Static Wicks

[WaynePierce]

So here's a random question... Why do some airplanes, in general, Mooney's in particular, and my Mooney specifically not have Static Wicks and some do? Mine does not and it doesn't appear it ever has. 1985 M20 J SE if it matters.

 

curious minds and all that.

 

[RobertGary1]

Mine doesn’t either. I assume they’re added based on some FAA test during certification. 
 

-Robert 

[neilpilot]

Interesting question.

I owned a 64E that, as far as I could tell, never had static wicks.  The 65C that we purchased in 2012 had wicks, but I have no idea if they were OEM.

[carusoam]

Static electric discharge effects planes in IMC...

on some days...

So...

The devices don’t scream a need....

They are a bit expensive...

Best regards,

-a-

[kortopates]

They have always been an option to add, originally from Mooney or as an aftermarket option. The only 100% real explanation to why some have them and some don't is that some owners decided they would they add them - simply because they thought it would be a good idea. Back in the days of ADF and Loran navigation, it was a good idea. These days with VHF/UHF and Sat based navigation I am still waiting to hear from anyone that really ever had a problem that static wicks solved. 

I've been wickless for 20 years now and fly through all kinds of weather (except TRS) and never any hint of static.

[MooneyMitch]

They looked cool on my airplane, but I was forever snapping them off as I walked by ......

[Yooper Rocketman]

The guys in the Lancairs (mostly the IVP's and IVPT's), flying closer to 300 MPH (and above), found those without static wicks had a much higher incidence of paint popping on the leading edge than those that installed them.  I imagine composite aircraft are more prone to static build up too.  There is a pretty rigid grounding process for those on our planes.

Tom

[MB65E]

I’ve had paint burnt of of trailing edges on a Lancair Legacy due to static.  I then installed binding straps and static wicks to keep the paint on. Canopy was a major source of build up at speed. Ours would true at 315kts. :-)

-Matt

[carusoam]

Matt, that surely is interesting...

There is plenty of static build up in really dry air...Or when flying in dry snow...

A plastic plane probably increases the oddities that can occur...

Best regards,

-a-

[Yetti]

Mooneys are so fast they out run the static.  Only slow planes need them

[RobertGary1]

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

They have always been an option to add, originally from Mooney or as an aftermarket option. The only 100% real explanation to why some have them and some don't is that some owners decided they would they add them -

The cessnas I’ve picked up at the factory have them. I believe they are not legally airworthy without them. So there is more than just owner preference. 
 

-Robert 

[carusoam]

Interesting point Robert...

There should be a spot in the MELs for them...
 

Are they mentioned in the WnB charts?

Best regards,

-a-

[GeeBee]

I've been in IMC and totally lost VHF comm due to static build up on everything from C-172 to big jets. I have also lost sat comm as well.  Static wicks are the most poorly maintained item on any airframe. A proper inspection reviews their conductive ability. They are. rarely installed correctly, they require a conductive paste which should be renewed every few years. If you don't believe in their value, you've never been hit by lightning. And yes, they are on many MEL's.

 

 

[carusoam]

How well do they work for lightning strikes, GB?

Somebody posted a pic of the exit hole In the bottom of their wing from a strike while tied down...
 

That would be a spooky event...   Hard to avoid the thunderstorm when you are that close to it... 

Best regards,

 -a-

[kortopates]

2 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

The cessnas I’ve picked up at the factory have them. I believe they are not legally airworthy without them. So there is more than just owner preference. 
 

-Robert 

Only if they are on the POH KOEL list - is that the case?

Interesting that Cessna would do that.

Static dischargers or wicks are not lightning arrestors and do not affect the likelihood of an aircraft being struck by lightning.

[RobertGary1]

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

Only if they are on the POH KOEL list - is that the case?

Interesting that Cessna would do that.

Static dischargers or wicks are not lightning arrestors and do not affect the likelihood of an aircraft being struck by lightning.

No I think it’s part of the airframe. Just like if a flap is missing. I’ve heard the maintenance manual allows a certain number to be missing but I may be remember that part from citation school. 
but the t206 and 182 all have them at the factory. 
 

-Robert 

[kortopates]

No I think it’s part of the airframe. Just like if a flap is missing. I’ve heard the maintenance manual allows a certain number to be missing but I may be remember that part from citation school. 
but the t206 and 182 all have them at the factory. 
 
-Robert 

That does make good sense when the plane is certified with them on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GeeBee]

7 hours ago, kortopates said:

Only if they are on the POH KOEL list - is that the case?

Interesting that Cessna would do that.

Static dischargers or wicks are not lightning arrestors and do not affect the likelihood of an aircraft being struck by lightning.

No you don't arrest lightning on an airframe, but you give it a path. When you are struck and that big charge is traveling across the skin, it has to dissipate somewhere or be absorbed. Guess where it goes in a plane with wicks? Last time I was struck going into Rome by dry lightning no less, the hit was below  and just forward of my window. The primary discharge was the right wing aft trailing static wick. If you don't give the hit a place to go it will start building up on the screws of attaching parts and start blowing them off, then you start loosing fairings and composite parts get burned. Maybe your avionics absorbs some too, then you got problems.  

If you doubt they work, next time you get a bunch of St. Elmos at night, look out at the wing tips. If you don't have wicks, put your finger up to a plexiglass windshield and take the hit. It will be memorable. (Used to do that to my unwitting instrument students when the VHF would get scratchy)

 

 

 

[Jerry Pressley]

if someone needs a couple I have a late model tail here with some.  423 231 3491

[Marc_B]

On 8/24/2020 at 7:00 PM, GeeBee said:

They are. rarely installed correctly, they require a conductive paste which should be renewed every few years.

I accidentally broke one of the wicks cleaning up the Mooney last week; microfiber towel edge caught it and broke it quite easily!  I've ordered a couple from LASAR (10-900-60/1) 4" wicks.  Just wondering what this "conductive paste" is that @GeeBee refers to.  I've always put some SuperLube (dielectric grease) on the battery terminals on my truck.  Is there a certain aviation grade compound that is used or just screw off wick and screw on replacement?  It is interesting though that looking closer at a couple of the wicks the conductive paint at the connection isn't quite as "crisp" as it probably once was.

[GeeBee]

I would just screw off the old and put on the new. To renew the paste you would have to drill off the rivets on the holder. All you need is a new wick, not a holder.

 

[M20F-1968]

I've been in IMC and totally lost VHF comm due to static build up on everything from C-172 to big jets. I have also lost sat comm as well.  Static wicks are the most poorly maintained item on any airframe. A proper inspection reviews their conductive ability. They are. rarely installed correctly, they require a conductive paste which should be renewed every few years. If you don't believe in their value, you've never been hit by lightning. And yes, they are on many MEL's.

 

Can you describe the necessary maintenance more specifically?

John Breda