Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Wing comes off a PA28 during a checkride with an examiner (and wing spar structure discussion)

Why would it be more on the starboard right side?

I know the door is there but why would the wing get more stress? With a common 1-person occupancy there is more stress on the LH wing root than on the RH wing root, in turbulence.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

I know the door is there but why would the wing get more stress?

Because you walk on the wing outside the door!

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Peter wrote:

common 1-person occupancy

Perhaps not in high cycle training aircraft. And perhaps the constant climbing in and out is significant, especially in the negative direction? After all, the only significant flight loads these aircraft experience in their entire lives, where +`1g is considered a lot, is in the numerous repetitive heavy firm landings…

EGBW / KPRC, United Kingdom

I can’t believe that walking up onto the wing is a significant stress, compared with the 1000-1200kg plane flying in turbulence which generates say 2g shocks (that’s 2x the aircraft weight, which is a lot more than a person’s weight).

A person walking up onto the wing is walking fairly close to the wing attachment point, which is also where flight stresses get transmitted.

But, regardless, if RH side failures are more common there must be a reason for it.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

What is scary in this one is that this was a relatively recent exemplar of the Arrow. N106ER, a 2007 Piper PA-28R-201 Arrow III. They were doing circuits apparently.

A wing separation in a fairly normal flight mode is quite a different story than if it had failed in a high G or negative G maneuver. I reckon this will be a very thorough and fast investigation indeed.

LSZH, Switzerland

Aveling wrote:

As a PA-28 owner this is of interest. I don’t know if it’s referred to in the other threads, but I’ve always felt that the AAIB’s commentary on the Thruxton crash Thruxton (Passenger behaviour, maybe camera strap caught on controls causing excessive control reversals) was a little ‘last resort’. It’s quite hard to apply excessive control forces in a PA-28 at normal speeds.

Sounds like a totally different failure, albeit with the same tragic result. The Thriuxton accident had a failure in download of the outer wing panel. That can happen at very high speed due to wash out but not sure if an Arrow wing would exhibit the same phenomenon.

Darley Moor, Gamston (UK)

NTSB preliminary says metal fatigue, no corrosion present.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

Maoraigh wrote:

NTSB preliminary says metal fatigue, no corrosion present.

On a 10 year old airplane. Lovely….

LSZH, Switzerland

An un-reported overstress incident? Not necessarily a manufacturer’s fault.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

Similar fatigue cracks found in the other, attached wing. Same place. Must have been one hell of an upset to damage both wings in this fashion. Training aeroplane. Lots of hard landings?? The other really scary bit is that none of the external surfaces had any indication of corrosion/damage.

Last Edited by BeechBaby at 17 Apr 21:26
Fly safe. I want this thing to land l...
EGPF Glasgow
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top