PDA

View Full Version : Late Model Tri-Pacer/Pacer Panel Modification



Steve Pierce
05-02-2008, 08:26 AM
I saw this on Univair's website today. Looks like an economical remedy to the cut up panel problem when the old AN gyros are replaced with modern 3 1/8" units. Has anybody installed this mod?
http://univairparts.com/shopping/new/stc.pdf

jay heil
05-02-2008, 11:43 AM
is that their own stc or did they buy the jag air or the other one i firgit the name ?

Larry Huntley
05-02-2008, 06:25 PM
is that their own stc or did they buy the jag air or the other one i firgit the name ?
I used Woolsey's and am very happy with it. Larry Huntley

d.grimm
05-02-2008, 07:45 PM
Sure looks like the Woolsey Panel to me. Do you suppose it's more than $200.00? That was a Woolsey panel I put in the Pacer with the Garmin 430. Pictues in the gallery.

Steve Pierce
05-02-2008, 08:57 PM
According to the link I posted it is $120 and you don't have to cut any tubing. Remove the old overlay, trim the main panel for the instruments to clear, install nut plates to attach the new overlay with and fill out the 337. Looks like a simple answer to having instruments scattered around and getting them in a "T" configuration.

d.grimm
05-03-2008, 06:02 AM
I'll bet it's the Woolsey Panel. I thought it was a nice kit. Took about two days complete. Paint, install, compass swing, changing to a electric turn coordinator. I just wonder why it's not more popular.

Cathy Pierce
05-03-2008, 07:11 AM
I'll find out. I know they end up buying out folks like the PA18 fuselage production from Jim Soars at Rocky Mountain Airframes and the PA12 fuselage from Dakota Airframes.

Larry Huntley
05-03-2008, 10:19 AM
Sure looks like the Woolsey Panel to me. Do you suppose it's more than $200.00? That was a Woolsey panel I put in the Pacer with the Garmin 430. Pictues in the gallery.


Not sure and it was a few years ago, but I think mine from Woolsey was $100. Larry

Steve Pierce
05-06-2008, 06:38 AM
Talked to the engineer at Univair yesterday. He said they bought it from a guy in OR or Wa. He is supposed to get back with me on if it is the Woolsey panel but he thought that sounded familiar.

Homer Landreth
05-07-2008, 07:08 AM
Just an aside to the subject at hand, I am curious to a couple of issues and ask a couple of questions. First, why is this STC'd? Second, why is it even a 337? There have been a lot of comments about mixed signals relative to variations in 337 approvals and requirements for STC's from the FAA, I submit that this particular STC and 337 activity is, we the users, voluntarily selling out to the FAA, our authority for maintaining our planes. This is sending them mixed signals from we who say we want to be the determination authority of what is good for our older aircraft and what is not. This STC and 337 is nothing more than "garden variety" sheet metal work that any A/P can do with no need for a 337. There is nothing in it that can't be referenced to AC43.13.xx, or any other regulation or citing, so why an STC, or why a 337. Why does this question and issue matter ? It matters because, now, every time someone wants to do a panel modification, he will have to fear that someone will be knocking on his door wanting money because he is copying an STC he didn't buy. Also, has precedence been set that if I move an altimeter to the left and and airspeed indicator to the right, I now have to get a 337 approval ? If so, will this fall into the category where the FAA is going to say "not my job you need to hire a DAR?" Now, take this into another issue that we have discussed; the mounting of "portable" equipment, such as a GPS, in a panel. If cutting out a shape in a panel, or making an overlay is now a 337 issue and flirts with an STC, then the question of mounting portable equipment becomes a "no brainer" - you can't do it, end of subject. Anyway, I guess to just end this, I would submit that A/P and A/I who have worked these planes for years and are the subject matter experts on them, as opposed to inexperienced FAA inspectors, ought to start taking back some of the authority that has been defaulted to the FAA just because no one stood up and said that you don't need something the FAA "thinks" is needed. Here is a belief that has come from me participating in several patent applications including one patent that I own. There is an acid test for successful patent prosecution which is a phrase which reads somewhat to these words ". . .unique beyond the capability of others skilled in the art . . . . . What this is applied to is if you are seeking a patent on something it has to be unique to the extent that anyone with the same skill as you could NOT figure out how to do himself. If it can be figured out via casual knowledge by one skilled the same as you, then you can't patent it. I think that same criteria should apply to the "ownership" of an STC. You can't "own" something that is obtainable via common skill and ability. I also believe in a strict word by word application of the requirements for the definition of a Major Modification. If it isn't on the list, it isn't a Major Modification. Also, if I can apply or cite written regulations and standards to determination of airworthiness, then I don't need to send a 337 for FAA approval. Anyway, final words are; If we can't anymore hog out a panel to move a couple of instruments or make a panel overlay without asking the FAA if it is OK, or sending money to some vendor for his STC, then we are in for a really miserable future. IMHO.

Steve Pierce
05-07-2008, 07:23 AM
Homer, I think the reason this is an STC so the designer could sell the parts. Anyone of us can build a new panel using the criteria of the original and just move holes around as far as I have been able to tell. I think this STC is made to quickly and easily change the lay-out of one's instrument panel without having to make the actual parts. As far as the Air Gizmos and such, there are several FSDOs who see them as a logbook entry as long as the wiring harness meets the burn criteria. Brian has commented on the SC site about this. I think you are right about us knowing more about the airplanes than the FAA. I think our job now is to know the FARs and educate them in a constructive manner on the airplanes. I have been told by the FAA that I could not do something that after a little research of their own regulations found that I could. Experimental homebuilt is looking better all the time. :shock:

06-09-2008, 04:35 PM
I have been working on modifying the panel in my 1952 PA/22. The origional layout did not have radios and used the old AN type GYROs. The radios had been installed in the glove box on the Pilot's side which made changing frequencies difficult due to the round yoke. After carefully removing the old panel, tracing the outline, etc., etc. I found a "blank" reproduction panel on the Cub Doctor's Web site for $85. They have a second panel blank for newer Pipers which increases the overall panel height maybe an inch. The blank has holes for the yokes and the offset for mounting to the stock tabs. here is the link- http://www.cubdoctor.com/assets/special ... panels.htm (http://www.cubdoctor.com/assets/specialties/pages/panels.htm) . They also have panel blanks for the rest of the piper line, 3's thru 18's.

The blanks are nice since they allow you to match drill for the mounting tabs, which seem to have been positioned by hand when origionally installed. [mine were not plumb by any means.] Hope this helps. I know I spent way more than $85 just in time to trace out the other panel not to mention that you could do your planning and fabrication without having your bird out of commision.

Steve Pierce
06-09-2008, 08:51 PM
I get panel blanks from Clyde. Nice panels that I can layout the way I want. Beats trying to patch the old stuff for sure.

txfirefighter628
04-08-2014, 09:33 PM
Hi everyone, new member here. I just bought a 52 tri pacer project that I plan on doing a tail wheel conversion on. I have a complete airframe with no engine. The fusalage has been stripped, oiled and re painted, all the control cables are new and thats about what I have to start with. My first of many questions to follow is will the instrument panel mod from univair fit in the 52 or will I have to stick with the small panel?

PACERGUY
04-08-2014, 10:47 PM
I don't know the answer to your question. But one thing to consider is do you really need a bigger panel? If it is a VFR aircraft the smaller panel should do fine and it is less weight.
DENNY

txfirefighter628
04-08-2014, 11:26 PM
Well I would like to make it an ifr panel, not so much to really fly ifr but for training and practice to keep current once I get my ifr rating.

Curly
04-09-2014, 12:48 AM
If you have a look at recent posts, there are lots of photos of panels and many of them are modified to take an IFR sixpack, plus all the instruments/radios you need for IFR. (Just type "Instrument panel" in the search box - top right hand side.)

The best source for them is Clyde Smith Jnr - "The Cub Doctor" - www.cubdoctor.com/‎ (http://www.cubdoctor.com/‎)

He does excellent work and will build you a panel to suit whatever need you have.

Steve Pierce
04-10-2014, 06:41 AM
Merged this thred with n older one on the subject.

Chris Iriarte
12-11-2014, 11:32 PM
Hey all ...

Just bought this panel mod myself and was wondering if anyone could suggest the best tool to cut out the original panel.

Also, curious as to how folks treated this ... the instructions say a 337/IA is required, but I'm inclined to agree with Homer earlier in this thread. Haven't parsed the particular FAR, but I can't see how this is a major mod!

Chris

Steve Pierce
12-13-2014, 07:43 AM
I woulduse an air nibbler. If you already boughtthe STC why not file the 337? An A&P is supposed todothe work and will need to makea log book entry. That way there is no question down the road.

Chris Iriarte
12-13-2014, 04:16 PM
Ah, good idea, Steve ... I've been looking for a good excuse to buy an air nibbler.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind filling out paperwork, and I have the bona fides to do it myself. I just have a problem calling some new holes in an instrument panel a "major mod" .... it's like I'm encouraging a bad precedence!

Chris


I woulduse an air nibbler. If you already boughtthe STC why not file the 337? An A&P is supposed todothe work and will need to makea log book entry. That way there is no question down the road.

rsrguy3
01-03-2015, 02:43 PM
Boy does setting a precedent ever ring true. I'm getting a 53 tripe soon and a panel revamp is one of the things I'd like to
do myself, specifically because I need some time xtra GA time to complete the A&P. It doesn't sound to tough in any case. One thing I haven't found on the forum are build logs to document with photos some of the cooler projects. Am I missing something?

wjdavid
01-25-2015, 07:19 PM
Homer, this is very well said and correct. Unfortunately you and I are in the minority. Excellent commentary sir.

pa20
01-26-2015, 01:32 AM
Homer, this is very well said and correct. Unfortunately you and I are in the minority. Excellent commentary sir.

Just to save everyone the mouse clicks..Here is the comments of Homer Landreth from 2008 that wjdavid is referring to:


Just an aside to the subject at hand, I am curious to a couple of issues and ask a couple of questions. First, why is this STC'd? Second, why is it even a 337? There have been a lot of comments about mixed signals relative to variations in 337 approvals and requirements for STC's from the FAA, I submit that this particular STC and 337 activity is, we the users, voluntarily selling out to the FAA, our authority for maintaining our planes. This is sending them mixed signals from we who say we want to be the determination authority of what is good for our older aircraft and what is not. This STC and 337 is nothing more than "garden variety" sheet metal work that any A/P can do with no need for a 337. There is nothing in it that can't be referenced to AC43.13.xx, or any other regulation or citing, so why an STC, or why a 337. Why does this question and issue matter ? It matters because, now, every time someone wants to do a panel modification, he will have to fear that someone will be knocking on his door wanting money because he is copying an STC he didn't buy. Also, has precedence been set that if I move an altimeter to the left and and airspeed indicator to the right, I now have to get a 337 approval ? If so, will this fall into the category where the FAA is going to say "not my job you need to hire a DAR?" Now, take this into another issue that we have discussed; the mounting of "portable" equipment, such as a GPS, in a panel. If cutting out a shape in a panel, or making an overlay is now a 337 issue and flirts with an STC, then the question of mounting portable equipment becomes a "no brainer" - you can't do it, end of subject. Anyway, I guess to just end this, I would submit that A/P and A/I who have worked these planes for years and are the subject matter experts on them, as opposed to inexperienced FAA inspectors, ought to start taking back some of the authority that has been defaulted to the FAA just because no one stood up and said that you don't need something the FAA "thinks" is needed. Here is a belief that has come from me participating in several patent applications including one patent that I own. There is an acid test for successful patent prosecution which is a phrase which reads somewhat to these words ". . .unique beyond the capability of others skilled in the art . . . . . What this is applied to is if you are seeking a patent on something it has to be unique to the extent that anyone with the same skill as you could NOT figure out how to do himself. If it can be figured out via casual knowledge by one skilled the same as you, then you can't patent it. I think that same criteria should apply to the "ownership" of an STC. You can't "own" something that is obtainable via common skill and ability. I also believe in a strict word by word application of the requirements for the definition of a Major Modification. If it isn't on the list, it isn't a Major Modification. Also, if I can apply or cite written regulations and standards to determination of airworthiness, then I don't need to send a 337 for FAA approval. Anyway, final words are; If we can't anymore hog out a panel to move a couple of instruments or make a panel overlay without asking the FAA if it is OK, or sending money to some vendor for his STC, then we are in for a really miserable future. IMHO.