Lycoming STC
- Thread starter cglucas
- Start date
Dan Cullman
New member
Greg, There is no known multiple STC for that installation. I personally know of 7 or 8 installations that were done on a "field approval/One shot STC." The process usually tries the sanity and pocketbook of all involved. Dan
Greg, about ten years ago a fellow named Russ Krouse from North Carolina was putting one in his 14-13-2. He said he was going to down rate it to 195HP to keep his local office happy. It was being engineered by Rob Harrison from Clairmont Calif. Rob is the aerobatic guy called Tumbling Bear. I lost track of Russ, so I dont know if it ever was finished. The plane involved was N74313. Maybe the club still has a phone number for him._____Grant.
Dan Cullman
New member
I've seen the Continental IO-360 installed in a local Stinson. The only IO-360 experience I have is a couple hundred hours in a Cessna T-41B that the US. Army let me fly........way back when. I thought it was a good engine; but I was impressed about how hot it ran. For this reason, I never considered it for the Cruisair. Dan
I have an 0-360 installed in N86768 done under multiple STC SA129WE. This was done May 21, 1962. The company that owns the STC is Aircraft Technical Services Inc. The company is still in business and still owns the STC BUT! Here is the hooker.
The old man's son now owns the company and STC. I contacted him and tried to buy one from or buy the STC ownership from him. His response was, "I wouldn't think of allowing anyone to put an engine in another Bellanca with this STC". I asked him why. He said the eingineering is so poor that it would't meet todays standards. I told him that I would update the engineering and get FAA approval. He said he was not interested. I reckon he has been brainwashed by UnoHU. The STC consisted of one drawing #653 and 4 photographs.
There is a note on the STC that states that the installation engineering data is suitable for use on S/N 1129 only. So it looks like a one time STC but the FAA ACO told me that it was a multiple STC. Maybe is is only a one time STC, I don't know.
Since these airplanes were certified under CAR 3 they are modified and maintained under CAR 18 and CAM 18 is the equivelant to AC 43-13-1B and 2B. But the FAA would like to see those CARs go away. All those old airplanes certified under CAR 3 and 4a were never recertified under FAR 23. So the FAA has a problem. I had a discussion a few months ago with our local FSDO boss. We were working on a '46 Bonanza. I told him we were not working under FAR 43 for repair and modification of this airplane. He finally agreed that the CARs applied. He is the best FAA inspector I've ran into yet. He even confirmed to a guy here on the field that a tire for a SeeBee did not have to be TSO's but had to be made to the equivelant specifications as a TSO. This is the old phrase, "As good as original" for parts to go on CAR 3 airplanes. The part can't be as "Good as or Better. Because they say that if the part is better then that is a major alteration requiring a field approval or an STC. So a part may be better but you can't say that.
The old man's son now owns the company and STC. I contacted him and tried to buy one from or buy the STC ownership from him. His response was, "I wouldn't think of allowing anyone to put an engine in another Bellanca with this STC". I asked him why. He said the eingineering is so poor that it would't meet todays standards. I told him that I would update the engineering and get FAA approval. He said he was not interested. I reckon he has been brainwashed by UnoHU. The STC consisted of one drawing #653 and 4 photographs.
There is a note on the STC that states that the installation engineering data is suitable for use on S/N 1129 only. So it looks like a one time STC but the FAA ACO told me that it was a multiple STC. Maybe is is only a one time STC, I don't know.
Since these airplanes were certified under CAR 3 they are modified and maintained under CAR 18 and CAM 18 is the equivelant to AC 43-13-1B and 2B. But the FAA would like to see those CARs go away. All those old airplanes certified under CAR 3 and 4a were never recertified under FAR 23. So the FAA has a problem. I had a discussion a few months ago with our local FSDO boss. We were working on a '46 Bonanza. I told him we were not working under FAR 43 for repair and modification of this airplane. He finally agreed that the CARs applied. He is the best FAA inspector I've ran into yet. He even confirmed to a guy here on the field that a tire for a SeeBee did not have to be TSO's but had to be made to the equivelant specifications as a TSO. This is the old phrase, "As good as original" for parts to go on CAR 3 airplanes. The part can't be as "Good as or Better. Because they say that if the part is better then that is a major alteration requiring a field approval or an STC. So a part may be better but you can't say that.