This note from the Australian regulator gives quite a useful overview of the SID:
https://www.casa.gov.au/aircraft/standard-page/cessna-supplemental-inspection-documents
Having looked at a few aircraft and shone a torch into the inspection hatches, I do wonder how some examples still have a CofA with obvious spar corrosion or generous slack in the controls.
My 90HP Super Cub was a barn find, but in general the vintage tube and fabric types benefit from Trigger’s Broom (see below) maintenance philosophy and bringing them to standard is reasonably straightforward, although make sure they fly straight first.
But what about your typical 40 year old aluminium semi monocoque airplane, lying in a corner of a hangar waiting to be resurrected? Wouldn’t you carry out the procedure Adam described on the MU-2 thread for an aircraft with missing logs and address pretty much everything? OTOH am not sure whether treating the project like a priceless warbird is the answer.
Some countries treat the SID as mandatory and it would be useful to get feedback from the EuroGA community on their experience carrying out the SID.
Apparently the CAA is finding main spar corrosion on older high wing Cessnas. Before the introduction of wet wings (around late 1970’s?), the fuel tanks, either bladder or metal, had wooden components providing some kind of insulation between the fuel tanks and main spar. I had not come across this, but a respected engineer passed on that in recent surveys the CAA had come across the problem. Obviously corrosion of the main spar tends to be non-trivial, probably needing a good condition wing from a salvage firm.
I have seen substantial corrosion in an older Cessna spar , all the parts are available but replacement involved a lot of work and this started with building a jig to ensure the wing went back together correctly.
I would not rule out a badly corroded Cessna as my next project.
Whether you do it as a SID, or just a really good inspection, it’s time. I’m seeing more and more Cessnas with structural defects, and I’m having to approve some innovative repair schemes to not have to do some major parts replacement. For one 210 spar, corrosion 0.020" deeper would have scrapped it, another we replaced. It was considerably worse than the Australian 210 who’s wing came off in flight, which was an impetus to the ADFor a third, a P210, the corrosion passed, but Cessna data was not applicable for acceptance, as the airplane had STC’d speed brakes installed. That plane was also found to have damage to a spar lug, from a too long fairing screw, and was within 0.006" of being scrap.
Several of the 182’s my clients have inspected this year for the bulkhead cracks have had cracks, and are under repair with the kit I participated in developing and approving for Acorn Welding/Seaplanes West. I’ve inspected other 182’s in which I found forward cabin corrosion which required multiple parts replacement.
These planes were not designed to last forever, and the time is coming for some of them. For my experience with single Cessnas, the SIDs are well written, and really do capture the important points to inspect.
I know of a couple of C150’s that this has happened two and they managed to find replacement wings.
I’m not sure what will happen to such aircraft when this supply runs out.
Bathman.
Do you have any idea what happened to the scrap wings ?
The plan is to repair the. And keep them in stock.
