Sad news

[Drat]

Dang, Sorry to hear about both of these .
Good luck with them.
Doug

[fishdoc]

Even with insurance my heart would be broken if this happened to my bird.
Hopefully she can be repaired.

Bill

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Thanks guys for all the words of encouragement. I really do appreciate it.

I've meet with the insurance representative and he thinks the plane is repairable but I have several options to choose from as to how to proceed. I can let the insurance company repair the plane. I can let the insurance company call it a total loss and take the hull insurance. I could then buy the salvage back and repair it when and how I want. There may be another variation in there but those are the three major options.

There are several unknowns. There is obvious damage to the rear carry through spar area and until it is looked at by someone with more knowledge we won't know the best course of action there if repair is going to take place at all. And while there doesn't seem to be any landing gear box damage the airplane was pushed sideways 8 feet while standing on one gear and the wing tip. If that isn't enough side load to hurt something I don't know what is.

Here are a few other pictures of the skin damage above the rear carry through.

100_1899.JPG

100_1900.JPG

Here is a lighter picture of the wing damage.

100_1901.JPG

While there is an emotional attachment to my rat plane it might be time to let it go. From a purely financial point it makes sense to take the money and run. It is insured for more that I could probably sell it for on a good day even if economic times were better.
If I let it go most likely I'll get involved with another 170 in a partnership with a friend of mine and his 170. I actually have two friends with 170 who need partners. Economically that would be the best for both of us. I've been considering selling mine anyway and doing this for some time. Emotionally though I liked my plane the way it was, just a bit of a renegade with all it's various parts, it is one of a kind. Really I wanted to talk a partner into selling their 170 and joining me in mine.

So if the plane is repairable, and it looks like it might be, I have to decide if I would or should be keeping it after it's fixed. And if not now is the time to let it go and let someone else make it their airplane or let the parts go to help get others back in the air. Considering the complex issues regarding paperwork on this airframe, some of which I've discussed here and some I haven't, having the plane parted out might be the best option. I've been told that if the L-19 wing is a heavy version it might be as valuable to an L-19 guy as the whole rest of the plane.

Decisions decisions.

BTW- things haven't all gone wrong for me in the last month. My second daughter gave birth to her first child, a girl on the 19th making Teresa and I grandparents for the first time. Mother and baby are healthy and doing fine.

[doug8082a]

Bruce,

Sorry to hear about the 170. I can relate as a similar thing happened to me when I had '82A, though not to the point of having the rear carry though compromised.. One thing that impressed/surprised me is that I experienced the same lateral movement on the ground as you did with no gear box damage - and that is with the standard 170 gearbox (no Pponk mod). The gear box might be fine, but obviously it needs to be checked.

You certainly have a lot to think about. Good luck. I'm sure the right decision will become apparent in time.

Hang in there on the medical.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

An update on the medical is there is nothing to update. I'm sitting here out of work at the mercy of the FAA to get around to reviewing my case. I did find out I can fly my Cub under Sport Pilot rules because my medical has not been denied. But of course I can't afford to do so not working.

I also talked with the insurance guy again today. Seems I misunderstood him. One of my options isn't to just arbitrarily decide to take the hull insurance and walk away. That option only becomes available if we find the plane to not be economically repairable. He said the company might be very liberal with what is a total loss and what is not depending on what I want but it has to get a lot closer than he thinks it will be as of now. So it looks like we (the insurance co) will at least be getting some bids and someone to look at the carry through spar and we will see where that goes.

George asked to show the failed tie down system. Here it is.

100_1895.JPG

100_1896.JPG

Looking at the first picture you can see what appears to be a shorter pipe which is partially placed back in the hole it came out of. The one on the tire will show the full length of both pipes which I guess is 18-20 inches. These pipes were driven down to just the very top was visible into the hard clay and rock dirt we have here in PA and also under the asphalt. They have been holding my plane in place with no visible signs of loosening for more than 6 years.

These pipes were backed all the way back out of the ground in the opposite direction that they were driven in and there is barely even evidence of the top of the hole being egged as you can see in the picture. As if someone came up and pulled them out. The second shot shows how the pipes were driven into the ground at an angle paralleling the airplane struts and forward and outside of the wing tie down. There is just no way I could see the plane pulling these out without riping up the ground and the asphalt yet somehow it did. Some folks theorize that since we'd had a lot of rain that the ground might be saturated and somehow the ground water hydraulically pushed the pipes up and out. I know the water table is pretty high in this area causing trouble in the hangers about 100 ft away.

[jrenwick]

Bruce, this looks to me as if the angle between the rope and the stake is a little more than 90 degrees, which would mean that if the rope is pulled with a strong enough force, there's a big enough component of that force acting in the direction of the stake to pull it out of the ground. It didn't have any kind of a tang on the end, or anything to get stuck in the soil, so it could be pulled out relatively easily.

Probably the force pulling on the rope wasn't due to the lift of the wing -- it was from wind blowing on the tail, trying to turn the airplane. That's a lot of leverage, and the tension on the rope must have been tremendous. I'm impressed with what wind can do. My J3 survived a hail storm in 1991, with horizontal winds upwards of 60 MPH, estimated. I was very lucky that the dog-stake tie-downs that I was using didn't pull out, but the almost-new Stits fabric of the fuselage was shot through with bullet-holes, and needed a lot of patching.

The best removable tie-downs we know of have three stakes at angles to each other and held together at the top by some metal fixture, so that what ever direction the pull comes from, at least one of the stakes will be offering resistance by being pulled sideways through the soil with no way to travel in its proper direction. EAA's recommendation on that is here: http://www.vintageaircraft.org/magazine ... iedown.pdf

There are good non-removable tiedowns that have a tang at the bottom, like those shown at the link I posted earlier: http://www.earthanchor.com/. In another discussion somewhere, someone said devices like this are used to anchor guy wires for telephone poles. A solution like this should prevent this kind of accident in the future.

Best Regards,

John

[GAHorn]

I have a very credible article (copyrighted unfortunately so I cannot post it here) that discusses aircraft tie-downs. It points out that whatever the gross weight of the aircraft, the lifting capability of the aircraft is equal-to or greater-than. In other words, our 2200 lb Cessna 170s can easily exceed 2200 lbs of lifting force...and that is without the additional strain/stress of any rocking or twisting motion imparted by winds.
This means that our tie downs ...and our ropes/chains....and ANY FIXTURES associated with the system (such as those TV-Antenna U-bolts seen in the pipes) must be capable of withstanding MORE than that. In most cases, aircraft tie down fixtures at most airports are woefully inadequate. (Think of the ratty polypropylene ropes, ventian-blind cords, hemp, twisted-wire-link-dog-chains, etc etc we see at so many airports, ...and think of the little eyebolts driven into the ground or anchored beneath only 6-inches of concrete apron.)

I carry 3-foot long double-sets of mobile-home anchors on campouts, and ALWAYS CARRY my own 5/8 or 1/2" marine nylon anchor ropes, and under the worst of conditions even those may be inadequate.

A lightly tied down airplane is more likely to be injured than one not tied down at all, in my opinion. I once passed out (I claim fatigue) with my 206 left outside in the yard when a hellacious cold-front accompanied by rigorous thunderstorms and wind so vicious I was afraid to go out in the lightning to tie it down. I watched that airplane rock and roll an twist and slide 30 feet across the yard...with no damage at all. (The controls were locked at least .) If it had been tied down and if one tie-down were to yield, I am certain that some serious damage would have been imparted.
Therefore, if danger to other aircraft nearby were not an issue, I believe in most cases that an unsecured aircraft is less likely to be injured than one poorly-secured.

Everyone: Take heed. Improve your tie downs to the best of your ability and increase your ropes/chains to the heaviest you can rationalize. IMO.

[W.J.Langholz]

Bruce
Thanks for sharing this all with us. Sometimes we don't because in hind sight it may make us look inadequate, but at the end of the day we all learn and will take a good hard look at where and how we tie down. I know the rest of the stuff will all work out also and you will be up in the air flying again!


W.

[jatkins]

I understand that our 170's can lift 2200 lbs ++ , But what I am not totally clear on is,
Does the sum total of the 2 wing tie downs need to exceed 2200lbs + ,
or is it 2200lbs + per wing tie down ?

IF it is per wing that is a very heavy heavy rope tie down !

What is every body using ?
I am using ratching strap tie downs, which is rated at 1300lbs each ?

[170C]

Well Bruce, I am sure all of this mess with the plane will eventually work out for the best. Somewhere in the situation is a silver lining and I'm sure you will find it. I hope the final outcome will be what you want it to be. At least you and Teresa have received an early Christmas---a beautiful, healthy grand daughter CONGRATULATIONS You can 't beat being grandparents 2010 will no doubt be a better year. Hang in and let us know how the 170 (and medical) proceed and both of you have a Merry Christmas.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

John the pipes were driven in parrell to the struts but in front of them. Of course given the various angles the plane gets parked each time the angle between each strut and the pipe did change. What you said about the tail coming loose and rotating the plane and pulling out the pipe is entirely possible and I hadn't thought of that. But in this case I know the tail did not come untied other wise the plane might have been much farther away and the drag marks indicated it rotated about the tail. My tail wheel is parked inside a cut in a cement block and can not easily be pushed sideways. I believe the plane rotated about the tailwheel swival. But I didn't actually see the plane as it ended up as friends of mine had ecured it in the tie downs set by the airport.

My first reaction to seeing the lengh of the pipes was that I remembered them being longer than they were. I do know that I could not have pounded any more length into the ground. The ground here is very hard.

Hind site is always twenty twenty and of course I wish I'd rented a hanger for the night. And of course the next pipes I set will be different from these. But I do not feel bad or that I had used an inadequate system with the knowledge I had to this point. I feel that few here would have turned down the tiedowns as being inadequate either.

I think that what my plane encountered that night was a bit of a freq wind or winds (120 degress from the prevailing BTW) and the ground and it's ability to grip the pipes was at it's worst.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

I am using ratching strap tie downs, which is rated at 1300lbs each ?

After I had some ratcheting strap tie downs fail with rather short life from the effects of UV, I would not use them for routine day to day tie downs. I do carry a set for the occasional few days I tie down while on the road.

[jrenwick]

Bruce, of course I should have looked to see if your tail came loose before I speculated as I did!

It occurs to me that I've always figured that tiedowns need to be sized according to the lifting ability of the wings -- the weight of the airplane times the load factor, or some similar calculation, maybe? The problem with that is, it assumes the wind is on the nose. How do you figure the lifting force of a wing when the tip is pointed into the wind? Could it be a lot higher?

I guess when the wind gets that bad, it comes down to insurance, and making sure you have at least not-in-flight hull coverage for a sufficient value. I've had a couple of losses recently that had unexpectedly happy endings because they were insured.

[lowNslow]

Speaking of tie-downs - has anyone seen any good engineering drawings showing a good sound tie-down. I am assuming installation in dirt not on a concrete or asphalt ramp.

[GAHorn]

I understand that our 170's can lift 2200 lbs ++ , But what I am not totally clear on is,
Does the sum total of the 2 wing tie downs need to exceed 2200lbs + ,
or is it 2200lbs + per wing tie down ?

IF it is per wing that is a very heavy heavy rope tie down !

What is every body using ?
I am using ratching strap tie downs, which is rated at 1300lbs each ?

It depends. Do you wish to have only the minimum necessary?...or do you wish to provide more than what is necessary to keep your airplane secure?

I'm certainly hopeful no one sees my comments as being critical of anyone's actions. My intent is only to be helpful, and my own mistakes (oft renumerated here) hopefully have been.

Let me add that the RATCHET STRAPS ARE NOTORIOUSLY INADEQUATE. Not only do they not provide the appropriate strength, their open-hook designs will release/unhook after the airplane "rocks" and the strap becomes slightly loosened. Also, the sharp edges of the ratchet mechanisms will cut the strap after repeated chafeing.

The copyrighted article to which I previously referred, recommends equipment which is rated THREE-times the gross weight of the aircraft. (We all know that these airplanes will lift more than their gross weights, and if you think about it, wings virtually identical to these are used on airplanes rated up to 3600 lbs gross, possibly more.) My own nylon ropes are only rated at 1200 lbs working and 4800 lbs breaking strength. From an online search: "Nylon anchor line--Anchor and marine-use lines are goodgeneral-purpose products even when used on dry land. This 3/8-in.-dia.anchor line is made from three strands of nylon twisted together. Itoffers good elasticity and retains its high strength even when wet. Thistype has a breaking strength of about 3300 pounds and costs about 20cents per ft. at hardware stores and home centers. "

Also: ". Double-braid nylonline--If you want a high-strength rope with good resistance to abrasionand easy handling, then you might choose this teal-colored line designedfor marine use. Both its core and its shell are braided, giving the5/8-in.-dia. product a breaking strength of 13,500 pounds. This makes it a good choice for docking and anchor line or other wet, heavy-dutyapplications. It costs about 85 cents per ft. in marine supply stores andboating catalogs. Contact New England Ropes, 848 Airport Rd., Fall River,MA 02720."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home_jo ... 74626.html

and:

http://ezinearticles.com/?How-To-Match- ... id=1053877

Whatever you choose, keep in mind that some rope materials degrade in sunlight. In my opinon, nylon is one of the best for the purpose.