Need a new wing
 

Hello all - my Archer II is in Guadeloupe where it's been for over a year getting a huge six-figure avionics upgrade (lots of nice looking shiny gizmos and colourful screens).

When running the wires for the GMU11 and removing the port fuel tank horrible corrosion was found that ate the top of the spar - solution to fix it rather then rebuild the whole wing seems to be to replace the port wing complete - will fly it up to the US to get around import duties, international shipping etc; no issue on the starboard wing.

The serial number of my plane is 28-7690320 the part # is 35630-980 (an old number) or possibly 35630-011 (a newer number)

If anybody knows of one any where, please let me know

I have messaged all of the usual suspects and put a want ad on Barnstormers, thus far no joy.

AD 2020-26-16/SB1345 and by extension SB 1006 which covers your issues, made those wing assys a premium commodity, ie., hard to find. At least that is what I've heard in the past.

FYI: Purchasing a used wing with no history will require compliance with the AD for that wing if N reg.

Since you will relocate to the US, may be contact a few US sheetmetal shops for some input and prices on repair/replace/exchange your wing? Beegles and Williams are a couple off the top of my head. Good luck.

Trade a plane used to have some good parts sources .
https://www.trade-a-plane.com

Worth a try.

https://baspartsales.com/airframe/wings/

If you buy a wing then make sure that you also buy the tank that is from the same wing! You can measure all you like but I can guarantee you a tank from another wing will NOT fit.

With that investment in avionics, there's an obvious incentive to get the airframe airworthy again. I've been asked to consider approving repairs to a couple. PA 28 wings are hard to come by. With that investment, an alternative approach maybe to purchase a whole second PA-28 airplane/airframe, and swap the wing you need. There will certainly be a market for the other wing, unless you consider simply storing it as a spare for yourself. That gives you a lot more options to solve you present problem. And, if the second plane you buy is airworthy, you can fly it to your plane for the swap, which may be a lot easier than getting a ferry permit for your plane, or otherwise moving it.

I caution, from the experience I have had with this, have a good look at the other wing too, if there is corrosion on the airframe, there is more elsewhere....

I have a 1975 PA28-180 with no corrosion and all wing AD signed off. You'd think it would be worth something but everyone is scared off by the high engine time. People have strange priorities.

Yup! An airframe well inspected and known to be in good condition is priority one! And a high time engine... well, in good working order, means it's a good engine! Keep it well maintained, and keep using it frequently and with care, and it will go well beyond its TBO! I ran my O-200 through to 3600 hours, and it still really did not need to be zero'd when I took it apart!

The PA-28 wing structure inspection requirements are a valid concern, as they were back in the late 80's when the first version of the AD was issued. Unfortunately (as I discovered myself by calling Piper tech support) Piper is not entirely enthusiastic about supporting their legacy airplanes through difficult primary structure concerns. With a parts supply, the "industry" is entirely able to keep the fleet in good working order. The challenge is that PA-28 spars are not so easy to come by. Thus, buying a whole, known good second airframe is not a wild idea, if the parts you need are not available individually. We went through this with C 210 spar carrythroughs as well....

Been offered one for US$42,400 - seems a bit much!

Comes with all the paperwork and I can get 14,000 off if I ship them my removed wing

Plus I have to pay shipping both ways and of course the cost of the removal and refitting.

It would be cheaper to buy a complete high hours plane and part out the rest of of it.

I would thinks so too, but I suppose it 's priced for the demand. I can't get that much for my complete PA-28-180 with all AD signed off and current annual. I never flew the later wing but there is nothing wrong with the old wing and I like the way it flys.

I feel your pain Ebbie!

My 77 Archer had the wing walks removed and we found corrosion on the spar with a crack running around the circumferance. The wing was exchanged by Williams in Indiana and I now have a totally rebuilt starboard wing. We airfrieghted the new one to the UK and shipped the old one back. Total cost was around $35K but painting and fitting added another $15K by time all was done.

If they don't have a new Archer wing in stock, they can rebuild yours.

I have no vested interest in their success but I cannot recommend them highly enough. They did a splendid job in looking after me.

AirFrame Components

I may end up going that route.

All very annoying -m the airplane went in for a big avionics upgrade - was told it would be four months, it is now more than a year - I asked them to soak the thing in ACF 50 when it got there (I don't think it got done and now I finds myself in this situation)

The first time I had ACF50 done they used gallons, it was dripping out for two years afterwards and oozing out of joints when flying- since then getting it done each year but no odour and no dripping - I think that's why I am in this position - whenever I get work done to my airplane I get screwed

FYI: it takes longer than a year to lose a spar to corrosion. This has been a known issue on PA28/32s for some time and the reason Piper came out with SB 1006 in the 90s. And if your ACF50 or CorrX is dripping out for 2 years its just a waste of product and not increased protection. FWIW: I find CorrX a better product having worked and lived along the US GOM. And just to add, another corrosion related bulletin you may want to address in addition to SB1006 is SB1304 if you continue to operate in salt-laden areas.

This.

I doubt that Piper, nor the other American GA manufacturer's, intended for their legacy airplanes to still be in operation so many decades later. They were not priced, nor manufactured to last forever. That doesn't mean that they cannot be kept in operation for many decades, if good corrosion prevention is begun before any corrosion takes place. I have been asked to inspect several PA-28 series, for the purpose of approving corrosion repairs. In each case, the corrosion could be located along the wing spars in many places (that you could see, there would have been more unseen). None of the subject planes were worth the cost and effort to repair, knowing that if new spars were available, it would be a completer tear down of both wings. Williams has a great reputation, and their work has value, if the plane does.

As can be seen with some magnificent warbirds, any airplane can be restored and kept corrosion free, but it is not a simple, low cost task. All legacy airplane owners need to consider their airplane as having a finite life, and valuing it accordingly. The money invested at appropriate times along the airplane's life will prolong it, but most owners of GA airplanes I have worked with don't see the value in the plane to invest in major restoration and corrosion prevention programs (where warbird owners are more likely).

A client of mine loved is Cessna 210G. I warned him about spar corrosion. He had the inspection done, and it was a major fail - terrible corrosion. Very poor corrosion resistant design on Cessna's part, back in the day (I note that the P210's are way better in this regard!). But he loved the plane, and had invested a lot in it. The last known used center spar was found after a long search. I inspected it, then we had it NDT'd. It was a worthy part. I had to approve a special repair process for the replacement, as Cessna's process was no longer practical. The cost to install it approached half the value of the plane, and end result was really great, but not low cost! While the plane was apart, a number of other defects were found and repaired, that owner knew the value of "maintenance", and flies the reward of his diligence.

Nalson Aviation Ltd

I have bought a few items over the years including a C152 wing, so worth a try.

For a period of time European Cessna aeroplanes were built under licence by Rheims Aviation in France. All were factory corrosion proofed during the RA building process as a standard. When a Cessna was imported from the U.S. it was of concern that corrosion proofing hadn't been done. If it hadn't and following inspection the aircraft was clear it would then be thoroughly treated with wax oil. If it had corrosion you were advised to walk away.

Some U.S. imports had been factory treated; my understanding was that factory corrosion proofing was only an option on order.

Well... yes.... but.... The Rheims build Cessnas I have seen do have factory applied zinc chromate on the internal surfaces. But, when I saw one which had been partly disassembled for repair, I noticed that the area between a fuselage bulkhead and the skin was bare, making me believe that the factory zinc chromate was applied by spraying after the fuselage was assembled. This really compromises the effectiveness of the corrosion proofing. The legacy Wichita built Cessnas were sadly bare inside, unless they were ordered with a factory float kit, in which case they were properly zinc chromate sprayed. The zinc chromate application adds weight and cost, but it's worth it if you want the plane to last.

I bought a damaged flying boat in England about ten years ago. When I got it into my shop for the repairs, I had to drill out some rivets from the keel behind the step. As I drilled, suddenly, I hit the dreaded white power in the drill chips. I finished removing the damaged frame, and found that both it, and the inside of the hull skin to which it had been riveted (both of which were factory zinc chromate primed) were perfectly corrosion free. During a prior repair, someone had inserted an unprotected 1/16" aluminum shim, and it was corroded into white dust. I replaced the damaged part, with an original new part (which was zinc chormate primed, and the repair was fine. The airplane was otherwise free of corrosion, aside from one damaged area where the bilge water sat.

In North America, when considering the purchase of a legacy GA airplane, where on the continent the airplane has spent much of its life is an important consideration. Coastal/Great Lakes area airplane, really thorough corrosion inspection, and prepare to walk away. Airplanes from the inland areas are generally much better for freedom of corrosion.

A local airport in Toronto (which sadly closes forever next week) had a major highway build along its western edge 30 some years ago. Since then, the airplanes which are tied down outside there were really corrosion vulnerable. In the winter, salt is applied to the highway to melt snow and ice, and the resulting mist of very salty air is carried by the prevailing west wind over the airplanes at the airport. I have seen some horribly corroded airplanes which were neglected there.

An update fro those following along with the saga.

Have found a 1984 Archer II carcass in the US - the whole thing less the engine for a very good price, contacts are arranging to go take a close look on Wednesday.

Looking like we may put the whole thing in a container and ship it to Guadeloupe so my regular A&P at Wood Aero can do the work - we will them use the container to ship a biog stcok of broken airplane bits up to the US.

When this is done I'll do a video and put it on You Tube and a coupel with my adventures flying around the Caribbean - Monserrat will be one destination, never been but have just picked up a consulting gig at the airport there.

My Archer has spent a lot of time on the ground in the past three or four years - a year during Covid now this past year - other than that it did get a couple of short flights a week, usually a flit around the island and a couple of touch and goes; things keeping moving and shaking preventing corrosion. No corrosion was found during last year's annual, this time the grinding took off a chunk - if I could figure out how to get photos to appear on here you guys could take a look - anyone got an idiot's guide to how to do it?

https://www.pprune.org/pprune-proble...une-posts.html
SD

Corrosion will exist, and indeed worsen faster, under unbroken paint. When the paint is scraped, a chunk of it flakes off, and corrosion is visible. That corrosion has been growing for years, but "suddenly" becomes apparent. It's not new corrosion, it's just newly noticed.

In this photo (PA-28-180 spar), there is exfoliation corrosion on the top edge of the spar, which is blatantly obvious. To the left of the bulkhead fitting, corrosion is obvious. But, the bubbled paint all the way around the fitting is also corrosion, just the paint hasn't flaked off yet. This spar was scrap when I inspected it, and being a 1967 Arrow, with other rust, and lots of other corrosion, it was not worth any attempt to repair. Had they attempted to repair the corrosion in this photo, taking the wing apart would have revealed lots of other corrosion. The plane was scrapped.


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4b9e6e6e0a.jpg
PA-28-180 wing spar corrosion

You maybe money ahead to address the following bulletins/ADs before you ship. Several of these areas are not directly visible even during an annual inspection:
Piper SB 1006
Piper SB 1244
Piper SB 1304/AD2020-24-05
Piper SB 1345/AD2020-26-16
Piper SB 1375

There is a possible way to determine if primer is Cessna, Reims, or 3rd party applied but its not foolproof. The Cessna option applied zinc primer before production leaving rivets unpainted, Reims built sub-assemblies then primed leaving a mixture of painted/unpainted rivets along certain structure lines, and 3rd party everything is usually primed. But some of the Reims aircraft/parts we were looking at years ago were not primed with zinc. So its not a 100% thing to follow.

FYI: while location does factor in, operational/maintenance history tends to be equally important as I've seen corroded aircraft in the deserts of Arizona and corrosion free along the GOM. Regardless, when it comes to certain aircraft like Pipers and Mooneys, having a mechanic who is familiar with the known trouble spots look over the aircraft is preferred especially with corrosion issues.

Was this area painted in an attempt to hide existing corrosion?

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....36fd090762.jpg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....31fbfc6871.jpg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....9bcc60cfdc.jpg
My corrosion photos on N75276 - awaiting photos from the donor and have an A&P going to look it over on Wednesday when he returns from a trip to Mississippi.

This looks very scary.

Help me get oriented please. I assume the top two photos show corrosion of the spar cap which was exposed after removal of the fuel tank. Are we looking at the lower spar cap or the upper spar cap? If the staining indicates flow of water (or something else) I assume this is the upper cap. If that's true then what trapped water there.

I think not. I doubt it's original Piper paint, as I doubt that Piper would paint the plumbing, but the paint was uniform in the area, and had been there a while.

Ebbie,

The corrosion in your photos has been there for many years. That type of corrosion does not "suddenly appear". As it is intergranular exfoliation corrosion, once it starts, it's really hard to stop. Corrosion preventing liquid is the best hope, but that spar is way past that!

Ebbie: Re post #22
I've seen wing spar corrosion in the fuel tank area a few times before on PA28s. Looks like galvanic action caused by the steel anchor nut may have set that off. All for want of a decent coat of primer or smear of jointing compound ...
I'm curious whether your previous few Annual Inspections had called for tank removal? Good inspection should have caught the corrosion in its early stage.

The fuel tanks have not been removed from my PA-28-180 in at least the last 20 years. Several different inspectors have signed off this aircraft and none has required removal of the tanks. None of the Piper mandatory SB or resulting AD has, to the best of my knowledge, required removal of the fuel tanks. If this was a commnon problem I would have expected a mandatory SB and an AD.

Have any of the PA-28 with spar corrosion hidden by the fuel tanks been hangared or were all kept outside in the weather?

I'd be very concerned in that case, you could be flying on borrowed time. Google Piper SB 1006 and EASA Airworthiness Directive 2005-0032. The hidden spars are supposed to be inspected at seven year intervals. Your maintenance technical records department should be aware of that.

There is no requirement in USA to comply with a Piper Service Bulletin unless it is invoked by an associated Airworthiness Directive. I can find no FAA AD that requires compliance with SB 1006. The only reference I found to SB 1006 is here - https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...-inc-airplanes

That reference says recent compliance with SB 1006 is not sufficient to meet the requirements of that AD.

I'm not saying that removal of the fuel tanks every 7 years isn't a good idea. I'm just saying that I'm not aware of any FAA requirement to do so. I don't doubt there are many PA-28 flying in USA that are not compliant with SB 1006.

I saw a few queries.

Not sure why it was missed on previous annuals, especially the one immediately after it sat on the ground on Guadeloupe for over a year.

The tank has been off for sure - in 2018 it got a hole poked through the wing when it slipped off a wing jack - got repaired in St. Barths - took the opportunity to do the training to land there (long expired as they last on six months - didn't find it difficult to land there, Canefield in Dominica is much scarier, especially landing south to north)

That said, it is what it is.

The donor plane a 1984 is about to get inspected, seems the A&P has been very busy.

Fingers crossed that the wing is good, I have a couple of photos but they don't show just where I am keen on getting looked at.

Or several other corrosion related bulletins mentioned in Post 20. Its been my experience, if operating a Piper product around salt-laden areas or near urban-industrialized areas, an owner's decision not to address those known corrosion areas usually ends up in a similar result. Preventative/proactive maintenance can be everything in some circumstances. And as these legacy Pipers get even older once these areas are finally noticed it a bit late to simply repair the area.

A fascinating thread. Thanks.
Seer

Have there been many instances of in-flight structural failure of older Cessna and Piper airframes due to corrosion?

In the UK do corrosion inspections form part of the maintenance schedule for ARC renewal?

An Australian Cessna 210 lost a wing due to failure directly attributable to corrosion:

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...ir/ao-2019-026

There have been other structural failures in Cessna and Pipers where corrosion of primary structure was a factor. In the case of Cessnas, the "SID" inspections are pretty thorough in defining what inspections should be done. Whether mandatory or not, a GA airplane owner would be foolish to dismiss these inspections as not necessary. The Cessna SIDs, in particular, are really well written, and obviously based on a true understanding of the vulnerable areas of the structure of the legacy planes based on decades of experience.

About 1985 we had to inspect Pa 28-140 wing spar roots for corrosion due to an AD. I was working at Bristol at the time.

As mentioned there have been a few in-flight structural failures to include various wing strut failures, however, in my experience the majority of severely corroded primary structures are usually found during other maintenance actions similar to the OPs situation. Where corrosion does directly cause more "flight" accidents/incidents with SE small aircraft is when it's related to internal engine components, airframe fuel systems, electrical connections, etc.

There have been PA-28 wing separation accidents due to fatigue cracking and also due to structural overload. However, I am not aware of any PA-28 structual failures that were attributed to wing corrosion.

If there are any perhaps someone would provide references.

Is there a report for the Pa 25 accident at a wedding in South America where the wing folded during a stunt. Plane flew over and dumped the contents of its hopper after which a wing folded. Is there any similarity in the Pa 25 and Pa 28 wing.

Not even close! The PA25 is a strut-braced, fabric covered wing and the PA28 is an all aluminum cantilever wing.

Don't recall any in-flight corrosion failures but there were a few PA-28 loose wing discoveries on the ground due to corrosion that would have led to an in-flight failure had they not been found. SB 1244 and an FAA SAIB were issued subsequent to those findings. Fortunately the Piper design can withstand excessive corrosion in key areas.

No. The PA-25 used top braced PA-18 Super Cub wings which became metal-covered in later models. And doubt you'll ever see a report out of MX on that PA-25 accident.

Apologies, I was thinking Pa 36 which probably has no similarity also.