This is looking like a 'not so cheap' repair. Currently looking at a low time time 180K and since it won't be available for 3+ months, the negatives on 180 ownership are looking dismal for me. Granted this is if the plane needs repair, which I am speculating is not going to be the case, but one never knows until it's looked at. My IA said he can most likely do the inspection without removing parts, but I am of the mindset that I would prefer them removed for a thorough inspection before plopping down a stack of Franklins.

This is looking like a 'not so cheap' repair. Currently looking at a low time time 180K and since it won't be available for 3+ months, the negatives on 180 ownership are looking dismal for me. Granted this is if the plane needs repair, which I am speculating is not going to be the case, but one never knows until it's looked at. My IA said he can most likely do the inspection without removing parts, but I am of the mindset that I would prefer them removed for a thorough inspection before plopping down a stack of Franklins.

While we're just discussing and don't know anything for sure about this 185 failure, another thought entered my mind. The little roll pins that hold the gear on the bottom of the trim jackscrews is another thing you wouldn't want to fail. McFarlane's ad says they use a bigger roll pin for increased strength.

The original low-grade steel components have been replaced with duplex stainless steel originally developed for under-sea concrete reinforcing - salt water doesn't have an effect on this steel! Precision bearings are used to reduce free play, while using extra-low temperature grease for easy turning in low temperatures. McFarlane REDESIGNED the sprocket and retaining collar to allow the use of a 5/32" ROLL PIN, which more than doubles the strength of the design.

185Midwest wrote:I was scheduled to have a the QMI kit installed on my plane this winter at Beegles. They have done one install of the kit and said they would not install another until there were some adjustments made to the kit. They sent me another quote with the original Cessna parts and the price was about the same.

I'd rather you all contact Beegles. I'm not an A&P so I'm not really qualified to give an technical answer on the subject. I'm just going with what they are telling me.

MW

Interesting, thanks.

You bet Slow.

MW

The cracks are not the only reason to replace the hockey sticks. The bearings seized on my horizontal and while we took apart the horizontal for what the mechanic thought was a crack, it turned out not to be cracked...but we would not have seen the damage had we not taken apart the empennage. I went with the QMI and now have peace of mind knowing it is taken care of!

Are there any thoughts / suggestions on how to check on this during a pre-purchase, or would it best to just be assumed to have the tail removed once purchased? Are there any guestimates in cost to remove the tail section for inspection without any repairs? I've been looking into some 180's but this tail AD has me second guessing it all based on it all.

29singlespeed wrote:Are there any thoughts / suggestions on how to check on this during a pre-purchase, or would it best to just be assumed to have the tail removed once purchased? Are there any guestimates in cost to remove the tail section for inspection without any repairs? I've been looking into some 180's but this tail AD has me second guessing it all based on it all.

To start with make sure the AD is complied with. Then it depends on the condition and history of the aircraft to see if further investigation is warranted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did holes of the QMI´s fit to your fuselage ones?

Any more feedback from installed QMI´s reinforcements?

No thank you

185er wrote: I'm considering replacing some rivets with the next size bigger, but I'm concerned with edge distance on a couple rivets. I see the QMI fix ad's screws and nuts in a couple places, not a bad idea........

I have nothing from Cessna to support this, but every airplane I've worked on that is a 77 model year or later has 5/32" rivets fastening the hockey stick to the skin under the stab fairings. I'm referring to the countersunk rivets and IIRC the several of the universal heads just ahead of the station 209 bulkhead. All of the 76 and older airplanes have 1/8".

When I replaced my hockey stick, I installed 5/32" to match.

The later airplanes also have 2 "Intercostal" bulkheads just ahead of the 209 bulkhead. Something I suspect may be worth adding although I don't know how much bearing they may on the focus of the AD.

No thank you

No Thank you

185er,
Forgive me for posting but I have to comment, while I like your idea about shedding some of the structural load forward, l’m not sure the hassle with stabilizer fairing will be an easy mod. My real concern is this, my qualification is I have set easily over a million rivets while building/repairing many airframes over 45 years, in examining your pictures it is obvious that when driving the AN470-5 rivets that you used a -4 rivet set. The resulting ring on the factory head has severely compromised the integrity of the rivets. Please note, l’m not here to slam your work, I just want your repair to be safe. Again, no offense intended.

Screamer wrote:185er,
Forgive me for posting but I have to comment, while I like your idea about shedding some of the structural load forward, l’m not sure the hassle with stabilizer fairing will be an easy mod. My real concern is this, my qualification is I have set easily over a million rivets while building/repairing many airframes over 45 years, in examining your pictures it is obvious that when driving the AN470-5 rivets that you used a -4 rivet set. The resulting ring on the factory head has severely compromised the integrity of the rivets. Please note, l’m not here to slam your work, I just want your repair to be safe. Again, no offense intended.

Good catch, I will have to replace those!

Well, ok

Those look great, btw I have failed to swap out the set also. Common oops. Dale

My total time in hours spent riveting can be expressed using only my 10 fingers, but I spotted the same oops. Kudos Dale for diplomatically pointing it out. I was starting to compose a note from a precarious perch given my inexperience, and you saved the trouble.

Now, how about that oversize doubler. What’s the basis of eligibility for that mod? It’s not a repair, because nothing was broken.

Screamer wrote:Common oops.

no

Pinecone wrote:Now, how about that oversize doubler. What’s the basis of eligibility for that mod? It’s not a repair, because nothing was broken.

wondering the same