oh
- Thread starter blimpy
- Start date
Larry,
As far as I know, my Cruisair had Goodyear brakes from day one - and some corresponding high pressure master cylinders. Always was easy to do full power checks without any strenuous effort on the brakes.
I'll check what masters I have today. Parts list or not, there should have been at least two types of masters for the different OEM brakes. In which case, no 337 necessary I should think.
Ron
As far as I know, my Cruisair had Goodyear brakes from day one - and some corresponding high pressure master cylinders. Always was easy to do full power checks without any strenuous effort on the brakes.
I'll check what masters I have today. Parts list or not, there should have been at least two types of masters for the different OEM brakes. In which case, no 337 necessary I should think.
Ron
Larry Lowenkron
Member
Ron, since Clevelands are not on the TCDS or listed as an STC, why is no 337 required? What am I missing?
Larry Lowenkron
Larry Lowenkron
Phone pic of 14-13's master cyl. OEM with Goodyear?
The OD of the bottom bore area is .75 so the piston bore would be about 5/8" max. Since they surly need tending every 50 year or so, this will be a good next project.
The length pin to pin is 7 inches. That's a little shorter than the 7 1/2 you mentioned. No idea of the model number of the part. The aircraft had these when I got it way back when and I assume they were oem but no guarantee.
Matco also makes a similar master for a hundred plus. MCMC5 and MCMC5a.
ron
The OD of the bottom bore area is .75 so the piston bore would be about 5/8" max. Since they surly need tending every 50 year or so, this will be a good next project.
The length pin to pin is 7 inches. That's a little shorter than the 7 1/2 you mentioned. No idea of the model number of the part. The aircraft had these when I got it way back when and I assume they were oem but no guarantee.
Matco also makes a similar master for a hundred plus. MCMC5 and MCMC5a.
ron
You are right, Larry. A 337 for the Clevelands.Larry Lowenkron said:
But if master cylinders are not spec'ed in a reference STC, then a compatible OEM Goodyear MC should be OK and not require an additional 337. I think that is what the thread is about. Sorry,I missed your post prior to my prev post.
ron marks
blimpy
New member
RonM - those are Scott Master Cylinders, installed in your plane. Appear to be 4000's but 4500's are externally similar, but internally different - and capable of more pressure.
Mine are Scott 4000 (hayes system) which make only marginal pressure to operate Clevelands.
Grant - I will try to look up the plane you referred to and see what I can learn there.
LarryL - right, the clevelands need a 337 - AND I'm hoping to find a 337 for new masters cylinder ALSO.
I really want all NEW stuff in the brake system.
----
I thought I posted pix, but if not I will post pics of my Scott 4000's being overhauled. Honed and polished to a fare-thee-well. But, they are what they are: single stage - high volume low pressure - types - as correctly posted years ago.
I disassembled the higher pressure type master I got from Grant ( good year system).
It has a two stage master, with two plungers, two O-rings, and some kind of transfer ports between
upper and lower sections. Since fluids aren't compressable.. the why of this eludes me.. but that's what I found.
They are my fall back option.
----
RonM - Matco's are strictly experimental, and cheap. Not on my radar for a bellanca.
Grove's can be certified or non-certified but use the same parts - and fit exactly -even look like Scotts.
Cleveland 10-45 is certified and fits -if a supplier can be found - My first choice if 337 is possible.
Mine are Scott 4000 (hayes system) which make only marginal pressure to operate Clevelands.
Grant - I will try to look up the plane you referred to and see what I can learn there.
LarryL - right, the clevelands need a 337 - AND I'm hoping to find a 337 for new masters cylinder ALSO.
I really want all NEW stuff in the brake system.
----
I thought I posted pix, but if not I will post pics of my Scott 4000's being overhauled. Honed and polished to a fare-thee-well. But, they are what they are: single stage - high volume low pressure - types - as correctly posted years ago.
I disassembled the higher pressure type master I got from Grant ( good year system).
It has a two stage master, with two plungers, two O-rings, and some kind of transfer ports between
upper and lower sections. Since fluids aren't compressable.. the why of this eludes me.. but that's what I found.
They are my fall back option.
----
RonM - Matco's are strictly experimental, and cheap. Not on my radar for a bellanca.
Grove's can be certified or non-certified but use the same parts - and fit exactly -even look like Scotts.
Cleveland 10-45 is certified and fits -if a supplier can be found - My first choice if 337 is possible.
Larry Lowenkron
Member
Larry,
order the CD for Mike's plane. It is the easiest way to get the info. I am sure that there are other Cruisairs that have Cleveland's, so if you can get a few of those, it will help to get a 337. Contact Robert at the club, I'm pretty sure he has some. You probably want to get familiar with the AC on field approvals and STC's (not that you want to go thru all that pain). You might also want to get familiar with the 337 process, and when it is (or is not) necessary to get FSDO approval. Ahhh the go old days when you could actually talk to someone at the FSDO that even knew what a Cruisair was, and was not afraid to process a field approval....hmmmm the newer, friendlier (????!!) FAA.
LL
order the CD for Mike's plane. It is the easiest way to get the info. I am sure that there are other Cruisairs that have Cleveland's, so if you can get a few of those, it will help to get a 337. Contact Robert at the club, I'm pretty sure he has some. You probably want to get familiar with the AC on field approvals and STC's (not that you want to go thru all that pain). You might also want to get familiar with the 337 process, and when it is (or is not) necessary to get FSDO approval. Ahhh the go old days when you could actually talk to someone at the FSDO that even knew what a Cruisair was, and was not afraid to process a field approval....hmmmm the newer, friendlier (????!!) FAA.
LL
Blimpy, those masters that I sent you are NOT Goodyear. They are Wheeler Dealer, which is now Bodel, and Jim Green is the expert, and parts supplier. Larry L, All of my paperwork is in storage. I thought that Firestone brakes were in our T.C. ???? Maybe my memory is foggy, but I thought that the nice thing about Bodels, was that there was no paperwork other than a log book entry? I am beginning to need memory checks more often._____Grant.
SoCalPlaneDoc
New member
Durn it. Seems this thread is done. I sorta feel like my favorite soap has ended and now there's a hole in my day 
Blimpster, here's where you want to start: AC 23-27 Parts and Materials Substitution for Vintage Aircraft http://rgl.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_G...ac581048cd862575e6006ca078/$FILE/AC 23-27.pdf
Read it, every single word. Then read it again. Become an expert in this document. Like Lancelot's Sword, this AC is powerful if it's used wisely. It was written specifically for the purpose you've been working on. You don't have to be an A&P to use it.
Once you've assimilated that AC, now go do the same for AC 23-21 Airworthiness Compliance Checklists Used to Substantiate Major Alterations for Small Airplaneshttp://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...8c09686256fe8005c605c/$FILE/AC 23-21CHG 1.pdf
This one is your roadmap to success. Don't skip a single word.. understand it all.
Only after you totally grog those two ACs do you want talk to the FAA. Why? because if you don't know what you're talking about, they'll realize it right away and you're toast. BUT, go in with that knowledge, be nice, positive, and show some empathy for their situation and you might find out they'll actually help you.. a lot.
<SOAPBOX MODE ON> (to any and everyone that whines about the old days)
I'm old enough and have owned planes long enough to remember when the annual was required to renew your airworthiness cert. I remember the "old days" too. they're gone, things changed - let it go. You want to fly your old plane now, now is where you have to function.
The FSDO inspectors are there to make sure no one violates the regs. That's it. Put yourself in that position.. If you always say no, the regs wont be violated and you'll keep your job (and limit your exposure to litigation). Walk in there whining about the old days and they'll ask you to find success elsewhere. Tell them you cant understand why it takes so much effort for something so simple, they'll just tell you to go away and come back when you understand...
The really don't care what you want to do, as long as you do it according to the rules.
Nowadays, thanks to politics and all that goes with it, there's far to few of them trying to hold the fort. (keep that in mind when you go to the polls in 2015) Then some Korean knuckleheads claims he got blinded by light and lands on a breakwater in KSFO..
<SOAPBOX MODE OFF>
OK, so now you're an expert. Hide that. Showing off is arrogant. Call the FSDO, ask for an appt. Tell them you have an "Aging Aircraft" (don't say old plane - to them a 80's Skylane is old). Tell them you read the ACs and would like to follow them to get a field approval for Brake Master substitution, and you'd like to open a line of communication for advice so you can do it right the first time. Be patient and positive even if they're not.
Don't be surprised if all they say os to follow the ACs and submit some paperwork - only to have them kick it back requiring some more work. Thank them for their attention to detail and do the work, keep being nice and patient. Eventually you get through it not only with your approval but also with a huge boost up the learning curve and, if you've kept a positive and constructive attitude, new friends at the FSDO. Next one will be much easier.
It seems every time I'm in my FSDOs (San Diego and Riverside) the only time there isn't someone whining about some reg is when I'm the only one there. They didn't write them, they just have to enforce them. Show them you want to help, they'll love you.
Of course if all this is too much for you, you can always retain a DAR (I make nice Bellanca-Bux that way, that's how I paid for my IFR stack) or, Barnstormers has Cessnas listed every day....
Don't feel alone. 30+ years ago I went through the field approval education when I bought a metalized Stinson for a song... then found out why. It's what resolved me to go to A&P school, then become an IA - well that and because it was fun. One day the Inspector mentioned they needed more Designees for aging aircraft issues and asked if I was interested... Now, I walk the dark side, but I carry a big flashlight :twisted:
Blimpster, here's where you want to start: AC 23-27 Parts and Materials Substitution for Vintage Aircraft http://rgl.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_G...ac581048cd862575e6006ca078/$FILE/AC 23-27.pdf
Read it, every single word. Then read it again. Become an expert in this document. Like Lancelot's Sword, this AC is powerful if it's used wisely. It was written specifically for the purpose you've been working on. You don't have to be an A&P to use it.
Once you've assimilated that AC, now go do the same for AC 23-21 Airworthiness Compliance Checklists Used to Substantiate Major Alterations for Small Airplaneshttp://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...8c09686256fe8005c605c/$FILE/AC 23-21CHG 1.pdf
This one is your roadmap to success. Don't skip a single word.. understand it all.
Only after you totally grog those two ACs do you want talk to the FAA. Why? because if you don't know what you're talking about, they'll realize it right away and you're toast. BUT, go in with that knowledge, be nice, positive, and show some empathy for their situation and you might find out they'll actually help you.. a lot.
<SOAPBOX MODE ON> (to any and everyone that whines about the old days)
I'm old enough and have owned planes long enough to remember when the annual was required to renew your airworthiness cert. I remember the "old days" too. they're gone, things changed - let it go. You want to fly your old plane now, now is where you have to function.
The FSDO inspectors are there to make sure no one violates the regs. That's it. Put yourself in that position.. If you always say no, the regs wont be violated and you'll keep your job (and limit your exposure to litigation). Walk in there whining about the old days and they'll ask you to find success elsewhere. Tell them you cant understand why it takes so much effort for something so simple, they'll just tell you to go away and come back when you understand...
The really don't care what you want to do, as long as you do it according to the rules.
Nowadays, thanks to politics and all that goes with it, there's far to few of them trying to hold the fort. (keep that in mind when you go to the polls in 2015) Then some Korean knuckleheads claims he got blinded by light and lands on a breakwater in KSFO..
<SOAPBOX MODE OFF>
OK, so now you're an expert. Hide that. Showing off is arrogant. Call the FSDO, ask for an appt. Tell them you have an "Aging Aircraft" (don't say old plane - to them a 80's Skylane is old). Tell them you read the ACs and would like to follow them to get a field approval for Brake Master substitution, and you'd like to open a line of communication for advice so you can do it right the first time. Be patient and positive even if they're not.
Don't be surprised if all they say os to follow the ACs and submit some paperwork - only to have them kick it back requiring some more work. Thank them for their attention to detail and do the work, keep being nice and patient. Eventually you get through it not only with your approval but also with a huge boost up the learning curve and, if you've kept a positive and constructive attitude, new friends at the FSDO. Next one will be much easier.
It seems every time I'm in my FSDOs (San Diego and Riverside) the only time there isn't someone whining about some reg is when I'm the only one there. They didn't write them, they just have to enforce them. Show them you want to help, they'll love you.
Of course if all this is too much for you, you can always retain a DAR (I make nice Bellanca-Bux that way, that's how I paid for my IFR stack) or, Barnstormers has Cessnas listed every day....
Don't feel alone. 30+ years ago I went through the field approval education when I bought a metalized Stinson for a song... then found out why. It's what resolved me to go to A&P school, then become an IA - well that and because it was fun. One day the Inspector mentioned they needed more Designees for aging aircraft issues and asked if I was interested... Now, I walk the dark side, but I carry a big flashlight :twisted:
SoCalPlaneDoc
New member
Here's an unrelated tip to keep in mind when communicating with the FAA:
never, ever, ever use the words "Equal to, or better"
1. Those words don't exist in any FAA reg.
2. You're making a value judgment that just doesn't matter to them and almost always implies you're making an alteration when you may only be making a repair.
3. It shows you don't know the rules.
the way they want to hear that is "At least equal to"
1. you're not claiming it to be better so, you wont have to prove that.
2. It matches with the reg's lingo - they find that comforting.
never, ever, ever use the words "Equal to, or better"
1. Those words don't exist in any FAA reg.
2. You're making a value judgment that just doesn't matter to them and almost always implies you're making an alteration when you may only be making a repair.
3. It shows you don't know the rules.
the way they want to hear that is "At least equal to"
1. you're not claiming it to be better so, you wont have to prove that.
2. It matches with the reg's lingo - they find that comforting.
lwford
New member
Blimpster If you take this route always bring up SAFETY. Does this change increase safety--you bet! The Feds approve changes that improve safety ie shoulder harness. Remember also that some of these planes were born before the inspector. He has no idea of what is approved or not approved so he is likely to cover his arse by the NO word. Lynn the crate :!:
SoCalPlaneDoc
New member
lwford said:
I wouldn't do it. You're changing to a different master to make it at least equal to so, safety will be restored. its more or an airworthiness issue. If you bring it up then you have to justify it.. best not to have the conversation.
But if they ask for words about safety, you'll have to go there.
Sure, the old ones probably were not as safe as they used to be and changing to some equivalents will bring that safety back but, that's not really a change, just a restoration.
All you want to do is make it as good as the day it was made (if it happens to be better, quietly celebrate that)
now, if you're going to refit with an all-new Cleveland disk system.. the aging AC is off-the-table... that's a pure alteration and you'll have to prepare for the full monty. Still worth doing though.
Lynn, you did bring up something I didn't want to.. officially
There's a school of thought that with many planes (ours being among them) it's nearly, if not completely, impossible in some cases to demonstrate what was on the plane originally. There are those who would advocate the best thing to do is just make the change and go on with your aviating life. One I can think of is the 1-or-2-valve fuel system in the -2, There doesn't seem to be a way to tell which way a particular -2 left the factory (short of historical photos or something). Or, the beacon on the back of the -3, I've seen them both ways as if it was an option.. but there's rarely a record either way.. And, as you said, most inspectors have no idea what a triple-tail is so.. how would they be able to tell? Obviously if you mount a big-block Chevy on the firewall of your Crusair, someone would probably be able detect that but, a nice functioning PMA/TSO set of masters properly mounted and equal to the originals? Even an insurance guy wouldn't notice without someone telling them. Heck, I just overhauled my -3's nose gear actuating cylinder. I could make one from scratch and you'd never be able to tell, it's so wonderfully simple.Mind you, I am not advocating this approach....
this would be a great campfire topic for next year's meet, if my daughter doesn't find another significant life-event to surprise me with on the same weekend... again...
Larry Lowenkron
Member
Hey Doc, Thanks for your responses on this thread. They are really the best I have seen regarding working with the FAA. I am afraid that I let my emotions and frustrations loose here. I do realize they are only doing their job, but it really is harder (for me anyway) to get logical improvements made. I will try to remember "at least equal to" in the future when I am dealing with them. Thanks again!
Larry Lowenkron
Larry Lowenkron
SoCalPlaneDoc
New member
Don't give up. Get educated. It's rewarding in the end.