---------------------------------------------------------- Commander-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 03/12/06: 10 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 04:59 PM - FW: Re: oil cooler () 2. 07:19 PM - AGING AIRCRAFT (YOURTCFG@aol.com) 3. 07:24 PM - Re: FW: Re: oil cooler (MASON Chevaillier) 4. 08:01 PM - Re: AGING AIRCRAFT (WINGFLYER1@aol.com) 5. 09:53 PM - Re: AGING AIRCRAFT (John Vormbaum) 6. 10:01 PM - Re: AGING AIRCRAFT (YOURTCFG@aol.com) 7. 10:13 PM - Re: AGING AIRCRAFT (YOURTCFG@aol.com) 8. 10:24 PM - Re: AGING AIRCRAFT (css nico) 9. 11:47 PM - Re: AGING AIRCRAFT (John Vormbaum) 10. 11:47 PM - Re: AGING AIRCRAFT (John Vormbaum) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 04:59:17 PM PST US From: "" Subject: Commander-List: FW: Re: oil cooler --> Commander-List message posted by: "" In my search for 560F oil coolers Roland told me about Doug Turner who apparently has two straight 560s for parts. If anyone is interested his address is copters8@cs.com Still looking for a Harrison cooler #8530341... Phil Stubbs ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug Turner Sent: 3/12/2006 11:13:44 AM Subject: Re: oil cooler Phil, I DON'T REMEMBER WHICH MODEL THEY ARE AND I HAVEN'T GONE OUT TO LOOK AT THEM YET, I SENT ONE OF MY GUYS TO GET THE PHOTOS...I THINK THE ENGINES ARE LYCOMING GO 480. I WANT TO GET RID ALL OF IT. I BOUGHT BOTH OF THEM SIGHT UNSEEN AND WAS TOLD THEY COULD BE FERRIED OUT...I SPENT 10K SENDING MECHANICS DOWN TO GET THEM READY FOR ME TO FLY OUT...ONLY TO FIND OUT IT WOULD COST 3 TIMES WHAT YOU COULD BUY ONE IN THE STATES AND FLYING FOR.. I WOULD MAKE SOMEONE A HELL OF A DEAL JUST NOT TO HAVE TO LOOK AT THEM ANY MORE.. DOUG ----- Original Message ----- From: br549phil@mindspring.com Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 9:09 AM Subject: Re: oil cooler Unfortunately it is not a 560F. But if you let me know what they are, some other folks on the Commander list might be interested and I would be happy to post it there. Thanks, Phil Phil Stubbs ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug Turner Sent: 3/11/2006 10:25:05 PM Subject: Re: oil cooler it's a 560 ....i think.. i will get you a part number mnonday.. \Goug ----- Original Message ----- From: br549phil@mindspring.com Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 9:46 AM Subject: Re: oil cooler Hi Doug, Thanks for the reply. The lower cooler on the 560F came in two sizes. The one I have is installed on 560Fs up to and including serial# 1330. The Harrison part #is 8530341. Phil Phil Stubbs ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug Turner Sent: 3/7/2006 9:19:23 PM Subject: Re: oil cooler Phil, I have a cooler for your 560. i have just returned after 9 days on the road..I'll get a photo of it and contact you wednesday...you can call me at 270 437-3940. Doug Turner ----- Original Message ----- From: br549phil@mindspring.com Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 11:39 PM Subject: oil cooler Hi, Someone on the Commander list suggested I contact you regarding my search for a lower oil cooler on my 560F. If you have one or know of any possible sources please contact me. Thanks, Phil Stubbs ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 07:19:55 PM PST US From: YOURTCFG@aol.com Subject: Commander-List: AGING AIRCRAFT --> Commander-List message posted by: YOURTCFG@aol.com HI KIDS. Later this month I will be attending the FAA meeting on aging aircraft to be held in Kansas City. With me will be Mr. Gary Rankin, the pres. of the Navion Society. Many other type groups will be represented as well as type certificate holders. The FAA is seeking guidance for proposals that will effect the long term life of our airframes. I am told on good authority that the FAA has no hidden agenda here but is sincerely looking for help from the industry regarding this issue. The recent wing failure of the Chauks Airline Grumman Mallard precipitated this meeting. There are a few sugestions already making there way to the surface. One, sponsored by the EAA, would allow all aircraft certificate under the old CAR-3 standards to "opt out" of the normal category and be placed in a new category allowing for much more flexibility in the use of parts and modifications. Although I have not seen a hard draft of this proposal, it appears it would be similar to the Canadian "owner maintained" category, we shall see. While I don't see this as a bad proposal, and support the concept, it doesn't seem to address the FAAs real concern. The airframes would soldier on, albeit with new parts etc, with no regard to the main issue, old airframes. Another idea is that type certificate holders and type groups join forces and create a "super annual" inspection. This would be done at a predetermined time, ether years of flight hours or both. It could only be done by an approved (special training) facility. It may or may not be reoccurring. I have spoken to the new owner of Twin Commander, Jim Mathison. There will be a representative from Twin, there and we plan to meet. This may be one of the most significant meetings with the FAA to happen in years, maybe ever. Input there will help guide the decision making process for many years to come. What are your thoughts?? Do you have any input you would like me to carry tot he floor from you?? jb ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 07:24:36 PM PST US From: "MASON Chevaillier" Subject: RE: Commander-List: FW: Re: oil cooler --> Commander-List message posted by: "MASON Chevaillier" see if pete harrison still lives in atlanta, he might help. mason >From: "" >To: "commander-list" >Subject: Commander-List: FW: Re: oil cooler >Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:55:20 -0500 > >--> Commander-List message posted by: "" > >In my search for 560F oil coolers Roland told me about Doug Turner who >apparently has two straight 560s for parts. >If anyone is interested his address is copters8@cs.com >Still looking for a Harrison cooler #8530341... >Phil Stubbs > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Doug Turner >To: br549phil@mindspring.com >Sent: 3/12/2006 11:13:44 AM >Subject: Re: oil cooler > > >Phil, I DON'T REMEMBER WHICH MODEL THEY ARE AND I HAVEN'T GONE OUT TO LOOK >AT THEM YET, I SENT ONE OF MY GUYS TO GET THE PHOTOS...I THINK THE ENGINES >ARE LYCOMING GO 480. I WANT TO GET RID ALL OF IT. I BOUGHT BOTH OF THEM >SIGHT UNSEEN AND WAS TOLD THEY COULD BE FERRIED OUT...I SPENT 10K SENDING >MECHANICS DOWN TO GET THEM READY FOR ME TO FLY OUT...ONLY TO FIND OUT IT >WOULD COST 3 TIMES WHAT YOU COULD BUY ONE IN THE STATES AND FLYING FOR.. I >WOULD MAKE SOMEONE A HELL OF A DEAL JUST NOT TO HAVE TO LOOK AT THEM ANY >MORE.. >DOUG >----- Original Message ----- >From: br549phil@mindspring.com >To: Doug Turner >Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 9:09 AM >Subject: Re: oil cooler > > >Unfortunately it is not a 560F. But if you let me know what they are, some >other folks on the Commander list might be interested and I would be happy >to post it there. >Thanks, >Phil > >Phil Stubbs > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Doug Turner >To: br549phil@mindspring.com >Sent: 3/11/2006 10:25:05 PM >Subject: Re: oil cooler > > >it's a 560 ....i think.. i will get you a part number mnonday.. >\Goug >----- Original Message ----- >From: br549phil@mindspring.com >To: Doug Turner >Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 9:46 AM >Subject: Re: oil cooler > > >Hi Doug, >Thanks for the reply. The lower cooler on the 560F came in two sizes. The >one I have is installed on 560Fs up to and including serial# 1330. >The Harrison part #is 8530341. >Phil > >Phil Stubbs > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Doug Turner >To: br549phil@mindspring.com >Sent: 3/7/2006 9:19:23 PM >Subject: Re: oil cooler > > >Phil, I have a cooler for your 560. i have just returned after 9 days on >the road..I'll get a photo of it and contact you wednesday...you can call >me at 270 437-3940. >Doug Turner >----- Original Message ----- >From: br549phil@mindspring.com >To: copters8@cs.com >Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 11:39 PM >Subject: oil cooler > > >Hi, >Someone on the Commander list suggested I contact you regarding my search >for a lower oil cooler on my 560F. >If you have one or know of any possible sources please contact me. >Thanks, > >Phil Stubbs > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:01:54 PM PST US From: WINGFLYER1@aol.com Subject: Re: Commander-List: AGING AIRCRAFT --> Commander-List message posted by: WINGFLYER1@aol.com I would like to know if a study has been done on aircraft that were built during the fifties as far as in-flight break up or wing seperations measure up. And how long will the airframes/wings last under normal flying conditions. What is the projected life/safety of my 680. Gil Walker ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 09:53:57 PM PST US From: "John Vormbaum" Subject: Re: Commander-List: AGING AIRCRAFT --> Commander-List message posted by: "John Vormbaum" Captain Jimbob, I would especially like to see the really high time airframes of the Commander world championed, like John Towner's 23,000-hr.+ airframe and my own 18,000-hr. airframe. I think showing well maintained older, high time airframes in excellent running condition as evidence of their durability would go a long way towards setting reasonable standards were the FAA to implement inspection timeframes. I would also like some methods of airframe life extension addressed, like new spar caps etc. You might want to dig for the Australian CAA document that, after research, recommended a lifespan for Aero Commander 500B's to be 35,000 hours, at which time a spar cap replacement is mandated. The document further states that after spar cap replacement, the airframe would be good for another 35,000 hours. We have the benefit of flying an airplane that is exceptionally well built and designed to be rugged far beyond the limits for which it is approved. Since building new Commanders is out of the question (regardless of type certificate ownership, tooling, and cost), we need to be very creative in ensuring that these airplanes will fly for years to come. Good luck, /John PS: I need about 50 more years out of my airframe (if I decide to quit flying at 87, that is). ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 7:18 PM Subject: Commander-List: AGING AIRCRAFT > --> Commander-List message posted by: YOURTCFG@aol.com > > HI KIDS. > > Later this month I will be attending the FAA meeting on aging > aircraft to be held in Kansas City. With me will be Mr. Gary Rankin, the > pres. of > the Navion Society. Many other type groups will be represented as well > as > type certificate holders. The FAA is seeking guidance for proposals that > will > effect the long term life of our airframes. > I am told on good authority that the FAA has no hidden agenda here but > is sincerely looking for help from the industry regarding this issue. > The > recent wing failure of the Chauks Airline Grumman Mallard precipitated > this > meeting. > There are a few sugestions already making there way to the surface. > One, sponsored by the EAA, would allow all aircraft certificate under the > old > CAR-3 standards to "opt out" of the normal category and be placed in a > new > category allowing for much more flexibility in the use of parts and > modifications. Although I have not seen a hard draft of this proposal, > it appears it > would be similar to the Canadian "owner maintained" category, we shall > see. > While I don't see this as a bad proposal, and support the concept, it > doesn't > seem to address the FAAs real concern. The airframes would soldier on, > albeit > with new parts etc, with no regard to the main issue, old airframes. > Another idea is that type certificate holders and type groups join > forces and create a "super annual" inspection. This would be done at a > predetermined time, ether years of flight hours or both. It could only > be done by an > approved (special training) facility. It may or may not be reoccurring. > I have spoken to the new owner of Twin Commander, Jim Mathison. There > will be a representative from Twin, there and we plan to meet. > This may be one of the most significant meetings with the FAA to > happen > in years, maybe ever. Input there will help guide the decision making > process for many years to come. > What are your thoughts?? Do you have any input you would like me to > carry tot he floor from you?? jb > > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 10:01:38 PM PST US From: YOURTCFG@aol.com Subject: Re: Commander-List: AGING AIRCRAFT --> Commander-List message posted by: YOURTCFG@aol.com In a message dated 3/12/2006 9:54:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, john@vormbaum.com writes: John Towner's 23,000-hr.+ airframe and my own 18,000-hr. airframe. I have spoken to Andy Towner and he or John will be at this meeting. You comments are well taken. There are also stories of very high time Cessna and Beech products. What we need to do is create an affordable inspection program that will insure that every airframe can be maintained in a way that will mimic the high time airframes we know are out there. What is different about them that has allowed them to stand that test of time? We also need to fine the trouble areas and inspect?repair?modify these areas. Thanks John. jb ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 10:13:32 PM PST US From: YOURTCFG@aol.com Subject: Re: Commander-List: AGING AIRCRAFT --> Commander-List message posted by: YOURTCFG@aol.com In a message dated 3/12/2006 8:02:24 PM Pacific Standard Time, WINGFLYER1@aol.com writes: I would like to know if a study has been done on aircraft that were built during the fifties as far as in-flight break up or wing seperations I don't know of any studies. The FAA has so far been reactionary to this growing concern. Several airframes have, over the last decade, ether failed catastrophically (Beech model 18, Beech T-34, Cessna 400 series and the recent Mallard) of been found to have serious defects. In some cases there were extenuating circumstance (aerobatic trining?dodfighting) But in many others, simply fatigue and age appear to be the culprit. I think the Commander is one of the best built airframes ever, but there are areas that are showing signs of deterioration. Landing gear trusses in your 680 are all showing some degree of corrosion. I have looked at many of these airframes and have never seen one with no corrosion present. The wings will probably not be the most problematic area for an older Commander, but the replacement of the gear trusses would be a huge burden for an owner. As a type group, we need to address this and other issues that will make cretin our airplane fly on another fifty years. Thanks Gill jb ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 10:24:21 PM PST US From: "css nico" Subject: Re: Commander-List: AGING AIRCRAFT --> Commander-List message posted by: "css nico" Interesting comment, John. If one owns the type certification and the tooling, surely if cost is not a factor, one can build new Commanders, or am I missing something. I would opt for a new power plant, of course, perhaps something like a new generation diesel engine. Nico ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Vormbaum" Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 9:50 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: AGING AIRCRAFT > --> Commander-List message posted by: "John Vormbaum" > > Captain Jimbob, > > I would especially like to see the really high time airframes of the > Commander world championed, like John Towner's 23,000-hr.+ airframe and my > own 18,000-hr. airframe. I think showing well maintained older, high time > airframes in excellent running condition as evidence of their durability > would go a long way towards setting reasonable standards were the FAA to > implement inspection timeframes. > > I would also like some methods of airframe life extension addressed, like > new spar caps etc. You might want to dig for the Australian CAA document > that, after research, recommended a lifespan for Aero Commander 500B's to be > 35,000 hours, at which time a spar cap replacement is mandated. The document > further states that after spar cap replacement, the airframe would be good > for another 35,000 hours. > > We have the benefit of flying an airplane that is exceptionally well built > and designed to be rugged far beyond the limits for which it is approved. > Since building new Commanders is out of the question (regardless of type > certificate ownership, tooling, and cost), we need to be very creative in > ensuring that these airplanes will fly for years to come. > > Good luck, > > /John > > PS: I need about 50 more years out of my airframe (if I decide to quit > flying at 87, that is). > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 7:18 PM > Subject: Commander-List: AGING AIRCRAFT > > > > --> Commander-List message posted by: YOURTCFG@aol.com > > > > HI KIDS. > > > > Later this month I will be attending the FAA meeting on aging > > aircraft to be held in Kansas City. With me will be Mr. Gary Rankin, the > > pres. of > > the Navion Society. Many other type groups will be represented as well > > as > > type certificate holders. The FAA is seeking guidance for proposals that > > will > > effect the long term life of our airframes. > > I am told on good authority that the FAA has no hidden agenda here but > > is sincerely looking for help from the industry regarding this issue. > > The > > recent wing failure of the Chauks Airline Grumman Mallard precipitated > > this > > meeting. > > There are a few sugestions already making there way to the surface. > > One, sponsored by the EAA, would allow all aircraft certificate under the > > old > > CAR-3 standards to "opt out" of the normal category and be placed in a > > new > > category allowing for much more flexibility in the use of parts and > > modifications. Although I have not seen a hard draft of this proposal, > > it appears it > > would be similar to the Canadian "owner maintained" category, we shall > > see. > > While I don't see this as a bad proposal, and support the concept, it > > doesn't > > seem to address the FAAs real concern. The airframes would soldier on, > > albeit > > with new parts etc, with no regard to the main issue, old airframes. > > Another idea is that type certificate holders and type groups join > > forces and create a "super annual" inspection. This would be done at a > > predetermined time, ether years of flight hours or both. It could only > > be done by an > > approved (special training) facility. It may or may not be reoccurring. > > I have spoken to the new owner of Twin Commander, Jim Mathison. There > > will be a representative from Twin, there and we plan to meet. > > This may be one of the most significant meetings with the FAA to > > happen > > in years, maybe ever. Input there will help guide the decision making > > process for many years to come. > > What are your thoughts?? Do you have any input you would like me to > > carry tot he floor from you?? jb > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 11:47:02 PM PST US From: "John Vormbaum" Subject: Re: Commander-List: AGING AIRCRAFT --> Commander-List message posted by: "John Vormbaum" Nico, Funny enough, at some point in the near future I'm going to Arizona to take a look at a (certified, I think) 350hp turbodiesel that would hang nicely on a Commander wing. There are a few things that make building a "new" Commander extremely unlikely: 1) Twin Commander Corp. owns the tooling & type certificate for the piston airplanes and has no interest in supporting them 2) From what I've heard, the tooling/jigs for the pistons are very worn out, and if new ones were to be built, any mfr. would have to re-tool....at great cost. The real clincher is the parts count in Commanders (Sir Barry, do you have a number?). Just the nacelle alone has an extraordinary number of parts if I recall correctly. To build a new airplane in an even remotely cost-effective method, the airplane would have to be re-engineered. You could probably redesign the nacelles and the rest of the fuselage with far fewer parts, maybe even mix in some composites, but the man-hours required would still be a killer. I don't think there's a way you could build them and sell them at a profit for under $1M, which is quite steep for a piston twin (see many new 2005 Barons flying around? I bet they only built 20 of them last year). The man-hours were such a problem, they even stopped flat-riveting the lower fuselages on Shrikes to cut corners. It didn't help keep the line alive. Even if you could clean-sheet the design, preserving the original aerodynamics & appearance, it would still take a HUGE amount of capital to build something that wouldn't be too competitive in today's market. For the price you'd have to sell them, you could probably step into a turbine utility aircraft or even a VLJ. I personally have a fantasy that some lottery winning aviation fool *will* resurrect the design, maybe even the turbines too, with a fair bit of composite structure, wet wings instead of bladders, none of the AD's, and all modern accoutrements, but I just don't see it happening. Cheers, /John ----- Original Message ----- From: "css nico" Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 10:21 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: AGING AIRCRAFT > --> Commander-List message posted by: "css nico" > > > Interesting comment, John. If one owns the type certification and the > tooling, surely if cost is not a factor, one can build new Commanders, or > am > I missing something. I would opt for a new power plant, of course, perhaps > something like a new generation diesel engine. > > Nico > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Vormbaum" > To: > Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 9:50 PM > Subject: Re: Commander-List: AGING AIRCRAFT > > >> --> Commander-List message posted by: "John Vormbaum" >> >> Captain Jimbob, >> >> I would especially like to see the really high time airframes of the >> Commander world championed, like John Towner's 23,000-hr.+ airframe and >> my >> own 18,000-hr. airframe. I think showing well maintained older, high time >> airframes in excellent running condition as evidence of their durability >> would go a long way towards setting reasonable standards were the FAA to >> implement inspection timeframes. >> >> I would also like some methods of airframe life extension addressed, like >> new spar caps etc. You might want to dig for the Australian CAA document >> that, after research, recommended a lifespan for Aero Commander 500B's to > be >> 35,000 hours, at which time a spar cap replacement is mandated. The > document >> further states that after spar cap replacement, the airframe would be >> good >> for another 35,000 hours. >> >> We have the benefit of flying an airplane that is exceptionally well >> built >> and designed to be rugged far beyond the limits for which it is approved. >> Since building new Commanders is out of the question (regardless of type >> certificate ownership, tooling, and cost), we need to be very creative in >> ensuring that these airplanes will fly for years to come. >> >> Good luck, >> >> /John >> >> PS: I need about 50 more years out of my airframe (if I decide to quit >> flying at 87, that is). >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: >> To: >> Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 7:18 PM >> Subject: Commander-List: AGING AIRCRAFT >> >> >> > --> Commander-List message posted by: YOURTCFG@aol.com >> > >> > HI KIDS. >> > >> > Later this month I will be attending the FAA meeting on aging >> > aircraft to be held in Kansas City. With me will be Mr. Gary Rankin, > the >> > pres. of >> > the Navion Society. Many other type groups will be represented as >> > well >> > as >> > type certificate holders. The FAA is seeking guidance for proposals > that >> > will >> > effect the long term life of our airframes. >> > I am told on good authority that the FAA has no hidden agenda here > but >> > is sincerely looking for help from the industry regarding this issue. >> > The >> > recent wing failure of the Chauks Airline Grumman Mallard precipitated >> > this >> > meeting. >> > There are a few sugestions already making there way to the surface. >> > One, sponsored by the EAA, would allow all aircraft certificate under > the >> > old >> > CAR-3 standards to "opt out" of the normal category and be placed in a >> > new >> > category allowing for much more flexibility in the use of parts and >> > modifications. Although I have not seen a hard draft of this >> > proposal, >> > it appears it >> > would be similar to the Canadian "owner maintained" category, we shall >> > see. >> > While I don't see this as a bad proposal, and support the concept, it >> > doesn't >> > seem to address the FAAs real concern. The airframes would soldier >> > on, >> > albeit >> > with new parts etc, with no regard to the main issue, old airframes. >> > Another idea is that type certificate holders and type groups join >> > forces and create a "super annual" inspection. This would be done at >> > a >> > predetermined time, ether years of flight hours or both. It could >> > only >> > be done by an >> > approved (special training) facility. It may or may not be > reoccurring. >> > I have spoken to the new owner of Twin Commander, Jim Mathison. > There >> > will be a representative from Twin, there and we plan to meet. >> > This may be one of the most significant meetings with the FAA to >> > happen >> > in years, maybe ever. Input there will help guide the decision making >> > process for many years to come. >> > What are your thoughts?? Do you have any input you would like me >> > to >> > carry tot he floor from you?? jb >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 11:47:02 PM PST US From: "John Vormbaum" Subject: Re: Commander-List: AGING AIRCRAFT --> Commander-List message posted by: "John Vormbaum" Great points, Jim. I knew you had all this stuff well in hand, but I thought I'd point out some of the obvious things anyway :-). /J ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 10:01 PM Subject: Re: Commander-List: AGING AIRCRAFT > --> Commander-List message posted by: YOURTCFG@aol.com > > > In a message dated 3/12/2006 9:54:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, > john@vormbaum.com writes: > > John Towner's 23,000-hr.+ airframe and my > own 18,000-hr. airframe. > > > I have spoken to Andy Towner and he or John will be at this meeting. You > comments are well taken. There are also stories of very high time Cessna > and > Beech products. What we need to do is create an affordable inspection > program > that will insure that every airframe can be maintained in a way that will > mimic the high time airframes we know are out there. What is different > about > them that has allowed them to stand that test of time? We also need to > fine > the trouble areas and inspect?repair?modify these areas. > Thanks John. jb > > >