Welcome! Becoming a registered user of ShortWingPipers.Org is free and easy! Click the "Register" link found in the upper right hand corner of this screen. It's easy and you can then join the fun posting and learning about Short Wing Pipers!

Page 17 of 20 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 199

Thread: Tailwheel Shimmy and Spring Arch

  1. #161
    Gilbert Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Germantown, Tennessee 01TN
    Posts
    3,546
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Tailwheel Shimmy and Spring Arch

    My PA 18 spring camp took me about 20 minutes to make and bolted right up the Clipper. More recently they were supplying the Clamp.

  2. #162

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Toquerville, UT
    Posts
    114
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Tailwheel Shimmy and Spring Arch

    Quote Originally Posted by TxAgfisher View Post
    Also, the PA-18 spring would require a new spring hanger since it's 1.5" - the Husky comes with all the needed components.
    First thing I did with my airplane when I got it was put the ABW PA-18 tailspring on it. Haven't had any shimmy since. Called them and ordered the pieces/parts they recommended. Went on with no issue.

  3. #163

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Tailwheel Shimmy and Spring Arch

    Quote Originally Posted by TxAgfisher View Post
    Also, the PA-18 spring would require a new spring hanger since it's 1.5" - the Husky comes with all the needed components.
    My spring just wouldn't hold an arch any more. Bought and installed the ABW PA-18 Spring. They supplied a new clamp that was a direct bolt on with no modifications needed. The wider spring still nests between the existing bolt holes. The bolts supplied with my kit were a hair to short though. I'm pretty happy but I could still use a bit of shim to increase the caster another couple of degrees.

  4. #164
    Shermanj1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Longisland
    Posts
    81
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Tailwheel Shimmy and Spring Arch

    Quote Originally Posted by Short20 View Post
    My spring just wouldn't hold an arch any more. Bought and installed the ABW PA-18 Spring. They supplied a new clamp that was a direct bolt on with no modifications needed. The wider spring still nests between the existing bolt holes. The bolts supplied with my kit were a hair to short though. I'm pretty happy but I could still use a bit of shim to increase the caster another couple of degrees.
    I also had really bad shimmy with a maul tail wheel and original 1 1/4 springs that needed re-arching. Installed the ABW PA-18 spring, ABW 3200 tail wheel and replaced the bolts.
    The spring bolted right up just make sure you have some extra washers and cotter pins for adjustments.
    Bolt I used: AN6-26A spring to fuselage, AN7-21A spring to tail wheel. AN4-15A you may need a little longer lengths.
    I took her up and no shimmy no matter how I bounced her in. Only thing that will take some getting used to is how stiff the spring is during take of
    and landing.

  5. #165
    Jim Hann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Ballwin (St. Louis), Missouri
    Posts
    1,486
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Tailwheel Shimmy and Spring Arch

    Folks,

    Well, I’m tired of grinding the rubber off my tailwheel because my spring lost its arch again.

    What is the current “best advice” for installing the ABI PA-18 tailspring on a 22/20? I see old posts saying it was approved but the website says it is a non-PMA part. Will 23-27 do the trick? What verbiage has been used in the logbook? My IA doesn’t like blazing new trails, following what others have done is good.

    Thanks!


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    1957 PA-22/20 "Super Pacer" based 1H0
    Lifetime EAA member
    Vintage Aircraft Association member
    Lifetime EAA Chapter 32 member


  6. #166
    Gilbert Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Germantown, Tennessee 01TN
    Posts
    3,546
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Tailwheel Shimmy and Spring Arch

    What is safer; a non PMA part proven to solve the problem or an approved part (Univar) that we know will shimmy right out of the box because of insufficient arch? No brainer to me.

    Mine was an owner approved part. I approved the arch and stiffness and determined it met the requirements. You can do the same thing.

    It was a great improvement over the new Univair part that I had to re-arch before it was usable.
    Last edited by Gilbert Pierce; 09-10-2018 at 09:19 PM.

  7. #167

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    546
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Tailwheel Shimmy and Spring Arch

    I don't know the answer, but I can tell you that a scott 3200 tailwheel with that 8" wheel combined with the taller ABI spring will raise your tail and increase your takeoff distance. I flew a Pacer that had the original 1 1/4 spring and an API 4" solid rubber tailwheel http://apitailwheels.com/wp-content/...18/03/6124.jpg and man did that get off the ground fast, at least 100' shorter takeoff roll than mine with the taller 8" scott 3200 tailwheel. Taxiing was more difficult because the tail is about 3 inches lower with the API 4" tailwheel so you can't see over the nose as you taxi or as you begin the takeoff roll or pull the tail down to rotate at a lower airspeed.
    Last edited by SMO22; 09-10-2018 at 09:44 PM.

  8. #168
    Administrator Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Graham, Texas, United States
    Posts
    13,105
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Tailwheel Shimmy and Spring Arch

    Jim, Call ABW and tell them you want a spring with more arch. Sign it off as owner produced part. You played a part in the design and meet the definition of owner produced.

  9. #169
    Gilbert Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Germantown, Tennessee 01TN
    Posts
    3,546
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Tailwheel Shimmy and Spring Arch

    Jim, a refresher on Owner Produced Parts.
    Your IA may not be aware of this.


    http://www1.faa.gov/avr/afs/news/arc...gust/IvsWe.htm

    "I" versus "We"

    by Bill O'Brien

    Along with the pilot shortage and the mechanic shortage,
    there is also a parts shortage that plagues the general
    aviation industry. Because supply and demand are out of
    balance the cost of new and used parts seem to increase
    every day. Let's examine the reasons why this is so.

    First, we have an old fleet. The average general aviation
    (GA) single engine airplane is approximately 32 years old.
    The average age of GA multi-engine reciprocating aircraft is
    close to 27 years old. The average age for the turbine
    powered multi-engine propeller driven aircraft average out
    around 19 years of age. So because of long term wear and
    tear the demand for replacement parts and large
    sub-assemblies is much greater today than it was even 10
    years ago.

    The second reason is our general aviation fleet has been well
    maintained over the years. So well maintained in fact, the
    average GA aircraft with a mid-time engine and decent
    avionics has appreciated to two or three times its original
    purchase price and is still climbing. Yet even in that land of
    many zeros the older aircraft are still substantially lower in
    price than the cost of a brand new aircraft with similar
    performance numbers and equipment. So the value of older
    aircraft in good shape are proven investments that over time
    have beaten the DOW JONES average. So we have an
    economic imperative on the part of the owners to keep
    maintaining older aircraft in flying condition which
    increases the demand for replacement parts.

    The third reason is the increasing production costs to make a
    part. Today aircraft manufacturers are not making makes and
    models of aircraft in the same quantity they made them back
    in the Seventies. So the production runs for parts are not as
    frequent and not as many parts are produced. In addition, it
    is not cost effective for a manufacturer to make a lot of parts
    even if the unit price for each part is out of this world
    because taxes on maintaining a large inventory of parts
    would eat all of the profits. This low parts production keeps
    the supply of replacement parts low.

    The fourth reason is that some manufacturers would prefer
    that their older makes and model aircraft-made a million
    years ago-would quietly disappear from the aircraft registry.
    This retroactive birth control on the part of the
    manufacturers may seem not to make any sense until you
    look at aircraft market dynamics of creating demand and
    reducing costs. First, each older aircraft that is no longer in
    service creates a demand for a new, more expensive aircraft
    to take its place. Second, despite some tort claim relief
    granted to GA manufacturers in the early Nineties, the fewer
    older aircraft there are in service, the manufacturers of those
    aircraft enjoy reduced overall liability claims and ever
    decreasing continuing airworthiness responsibilities.

    So how are we going to maintain these older aircraft with an
    ever dwindling parts supply when Part 21, section 21.303
    Replacement and modification of parts, requires us to use
    the Parts Manufactured Approval (PMA) parts on a type
    certificated product? Well, the same rule grants four
    exemptions to the PMA requirement.

  10. #170
    Gilbert Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Germantown, Tennessee 01TN
    Posts
    3,546
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Tailwheel Shimmy and Spring Arch

    Part II of the above:
    1. You can use parts produced under a type or production
    certificate such as a Piper, Cessna, or Mooney produced
    part;

    2. A owner or operator produced part to maintain or alter
    their own product;

    3. Parts produced under a Technical Standard Order (TSO)
    such as radios, life vests and rafts, and GPS; or,

    4. A standard aviation part such as fasteners, washers, or
    safety wire.

    Before I segue into the subject of "owner produced parts" as
    called out in section 21.303, which is the purpose of this
    article. I would like to create a small uproar with this
    statement: "FAA Airframe and Powerplant rated mechanics
    can maintain, repair, and modify parts, but they cannot make
    a brand new part and call it a repair." Before you accuse me
    of losing dendrites by the minute, check out section 65.81
    General privileges and limitations. The section talks about
    maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations, but
    not the manufacturing of parts. Nor is it an implied privilege
    in Part 65, because Part 21 section 21.303 says "no person"
    may make a replacement part for a type certificated (TC)
    product unless that person has a PMA, etc.

    While I write this I can remember 25 pounds ago and when I
    had hair, I worked in the real world and I specialized in
    making engine baffles for Lycoming engines. Before
    someone accuses me of bureaucratic ventriloquism which is
    roughly translated as "talking out of both sides of my
    mouth." My weak defense is, I made the parts because I
    thought I could." It never dawned on me that I could not
    legally make a part. Some of you may be astounded that I
    make this confession freely. It's no big thing because I know
    the statue of limitations has run out years ago and a jury of
    my peers would never look me in the eye and convict me.

    So here is our problem that we must solve. Since mechanics
    cannot legally make parts for aircraft and aircraft need
    replacement parts, how are we going to keep the fleet
    flying? If we cannot find PMA, TSO, standard, or
    production holder replacement parts, we are left to make the
    part under the owner-produced option under section
    21.303(b)(2). However, we must remember that the part is
    for the owner/operator's aircraft only and is not
    manufactured for sale to other TC aircraft.

    To get through confusing regulatory policy with our pride
    intact, let's try the question and answer routine. (Note: This
    policy is taken from FAA 's AGC-200 policy memorandum
    to AFS-300 on the definition of "Owner-Produced Parts"
    dated August 5, 1993)

    Question 1: Does the owner have to manufacture the part
    him or herself in order to meet the intent of the rule?

    Answer 1: No, the owner does not have to make the part him
    or herself. However to be considered a producer of the part
    he/she must have participated in controlling the design,
    manufacturer, or quality of the part such as:

    1. provide the manufacturer with the design or performance
    data from which to make the part, or

    2. provide the manufacturer with the materials to make the
    part, or

    3. provide the manufacturer with fabrication processes or
    assembly methods to make the part, or

    4. provide the quality control procedures to make the part,
    or

    5. personally supervised the manufacturer of the part.

    Question 2: Can the owner contract out for the manufacture
    of the part and still have a part that is considered
    "owner-produced?"

    Answer 2: Yes, as long as the owner participated in one of
    the five functions listed in Answer 1.

    Question 3: Can the owner contract out the manufacture of
    the part to a non-certificated person and still have a part that
    is considered "owner-produced?"

    Answer 3: Yes, as long as the owner participated in one of
    the five functions listed in Answer 1.

    Question 4: If a mechanic manufactured parts for an owner,
    is he/she considered in violation of section 21.303(b)(2)?

    Answer 4: The answer would be no, if it was found that the
    owner participated in controlling the design, manufacture, or
    quality of the part. The mechanic would be considered the
    producer and would not be in violation of section 21.303(a).
    On the other hand, if the owner did not play a part in
    controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of the part,
    the mechanic runs a good chance of being in violation of
    section 21.303 (b)(2).

    Question 5: What kind of advice can you give on how a
    mechanic can avoid even the appearance of violating section
    21.303(b)(2)?

    Answer 5: First, a mechanic should never make a logbook or
    maintenance entry saying that he/she made a part under his
    certificate number. This foopah will send up a flare and get
    you undue attention from your local FAA inspector, which
    you could do without. However, the mechanic can say on the
    work order that he helped manufacture an owner-produced
    part under section 21.303 (b)(2).

    Second, the owner or operator should be encouraged to
    make a log book entry that is similar to section 43.9
    maintenance entry that states: The part is identified as an
    owner produced part under section 21.303 (b)(2). The part
    was manufactured in accordance with approved data. The
    owner/operator's participation in the manufacturer of the
    part is identified, such as quality control. The owner must
    declare that the part is airworthy and sign and date the entry.

    Question 6: Is there anything else a mechanic must do?

    Answer 6: The mechanic must ensure that the
    owner-produced part meets form, fit, and function, and,
    within reasonable limits, ensure that the part does meet its
    approved type design (e.g. like looking at the approved data
    used to make the part). Then the mechanic installs the part
    on the aircraft, makes an operational check if applicable,
    and signs off the required section 43.9 maintenance entry.

    Question 7: What is the owner responsible for and what is
    the mechanic responsible for concerning owner-produced
    parts?

    Answer 7: The owner is responsible for the part meeting
    type design and being in a condition for safe operation. The
    mechanic is responsible for the installation of the
    owner-produced part being correct and airworthy and for a
    maintenance record of the installation of the part made.

    Question 8: How does the owner or operator get the
    approved data to make a part if the manufacturer and other
    sources are no longer in business?

    Answer 8: For aircraft that the manufacturer is no longer
    supporting the continuing airworthiness of, the owner or
    operator can petition the FAA Aircraft Certification
    Directorate under the Freedom of Information Act for the
    data on how the part was made. Or the owner or operator
    can reverse engineer the part and have the data approved
    under a FAA field approval or, if it is a really complicated
    part, have the data approved by a FAA engineer or FAA
    Designated Engineering Representative.

    Question 9: What happens to the owner-produced part on
    the aircraft if the original owner sells the aircraft?

    Answer 9: Unless the part is no longer airworthy, the
    original owner-produced part stays on the aircraft.

    I hope that I spread some light on the murky subject of
    owner-produced parts, so the next time instead of saying to
    the owner of an broke aircraft: "Sure, 'I' can make that part,"
    you will now say "Sure, 'WE' can make that part."


    Bill O'Brien is an Airworthiness Aviation Safety Inspector
    in FAA's Flight Standards Service. This article also
    appeared in the Aircraft Maintenance Technology
    magazine.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •