Tuesday, April 23, 2019

Re-Visiting Taylorcraft AD 51-09-03

Does your Taylorcraft Comply?

This is an old Airworthiness Directive that has been around so long, that many airplane logbooks may have had a "complied with" logbook entry years ago.  Inspectors need to verify this and not just assume that once complied with means always complied with.  It is possible that the required device could have been removed or lost during re-build.  That's what happened on my Taylorcraft.  CAP recommends that Taylorcraft owners and operators should re-visit this important safety issue.

The AD came about as a result of an accident where a pilot inadvertently turned the FUEL OFF when he intended to pull CARB HEAT ON.  This is an easy mistake to make if you are not looking at the knobs but rather going "by feel".  The knobs are right next to each other.

As a safety remedy, Taylorcraft came up with a simple clip device that installs on the fuel shut-off knob.  The AD says... "Taylorcraft P/N B12-947-3 or equivalent is considered satisfactory."

Read the Full Text of the AD Here.

One major problem is... This part is not available anymore.  OK so the next option is to come up with an equivalent one.  But the next problem is.... what is it supposed to look like?  Are there any old-timers still around that might know?  For me, the solution has come through the Taylorcraft Forum and from some internet searching.  It all boils down to this...  We need a device that meets the intent of the AD.  And the good news is that the AD gives the following as a clear description of the intent:

"The device is to prevent inadvertent operation of the fuel shutoff valve by requiring a definite and positive movement by the pilot before the control can be operated."

Well here is what I came up with for my airplane:  I fabricated this myself as an "owner produced part".


It is the small silver device that is mounted with the fuel shut-off control anchor nut.  I made it from .032 Aluminum 2024-T3.  I made it in such a way that I believe it meets the intent of the AD.  You have to move it slightly downward to turn fuel on or off. Some folks worry about fatigue, so they have made them from spring steel.  But on mine, fatigue isn't an issue. I have had this in there now for the past 150 hours or so and it works great.  I just made it so that the movement is not so much that you are yielding the aluminum.  

After researching this a bit, I patterned this after one that I saw on the Taylorcraft Forum, which I believe might be an actual Taylorcraft part.  See the red clip in the photo below.


 Here is another one I saw online as used on a pre-war Taylorcraft.  Red Clip in the center panel.


 Another fellow posted this one he made from a broom-handle clip.  It is a spring-steel device that should suffice.  It just looks like it might be difficult to operate (in my opinion).



Either way, I believe all of these designs do meet the intent of the AD and may help save some souls from an inadvertent engine out circumstance.

Fly Safe - and Keep the Antiques Flying!





 



Thursday, March 21, 2019

SERVICE BULLETINS

Looking for a service bulletin for CAP STC's?  Click on the "STC' TAB above then scroll down to the yellow highlighted link.

or Click here:

Sunday, January 27, 2019

Airworthiness Maintenance Inspection Notes, A-1231 Curtiss-Wright

Back before the FAA existed, aviation in the USA was under the authority of the Department of Commerce's Civil Aeronautic Administration (also called the CAA).


In those days, much information was published in the interest of safety. Unfortunately, these documents are not readily available today.   Similar to today's Airworthiness Directives (AD's) were publications known as Airworthiness Bulletins or Airworthiness Maintenance Bulletins and were considered mandatory safety items.  Other CAA documents similar to today's Special Airworthiness Information Bulletins (SAIB's) were Airworthiness Maintenance Inspection Notes (AMIN).  These documents include safety related inspection items that should be required at annual inspection.  These are generally considered to be mandatory as well, but this is not verified. The AMIN's are aircraft model specific. 

We recently obtained a copy of document no. A-1231, Airworthiness Maintenance Inspection Notes for Curtiss-Wright Aircraft, dated July 7, 1941.  Covered in this document are annual inspection requirements for Travel Air biplanes and monoplanes (including CW Travel Air), Curtiss Robin, CW Jr., CW Sedan, and CW Condor.  CAP has taken the time to reproduce the four pages because they were hardly legible.  While we claim no responsibility for the technical content of these documents, we wanted to make this information available here for historical information to restorers, operators, and enthusiasts of the grand old flying machines.





Thanks to our very good friend and Curtiss Robin restorer, Lane Tufts, for providing copies of the original document.


Maintenance Bulletin No. 4 dated  December 27, 1938 - Curtiss-Wright Travel Air shock absorbers.  This one is mentioned by SPECIAL NOTE 12 in the above AMIN.

 

I am pretty sure this one was provided by Darrell Starr.


Call for Papers
CAP is looking for more of these old CAA documents and we intend to use this blog as a collection center for such information.  If any of our readers run across these old CAA documents, please send them to us and we will make these hard-to-find documents available here.

Saturday, December 15, 2018

STC SA1-210, Explained

I get many calls about the options available when doing engine upgrades on the Taylorcraft BC-Series airplanes under STC # SA1-210 (formerly known as the Gilberti STC).  It usually takes a pretty long phone call to go through all of it.  So I thought maybe it would be helpful to share some of the main points here.  If you are seriously considering the purchase of upgrade paperwork, I recommend that you read through this post, and then study our latest catalog.  This should help you get a bit up to speed on the configuration choices you have.  Write down your questions and then give me a call and we'll figure out the best package for your Taylorcraft.
I'll start off with some background history and this should help you understand how this STC has evolved and maybe it will explain a bit about how the FAA approvals are structured. 


2016 Keith & Joann Walker from Charleston IL
BC12-D with STC SA1-210 Configuration A

ORIGINAL STC 1958 - Jack Gilberti


Configuration A incorporates a C85-8 engine with the original (short) engine mount and the resulting configuration is equivalent to the factory TC A-696 model BC12D-85.  This retains original cowl/baffle/engine control cables/exhaust/ etc.  The fuel system has to be updated to have at least one wing tank and the fuel lines have to be verified at least 3/8 inch size.  This configuration has no electrical system.  It has the option to install some simple wing fitting modifications that allow maximum weight to upgrade from 1200 to 1280 pounds. Eligible propellers are the same as the TC A-696 model BC12D-85.

Configuration B incorporates a C85-12 engine with a replacement (long) engine mount and the resulting configuration is equivalent to the factory TC A-696 model BC12D-4-85.  The "4" means that the engine mount and cowling are extended longer by about 4 inches. Originally it was expected that the starter and generator would be the old style (heavy) Delco brand.  So that's the reason for the mount extension.   This configuration requires conversion to a larger baggage compartment and added electrical system with battery mounted about 24 inches aft of the seat back.  This offset's the CG change due to the extended engione mount. The fuel mods are required same as config A.  Cowling requires modification, a different exhaust is required, longer control cables are required.  The same max. weight of 1280 pounds applies if optional wing mods are done.Eligible propellers are the same as the TC A-696 model BC12D-4-85.
If you are considering this option (or any long mount option), I always recommend that you try to find an airplane already modified or a model 19 or F19 and go for a flight.  You will discover that the handling characteristics are different from what you may already know as the nimble B-series Taylorcraft.  To some this may be desirable. To some, it can be a surprising disappointment after going through all the work to do this mod. It's hard to describe this difference, but just imagine that your rudder authority is just a bit slower in reaction time.  Not in a bad way, just different. 

STC UPDATE IN 1971


Configuration B was revised to declare the resulting configuration the same as TC 1A9 model 19.  This configuration is physically exactly the same as the prior described Configuration B (BC12D-4-85) in every way, except it was approved to operate at a maximum weight of 1500 pounds (if optional wing mods are done) - equivalent to the factory model 19 per TC 1A9 (under CAR 3 regulations).  As such it also became a "Flight Manual Required" airplane and no longer a "placard only" airplane.  All of the same fuel/cowl/exhaust/baggage/etc mods apply as aforementioned Configuration B.  Eligible propellers are the same as the TC 1A9 model 19.
By the STC wording, you essentially have the option under Configuration B to go with 1280 or 1500 pounds maximum weight.  The former keeps the airplane within the LSA weight limit.  The latter takes the airplane over the LSA limit.

STC TRANSFER TO CAP in 2010


Certified Aeronautical Products took over the management of the STC in 2010.  We have expanded the options beyond those approved in the STC, made possible through major alterations approved by a DER.  We call these STC deviations. These major alterations do not require additional STC but are incorporated under FAA form 337.  Rather than mention of them all here, please look at the catalog.  For example, a DER can approve certain non-standard propellers. Another example.... we offer DER approved deviation paperwork to substitute a C85-12 engine on Configuration A.  This makes it possible to have an electrical system (with the short engine mount) when modern lightweight starter and alternators are used... because we've determined that they fit.  It's a tight fit, though.  You'll find you might have to de-mount the engine to get your starter on and off.  But its not that hard to do.  So the DER approved deviations have opened the door to many additional configuration options for these modified Taylorcrafts.  Again, most are listed in our catalog.


Previously, I mentioned different exhaust.  Well, when you mount an alternator to the back of a C85-12 it will interfere with the cross-over tube on the original B-series exhaust.  Something has to be done.  If you want to fabricate your own, we can provide the Gilberti drawing for the model 19 style that extends the cross-over pipe farther aft.  The same exhanst configuration was done at the factory for the BC12D-4-85, 19, and F19 models.  Another more popular option nowadays is to convert to the Luscombe style split headers or Cessna 150 Hanlon Wilson style exhaust. We can provide DER approved paperwork for either of these or others, like Aeronca and more.
 

OTHER STC SA1-210 Deviation work

Our DER has approved some de-rated installations of C90 or O-200A engine (de-rated by limiting RPM to that for 85 hp).
Through DER and FAA FSDO/ACO coordination, we have also supported a few deviations to substitute an O-200A engine rated at 100 hp. This is equivalent to TC 1A9 model F19.  We had to do an analysis of a specific engine mount design, so a new mount is required (or you can order an F19 mount from Univair).

There are a lot of options.  Study our catalog and then give us a call with your questions.  We will gladly help you tailor your Taylorcraft with approved paperwork. 

Wednesday, June 13, 2018

2018 PRICES FOR GROVE BRAKE KIT ON TAYLORCRAFT B-SERIES

We have received our latest prices for Taylorcraft Hydraulic Brake Kit from Grove Aircraft and our other suppliers.  Call us today to order yours.


Thursday, May 11, 2017

C85 Stroker - Which Prop Can I Use?

This issue has been a source of dilemma or misunderstanding for some.   I get a lot of questions on this.

Legally you must use the same propeller as a C85 and adhere to the same RPM limits as a stock C85 because the C85 stroker STC does not change the Certified engine rating.  

On paper, it is still a C85.  

I am not aware of any FAA approved power curve for the STC modified stroker configuration. When requesting such from Don's Dream Machines or Aircraft Specialties (the STC holders) I have been turned away but was told that "this engine is much more powerful than a stock C85".  I've even been told just how much power the engine produces on the dyno. 

Of course we all understand that because of the physics of engine performance regarding displacement theory (RPM/bore/stroke) more power will be produced. Don't get me wrong.  I love the guys at DDM and ASSI, but I must ask: What good is it to know the engine makes 108 hp on the test stand if you have no legal authority to operate it that way?  My issue as a DER is that without a certified power chart, there is no legal avenue to approve any propeller that might maximize the performance of this engine configuration. The approved data to go there has never been developed as far as I can tell. 

In my opinion, the FAA and STC Applicants did us all a dis-service by not requiring an official engine calibration test to re-rate the modified configuration. I am sure the reason this wasn't done is because doing so would have required the STC applicant to run 150 hour endurance test followed by 150 hour durability test to prove all parts out to the higher rating. I get that this is a money issue. But the flying public deserves to at least understand the realities they face. 

So we (the industry) are left with 2 choices. 

1.  Legally run the same propeller as a stock C85, not knowing exactly how much power you have, but at least assured you have equal or better performance than the stock C85 and have the comfort of staying legal. 

- or- 


2. Illegally running another propeller that optimizes the capability of the engine. Climb and cruise fast not having (Approved) assurance that the engine parts are going to survive to TBO. Be mindful that if you choose to operate this way, the STC holders, prop makers, and engine overhaulers are not likely to warranty an engine or propeller with apparent fatigue issues. Beyond this, I know that insurance companies and defense attorneys use expert witnesses who can tell when they see evidence of over-stressed and prematurely fatigued engine parts. All I am saying is... choose wisely. 



I believe there are many folks out there running illegal configurations, without knowing it... or without an understanding of the issues. I hope this article helps some of you out. 



Do I think the stroker engine is a good thing?  Well I do. It seems to be a most efficient engine. I would just appreciate having the legal avenue to use it to its full potential. The saving grace here is that these little 4-banger Continentals seem to be made of long-lasting bulletproof parts. And generally they're used on small-very forgiving airplanes affectionately thought of by many as just "barely" capable of killing you. 


Final thought:  Do you think Continental Motors never thought of this configuration?