FAA proposes $430,000 fine against Beechcraft

Takes a lot of the wind out of the quality control argument out of the Certified/Experimental debate. :(
 
The most shocking part of that article is that they built 43 Barons in the timeframe stated.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
The most shocking part of that article is that they built 43 Barons in the timeframe stated.
Click to expand...

That is rather interesting, I was wondering about that myself. Not sure if they had orders for sales on contract or were building them towards building value and profit at the company sale.:dunno:

Barons are like $1.6MM now aren't they?
 
I have two 65 year old fuel bladders made by BF Goodrich. No leaks. Not too shabby.
 
Henning said:
That is rather interesting, I was wondering about that myself. Not sure if they had orders for sales on contract or were building them towards building value and profit at the company sale.:dunno:

Barons are like $1.6MM now aren't they?
Click to expand...

They don't build on speculation. The airframe isn't built unless it has a buyer.
 
Henning said:
That is rather interesting, I was wondering about that myself. Not sure if they had orders for sales on contract or were building them towards building value and profit at the company sale.:dunno:

Barons are like $1.6MM now aren't they?
Click to expand...

I've had two new ones (one with 20 hours on it, the other still in a generic white paint scheme) come through my airport in the last year. WHO THE HELL IS BUYING THESE THINGS?!?
 
BGF_Yankee said:
I've had two new ones (one with 20 hours on it, the other still in a generic white paint scheme) come through my airport in the last year. WHO THE HELL IS BUYING THESE THINGS?!?
Click to expand...

There are people out there who have a 757 and buy one for their kid to fly, seriously, the amount of wealth the extremely wealthy have is incredible. There's more multi billionaires than you can imagine until you move to SoFla. They all have something down here for vacations, either a beach condo, house, or yacht.
 
RotorAndWing said:
They don't build on speculation. The airframe isn't built unless it has a buyer.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but remember, this was in the transitional time during the sale between Raytheon and Textron. More things come into play with people trying to manipulate some advantage in a business deal. If the terms of the deal left the ability to produce extra airframes that affected how much the bottom line on exit was going to be regardless if they were sold or not, and the contracted value in the deal to buy factory stock was one that represented a profit to Raytheon stock holders, they would then build every airframe they could.
 
The one thing that annoys me about Beech....stinking fuel bladders. WHY have they not gone to a wet wing after all these years?
 
Because I would much, much, much rather deal with a leaking bladder than a leaking wing.
 
Fearless Tower said:
The one thing that annoys me about Beech....stinking fuel bladders. WHY have they not gone to a wet wing after all these years?
Click to expand...

:confused: I'll take a bladder change to a tank reseal job any day. Plus the bladder is safer in a crash.
 
Dr. O said:
Because I would much, much, much rather deal with a leaking bladder than a leaking wing.
Click to expand...

Hell yes, any day. I did all 4 in my Travelair in 2 days. No way could I have cleaned and resealed all four in less than a week if they were wet wing.
 
bnt83 said:
Crashes might even be measurably safer.
Click to expand...

No might to it. Race car fuel cells all have bladders for a reason. Wet wings are a concession to weight and range, not a benefit to cost or safety.
 
Henning said:
:confused: I'll take a bladder change to a tank reseal job any day. Plus the bladder is safer in a crash.
Click to expand...

I haven't heard any Piper owners complaining about tank maintenance like Beech folks (and I just got the estimate for the labor to do the bladders on the Baron.

My dad has owned the Lance since 1980. Never had any significant issues with the tanks.

I also don't see PA28s/PA32s bursting into flames any more or less than Beech planes.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I haven't heard any Piper owners complaining about tank maintenance like Beech folks (and I just got the estimate for the labor to do the bladders on the Baron.

My dad has owned the Lance since 1980. Never had any significant issues with the tanks.

I also don't see PA28s/PA32s bursting into flames any more or less than Beech planes.
Click to expand...

Pipers don't have a wet wing, they have a formed metal tank they screw into the structure as in integral component, no different in principle from any metal tank built into a wing that isn't structural. Wet wing you build a wing section then seal off some of it to hold fuel. A Mooney is a wet wing sample unless someone gave up and installed STC bladders. Several Cessna wet wings too IIRC.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
There are people out there who have a 757 and buy one for their kid to fly, seriously, the amount of wealth the extremely wealthy have is incredible.
Click to expand...

I know who buys 757s, Falcons, and Gulfstreams. But they are not the same people who tool around in piston twins.

My guess is those Barons are bought by various non-government actors such as drug carteils, and small government entities that convert them into surveilance platforms. I know that Diamond and Tecnam make a very brisk business in that exact area.
 
Henning said:
Pipers don't have a wet wing, they have a formed metal tank they screw into the structure as in integral component, no different in principle from any metal tank built into a wing that isn't structural.
Click to expand...

Ok, maybe my terminology was jacked.

My intended point being: I much prefer the Piper system in the PA28/32s than the Beech bladders.
 
Henning said:
Pipers don't have a wet wing, they have a formed metal tank they screw into the structure as in integral component, no different in principle from any metal tank built into a wing that isn't structural. Wet wing you build a wing section then seal off some of it to hold fuel. A Mooney is a wet wing sample unless someone gave up and installed STC bladders. Several Cessna wet wings too IIRC.
Click to expand...


:confused:

Please explain to me how these piper tanks are any different than a wet wing (other than you can take them off the wing).

http://www.hartwigfuelcell.com/remancherokee.php
 
bnt83 said:
Please explain to me how these piper tanks are any different than a wet wing (other than you can take them off the wing).
Click to expand...

The stresses are distributed so that the minute movements are not happening between plates that hold fuel, but rather between the tank and its slot. This way the cell tank is less likely to leak than e.g. Mooney tank.

Of course Cherokee is not immute to leaks entirely, hence the business that you linked. I'm sure there are business that repair Cessna tanks as well, even though those are suspended inside a wing under a separate skin (well, used to be businesses: nowadays it's much cheaper to grab a tank off eBay).
 
This is like taxing corporations it just raises the price of the product. They should fine the CEO personally.
 
Henning said:
Yeah, but remember, this was in the transitional time during the sale between Raytheon and Textron. More things come into play with people trying to manipulate some advantage in a business deal. If the terms of the deal left the ability to produce extra airframes that affected how much the bottom line on exit was going to be regardless if they were sold or not, and the contracted value in the deal to buy factory stock was one that represented a profit to Raytheon stock holders, they would then build every airframe they could.
Click to expand...

Since you have no proof of any of that we'll just chalk it up to more of your speculation. :rolleyes:
 
zaitcev said:
I know who buys 757s, Falcons, and Gulfstreams. But they are not the same people who tool around in piston twins.

My guess is those Barons are bought by various non-government actors such as drug carteils, and small government entities that convert them into surveilance platforms. I know that Diamond and Tecnam make a very brisk business in that exact area.
Click to expand...

Did I say they tool around in them? :nono: Their 16 year old kid is flying it because in 5 years he'll be in command of a KSA air wing, or the kid just decided to buy a G-58 because he sat in it at OSH and and liked it and wanted to fly. Heck, I have worked for a 12 year old that lives that life.
 
zaitcev said:
The stresses are distributed so that the minute movements are not happening between plates that hold fuel, but rather between the tank and its slot. This way the cell tank is less likely to leak than e.g. Mooney tank.

Of course Cherokee is not immute to leaks entirely, hence the business that you linked. I'm sure there are business that repair Cessna tanks as well, even though those are suspended inside a wing under a separate skin (well, used to be businesses: nowadays it's much cheaper to grab a tank off eBay).
Click to expand...

<Something about picking fly **** out of pepper> When you land hard with it full of gas it got plently of stress in the 492 rivets that hold it together

C177 - Aft fuel spar is not the main wing spar. Wing skins is the fuel tank walls :dunno:
 
Last edited:
That piper tank is kinda dumb in that you hit a bird and it is striking the tank.

I hit a bird in the C177 and the leading edge can collapse into an empty space.
 
I love me some PA-28 tanks. I've yet to spend a nickel on tank maintenance in the 6 years I've owned PA-28 variants, though I did also own a cessna 150 in that timeframe as well with similar results. I'm not sure the former qualify as wet wings since the tank is integral (i.e. not formed from wing spar sections, ergo not subjected to sealant cracking twisting or shear moments from aero loading), but I'll take them any day over stupid water trapping, dry rotting, quantity deceiving bladders.

As to the Mooney version of wet wings, same comment. There is no doubt resealing the midget arm job that is the Mooney wing crevices is a strong argument for stupid bladders in the first place. The price tag on either one is also pretty retarded imo, which is why I find the vintage m20 short bodies just a straight up false economy versus their slower pa-28/Cessna 100s counterparts.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I love me some PA-28 tanks. I've yet to spend a nickel on tank maintenance in the 6 years I've owned PA-28 variants, though I did also own a cessna 150 in that timeframe as well with similar results. I'm not sure the former qualify as wet wings since the tank is integral (i.e. not formed from wing spar sections, ergo not subjected to sealant cracking twisting or shear moments from aero loading), but I'll take them any day over stupid water trapping, dry rotting, quantity deceiving bladders.
Click to expand...

This is what I was trying to say earlier, just had the term confused.
 
bnt83 said:
That piper tank is kinda dumb in that you hit a bird and it is striking the tank.

I hit a bird in the C177 and the leading edge can collapse into an empty space.
Click to expand...

on one of my rentals someone ran over a taxi light or something similar....not a bad dent but in the end had to change the entire tank, I at least was able to use some leading edge filler to get it to a shop.....sucks that aluminum stretches.
 
Last edited:
RotorAndWing said:
Still not as bad as some of the crap coming out of the garages and shacks. :rolleyes:


:rofl:
Click to expand...

You haven't seen what is being "certified" out of "air plane factories". :rolleyes2:

Oh! BTW, The Van-O-Meter just hit 9,000 planes flying. :D
 
Last edited:
DFH65 said:
This is like taxing corporations it just raises the price of the product. They should fine the CEO personally.
Click to expand...

Of course the CEO is now whoever is running "Textron Aviation" and not the guy responsible for building these things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top