T-6_Corrosion_Risk_Assesment.potx

T-6 CORROSION

T-6 Joint Sustainment Review T-6 Joint Sustainment Review John Myers Program Manager NAVAIR - PMA 273 Primary Trainer Air Vehicle Lead (AVIPTL) Tel: (301)-342-0338 Email: john.r.myers@navy.mil

Dominant Air Power: Design for Tomorrow…Deliver Today

The degree to which corrosion is manifesting itself on the T-6 this early is alarming. If an aggressive and comprehensive approach is not adopted to address it, then services operating in severe environments will experience increasing aircraft down time, parts shortages and repair costs.

The potential for growing corrosion related problems is real and we are already behind. Trending indicates potential for wing spar change if not controlled now.

T-6 aircraft are exhibiting increasing levels of corrosion, especially at Navy sites deemed to be in severe corrosive environments. No comprehensive corrosion program or plan exists and maintenance publications and processes are not currently fielded to address corrosion potential at these sites.

70% of Navy T-6A’s at NASP have varying degrees of wing spar corrosion which is currently the immediate priority.

T-6 Joint Sustainment Review Background

HISTORY T-6 CORROSION

Navy Corrosion Issues Mar 2015 CLS delivers CDRL A059 showing corrosion accounts for the highest discrepancy totality for all sites compared to all other maintenance issues.

Mar 2015 FST Issues T-6A ACI Engineering Report summarizing multiple spar corrosion issues Jan 2016 Wing Spar corrosion at NASP continues to be reported via 107’s Jan 2016 Contractor identifies corrosion as an issue at NASCC affecting maintenance turn time. Wheel Well spar corrosion begins to be reported May 2016 BDC reports degradation of protective coatings on re-paint aircraft Jun 2016 11 cases of wing spar corrosion on T-6B at NASCC reported with -107’s 2014-2016 Corrosion on wing mate shear plates, Antenna base, inlet screen, ECS Outflow valve and other.

T-6 Lower Wing Spar Corrosion increase between CY14 and June 2016.

NAVY T-6 FLEET CORROSION IS INCREASING IN FREQUENCY AND SEVERITY

Air Force Corrosion Issues Engine exhaust on horizontal tail & elevator surfaces causing paint blistering on inland USAF a/c Inlet shredder screen & outflow valve exhaust screen dissimilar metal corrosion AFRL assisting SPO with Corpus Christi issues Operating locations not prone to corrosion Not a major factor More aircraft – other priorities

WING SPARS ARE NOT THE ONLY CORROSION ISSUE!

Action Plan

Rack and Stack corrosion trends Verify and validate trends with operational sites and stakeholders Address immediate fleet needs – Short term Wing Spar corrosion 107 turn time Permanent Repairs to SRM Maintenance culture Prioritize efforts – Immediate and long term Focus stakeholder involvement in the right areas Balance workload across resources Coordinate and communicate tasks Cross team participation in solutions (CPAB) Develop Comprehensive Corrosion Plan – Long term Define plan elements Task to stakeholders Verify maintenance corrosion trends (107’s and maintenance data from Air Force/Navy) Evaluate Maintenance Publications Tailor maintenance publications and inspections Align changes to flow with existing maintenance and not duplicate effort Improve existing inspections Move to dedicated corrosion inspection/treatment process Field revised/improved maintenance pubs Author Plan Include plan compliance in contracts Track progress and actions for improvement

T-6 CORROSION PREVENTION AND ADVISORY BOARD

(CPAB)

Corrosion Program

T-6 Corrosion Program manager:

John Myers – NAVAIR 1.3.3.8

CPAB Members Chairman:

Dane Hanson NAVAIR Materials

Beechcraft Defense Company, LLC (BDC) Don Wernert - Manufacturing and Processing Nathan Shank – Structural Engineer

NAVAIR

John Salemi, ISSC Jax, 4.3.3.1 (Senior Aerospace Engineer) Justin Hirt, ISSC Jax, ISSC Jax, 4.3.3.2 (Structures Engineer) Joey Walker – FST Aerospace Engineer, NAS Pensacola/NASWF, FL Michael Richards – FST Aerospace Engineer NAS Corpus Christi, TX John Benfer – Materials engineer

Navy Contractor Logistics Support – (Maintenance) Scott Matthia, Corrosion POC, Dyn Corp Int – (Engineer) Robert Clarke, Dyn Corp Int Maintenance Supervisor, NAS Pensacola

Air Force – AFLCMC Paul Riemers, JPATS Structures Engineer Chris Vickers, Materials

AETC

MSgt Logan Commins – Corrosion Functional Manager John Berry – Director of Maintenance – NAS Pensacola

STAKEHOLDERS

T-6 CPAB

AETC

JPATS

CNATRA

PMA273

FLEET SUPPORT TEAM

DynCorp Maint.

BDC

AFRL

Action Plan Status

CPAB initiated by NAVAIR in October 2015. Stakeholders identified and engaged Corrosion Trends identified Wing Spar corrosion TD for application of CorBan 35 in final drafting and being proofed (VAL/VER’d) at NASP (Will reduce risk to 3/4) Permanent Wing Spar corrosion repair drafted by BDC and included in most recent 107 responses. (June 3, 2016) Maintenance awareness addressed through maintenance contractor – (June 10-14, 2016) Publications in early review to determine where changes are required. (Ongoing) An overarching T-6 Corrosion Plan still must be written. An example is in hand and being reviewed A specific “tailored” corrosion inspection will be required as a part of the plan

Comprehensive Corrosion Plan

COURTESY OF BDC

Backup Slides Known Issues and Recommendations Wing Spar Corrosion

Wing Drain Holes

Wheel Well Corrosion

Aft Fuselage Protective Coating Degradation

Antenna Corrosion

Engine Truss Corrosion

ECS Outflow and Inflow Port Corrosion

Engine Oil Cooler Galvanic Corrosion

Engine Inlet Screen Corrosion

Engine Inlet Coating - Chipping

Environmental

Paint Chipping and “Hot” corrosion from exhaust

Wing Spar corrosion contributing factors:

Environment Primer not ideal for severe corrosive environments at Navy training base locations Drainage not sufficient – Additional holes required Spar manufacturing process brings a need for emphasizing adherence to maintenance inspections and need for treatment on the spot. – just like the rest of the aircraft!

I. Wing Spar Corrosion Current Impact of Wing Spar corrosion:

70% of T-6A aircraft at NASP have Main Spar corrosion after 9 years 11 T-6B aircraft at NASCC had corrosion reported in 4 years 4 Air Force aircraft at CSO, NASP have recorded corrosion 1 Air Force aircraft at Randolph AFB had reported wing corrosion at rib station 17 during an ACI inspection

II. Wing Drain Holes

Wing Drainage

Asymmetric Drainage on right hand wing

Post production engineering kit needed to add drain holes

Trends indicate increased instances of corrosion where drainage capability is reduced.

III. Wing Wheel Well Corrosion

IV. Aft Fuselage Protective Coating Degradation

IV. Aft Fuselage Protective Coating Degradation

V. Antenna Corrosion

VI. Engine Truss Corrosion

Example T-34 Truss after 26 years at NASCC - Condemned

VII. ECS Outflow and Inflow Port Corrosion

VIII. Oil Cooler Galvanic Corrosion

IX. Engine Inlet Screen Corrosion

X. Engine Inlet Coating

XI. Environmental Factors

Corrosion charts typically do not tell the whole story. NOAA data suggests atmospheric conditions at NAS Corpus Christi are among the worst in the “Severe” category shown here.

Hot, humid and salty conditions in the Florida panhandle and south Texas are ideal for severe corrosion and not considered in the existing T-6 corrosion prevention processes .

NASCC

NASWF

NASP +

AF COS

All Navy and some Air Force training aircraft stationed in “Severe” zones

Lead the Fleet Demonstration: Corrosion Risk Determination to Drive Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM)

Key Impacts and Benefits Assess risk of current aircraft based on environmental exposure and couple with time at location Validate inspection and maintenance intervals modifications based exclusively on rates of corrosion

Determine the effects of over-Gulf flight patterns and corrosion differences relative to ground location Prioritize depot maintenance of aircraft exposed to more severe locales - tailored induction rates based on site corrosivity Approach Data collected will consist of dynamic measurements of relative humidity, surface/air temperature, and solution resistance across an interdigitated gold electrode Differences in mass loss measurements on witness coupons of Al 7075, 1020 CS, and A-286 located at training sites will be used to quantify corrosion severity, as well as validate existing corrosion model Aircraft regions with documented corrosion susceptibility will be equipped with sensors to quantify the environmental factors that affect the aircraft during all phases of use Solution resistance will be used as a factor indicating the environmental conditions facilitating corrosion processes

Sensor Device

Problem Statement Joint-service aircraft have exhibited vastly different corrosion rates at the same locations.

Contrary to maintenance expectations – frequent aircraft washing does not necessarily correlate to decreased corrosion as compared to aircraft less frequently washed.

Maintenance actions do not account for areas of the aircraft exposed to salt spray as a result of sea based operations.

Background Aircraft inspection intervals and maintenance procedures are based on flight criticality, expected time between crack initiation and catastrophic failure, and operational basing.

The operational assignments (ship, shore) factor is based on an outdated methodology.

XII Paint Chipping and Hot Corrosion Aft of Engine Exhaust Exterior surfaces finished with PPG CA 8800 Paint chipping and flaking and substrate discoloration noted on Information gathering and data analysis by AFRL personnel TBD trip to Randolph AFB for information Standing by to determine operational impact to Navy assets image14.jpg image15.jpeg image16.jpeg image17.png image18.png image19.jpeg image20.jpg image21.png image22.png image23.jpg image24.jpg image25.png image26.png image27.png image28.png image29.png image30.png image31.png image32.png image33.jpeg image34.png image35.png image36.png image37.png image38.jpeg image39.jpeg image40.jpeg image41.jpeg image42.jpeg image43.jpeg image1.png image2.jpeg image3.jpeg image4.gif image5.gif image6.gif image7.gif image8.gif image9.gif image10.jpeg image11.png image12.jpeg image13.jpeg