Tom- It's ironic about your comment about "stupid comments" above when I see you did the same thing with your statement about copyright. I also remember how you called ammonia an acid.
You contradict your self. You sited the 43-13 many times in this thread, yet you didn't realize the abrasives use there are for the most part Aluminum Oxide.
That proves you are not a TData customer.
Nope. I have never used 870, 890, 1422, etc in prepackaged 3.5/6 ounce mixpak tubes or a pneumatic sealant gun ever.
50 gram kits are really nice for my personal projects but awfully expensive that way.
I have never used mastinox jointing compound (banned from use by Boeing on anything) before.
Pretty much got that right. most go by 50-60 year old processes. you included.
You must have missed it.
Show me my contradiction. Aluminum oxide abrasive used on aluminum are not dissimilar metals. The fact that I prefer Scotchbright, changes nothing.
Most owners trust the A&P to give them the best safest repair. Patching some thing or replacing the work in evolved is less to replace."Why would you maintain any aircraft to a minimum standard."
Isn't the aircraft owner responsible for maintaining his aircraft?
If he wants me to replace the entire spar, I can do that as long as I have the tooling and information to ensure that it ends up being airworthy maintenance. If he wants me to repair the spar as per instructions already accepted by Cessna, I can do that too and happily sign it off, knowing that it meets minimum standards. If he wants me to run to Home Depot and get some 2x4's and deck screws and repair his spar using those, sure I could do that, but I wouldn't - it would not meet the minimum standards. If he wants me to repair his spar, I can give him options that could vary from an AC43.13 based repair, to a Cessna MM accepted repair, to a DER approved repair, to replacing the entire spar, to replacing the entire wing. Some are easier or harder for me to perform, some are cheaper or more expensive to the owner, but they would all supposedly end up returning the aircraft back to an airworthy state. Deck screws and 2x4's wouldn't make the cut!
Which option would you choose as an owner? Which would I advocate to the owner? I think it all depends!
Primer = paint. that is what happens in most light aircraft we don't see sealants very much. Plus we don't see most repairs requiring any thing like that.
That says once again you do not understand who approves any repairs in GA part 91.
More like: When a repair is beyond the scope of your shop's ability, you suggest replacement... besides, it's on their dime.
How long will they take to remove enough metal on a .020" skin to be beyond use.
Nothing in GA is beyond the A&Ps ability. Or had you forgotten that is what the certificate is for.
Almost always the replacement of the entire wing is cost effective."Why would you maintain any aircraft to a minimum standard."
Isn't the aircraft owner responsible for maintaining his aircraft?
If he wants me to replace the entire spar, I can do that as long as I have the tooling and information to ensure that it ends up being airworthy maintenance. If he wants me to repair the spar as per instructions already accepted by Cessna, I can do that too and happily sign it off, knowing that it meets minimum standards. If he wants me to run to Home Depot and get some 2x4's and deck screws and repair his spar using those, sure I could do that, but I wouldn't - it would not meet the minimum standards. If he wants me to repair his spar, I can give him options that could vary from an AC43.13 based repair, to a Cessna MM accepted repair, to a DER approved repair, to replacing the entire spar, to replacing the entire wing. Some are easier or harder for me to perform, some are cheaper or more expensive to the owner, but they would all supposedly end up returning the aircraft back to an airworthy state. Deck screws and 2x4's wouldn't make the cut!
Which option would you choose as an owner? Which would I advocate to the owner? I think it all depends!
I didn't miss this. AC43,13-1b chapter 6, para 91-f look it up.
The scratches you see are on paint. not aluminum. any others were there prior to cleaning. I NEVER use any abrasives Like you do.
YGTBSM how do you believe we pass a practical to get the A&P? pretty much all about ability.
Your chemical removal method leaves pitting. It's evident in your pictures. That's unacceptable per AC 43.13-1B, Chapter 6, Section 7, 6-115 b.
this proves that you don't know the pits you see are the results of the corrosion. the al-clad is not removed trying to hide them like you do, with your disks.
Bull. The scratches in the paint extend onto the metal. A stainless steel brush is obviously abrasive. Pfffft. I work on some aircraft nearing 90k TT.
Now you are seeing what you want to see.
demonstrating once more you do not know how to use the platers brush.
if the platers brush left scratches so much for leaving dis-similar metal contamination. brinnell hardness understand it can't be your strong suit.
I guess that is why there are about 20 of them in my welding kit.
then that proves you don't know polishing is a process of removing metal. kinda why the rags used to polish turn black. and don't tell me the disk you use don't turn black too.
Your project is a semi-monocoque, right? That means the skin is primary structure, or PSE. I believe AC 43.13-1B addresses PSE and doesn't differentiate between pressurized and non-pressurized.
Doesn't matter. They are pits, known stress risers, on PSE.
Shocking revelation. You do that, I'll laugh more.
Nastynox, now we use Braycote.I have never used mastinox jointing compound (banned from use by Boeing on anything) before.
I don't see Cessna or Piper manuals listed in their inventory.
Demonstrating you're a what? It's in your pictures. One picture shows the nice orange paint and another picture shows the abraded aluminum and paint, with scratches extending from the paint onto the aluminum, elongated fastener holes, scribe lines, along with pitting remaining, .
