STC SA45RM

[mdcf18]

Gentleman...

First time post...and I have a question. First a little history. Aircraft N2869Z (PA-22) was modified in 1975 according to STC SA45RM. This is a Light Plane Components conversation from a Tri-gear to a conventional tail dragger. Now, in 2008, the A/C, which has been disassembled for several years, was purchased for a rebuild project. There have had several ground loops and multiple repairs on the rear fuselage and rudder post area according to the log books. One repair to the bottom end of the rudder vertical tube is a previous owner welding job (after A/C disassembly) and has not been documented nor completed IAW 43.13. The welded repair was done so a Maul tail wheel rudder horn could be used, instead of a Scott tail wheel assy., for the springs used to connect the rudder to the tail wheel.

I don't have a copy of the STC but I suspect it calls for a Scott tail wheel installation and a Scott rudder horn to be inserted into the bottom of the rudder vertical post. This would make the Maul tail wheel an unacceptable substituation and the rudder vertical post would have to be re-repaired to accept the Scott horn. Am I using correct logic here? Does someone have a copy of the parts list for the STC and could advise at to which tail wheel assembly is correct according to the STC?

Thanks
Chuck

[Steve Pierce]

As far as I know the LPC STC is the same one Univair sells today. I will check my paperwork tomorrow but I believe you are correct on the Scott rudder horn. Worked on a conversion recently that used a Champ tail spring and they cut the rudder down considerably. Unfortunatley it is not uncommon to find such problems on our vintage of airplanes.

[JohnW]

Eligible tailwheels according to the LPC Drawing dated 12-14-74 (and no Revision is recorded on that drawing for the note I am referencing) are listed as: A) Maul (sic) SFS-1-4-P (pnuematic) B) Maul (sic) SFS-1-4 (solid) and (C) Scott 3200...only! The steering bellcrank that BOLTS into the bottom of the rudderpost is the same Scott bellcrank no matter which tailwheel is hung underneath the tail. The fitting welded onto the bottom of the lower longerons is identical to the original Piper part (the Pacer used this fitting and is the same part number on ALL the Piper taildraggers - I DO BELIEVE) and mounts any "production" tailwheel normally used with an 1 1/4" wide spring (that is why the Scott tailwheel mount needs to have the inordinately expensive spacer up inside the ridiculously overpriced (but still, the best tailwheel for any taildragger) tailwheel ever built (which has been improved upon with a wider fork and a "fattie" tire). In order for the aircraft to be airworthy, it must comply with (in this case) it's "legally altered condition", which means it must conform to the requirements of the STC that has been "installed" or some other means of "legally altered" (i.e. "deviation", Field Approval, et al ad nauseum). Somehow I have missed the apparent fact that the Maule (MY correct spelling!) rudder steering bellcrank was in fact somehow DIFFERENT than the Scott ("the day you stop learnin' is the day you die"!) rather than directly interchangeable. But the point is that the Drawing calls for a Scott part number. Could you specify exactly WHAT difference there actually IS that rendered unbolting the Maule piece and bolting in a Scott piece impossible...requiring alteration of the lower rudderpost (I'm true and honest serious...)? If your "repair by person or persons unknown" was not done iaw approved or acceptable data, well, you got a Unapproved Part installed there and it needs to be rectified. TO restate...if the airplane does not comply with its Type Certificate or otherwise legally altered condition, it has not been maintained iaw Part 43, and if you read your Airworthiness Certificate very carefully, that little fact has voided that important piece of paper. The only end result that matters in the end is that YOU found it, now FIX IT. If you put it back into "airworthy condition" by maintaining it iaw Part 43, the A/W Cert is valid (that's the way I read it...anybody wanna argue that fine point?). Unless you would like to "blow the whistle on yourself" and make application for a new Airworthiness Certificate based on the fact that yours was "voided", I would just Plod On, if you take my meaning!!! (Boy, this is ONE PLACE you should thank the God in Heaven that the wording is JUST GRAY ENOUGH to interpret it in this manner!). Any FAA ASI could, if they wished, write you up for non-compliance and turn what used to be your "airplane" into a static display and the best you could hope for then was that Uncle has a lousy lawyer on payroll! You wanna smell purdy on this, every chance you get (keep your head down as you crawl on your belly because that is Live Fire going downrange over your head). BTW, these "early" LPC Drawings are readily available on the SWPC Drawings CD, very near the bottom of the listings within the Numerical Index folder. You got that CD already, RIGHT?

[edit:] Duh-uh...the LPC Dwg I referenced above is LPC-1024.

[mdcf18]

Yes...we have the SWPC CD and the LPC dwg. We do plan to "make it right" and I guess the bottom line is what is right and do we have the documentation to prove it. Right now, all I have is the LPC dwg showing the Scott installation. If I had a copy of the STC, it would make life easer. Are the Maul part numbers you quoted called out in the STC? We will plan on reworking the bottom end of the rudder post, IAW approved repairs, so the Scott TW installation would be correct. But if there is a copy of the STC out there, I would be glad to beg, borrow or buy. I've searched the web but so far no dice.

Thanks for the help.
Chuck

[JohnW]

Chuck; If your airplane was modded in 1975, as you say, it used the Drawing set I have pointed out that are contained on the ShortWing Piper Club CD. There have been several Revisions between then and now, and Univair did indeed buy the rights to the LPC alteration. Technically these revisions are not "required" unless you should chose to use them (and I don't think there has been many that make a hoot of difference except NOW the STC includes specific reference to installing Federal Skiis on the converted airplane, and I do not believe the original did). These could be used as "reference material", I guess, for your purposes "here". But technically the originals were supposed to have been made a part of the aircraft's PERMANENT RECORDS (altho' this was rarely done, years ago. Somebody else "kept them" for whatever sinister reasons they could imagine at a later date). Otherwise, how does an Inspector thirty-something years later know whether the airplane "comforms to a legally altered condition" or not!?! Which is right where we find Chuck at this point in time! I am sure that Univair could/would supply you with an "original set" of drawings (at a "nominal charge" might be a matter of discussion and/or "opinion")...or NOT. Their records from "way back" might possibly be called "a little sketchy over the years", but if your airplane was in fact actually converted on the "up and up" rather than the STC having been "applied" without ipso facto "permission", Univair SHOULD have a record that they sold it to your aircraft tail number. So it is, in fact, "yours" and they SHOULD "do you a favor" for the cost of copying. Now, if their records do NOT contain your serial number, then they are PROBABLY correct in assuming that the alteration was STOLEN (intellectually) and in fact you would be required to either PURCHASE the STC for it to be legal or REMOVE THE INSTALLATION, making the aircraft conform to it UNaltered condition (it's Type Certificate). I would dare venture a guess that a Membership in the SWPC (which you may already have?) and the cost of the SWPC Dwgs CD (which you say you DO have!?!) would be MUCH cheaper than buying the whole pack from Univair... So what gives with that? You want for ME or somebody else to dig it out and HAND it to you over the Internet? You HAVE IT. I say that because you say you HAVE the CD. Then fer crying out loud! Put it in your CD drive and FIND IT! Look in the "Numerical Index" folder rather than the "aircraft model" folder for your airplane. Then FIND what you SEEK that you HAVE in your HAND.

The Dwg number I "Added" at the bottom of my last post IS part of the [then] official STC paperwork and I viewed it from the SWPC Dwgs CD to get the info I Posted. The other Drawings are there as well. Every drawing in the set... IS the STC paperwork. It is the ONLY location which lists the "approved tailwheels" allowed (along with the word Maul -misspelled twice- and all the part numbers for all the parts the STC "installs"). The Installation Instruction Sheet simply tells you to install "the tailwheel" through an early allusion to that Drawing. It (Installation Instructions) is there too. The actual piece of paper that says that STC SA45RM is authorized to be installed on Piper s/n such-and-such, and has the FAA's stamp on it, is truly the most useless piece of paper in the STC package (and the only one piece that should be "on file with the FAA at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Building's Archives" because FAA does not "sweat the small stuff" like the details on the Drawings that make up the STC). You SHOULD order a CD of your aircraft records from Uncle with that info and everything else ever filed with the FAA on it (the Drawings will NOT be there, they are not required to be. They ARE required to be in your Permanent Aircraft Records so that no Owner will ever go through the abuse I am giving you right now), and its CHEAP, and you can do it on the Internet. Last I knew it was SIX BUCKS. But, that one piece of paper that is kept by FAA has NOTHING to do with the detail that the drawings and instructions contain...Those are (one more time with The Chorus) SUPPOSED to be in your aircraft's permanent records, and FARs require they be delivered over to the new owner whenever an aircraft is sold (and many times, they are not). But your aircraft records is SUPPOSED to (read "required to") have the originals that were used to install the STC and that falls under the responsibility of the OWNER (you can be angry with whomever schtupped you on this, but it remains the owner's responsibility and YOU is HIM). You can fudge "getting along" with "reference materials" to make it right, but only the STC Holder can sell you originals (if even THEY can) to replace the ones you are supposed to have. A Good thing: I have never heard of anybody going to Federal Prison because they didn't "get" the paperwork that they are required to have when they bought the airplane. But that does not relieve you of your responsibility to have them. An Impertinent Fact: You could not sell the aircraft to be registered in another Country without that paperwork, but worse than that... any IA that signed off an Annual without that paperwork did not do his Number One job (and is officially remonstrated right here right now as "incompetent"...) which was to check to see if the airplane conformed to its legally altered condition. Apparently, it did not. Guess what? It wasn't "an airplane" all that time. You COULD actually sue whomever you bought it from... AND the last IA (or IAs) that signed it off, and you WOULD eventually win (but YOU would not get rich. However, several lawyers WOULD).

I am still having a problem understanding what repairs are required to make it "...so the Scott TW installation would be correct." The piece/parts that the STC installs work interchangeably with either a Scott or Maule tailwheel, unless you have some bastardized part number there (which would ALSO be "illegal" for the installation and I BET was never recorded in the logs...and even then, I wish to understand exactly what is "different" about your installation other than a repair that doesn't conform to Acceptable Methods, Techniques and Practices (A.C. 43.13)? People have even installed "Maule compression steering springs" on Scott tailwheels with the existing parts the STC installed there (for what reason, escapes me... but I am NOT being judgemental). What tailwheel did you have on there when you were informed "it was wrong"? who informed you it was wrong? and what was their basis for knowing that it WAS wrong? SOMETHING started all this, and I would appreciate knowing what exactly it was. My Inquiring Mind wants to know.

[mdcf18]

Hi John....

What started all this was the fact the rudder post has a large, massive weld between the rudder horn and the TW spring horn. More history....The A/C was disassembled several years ago by the previous owner. He admitted he did the welding on the rudder post and stated he doesn't like a Scott TW. I suspect, in the process of rebuliding the A/C, he was changing to a Maul TW and started welding the two holes that secured the previous horn in place to facilitate matching drilling a new spring horn. However, the welding is crap and all ground down and the inside of the rudder tube is so irregular that neither the Scott nor the Maul horn fit. In effect, the rudder tube at the bottom end, needs rework.

Now I may have inadvertenly led you astray in previous note. The A/C had a proper STC installed back in 1975. I have the cover sheet to the STC which is assigned to this A/C, I have the 337 and a log book entry for the modification. The previous owner, who is involved with the current owner's efforts to reassemble the A/C, maintaines the Maul TW is legal. I asked him to show me some documentation to support his claim. Of course, he doesn't have any. I also have the LPC drawing from the CD. As you know, it only shows the Scott TW. The point being, without any other FAA approved documination showing additional configurations of TW's I have to go with the LPC dwg. I did call Univair and the answer I received is the Scott 3200 TW is the only tail wheel approved by this STC. Now there may be other documentation that support the Maul being a replace for all Scott 3200 installs but I have no requirement to hunt for that. If the current owner wants a Maul TW, he can obtaine that documentation at his cost and provide to me before I'll consider adding it to the A/C.

Rest assured, I understand the importance of having correct parts, repairs and documentation for the FAA and legal community. I was not trying to get a STC installed on the A/C by hook or crook. I just trying to rebuild the thing to the approved configuration so I know and can support the repairs and parts I put in the project.

I hope I have provided a better explaination. If you have additional concerns, please let me know. And thank you for you info.

Chuck

[JohnW]

Aw, jeez, Chuck...I didn't mean to say YOU were trying to do anything other than make 'er right! Sorry for the misunderstanding! The drawing on the SWPC CD that I made reference to has a revision on it that specifically lists the three tailwheels and I copied them verbatim from THAT DRAWING (although I added -in brackets- the word "sic", meaning that the misspelling was THEIRS, not MINE. Somewhere I have around here COPIES of the original drawings (the originals went with the airplane when it left!) from about 25 years ago and that information was, as I recall on those drawings, too. That conversion would have been around 1983 or so. I do know that Univair SELLS the Scott 3200 with the kit and the "typical" tailwheel illustrated in the drawing is unmistakenly a Scott 3200. Their catalog, however, states that here are TWO pnuematic tailwheels available for the conversion and one solid tailwheel. Raising any questions in yer head, as of yet? The info you got from Univair either has CHANGED (and it would have to be fairly "recently") or it is incorrect. There is a [remote :roll: ] possibilty I am incorrect, but I do not think so. I do know for a fact that I SPECIFIED the Scott tailwheel on ALL the kits I have purchased over the last nearly three decades (directly or through the Owner doing the actual ordering) on better than two dozen airplanes. Univair USED TO ASK which tailwheel you wanted, and perhaps that has changed and whomever told you all that is approved is the Scott 3200 is unfortunatly "wrong" to say the Maule was "never" approved. I have actually REMOVED Maule tailwheels at owner's requests that were purchased with the conversion kit from Univair. And, I have "under protest" installed Maule tailwheels on a couple other [cheap ] guys airplanes. I will see if I can "run down" if and when the Scott became the "ONLY tailwheel approved, and/or search my filing cabinets for revised drawings that support what the drawing on the SWPC CD says. I'll eat a crow if the Maule was NEVER approved (but my personal opinion that the only one thing better about the Maule was a substantially lower purchase price. It certainly isn't a pleasure to own one)... I'll be back (although not "shortly") after I have done that research when I get the chance...

[mdcf18]

Good morning John...

No problem. I appreciate your help and vast storehouse of data. Don't spend too much effort because like I said, I have a dwg that allows a Scott. If the new owner want to put a Maule (sp...I finally caught on..... :D ) on the A/C, he can come up with the data to support it. The bigger issue is how to repair the lower end of the rudder post. My options are rather limited. Because the weld crap goes all the way to the bottom of the hinge fitting, I am considering cutting the tube above the rudder cable horn and rebuilding the whole lower portion. What a pain in the butt.

Thanks again for your wisdom
Chuck

[JohnW]

Okay, I did the dirty deed. I have found SEVEN sets of copies of the original drawings supplied with the STC and I am vindicated! Each and every copy (and two originals) of STC SA45RM Drawing LPC-1024 over the years supplied with these installations (the earliest being a TriPacer I converted in 1983 and the latest "on my floor" being completed now) include Note 3, which specifically states that tailwheels eligible for installation are exactly as those I listed in the earlier Post. Right there in Ozalid blue ink plunked down right between Note 2 and Note 4 is your Approved Data for installing not only the Scott 3200, but a Maule Pneumatic or Maule Solid tailwheel as well,if desired (and the misspelling "Maul" stuck, right up to present). That drawing is part of the STC itself. What more do you need?

Now. WHY someone would want a Maule tailwheel escapes me. Having flown more PA-22/20s than I have fingers and toes to count them on, I can tell you which tailwheel was on each one without ever having looked at them, just as soon as I started to taxi. The Maules are crap, compared to the Scott. Takeoffs and landings are always "in question" as far as which way the airplane will "skip" next (kinda like a Scott with a blown tire). I HIGHLY dis-recommend the Maule, and instead of being "money saved" it will be "money WASTED"... because if the "new owner" EVER catches on, he will be trying to peddle the Maule (at a loss) and getting a Scott. Of course, there ARE hardheaded people out there that apparently can't tell the difference (ALL their ground operations MUST BE "excursions into the Valley of Death" each time they move the airplane for whatever reason -okay, I'm exaggerating...the Maule WORKS, but it just isn't rock steady, unless you WANT to push the tail sideways on the ground...then it just skids sideways instead of breaking loose- but in MY opinion, installing a MAule is a mistake much better avoided. Even when BRAND NEW, the Maule just does not work as nicely as the Scott. After a couple hundred hours, they are FRUITY and need rebuilding regularly, even when greased TOO MUCH, TOO OFTEN. The solid Maule is better, in my experience, but the Scott is "the one that you want". Once more into the breach..."to each his own" (just, NOT ON MY AIRPLANE, ya don't).

[mdcf18]

John....That's great. Thanks for looking that up....but tell me, How do you really feel about the Maule TW............. :D :D :D

Chuck

[JohnW]

Shux, I have nothing against the Maule tailwheel...makes an excellent anchor for a john boat (if the current isn't too fast) but nothing larger. Oh, and you HAVE TO let the air out of it.

[andya]

What John means to say is..............................................

[JohnW]

In a "lighter vein"...I have repaired rudders from several airplanes that had been flipped. What usually happens when the weight of the airplane is put on the TOP of the rudder post is that the rudder post folds over sideways. The tube doesn't care for this activity much, and reacts unfavorably by irreversibly changing its shape! The "clincher" is, that it always "folds and/or telescopes" a little too close to the UPPER hinge to effect a repair iaw 43.13. Most are "fluch at the upper weld point of the upper hinge. The only two options are "replacing the entire rudderpost" or "putting a 'by-the-book splice' BELOW the hinge itself". Well, or find another rudder (that's three). AS it turns out, a careful examination of the rudder drawing reveals that the hinge itself is a very simple design. There is a piece of 4130 tubing cut to the proper "length", stacked on top of a piece of 4130 flat stock the right thickness, legth and width (you'd have to figure it out the thickness from a good one, because as I recall, the actual dimension is not on the drawing?). The width actually becomes the "filler material", much like an "edge weld" on two flat plates. However, the lower hinge is the same deal, exactly. The "trick" is to accurately (correctly) LOCATE the hinge so it fits an assembled airframe AND weld it on "true", meaning "inline" with the other hinge, or binding and excessive wear will ensue. Still, it is really pretty easy to accomplish...easier than you would think. The "tube", the "post" and the "spacer" are all welded together in one pass around the "hinge". Carefully tacking the ends at the centerline of the post keeps the alignment quite well. So what you have is a standard "inner-sleeve welded repair" of the main post ONTO WHICH the flat piece and short tube stub are welded. Cake. You can then either buy or fabricate the correct hinge pin bushing (I finish line bore my "repaired uppers" through the other hinge on a long reamer (you can't buy those for less than and arm and two legs, but you CAN "make them"). The whole repair is easier than you think. Don't worry, Kyoko. Go for it. Or else just locate and buy another rudder.

[mdcf18]

Yea....the repair is pretty stright forward as long as it's lined up correctly as you say. But still a pain in the butt considering the cause was totally an owner playing mechanic. If I charge him double, do you think he'll get the point? Naa......no way. :roll: :roll: I'll see if I can get some pictures this weekend and post.

Chuck

[mdcf18]

Well John...I'm having crow for dinner and if I ever meet up with yea, I owe you the beer. The dwg I was viewing was a blown up section without the notes. Tonight I went back to the "full" dwg and checked the notes and you are absolutly correct. The Maule TW's are there.
:oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:
I'll still have to repair the rudder post but I can do that now with greater confidance knowing I have the data to support which ever TW the owner wishes to install.

Thanks for keeping after me.

Chuck

[JohnW]

Well Chuck, you were a pretty hard sell... :o

[57pacerBW]

MY pacer was converted in 1978 but when the pacer was rebuilt they put scott master cylinder instead of gerdes. I need to make the pacer legal what master cylinder should i put on. Marc

[Jim Hann]

Here are the parts list for both the single and dual brake installs. They both use the Cleveland 10-54 cylinders. The drawings (well a lot of them, don't know of all of them are there) are on the SWPC disk.

Jim

70267027

[57pacerBW]

You wouldn't know we're I can get a used set paying $2,000 not in the budget. Marc

[Jim Hann]

No, I don't unfortunately. Mine are still in use (well eventually). I'd fall back on the old standbys of Barnstormers, eBay, and TAP.

[d.grimm]

My PA22/20 had McCleary wheels
and brakes, double puck, that where on the Univair STC.
Might be able to find a set of them.
Dave

[57pacerBW]

Found at univar about $1100 a pair and I need 4 . Marc

[Pacerfgoe]

Give this guy a call and see what he has.....http://www.shortwingpipers.org/forum/showthread.php?9696-Parting-out-1957-Tripacer

[Steve Pierce]

Mark, I would save my money and leave the master cylinders installed and make a logbook entry after reading this document. www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_23-27.pdf

[miko38]

Found at univar about $1100 a pair and I need 4 . Marc

What are you looking for?

[57pacerBW]

We'll my IA told me me I haft to have cleveland 10-54 to be legal. Marc

[Steve Pierce]

Ask him to read the document I linked.

[57pacerBW]

I pa22/20 was set up with dual brakes but the never hook up the right side. I wood like to put them in so my wife can take lesson but cleveland are so expensive. I wish I could put another cylinder other than cleveland. The IA that I'm working with told me since univar bought the Stc. I haft to have cleveland. M

[57pacerBW]

I hate smartphone they make my spelling look like crap. Marc

[57pacerBW]

Steve I will take a print out of th23-27 to him and see what he say. That said does that mean I could do a 337 and replaced it something else. Marc