinion. Hopefully the OP finds a pragmatic solution to his (or her) bolts!
 
Tantalum said:
I also feel like build quality was superior in the older machines.. but maybe that's just pure speculation
Click to expand...

What is this feeling based on?

If for no other reason, I’d take a newer Cherokee simply for the fact that they are corrosion protected. The older ones aren’t, and even the best cared for planes are starting to show their age.
 
Tantalum said:
haha thanks, it was mostly tongue in cheek like the "pull the chute!" or "wing was in the wrong spot" quips. Of course the Embry plane was not decades old, but may have been abused, carelessly maintained, etc. I also feel like build quality was superior in the older machines.. but maybe that's just pure speculation

Anyway.. the PA28 is probably the best all around combination of trainer and actual personal traveling plane, in my opinion. Hopefully the OP finds a pragmatic solution to his (or her) bolts!
Click to expand...

<---- un-cocks pistol
 
mondtster said:
What is this feeling based on?
Click to expand...
It's just a perception. The 1970s trainer beaters in the club have been through decades of abuse but soldier on. The 2006, 2010, etc., birds I've flown from rental outfits, while "newer" somehow seemed more tattered and worked, put away wet. They also always seem to be maintenanced out for one reason or another. It's likely all perception based.. but I feel better safety piloting in our club's 1976 PA28 than I do in the 2006 PA28. Mind you, the 1976 bird flies better, tighter, and faster and after over 100 hrs in one 1976 bird in particular I've never had to cancel a flight.. the 5 times I've rented the '06 PA28 I've had to scrap the flight 3 times (fuel pump inop, electrical anunciator on, AC stuck on). The only tangible evidence I would credit this to is
-the 1976 bird has likely been through *all* its teething and has had many different components replaced, repaired, etc.
-the 70s era was coming off the golden age of GA flying.. now there is an extreme focus on building these things "cheap" - what may have been a steel clip in 1970 is now a plastic clip, and so forth
^loosely related, but some of the older (1960s / 1970s) fiberglass sailboats (from reputable builders like Sabre, Hinckley, etc.) are known to be built like bricksh!thouses. Sure building techniques have gotten better, but compare a typical fiberglass hull from 1970 and the thing is nearly an inch thick.. today is about the thickness of a hallmark card (part of this is from improved vacuum bagging, etc., and also the realization that 99% of people buying sailboats leave it tied to the slip all year, maybe taking it out into the bay on July 4.. for two hours and unrolling the jib for effect)

Timbeck2 said:
<---- un-cocks pistol
Click to expand...
You mean it's not always ready to go?
 
I've seen way worse corrosion on a 10 year old jet, everything is case by case.
 
bnt83 said:
I've seen way worse corrosion on a 10 year old jet, everything is case by case.
Click to expand...
This one may have a corrosion issue:

20101001-0-C-1.jpg
 
Tantalum said:
It's just a perception. The 1970s trainer beaters in the club have been through decades of abuse but soldier on. The 2006, 2010, etc., birds I've flown from rental outfits, while "newer" somehow seemed more tattered and worked, put away wet. They also always seem to be maintenanced out for one reason or another. It's likely all perception based.. but I feel better safety piloting in our club's 1976 PA28 than I do in the 2006 PA28. Mind you, the 1976 bird flies better, tighter, and faster and after over 100 hrs in one 1976 bird in particular I've never had to cancel a flight.. the 5 times I've rented the '06 PA28 I've had to scrap the flight 3 times (fuel pump inop, electrical anunciator on, AC stuck on). The only tangible evidence I would credit this to is
-the 1976 bird has likely been through *all* its teething and has had many different components replaced, repaired, etc.
-the 70s era was coming off the golden age of GA flying.. now there is an extreme focus on building these things "cheap" - what may have been a steel clip in 1970 is now a plastic clip, and so forth
^loosely related, but some of the older (1960s / 1970s) fiberglass sailboats (from reputable builders like Sabre, Hinckley, etc.) are known to be built like bricksh!thouses. Sure building techniques have gotten better, but compare a typical fiberglass hull from 1970 and the thing is nearly an inch thick.. today is about the thickness of a hallmark card (part of this is from improved vacuum bagging, etc., and also the realization that 99% of people buying sailboats leave it tied to the slip all year, maybe taking it out into the bay on July 4.. for two hours and unrolling the jib for effect)


You mean it's not always ready to go?
Click to expand...


I can't snap the holster if the hammer is back but yes, there is a round in the chamber. ;)
 
Tantalum said:
...
^loosely related, but some of the older (1960s / 1970s) fiberglass sailboats (from reputable builders like Sabre, Hinckley, etc.) are known to be built like bricksh!thouses. Sure building techniques have gotten better, but compare a typical fiberglass hull from 1970 and the thing is nearly an inch thick.. today is about the thickness of a hallmark card (part of this is from improved vacuum bagging, etc., and also the realization that 99% of people buying sailboats leave it tied to the slip all year, maybe taking it out into the bay on July 4.. for two hours and unrolling the jib for effect)
Click to expand...

As the owner of a '65 Cherokee AND a '72 Pearson 26, reading this post was about the best thing that has happened to me this week. Your next beer's on me!
 
MuseChaser said:
Pearson 26
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the venerable Pearson 26! I grew up sailing on a 1970s C&C 36. You can definitely tell going from a 60s/70s era racer/cruiser to the 2000's era "racer/cruiser" (emphasis on the quotation marks in the later generation calling themselves 'racers') like Hunter, etc. Also, the older Sabres were proper, true, family sailboats.. they eventually became priced out of most people's leagues and then stopped building sailboats altogether. All you see in most marinas now are the Beneteau, Catalina, and Hunters.. nothing wrong with that.. but I'd take a properly appointed Pearson 26 to Hawaii or Bermuda any day over a 41' Hunter.. for example

But that's just me!
 
Lotto boat: Amel 54

Reality boat: a Flying Scot for local sailing when I retire.
 
Bill Jennings said:
Lotto boat: Amel 54

Reality boat: a Flying Scot for local sailing when I retire.
Click to expand...
Both fine choices sir! A guy I used to crew for sold his Bennie and bought an Amel Super Maramu and went off sailing down to South America and beyond. My personal wet dream (pun intended) sailboat is https://www.boreal-yachts.com/photos/?lang=en (notice they show them sailing in some properly harsh climates)

Back to the original point of quality decreasing.. there was a Beneteau that lost her keep sailing on a race to Bermuda, another one that sort of just "fell apart" off the coast of CA and sank up by Point Dume, then one of the new ultra sweet catamaran GunBoats also just basically came apart also in a storm off Bermuda.. and lastly there was a BRAND NEW Oyster on delivery that also lost her keel and sank.. OYSTER! They're like the Gulfstream equivalent of sailing yachts. Crazy. Quality has gone to crap

Oyster that sank: https://yachtemoceans.com/polina-star-iii-keel-loss/
Beneteau lost keel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheeki_Rafiki
GunBoat coming apart: https://www.yachtingworld.com/news/...atlantic-5-crewmembers-airlifted-safety-61674
Beneteau going down off Point Dume: https://sailinganarchy.com/2015/03/30/sunk/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top