mild cracks in right crank

Quoted message said:

I noticed two very small cracks at the junction between the spider
arms and the crank, no more than a 1/16" to 1/8" in length. Jobst
says,
"The trailing spider leg adjacent to the crank generally has a
thin web that connects it to the more rigid shaft of the crank, while
the three preceding legs are more flexible, stress is concentrated at
this web. These cracks are relatively benign because they are easily
seen and rarely progress to failure."
Should I file and then sand the cracks out before they get worse, or
leave them? Does anyone have any experience with this? The cranks are
NR.

Thanks

thank you for flying self-deception airways, this is your captain
speaking. please ignore the "mild cracks" that are progressing though
our wing roots at this time. when the wings have detached, the cabin
crew will hand out hard candy to suck to assist with cabin
pressurization differences as we re-adjust our altitude. we hope you
enjoy your flight.

jim beam said:

Quoted message said:

I noticed two very small cracks at the junction between the spider
arms and the crank, no more than a 1/16" to 1/8" in length. Jobst
says,
"The trailing spider leg adjacent to the crank generally has a
thin web that connects it to the more rigid shaft of the crank, while
the three preceding legs are more flexible, stress is concentrated at
this web. These cracks are relatively benign because they are easily
seen and rarely progress to failure."
Should I file and then sand the cracks out before they get worse, or
leave them? Does anyone have any experience with this? The cranks are
NR.

Quoted message said:

Thanks

thank you for flying self-deception airways, this is your captain
speaking. please ignore the "mild cracks" that are progressing though
our wing roots at this time. when the wings have detached, the cabin
crew will hand out hard candy to suck to assist with cabin
pressurization differences as we re-adjust our altitude. we hope you
enjoy your flight.

Well Jim, in military aircraft, small cracks are very common, and can
be found in everything from wing spars to the aluminum skin. Small
cracks in civilian aircraft are not uncommon either and as you can see
from the news, seldom result in wings coming off.

For the OP, yes, sand or otherwise remove/reduce the cracks..just like
aviation wrenches do on aircraft.

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

jim beam said:

Quoted message said:

I noticed two very small cracks at the junction between the spider
arms and the crank, no more than a 1/16" to 1/8" in length. Jobst
says,
"The trailing spider leg adjacent to the crank generally has a
thin web that connects it to the more rigid shaft of the crank, while
the three preceding legs are more flexible, stress is concentrated at
this web. These cracks are relatively benign because they are easily
seen and rarely progress to failure."
Should I file and then sand the cracks out before they get worse, or
leave them? Does anyone have any experience with this? The cranks are
NR.
Thanks

thank you for flying self-deception airways, this is your captain
speaking. please ignore the "mild cracks" that are progressing though
our wing roots at this time. when the wings have detached, the cabin
crew will hand out hard candy to suck to assist with cabin
pressurization differences as we re-adjust our altitude. we hope you
enjoy your flight.

Well Jim, in military aircraft, small cracks are very common, and can
be found in everything from wing spars to the aluminum skin.

but with respect, it's a matter of where. if it's just a skin panel in
a non-critical location [not a leading edge], fine. spars, it depends
where. definitely not in a root.

you forget - there's different safety criteria for the military. and
the equipment is operated on the bleeding edge.

Quoted message said:

Small
cracks in civilian aircraft are not uncommon either and as you can see
from the news, seldom result in wings coming off.

For the OP, yes, sand or otherwise remove/reduce the cracks..just like
aviation wrenches do on aircraft.

i strongly disagree. those "mild cracks" are located precisely where
they progress into this kind of failure - not something to ignore.

http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/images/images_cc/ccf11_2.jpg
from:
http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/mem_ccf4.htm

jim beam said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

jim beam said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> I noticed two very small cracks at the junction between the spider
> arms and the crank, no more than a 1/16" to 1/8" in length. Jobst
> says,
> "The trailing spider leg adjacent to the crank generally has a
> thin web that connects it to the more rigid shaft of the crank, while
> the three preceding legs are more flexible, stress is concentrated at
> this web. These cracks are relatively benign because they are easily
> seen and rarely progress to failure."
> Should I file and then sand the cracks out before they get worse, or
> leave them? Does anyone have any experience with this? The cranks are
> NR.
> Thanks
thank you for flying self-deception airways, this is your captain
speaking. please ignore the "mild cracks" that are progressing though
our wing roots at this time. when the wings have detached, the cabin
crew will hand out hard candy to suck to assist with cabin
pressurization differences as we re-adjust our altitude. we hope you
enjoy your flight.

Quoted message said:

Well Jim, in military aircraft, small cracks are very common, and can
be found in everything from wing spars to the aluminum skin.

but with respect, it's a matter of where. if it's just a skin panel in
a non-critical location [not a leading edge], fine. spars, it depends
where. definitely not in a root.

base of attach points for F-14 rudders, wing spar of F-16...NOT a skin
panel.

Quoted message said:

you forget - there's different safety criteria for the military. and
the equipment is operated on the bleeding edge.

The safety criteria for the military is more strict than the civilian
world, not less. The rigors the A/C are subjected to demands this.
Cracks that would make the mere civilian cringe are not uncommon at
all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Small
cracks in civilian aircraft are not uncommon either and as you can see
from the news, seldom result in wings coming off.

Quoted message said:

For the OP, yes, sand or otherwise remove/reduce the cracks..just like
aviation wrenches do on aircraft.

i strongly disagree. those "mild cracks" are located precisely where
they progress into this kind of failure - not something to ignore.

Many of these cranks have been ridden for miles, with cracks, w/o
failure. Many more have had these 'stopped', and ridden for many more
miles. To imply that failure is imminent is not true, any more than a
crack in a ruder or wing spar means that piece is going to break off.
The OP is not ignoring them, he is asking if removing the cracks, much
like A/C cracks are stop drilled, is appropriate and it is.

Quoted message said:

http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/images/images_cc/ccf11_2.jpg
from:http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/mem_ccf4.htm

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

jim beam said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

On May 11, 9:37 pm, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:
> [email hidden] wrote:
>> I noticed two very small cracks at the junction between the spider
>> arms and the crank, no more than a 1/16" to 1/8" in length. Jobst
>> says,
>> "The trailing spider leg adjacent to the crank generally has a
>> thin web that connects it to the more rigid shaft of the crank, while
>> the three preceding legs are more flexible, stress is concentrated at
>> this web. These cracks are relatively benign because they are easily
>> seen and rarely progress to failure."
>> Should I file and then sand the cracks out before they get worse, or
>> leave them? Does anyone have any experience with this? The cranks are
>> NR.
>> Thanks
> thank you for flying self-deception airways, this is your captain
> speaking. please ignore the "mild cracks" that are progressing though
> our wing roots at this time. when the wings have detached, the cabin
> crew will hand out hard candy to suck to assist with cabin
> pressurization differences as we re-adjust our altitude. we hope you
> enjoy your flight.
Well Jim, in military aircraft, small cracks are very common, and can
be found in everything from wing spars to the aluminum skin.

but with respect, it's a matter of where. if it's just a skin panel in
a non-critical location [not a leading edge], fine. spars, it depends
where. definitely not in a root.

base of attach points for F-14 rudders, wing spar of F-16...NOT a skin
panel.

Quoted message said:

you forget - there's different safety criteria for the military. and
the equipment is operated on the bleeding edge.

The safety criteria for the military is more strict than the civilian
world, not less. The rigors the A/C are subjected to demands this.
Cracks that would make the mere civilian cringe are not uncommon at
all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Small
cracks in civilian aircraft are not uncommon either and as you can see
from the news, seldom result in wings coming off.
For the OP, yes, sand or otherwise remove/reduce the cracks..just like
aviation wrenches do on aircraft.

i strongly disagree. those "mild cracks" are located precisely where
they progress into this kind of failure - not something to ignore.

Many of these cranks have been ridden for miles, with cracks, w/o
failure. Many more have had these 'stopped', and ridden for many more
miles. To imply that failure is imminent is not true, any more than a
crack in a ruder or wing spar means that piece is going to break off.
The OP is not ignoring them, he is asking if removing the cracks, much
like A/C cracks are stop drilled, is appropriate and it is.

Quoted message said:

http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/images/images_cc/ccf11_2.jpg
from:http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/mem_ccf4.htm

ok, there's repaired as in to proper spec and there's repaired to a
standard considered battleworthy. stop drilling is the latter. for an
air frame with maybe 1,000 hours life expectancy, that might be
acceptable. for a 747 with an airframe life expectancy measured above
100,000 hours, it's not.

returning to the crank, filing the surface to make the cracks invisible
isn't going to make them actually disappear. or prevent reappearance.
the solution is replacement, pure and simple. you see these cranks at
swap meets, with cracks, all the time. if you personally want to buy
and ride, go ahead. i think recommending their continued use to others
is reckless and irresponsible.

jim beam said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

jim beam said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> On May 11, 9:37 pm, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> [email hidden] wrote:
>>> I noticed two very small cracks at the junction between the spider
>>> arms and the crank, no more than a 1/16" to 1/8" in length. Jobst
>>> says,
>>> "The trailing spider leg adjacent to the crank generally has a
>>> thin web that connects it to the more rigid shaft of the crank, while
>>> the three preceding legs are more flexible, stress is concentrated at
>>> this web. These cracks are relatively benign because they are easily
>>> seen and rarely progress to failure."
>>> Should I file and then sand the cracks out before they get worse, or
>>> leave them? Does anyone have any experience with this? The cranks are
>>> NR.
>>> Thanks
>> thank you for flying self-deception airways, this is your captain
>> speaking. please ignore the "mild cracks" that are progressing though
>> our wing roots at this time. when the wings have detached, the cabin
>> crew will hand out hard candy to suck to assist with cabin
>> pressurization differences as we re-adjust our altitude. we hope you
>> enjoy your flight.
> Well Jim, in military aircraft, small cracks are very common, and can
> be found in everything from wing spars to the aluminum skin.
but with respect, it's a matter of where. if it's just a skin panel in
a non-critical location [not a leading edge], fine. spars, it depends
where. definitely not in a root.

Quoted message said:

base of attach points for F-14 rudders, wing spar of F-16...NOT a skin
panel.

Quoted message said:

you forget - there's different safety criteria for the military. and
the equipment is operated on the bleeding edge.

Quoted message said:

The safety criteria for the military is more strict than the civilian
world, not less. The rigors the A/C are subjected to demands this.
Cracks that would make the mere civilian cringe are not uncommon at
all.

Quoted message said:

> Small
> cracks in civilian aircraft are not uncommon either and as you can see
> from the news, seldom result in wings coming off.
> For the OP, yes, sand or otherwise remove/reduce the cracks..just like
> aviation wrenches do on aircraft.
i strongly disagree. those "mild cracks" are located precisely where
they progress into this kind of failure - not something to ignore.

Quoted message said:

Many of these cranks have been ridden for miles, with cracks, w/o
failure. Many more have had these 'stopped', and ridden for many more
miles. To imply that failure is imminent is not true, any more than a
crack in a ruder or wing spar means that piece is going to break off.
The OP is not ignoring them, he is asking if removing the cracks, much
like A/C cracks are stop drilled, is appropriate and it is.

Quoted message said:

http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/images/images_cc/ccf11_2.jpg
from:http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/mem_ccf4.htm

ok, there's repaired as in to proper spec and there's repaired to a
standard considered battleworthy. stop drilling is the latter. for an
air frame with maybe 1,000 hours life expectancy, that might be
acceptable. for a 747 with an airframe life expectancy measured above
100,000 hours, it's not.

Well, Jim, you imply that quick stop repair of military aircraft is
common place, it is not. Milspec aircraft maintenance is much more
rigorous than civilian. Military aircraft, with service lives measured
in decades, also have logbooks with aircraft hours measured in the
many thousands. In modern combat, just 'keeping them flying' at any
cost are the things of John Wayne movies, not reality. A poorly
maintained A/C in combat is much more likely to get the aircrew killed
and not kill the bad guy than a well maintained one. Done with this
thread..you are too eager to argue, this thread along with the hard
anodized thread. I imagine you sitting at your keyboard
shouting...adios.

Quoted message said:

returning to the crank, filing the surface to make the cracks invisible
isn't going to make them actually disappear. or prevent reappearance.
the solution is replacement, pure and simple. you see these cranks at
swap meets, with cracks, all the time. if you personally want to buy
and ride, go ahead. i think recommending their continued use to others
is reckless and irresponsible.

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

jim beam said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

On May 12, 6:46 am, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>> On May 11, 9:37 pm, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>> [email hidden] wrote:
>>>> I noticed two very small cracks at the junction between the spider
>>>> arms and the crank, no more than a 1/16" to 1/8" in length. Jobst
>>>> says,
>>>> "The trailing spider leg adjacent to the crank generally has a
>>>> thin web that connects it to the more rigid shaft of the crank, while
>>>> the three preceding legs are more flexible, stress is concentrated at
>>>> this web. These cracks are relatively benign because they are easily
>>>> seen and rarely progress to failure."
>>>> Should I file and then sand the cracks out before they get worse, or
>>>> leave them? Does anyone have any experience with this? The cranks are
>>>> NR.
>>>> Thanks
>>> thank you for flying self-deception airways, this is your captain
>>> speaking. please ignore the "mild cracks" that are progressing though
>>> our wing roots at this time. when the wings have detached, the cabin
>>> crew will hand out hard candy to suck to assist with cabin
>>> pressurization differences as we re-adjust our altitude. we hope you
>>> enjoy your flight.
>> Well Jim, in military aircraft, small cracks are very common, and can
>> be found in everything from wing spars to the aluminum skin.
> but with respect, it's a matter of where. if it's just a skin panel in
> a non-critical location [not a leading edge], fine. spars, it depends
> where. definitely not in a root.
base of attach points for F-14 rudders, wing spar of F-16...NOT a skin
panel.
> you forget - there's different safety criteria for the military. and
> the equipment is operated on the bleeding edge.
The safety criteria for the military is more strict than the civilian
world, not less. The rigors the A/C are subjected to demands this.
Cracks that would make the mere civilian cringe are not uncommon at
all.
>> Small
>> cracks in civilian aircraft are not uncommon either and as you can see
>> from the news, seldom result in wings coming off.
>> For the OP, yes, sand or otherwise remove/reduce the cracks..just like
>> aviation wrenches do on aircraft.
> i strongly disagree. those "mild cracks" are located precisely where
> they progress into this kind of failure - not something to ignore.
Many of these cranks have been ridden for miles, with cracks, w/o
failure. Many more have had these 'stopped', and ridden for many more
miles. To imply that failure is imminent is not true, any more than a
crack in a ruder or wing spar means that piece is going to break off.
The OP is not ignoring them, he is asking if removing the cracks, much
like A/C cracks are stop drilled, is appropriate and it is.
> http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/images/images_cc/ccf11_2.jpg
> from:http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/mem_ccf4.htm

ok, there's repaired as in to proper spec and there's repaired to a
standard considered battleworthy. stop drilling is the latter. for an
air frame with maybe 1,000 hours life expectancy, that might be
acceptable. for a 747 with an airframe life expectancy measured above
100,000 hours, it's not.

Well, Jim, you imply that quick stop repair of military aircraft is
common place, it is not. Milspec aircraft maintenance is much more
rigorous than civilian. Military aircraft, with service lives measured
in decades, also have logbooks with aircraft hours measured in the
many thousands. In modern combat, just 'keeping them flying' at any
cost are the things of John Wayne movies, not reality. A poorly
maintained A/C in combat is much more likely to get the aircrew killed
and not kill the bad guy than a well maintained one. Done with this
thread..you are too eager to argue, this thread along with the hard
anodized thread. I imagine you sitting at your keyboard
shouting...adios.

with the greatest of respect, i used to - oh, what's the point.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

returning to the crank, filing the surface to make the cracks invisible
isn't going to make them actually disappear. or prevent reappearance.
the solution is replacement, pure and simple. you see these cranks at
swap meets, with cracks, all the time. if you personally want to buy
and ride, go ahead. i think recommending their continued use to others
is reckless and irresponsible.

i still stand by that - cracked equipment is going to fail. there is no
"if", simply "when".

jim beam said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

jim beam said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

> On May 12, 6:46 am, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>>> On May 11, 9:37 pm, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>> [email hidden] wrote:
>>>>> I noticed two very small cracks at the junction between the spider
>>>>> arms and the crank, no more than a 1/16" to 1/8" in length. Jobst
>>>>> says,
>>>>> "The trailing spider leg adjacent to the crank generally has a
>>>>> thin web that connects it to the more rigid shaft of the crank, while
>>>>> the three preceding legs are more flexible, stress is concentrated at
>>>>> this web. These cracks are relatively benign because they are easily
>>>>> seen and rarely progress to failure."
>>>>> Should I file and then sand the cracks out before they get worse, or
>>>>> leave them? Does anyone have any experience with this? The cranks are
>>>>> NR.
>>>>> Thanks
>>>> thank you for flying self-deception airways, this is your captain
>>>> speaking. please ignore the "mild cracks" that are progressing though
>>>> our wing roots at this time. when the wings have detached, the cabin
>>>> crew will hand out hard candy to suck to assist with cabin
>>>> pressurization differences as we re-adjust our altitude. we hope you
>>>> enjoy your flight.
>>> Well Jim, in military aircraft, small cracks are very common, and can
>>> be found in everything from wing spars to the aluminum skin.
>> but with respect, it's a matter of where. if it's just a skin panel in
>> a non-critical location [not a leading edge], fine. spars, it depends
>> where. definitely not in a root.
> base of attach points for F-14 rudders, wing spar of F-16...NOT a skin
> panel.
>> you forget - there's different safety criteria for the military. and
>> the equipment is operated on the bleeding edge.
> The safety criteria for the military is more strict than the civilian
> world, not less. The rigors the A/C are subjected to demands this.
> Cracks that would make the mere civilian cringe are not uncommon at
> all.
>>> Small
>>> cracks in civilian aircraft are not uncommon either and as you can see
>>> from the news, seldom result in wings coming off.
>>> For the OP, yes, sand or otherwise remove/reduce the cracks..just like
>>> aviation wrenches do on aircraft.
>> i strongly disagree. those "mild cracks" are located precisely where
>> they progress into this kind of failure - not something to ignore.
> Many of these cranks have been ridden for miles, with cracks, w/o
> failure. Many more have had these 'stopped', and ridden for many more
> miles. To imply that failure is imminent is not true, any more than a
> crack in a ruder or wing spar means that piece is going to break off.
> The OP is not ignoring them, he is asking if removing the cracks, much
> like A/C cracks are stop drilled, is appropriate and it is.
>> http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/images/images_cc/ccf11_2.jpg
>> from:http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/mem_ccf4.htm
ok, there's repaired as in to proper spec and there's repaired to a
standard considered battleworthy. stop drilling is the latter. for an
air frame with maybe 1,000 hours life expectancy, that might be
acceptable. for a 747 with an airframe life expectancy measured above
100,000 hours, it's not.

Well, Jim, you imply that quick stop repair of military aircraft is
common place, it is not. Milspec aircraft maintenance is much more
rigorous than civilian. Military aircraft, with service lives measured
in decades, also have logbooks with aircraft hours measured in the
many thousands. In modern combat, just 'keeping them flying' at any
cost are the things of John Wayne movies, not reality. A poorly
maintained A/C in combat is much more likely to get the aircrew killed
and not kill the bad guy than a well maintained one. Done with this
thread..you are too eager to argue, this thread along with the hard
anodized thread. I imagine you sitting at your keyboard
shouting...adios.

with the greatest of respect, i used to - oh, what's the point.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

returning to the crank, filing the surface to make the cracks invisible
isn't going to make them actually disappear. or prevent reappearance.
the solution is replacement, pure and simple. you see these cranks at
swap meets, with cracks, all the time. if you personally want to buy
and ride, go ahead. i think recommending their continued use to others
is reckless and irresponsible.

i still stand by that - cracked equipment is going to fail. there is no
"if", simply "when".

And thus cracked anodizing leads to rim failure. If not, why not?

Gary Young said:

jim beam said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

On May 12, 12:13 pm, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
>
>
>> On May 12, 6:46 am, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>>>> On May 11, 9:37 pm, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>> [email hidden] wrote:
>>>>>> I noticed two very small cracks at the junction between the spider
>>>>>> arms and the crank, no more than a 1/16" to 1/8" in length. Jobst
>>>>>> says,
>>>>>> "The trailing spider leg adjacent to the crank generally has a
>>>>>> thin web that connects it to the more rigid shaft of the crank, while
>>>>>> the three preceding legs are more flexible, stress is concentrated at
>>>>>> this web. These cracks are relatively benign because they are easily
>>>>>> seen and rarely progress to failure."
>>>>>> Should I file and then sand the cracks out before they get worse, or
>>>>>> leave them? Does anyone have any experience with this? The cranks are
>>>>>> NR.
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> thank you for flying self-deception airways, this is your captain
>>>>> speaking. please ignore the "mild cracks" that are progressing though
>>>>> our wing roots at this time. when the wings have detached, the cabin
>>>>> crew will hand out hard candy to suck to assist with cabin
>>>>> pressurization differences as we re-adjust our altitude. we hope you
>>>>> enjoy your flight.
>>>> Well Jim, in military aircraft, small cracks are very common, and can
>>>> be found in everything from wing spars to the aluminum skin.
>>> but with respect, it's a matter of where. if it's just a skin panel in
>>> a non-critical location [not a leading edge], fine. spars, it depends
>>> where. definitely not in a root.
>> base of attach points for F-14 rudders, wing spar of F-16...NOT a skin
>> panel.
>>> you forget - there's different safety criteria for the military. and
>>> the equipment is operated on the bleeding edge.
>> The safety criteria for the military is more strict than the civilian
>> world, not less. The rigors the A/C are subjected to demands this.
>> Cracks that would make the mere civilian cringe are not uncommon at
>> all.
>>>> Small
>>>> cracks in civilian aircraft are not uncommon either and as you can see
>>>> from the news, seldom result in wings coming off.
>>>> For the OP, yes, sand or otherwise remove/reduce the cracks..just like
>>>> aviation wrenches do on aircraft.
>>> i strongly disagree. those "mild cracks" are located precisely where
>>> they progress into this kind of failure - not something to ignore.
>> Many of these cranks have been ridden for miles, with cracks, w/o
>> failure. Many more have had these 'stopped', and ridden for many more
>> miles. To imply that failure is imminent is not true, any more than a
>> crack in a ruder or wing spar means that piece is going to break off.
>> The OP is not ignoring them, he is asking if removing the cracks, much
>> like A/C cracks are stop drilled, is appropriate and it is.
>>> http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/images/images_cc/ccf11_2.jpg
>>> from:http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/mem_ccf4.htm
> ok, there's repaired as in to proper spec and there's repaired to a
> standard considered battleworthy. stop drilling is the latter. for an
> air frame with maybe 1,000 hours life expectancy, that might be
> acceptable. for a 747 with an airframe life expectancy measured above
> 100,000 hours, it's not.
Well, Jim, you imply that quick stop repair of military aircraft is
common place, it is not. Milspec aircraft maintenance is much more
rigorous than civilian. Military aircraft, with service lives measured
in decades, also have logbooks with aircraft hours measured in the
many thousands. In modern combat, just 'keeping them flying' at any
cost are the things of John Wayne movies, not reality. A poorly
maintained A/C in combat is much more likely to get the aircrew killed
and not kill the bad guy than a well maintained one. Done with this
thread..you are too eager to argue, this thread along with the hard
anodized thread. I imagine you sitting at your keyboard
shouting...adios.

with the greatest of respect, i used to - oh, what's the point.

Quoted message said:

> returning to the crank, filing the surface to make the cracks invisible
> isn't going to make them actually disappear. or prevent reappearance.
> the solution is replacement, pure and simple. you see these cranks at
> swap meets, with cracks, all the time. if you personally want to buy
> and ride, go ahead. i think recommending their continued use to others
> is reckless and irresponsible.

i still stand by that - cracked equipment is going to fail. there is no
"if", simply "when".

And thus cracked anodizing leads to rim failure. If not, why not?

er, because cracked anodizing is not cracked aluminum...

jim beam said:

Gary Young said:

jim beam said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> On May 12, 12:13 pm, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 12, 6:46 am, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>>>>> On May 11, 9:37 pm, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>>> [email hidden] wrote:
>>>>>>> I noticed two very small cracks at the junction between the spider
>>>>>>> arms and the crank, no more than a 1/16" to 1/8" in length. Jobst
>>>>>>> says,
>>>>>>> "The trailing spider leg adjacent to the crank generally has a
>>>>>>> thin web that connects it to the more rigid shaft of the crank, while
>>>>>>> the three preceding legs are more flexible, stress is concentrated at
>>>>>>> this web. These cracks are relatively benign because they are easily
>>>>>>> seen and rarely progress to failure."
>>>>>>> Should I file and then sand the cracks out before they get worse, or
>>>>>>> leave them? Does anyone have any experience with this? The cranks are
>>>>>>> NR.
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> thank you for flying self-deception airways, this is your captain
>>>>>> speaking. please ignore the "mild cracks" that are progressing though
>>>>>> our wing roots at this time. when the wings have detached, the cabin
>>>>>> crew will hand out hard candy to suck to assist with cabin
>>>>>> pressurization differences as we re-adjust our altitude. we hope you
>>>>>> enjoy your flight.
>>>>> Well Jim, in military aircraft, small cracks are very common, and can
>>>>> be found in everything from wing spars to the aluminum skin.
>>>> but with respect, it's a matter of where. if it's just a skin panel in
>>>> a non-critical location [not a leading edge], fine. spars, it depends
>>>> where. definitely not in a root.
>>> base of attach points for F-14 rudders, wing spar of F-16...NOT a skin
>>> panel.
>>>> you forget - there's different safety criteria for the military. and
>>>> the equipment is operated on the bleeding edge.
>>> The safety criteria for the military is more strict than the civilian
>>> world, not less. The rigors the A/C are subjected to demands this.
>>> Cracks that would make the mere civilian cringe are not uncommon at
>>> all.
>>>>> Small
>>>>> cracks in civilian aircraft are not uncommon either and as you can see
>>>>> from the news, seldom result in wings coming off.
>>>>> For the OP, yes, sand or otherwise remove/reduce the cracks..just like
>>>>> aviation wrenches do on aircraft.
>>>> i strongly disagree. those "mild cracks" are located precisely where
>>>> they progress into this kind of failure - not something to ignore.
>>> Many of these cranks have been ridden for miles, with cracks, w/o
>>> failure. Many more have had these 'stopped', and ridden for many more
>>> miles. To imply that failure is imminent is not true, any more than a
>>> crack in a ruder or wing spar means that piece is going to break off.
>>> The OP is not ignoring them, he is asking if removing the cracks, much
>>> like A/C cracks are stop drilled, is appropriate and it is.
>>>> http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/images/images_cc/ccf11_2.jpg
>>>> from:http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/mem_ccf4.htm
>> ok, there's repaired as in to proper spec and there's repaired to a
>> standard considered battleworthy. stop drilling is the latter. for an
>> air frame with maybe 1,000 hours life expectancy, that might be
>> acceptable. for a 747 with an airframe life expectancy measured above
>> 100,000 hours, it's not.
> Well, Jim, you imply that quick stop repair of military aircraft is
> common place, it is not. Milspec aircraft maintenance is much more
> rigorous than civilian. Military aircraft, with service lives measured
> in decades, also have logbooks with aircraft hours measured in the
> many thousands. In modern combat, just 'keeping them flying' at any
> cost are the things of John Wayne movies, not reality. A poorly
> maintained A/C in combat is much more likely to get the aircrew killed
> and not kill the bad guy than a well maintained one. Done with this
> thread..you are too eager to argue, this thread along with the hard
> anodized thread. I imagine you sitting at your keyboard
> shouting...adios.
with the greatest of respect, i used to - oh, what's the point.

>> returning to the crank, filing the surface to make the cracks invisible
>> isn't going to make them actually disappear. or prevent reappearance.
>> the solution is replacement, pure and simple. you see these cranks at
>> swap meets, with cracks, all the time. if you personally want to buy
>> and ride, go ahead. i think recommending their continued use to others
>> is reckless and irresponsible.
i still stand by that - cracked equipment is going to fail. there is no
"if", simply "when".

And thus cracked anodizing leads to rim failure. If not, why not?

er, because cracked anodizing is not cracked aluminum...

er, in the "Mavic Open Pro" thread, you've conceded that anodizing reduces
the fatigue life of aluminum. How does that happen if not by anodizing
cracks propagating into the underlying aluminum?

Gary Young said:

jim beam said:

Gary Young said:

On Sun, 13 May 2007 09:40:58 -0700, jim beam wrote:

> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>> On May 12, 12:13 pm, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On May 12, 6:46 am, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>>>>>> On May 11, 9:37 pm, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>>>> [email hidden] wrote:
>>>>>>>> I noticed two very small cracks at the junction between the spider
>>>>>>>> arms and the crank, no more than a 1/16" to 1/8" in length. Jobst
>>>>>>>> says,
>>>>>>>> "The trailing spider leg adjacent to the crank generally has a
>>>>>>>> thin web that connects it to the more rigid shaft of the crank, while
>>>>>>>> the three preceding legs are more flexible, stress is concentrated at
>>>>>>>> this web. These cracks are relatively benign because they are easily
>>>>>>>> seen and rarely progress to failure."
>>>>>>>> Should I file and then sand the cracks out before they get worse, or
>>>>>>>> leave them? Does anyone have any experience with this? The cranks are
>>>>>>>> NR.
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> thank you for flying self-deception airways, this is your captain
>>>>>>> speaking. please ignore the "mild cracks" that are progressing though
>>>>>>> our wing roots at this time. when the wings have detached, the cabin
>>>>>>> crew will hand out hard candy to suck to assist with cabin
>>>>>>> pressurization differences as we re-adjust our altitude. we hope you
>>>>>>> enjoy your flight.
>>>>>> Well Jim, in military aircraft, small cracks are very common, and can
>>>>>> be found in everything from wing spars to the aluminum skin.
>>>>> but with respect, it's a matter of where. if it's just a skin panel in
>>>>> a non-critical location [not a leading edge], fine. spars, it depends
>>>>> where. definitely not in a root.
>>>> base of attach points for F-14 rudders, wing spar of F-16...NOT a skin
>>>> panel.
>>>>> you forget - there's different safety criteria for the military. and
>>>>> the equipment is operated on the bleeding edge.
>>>> The safety criteria for the military is more strict than the civilian
>>>> world, not less. The rigors the A/C are subjected to demands this.
>>>> Cracks that would make the mere civilian cringe are not uncommon at
>>>> all.
>>>>>> Small
>>>>>> cracks in civilian aircraft are not uncommon either and as you can see
>>>>>> from the news, seldom result in wings coming off.
>>>>>> For the OP, yes, sand or otherwise remove/reduce the cracks..just like
>>>>>> aviation wrenches do on aircraft.
>>>>> i strongly disagree. those "mild cracks" are located precisely where
>>>>> they progress into this kind of failure - not something to ignore.
>>>> Many of these cranks have been ridden for miles, with cracks, w/o
>>>> failure. Many more have had these 'stopped', and ridden for many more
>>>> miles. To imply that failure is imminent is not true, any more than a
>>>> crack in a ruder or wing spar means that piece is going to break off.
>>>> The OP is not ignoring them, he is asking if removing the cracks, much
>>>> like A/C cracks are stop drilled, is appropriate and it is.
>>>>> http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/images/images_cc/ccf11_2.jpg
>>>>> from:http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/mem_ccf4.htm
>>> ok, there's repaired as in to proper spec and there's repaired to a
>>> standard considered battleworthy. stop drilling is the latter. for an
>>> air frame with maybe 1,000 hours life expectancy, that might be
>>> acceptable. for a 747 with an airframe life expectancy measured above
>>> 100,000 hours, it's not.
>> Well, Jim, you imply that quick stop repair of military aircraft is
>> common place, it is not. Milspec aircraft maintenance is much more
>> rigorous than civilian. Military aircraft, with service lives measured
>> in decades, also have logbooks with aircraft hours measured in the
>> many thousands. In modern combat, just 'keeping them flying' at any
>> cost are the things of John Wayne movies, not reality. A poorly
>> maintained A/C in combat is much more likely to get the aircrew killed
>> and not kill the bad guy than a well maintained one. Done with this
>> thread..you are too eager to argue, this thread along with the hard
>> anodized thread. I imagine you sitting at your keyboard
>> shouting...adios.
> with the greatest of respect, i used to - oh, what's the point.
>
>>> returning to the crank, filing the surface to make the cracks invisible
>>> isn't going to make them actually disappear. or prevent reappearance.
>>> the solution is replacement, pure and simple. you see these cranks at
>>> swap meets, with cracks, all the time. if you personally want to buy
>>> and ride, go ahead. i think recommending their continued use to others
>>> is reckless and irresponsible.
> i still stand by that - cracked equipment is going to fail. there is no
> "if", simply "when".
And thus cracked anodizing leads to rim failure. If not, why not?

er, because cracked anodizing is not cracked aluminum...

er, in the "Mavic Open Pro" thread, you've conceded that anodizing reduces
the fatigue life of aluminum.

you're putting words into my mouth - i said it /can/, not that it
/does/. there is a distinction. just like bearings /can/ false
brinell. it doesn't mean that they /do/.

Quoted message said:

How does that happen if not by anodizing
cracks propagating into the underlying aluminum?

because cracked anodizing is not cracked aluminum. assuming that
because something /can/ means something /does/ is the fundamental
mistake jobst makes repeatedly.

jim beam said:

Gary Young said:

jim beam said:

Gary Young wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2007 09:40:58 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>>> On May 12, 12:13 pm, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On May 12, 6:46 am, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 11, 9:37 pm, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> [email hidden] wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I noticed two very small cracks at the junction between the spider
>>>>>>>>> arms and the crank, no more than a 1/16" to 1/8" in length. Jobst
>>>>>>>>> says,
>>>>>>>>> "The trailing spider leg adjacent to the crank generally has a
>>>>>>>>> thin web that connects it to the more rigid shaft of the crank, while
>>>>>>>>> the three preceding legs are more flexible, stress is concentrated at
>>>>>>>>> this web. These cracks are relatively benign because they are easily
>>>>>>>>> seen and rarely progress to failure."
>>>>>>>>> Should I file and then sand the cracks out before they get worse, or
>>>>>>>>> leave them? Does anyone have any experience with this? The cranks are
>>>>>>>>> NR.
>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> thank you for flying self-deception airways, this is your captain
>>>>>>>> speaking. please ignore the "mild cracks" that are progressing though
>>>>>>>> our wing roots at this time. when the wings have detached, the cabin
>>>>>>>> crew will hand out hard candy to suck to assist with cabin
>>>>>>>> pressurization differences as we re-adjust our altitude. we hope you
>>>>>>>> enjoy your flight.
>>>>>>> Well Jim, in military aircraft, small cracks are very common, and can
>>>>>>> be found in everything from wing spars to the aluminum skin.
>>>>>> but with respect, it's a matter of where. if it's just a skin panel in
>>>>>> a non-critical location [not a leading edge], fine. spars, it depends
>>>>>> where. definitely not in a root.
>>>>> base of attach points for F-14 rudders, wing spar of F-16...NOT a skin
>>>>> panel.
>>>>>> you forget - there's different safety criteria for the military. and
>>>>>> the equipment is operated on the bleeding edge.
>>>>> The safety criteria for the military is more strict than the civilian
>>>>> world, not less. The rigors the A/C are subjected to demands this.
>>>>> Cracks that would make the mere civilian cringe are not uncommon at
>>>>> all.
>>>>>>> Small
>>>>>>> cracks in civilian aircraft are not uncommon either and as you can see
>>>>>>> from the news, seldom result in wings coming off.
>>>>>>> For the OP, yes, sand or otherwise remove/reduce the cracks..just like
>>>>>>> aviation wrenches do on aircraft.
>>>>>> i strongly disagree. those "mild cracks" are located precisely where
>>>>>> they progress into this kind of failure - not something to ignore.
>>>>> Many of these cranks have been ridden for miles, with cracks, w/o
>>>>> failure. Many more have had these 'stopped', and ridden for many more
>>>>> miles. To imply that failure is imminent is not true, any more than a
>>>>> crack in a ruder or wing spar means that piece is going to break off.
>>>>> The OP is not ignoring them, he is asking if removing the cracks, much
>>>>> like A/C cracks are stop drilled, is appropriate and it is.
>>>>>> http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/images/images_cc/ccf11_2.jpg
>>>>>> from:http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/mem_ccf4.htm
>>>> ok, there's repaired as in to proper spec and there's repaired to a
>>>> standard considered battleworthy. stop drilling is the latter. for an
>>>> air frame with maybe 1,000 hours life expectancy, that might be
>>>> acceptable. for a 747 with an airframe life expectancy measured above
>>>> 100,000 hours, it's not.
>>> Well, Jim, you imply that quick stop repair of military aircraft is
>>> common place, it is not. Milspec aircraft maintenance is much more
>>> rigorous than civilian. Military aircraft, with service lives measured
>>> in decades, also have logbooks with aircraft hours measured in the
>>> many thousands. In modern combat, just 'keeping them flying' at any
>>> cost are the things of John Wayne movies, not reality. A poorly
>>> maintained A/C in combat is much more likely to get the aircrew killed
>>> and not kill the bad guy than a well maintained one. Done with this
>>> thread..you are too eager to argue, this thread along with the hard
>>> anodized thread. I imagine you sitting at your keyboard
>>> shouting...adios.
>> with the greatest of respect, i used to - oh, what's the point.
>>
>>>> returning to the crank, filing the surface to make the cracks invisible
>>>> isn't going to make them actually disappear. or prevent reappearance.
>>>> the solution is replacement, pure and simple. you see these cranks at
>>>> swap meets, with cracks, all the time. if you personally want to buy
>>>> and ride, go ahead. i think recommending their continued use to others
>>>> is reckless and irresponsible.
>> i still stand by that - cracked equipment is going to fail. there is no
>> "if", simply "when".
> And thus cracked anodizing leads to rim failure. If not, why not?
er, because cracked anodizing is not cracked aluminum...

er, in the "Mavic Open Pro" thread, you've conceded that anodizing reduces
the fatigue life of aluminum.

you're putting words into my mouth - i said it /can/, not that it
/does/. there is a distinction. just like bearings /can/ false
brinell. it doesn't mean that they /do/.

Quoted message said:

How does that happen if not by anodizing
cracks propagating into the underlying aluminum?

because cracked anodizing is not cracked aluminum. assuming that
because something /can/ means something /does/ is the fundamental
mistake jobst makes repeatedly.

When anodizing cracks DO contribute to a reduced fatigue life of aluminum,
how do they do so? Or is it now your position that anodizing CAN reduce
the fatigue life of aluminum, but never does so in actual fact?

Dewar's White Label said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> i still stand by that - cracked equipment is going to fail.
>> there is no "if", simply "when".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> And thus cracked anodizing leads to rim failure. If not, why not?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

er, because cracked anodizing is not cracked aluminum...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

er, in the "Mavic Open Pro" thread, you've conceded that anodizing
reduces the fatigue life of aluminum.

Quoted message said:

you're putting words into my mouth - i said it /can/, not that it
/does/. there is a distinction. just like bearings /can/ false
brinell. it doesn't mean that they /do/.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How does that happen if not by anodizing cracks propagating into
the underlying aluminum?

Quoted message said:

because cracked anodizing is not cracked aluminum. assuming that
because something /can/ means something /does/ is the fundamental
mistake jobst makes repeatedly.

Oops! I see we are on the slippery slope and gaining speed. Next
thing may be that spoke tension "may" have an effect on wheel
strength. Wonders never cease!

Jobst Brandt

Quoted message said:

Dewar's White Label said:

Quoted message said:

>>> i still stand by that - cracked equipment is going to fail.
>>> there is no "if", simply "when".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> And thus cracked anodizing leads to rim failure. If not, why not?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> er, because cracked anodizing is not cracked aluminum...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

er, in the "Mavic Open Pro" thread, you've conceded that anodizing
reduces the fatigue life of aluminum.

Quoted message said:

you're putting words into my mouth - i said it /can/, not that it
/does/. there is a distinction. just like bearings /can/ false
brinell. it doesn't mean that they /do/.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How does that happen if not by anodizing cracks propagating into
the underlying aluminum?

Quoted message said:

because cracked anodizing is not cracked aluminum. assuming that
because something /can/ means something /does/ is the fundamental
mistake jobst makes repeatedly.

Oops! I see we are on the slippery slope and gaining speed. Next
thing may be that spoke tension "may" have an effect on wheel
strength. Wonders never cease!

from a guy that thinks a dye penetrant test somehow differentiates
cracking initiators, that's not a very smart comment.

Gary Young wrote:

<snip endless repetition on which absolutely /no/ progress seems to be
being made>

Quoted message said:

Even more naive would be to accept the word of an anonymous internet crank
over that of an engineer.

i've asked you this before but you never answered. what would you think
of jobst's writings if he didn't /tell/ you he was an engineer?
particularly in view of fundamental mistake?

In article <[email hidden]>,

jim beam said:

<snip endless repetition on which absolutely /no/ progress seems to
be being made>

That would be because you can't frame a coherent argument and cannot
back many of your claims up with facts, so instead you resort to
mulishness, insults and invective.

Quoted message said:

I noticed two very small cracks at the junction between the spider
arms and the crank, no more than a 1/16" to 1/8" in length. Jobst
says,
"The trailing spider leg adjacent to the crank generally has a
thin web that connects it to the more rigid shaft of the crank, while
the three preceding legs are more flexible, stress is concentrated at
this web. These cracks are relatively benign because they are easily
seen and rarely progress to failure."
Should I file and then sand the cracks out before they get worse, or
leave them? Does anyone have any experience with this? The cranks are
NR.

Here is an interesting picture: http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/mem_ccf4.htm

This of course is an old NR crank which were notorious for failing. I
had a couple break just like this one, and several others above the
pedal eye. I think the principal failure mode for Jobst was through
the pedal eye, and thus his conical-washer fix. According to the
author of this page, the crack initiated at the crotch in the spider
between the arm and the trailing leg. I have not heard of modern
cranks failing in the same way, although one always wants to keep an
eye on cracks. Clicking and snapping sounds also can be a cue, usually
a very late one. -- Jay Beattie.

Jay Beattie said:

Quoted message said:

I noticed two very small cracks at the junction between the spider
arms and the crank, no more than a 1/16" to 1/8" in length. Jobst
says,
"The trailing spider leg adjacent to the crank generally has a
thin web that connects it to the more rigid shaft of the crank, while
the three preceding legs are more flexible, stress is concentrated at
this web. These cracks are relatively benign because they are easily
seen and rarely progress to failure."
Should I file and then sand the cracks out before they get worse, or
leave them? Does anyone have any experience with this? The cranks are
NR.

Here is an interesting picture:http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/mem_ccf4.htm

This of course is an old NR crank which were notorious for failing. I
had a couple break just like this one, and several others above the
pedal eye. I think the principal failure mode for Jobst was through
the pedal eye, and thus his conical-washer fix. According to the
author of this page, the crack initiated at the crotch in the spider
between the arm and the trailing leg. I have not heard of modern
cranks failing in the same way, although one always wants to keep an
eye on cracks. Clicking and snapping sounds also can be a cue, usually
a very late one. -- Jay Beattie.

Hate to post on myself, but I shouldn't have said the author said the
crack started at the trailing leg. He just said between the spider and
the crank arm. -- Jay Beattie.

Jay Beattie said:

Quoted message said:

I noticed two very small cracks at the junction between the spider
arms and the crank, no more than a 1/16" to 1/8" in length. Jobst
says,
"The trailing spider leg adjacent to the crank generally has a
thin web that connects it to the more rigid shaft of the crank, while
the three preceding legs are more flexible, stress is concentrated at
this web. These cracks are relatively benign because they are easily
seen and rarely progress to failure."
Should I file and then sand the cracks out before they get worse, or
leave them? Does anyone have any experience with this? The cranks are
NR.

Here is an interesting picture: http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/mem_ccf4.htm

This of course is an old NR crank which were notorious for failing. I
had a couple break just like this one, and several others above the
pedal eye. I think the principal failure mode for Jobst was through
the pedal eye, and thus his conical-washer fix. According to the
author of this page, the crack initiated at the crotch in the spider
between the arm and the trailing leg. I have not heard of modern
cranks failing in the same way, although one always wants to keep an
eye on cracks. Clicking and snapping sounds also can be a cue, usually
a very late one. -- Jay Beattie.

The last part is interesting (emphasis added):

"This unfortunate incident may have been prevented only by very close
visual inspection or *dye penetrant* testing on the component during the
relatively short crack propagation phase."