What changes allowed 1100#-1150#-1200#

[Forrest Barber]

Re: What changes allowed 1100#-1150#-1200#

Some days are better than others with Bob , I agree, but be careful , his answers may not be approved data. I am going over to his place & Jack Gilberti's as soon as we get a handle on the struts & atttach fittings. The STC will come to Alliance. Read the TC 696 , 699, 700 for the ser#'s and the changes to the fuselage.
I have attached the appropriate newsletter for clarification:
READ it! bye Forrest

[Guest]

Re: What changes allowed 1100#-1150#-1200#

Some days are better than others with Bob , I agree, but be careful , his answers may not be approved data. I am going over to his place & Jack Gilberti's as soon as we get a handle on the struts & atttach fittings. The STC will come to Alliance. Read the TC 696 , 699, 700 for the ser#'s and the changes to the fuselage.
I have attached the appropriate newsletter for clarification:
READ it! bye Forrest

Interesting, I read the attached doc.

Talked with Bob Harer today on another matter (1 degree engine down tilt for speed) and asked him about the BC versus BC12D and 1280 GW issue. He claimed that it was the same and it was no problem. Could be 1) I can't ask right 2) I can't hear right 3) there was a mistunderstanding or ??

I am confused.

Dave

[Forrest Barber]

Re: What changes allowed 1100#-1150#-1200#

confused about what?? The best way to decrease that angle of incidence is raise the stab 3/4 of an inch......been here done that! e-mail ME direct

[Howard Wilson]

Re: What changes allowed 1100#-1150#-1200#

Still can't figure out what magic thing happened at SN 1407 to make it 1150# ???

[VictorBravo]

Re: What changes allowed 1100#-1150#-1200#

confused about what?? The best way to decrease that angle of incidence is raise the stab 3/4 of an inch......been here done that! e-mail ME direct

The previously attached newsletter document says : " IF the early ”B” is modified to upgrade it to the 1200 lb Gross of the BC-12, BF-12 or BL-12 of 1941 , THEN the STC can be applied. "

So what does it take for the early B with 13 ribs and 1150 gross to be upgraded to the 1200 pounds... for the Gilberti / Harer STC to be applied?

The newsletter also says that Forrest is going to meet with Jack Gilberti. I am assuming this means Mr. Gilberti has not passed on as I had mistakenly assumed. More than one of my posts back in 2005-06 regarding this STC insinuated that Mr. Gilberti had passed on, about my arguing with "the ghost of Jack Gilberti", etc. etc. . All parties, including Mr. Gilberti himself... please accept my apologies.I hope you live long enough to take all the confusion out of your STC; in other words I hope you live a long long time!

[Forrest Barber]

Re: What changes allowed 1100#-1150#-1200#

I have no confusion , Jack was in a nursing home for a while doing a bit of re-hab he is okay now. I used his phone conversations in court in Va..
The tubing in the front of the ships after 1407 was changed..... there is a drawing.

[Guest]

Re: What changes allowed 1100#-1150#-1200#

Interesting, I read the attached doc.

Talked with Bob Harer today on another matter (1 degree engine down tilt for speed) and asked him about the BC versus BC12D and 1280 GW issue. He claimed that it was the same and it was no problem. Could be 1) I can't ask right 2) I can't hear right 3) there was a mistunderstanding or ??

I am confused.

Dave

Bob Harer claimed that there was no structural difference that had anything to do with gross weight on the BC versus BC12.

That's what confused me. Bob says that and Forrest's newsletter says there are relevant structural changes.

What is the story?

Dave

[barnstmr]

Re: What changes allowed 1100#-1150#-1200#

The BOTTOM line is how the STC is approved. I have not reviewed the STC data package. But you are not authorized to do anything outside of its design data. If it requires some fuselage tubing to be redone to allow GW of 1280, then do it. But as I have understood it, the drawings do not require anything like that. Therefore, both the BC and BC12-D fuselages are eligible AS-IS, unless a drawing requires tubing mods.

[Guest]

Re: What changes allowed 1100#-1150#-1200#

I have the STC and reread it this week, there are no fuselage mod's to get to the 1280 GW.

But that doesn't explain the apparent contradiction between the STC, Forrest's newsletter and Bob Harer's statements(which are consistent with STC that he holds).

Dave

[Forrest Barber]

Re: What changes allowed 1100#-1150#-1200#

I am refering to the few early B models at 1100 lbs. & 1150 THEY have to be brought up to 1200 gross before the STC can be applied.....

Jack Gilberti intended the STC would only apply to the upgrade of the BC12D to the "equivalent" of the Model l9 which was a BC12D-4-85....upgraded. notice on a lot of paper work of the STC that the notation "applies to all "B" models is in handwriting NOT typed.

[Guest]

Re: What changes allowed 1100#-1150#-1200#

I have the STC here BC is typed like the other model numbers in the official 1993 FAA re-issue. There is no indication of any exceptions to model numbers.

[Forrest Barber]

Re: What changes allowed 1100#-1150#-1200#

I am refering to the original drawings ( mimeographs purple stuff ) from Jack Gilberti when he did not issue them by ser# ; so a lot were copied and passed around , WE have an original set here. They plainly have " all B models" in pencil upon them .
Call Bob Harer and ask , does your STC apply to lower gross weight ships than 1200# , his answer should be an emphatic NO as it was for the court last year. What is the problem?? Could be be the FAA missed something?

[VictorBravo]

Re: What changes allowed 1100#-1150#-1200#

Call Bob Harer and ask , does your STC apply to lower gross weight ships than 1200# , his answer should be an emphatic NO

Now I may have a problem.

My airplane was listed as 1150 pounds on the type certificate. It started life as a 1940 BL-65, s/n 2387, which many years ago was upgraded to a Continental and in those days the FAA re-issued the airworthiness certificate and a new a BC-65 data plate. But the aircraft serial number remained the same on all paperwork. The equivalent BC-65 is also listed at 1150 pounds on the TCDS, for whatever it's worth.

Harer sells the STC and calls out the specific serial number of the airplane at several places on the STC paperwork. My serial number (2387) was written on my paperwork by Harer in several places.

So according to what I was told by Bob Harer and what I paid for, the STC DOES apply to my airplane, per Harer's callout of the serial number on the paperwork.

So what is the correct situation here? What potential mistake did the FAA make?

If Harer approved my airplane up to 1280 or 1500 pounds, calling it out by serial number, then DO I or DO I NOT have the correct amount of structure in the airframe, either legally, mechanically or both?

[Guest]

Re: What changes allowed 1100#-1150#-1200#

Bob Harer gave me and emphatic YES, it applies to all bc and bc12 just as Bill was led to believe. he said they are all the same.

I talked to him this week.

So now you see why I say I am confused.

Maybe I didn't ask the right way???

[Guest]

Re: What changes allowed 1100#-1150#-1200#

Bill you should call and see if I got it wrong. Dave