Amazing. You should give that to a museum. 40 year old clamps (in 2008) with a different batch number. Be assured it is good stuff as it is intended for 707. lol
Yeah - 1968 is, I believe, just before the first flight of a 747.
I showed that paperwork to one old hand in aviation maintenance and he said the company is well known for it. It is the result of buying up the stores of aviation firms when they go bust. In this case they bought up the stores of several bankrupt airlines.
Legally this is 100% legal because these parts have no manufacturer specified life limits.
On a less outrageous scale, you get this in avionics extended warranties. Say you buy a new plane. That should be built with all new parts. That isn't always so; the factory is entitled to take anything out of stock which is legally airworthy. But the real scandal is on extended warranties - which is exactly what a lot of people will take out on a new plane. Say your brand new altimeter packs up after a year. The warranty replacement can easily be 10-15 years old, which is about the average age of the warranty replacement pool.
The warranty replacement can easily be 10-15 years old, which is about the average age of the warranty replacement pool.
On the other hand, people that got a 20 year old but overhauled crankshaft from Lycoming in the last 10 years are much happier than those that got a brand new...
Skills in the aviation industry have not increased lately, especially among the companies that have been around forever. I have found out the hard way that e.g. S-TEC are not qualified to manufacture/service their own products. I bet it was much better in the late 80s when their current products were developed.
So your 1968 clamp might still be better than anything made today 
It's still the safest way to travel...
It's still the safest way to travel...
statistically only if you consider those airlines with a high percentage of long range
cruise flying.
If you use your aircraft for fetching bread rolls, you live very dangerous 
Just got a load of CBs from one of UK’s top aviation suppliers. Same company as it happens as the above 1968 P-Clip. I noticed some of them looked a bit different from the others…
I don’t actually think this company had them on the shelf for 20 years. These are fast moving parts. Much more likely they bought them from some old stock…
Occasionally one can find a good deal on old new stock, especially with avionics. With new glass being so popular, some smaller companies are cleaning out old new stock at bargain prices vs still quoted and available list pricing from the big name resellers (Aircraft Spruce, Pacific Coast, etc, etc).
Peter, have you tried adding a clause to your PO that all stock must be new production, or newer than xxxx production? Or asking for a xx% discount on any stock produced before xxxx?
No, because I have been in business (electronics) since 1978 and have never in that time have I come within 1000nm of anybody who would think selling a 21 year old part is anything other than completely and utterly un-ethical, at best, and fraud, at worst.
It is only in aviation where vendors get away with this – because a “serviceable” part (tagged by a 145 company) is by definition perfect and nobody has the authority to say otherwise. This is a consequence of any QA system; ISO9000 has the same problem in that a product made in accordance with the procedures is “good” even if it is crap (but nowadays no customer actually believes this, in commercial practice).
So… my plane was built in 2002 with a pile of secondhand parts. The warranty bill was c. 50k
In the case of a CB from 1997, the vendor gets away with it because
(seen this done many times)So the whole circus goes round and round and everybody is happy
Peter wrote:
I have been in business (electronics) since 1978 and have never in that time have I come within 1000nm of anybody who would think selling a 21 year old part is anything other than completely and utterly un-ethical, at best, and fraud, at worst.
I think the unwritten part here may be that the comment applies primarily to electrical equipment? Otherwise and assuming the part is in good condition, which is obviously not certain, I would generally choose old stock over new stock. For instance I would always choose an old stock mechanical tachometer over what is manufactured and sold at any reasonable price today. The quality of old stock is very likely to be better.
After trying in vain to come up with a mechanical clock that was reliable, I ended up with one that had been removed from a new Bell Jet Ranger decades before, as part of configuring the panel for service. That is one solid piece of equipment.
Rubber or plastic parts would be a definite exception, in addition to electrical equipment that might have corroded contacts as well as degraded plastic or rubber internal components.
Yes; very true. Old mechanical parts are usually better than new ones.
But the real issue here is that a part is either “new” (meaning it came from the factory, via normal channels, so e.g. under a year old) or “not new”.
I don’t think anybody who flies the plane would knowingly put in a 21 year old CB.
