Another tailwheel discussion

[Mike S]

I just pulled the tailsprings and tailwheel off my BC12D. The springs are rusty and pitted (where the grease did not go) so those will be replaced, and the tailwheel is a Cessna part that is quite sloppy, also finding its way to a dark corner of my hangar, for now.
Scott 3200s seem to be the go-to choice and have a good reputation, but at a $1000 a crack (maybe 2/3rds that on ebay .. and I'm wary of buying used) I want to investigate other options.
I'm new to taildraggers (helicopter pilot) but I would think a wider footprint in the back would help with steering and ground maneuvering --off pavement anyway, where I'd like to do at least half of my flying. Even the wet sod and gravel around my hangar allows the tailwheel to dig in.
Has anyone had success using a wider tire in the back?
Looking forward to your opinions and suggestions.

Edit: After a bit more cleaning up, I see my "Cessna" tailwheel is really a Scott 3000 (I think) with a Cessna nameplate tacked on the fork.
Edit again (if anyone is still listening): It's a Scott 3-24

[Edwin Otha]

Re: Another tailwheel discussion

Buy the Aviation Products tailwheel from Ojai, CA. Works great, get the 6 in dual fork model. Has the look you want for the plane. On the plus side it's about $275. Been using them for years with no problems.
EO

[astjp2]

Re: Another tailwheel discussion

I will stick with the Scott 3200, too many ground loops with other ones. If you get a scott or bushwheel, they have parts readily available and provide a lot softer ride than the hard tail wheels of yesteryear. Tim

[Edwin Otha]

Re: Another tailwheel discussion

Used both wheels and they are quality, same with the ABW. The Aviation Products is a little smaller than the 3200's and ,in my opinion, looks correct for the light planes. A Citabria and like type airplanes I would use the 3200 or the ABW. Pretty pricey but quality parts.
The 6" Aviation Products use a soft rubber wheel that works good and not the hard wheels like the Scott 2000 and the Heath. Plus the replacement wheel is about $35 bucks with new bearings.
I hate to see people work so hard to get these old tailwheels to work and still have problems with them. Take advantage of some of the great new parts out there before you lose the whole airplane.
EO

[astjp2]

Re: Another tailwheel discussion

Is the API tall full castering?

[Edwin Otha]

Re: Another tailwheel discussion

It has a bulletproof locking mechanism and is full castering. It's really a good little wheel for these light airplanes.
EO

[LostnSpace]

Re: Another tailwheel discussion

It has a bulletproof locking mechanism and is full castering. It's really a good little wheel for these light airplanes.
EO

Are any of them for certified aircraft?, gary

[Edwin Otha]

Re: Another tailwheel discussion

If your BC12 is certificated under CAR4, tailwheels are not a regulated item. Just like wooden props. But to answer your question they are not "approved". But American Champion uses them on their LSA Champ. I asked them about inclusion on the TCDS and they responded it was a minor deviation and did not require inclusion.
EO

[LostnSpace]

Re: Another tailwheel discussion

If your BC12 is certificated under CAR4, tailwheels are not a regulated item. Just like wooden props. But to answer your question they are not "approved". But American Champion uses them on their LSA Champ. I asked them about inclusion on the TCDS and they responded it was a minor deviation and did not require inclusion.
EO

That depends on where you are located, in Atlanta, GA. the FSDO says the LSA has nothing to do with certified aircraft and they want to see it in the TCDS, but that's just how the FAA operates, go to enough FSDO's and somewhere it'll get by, gary

[3Dreaming]

Re: Another tailwheel discussion

That depends on where you are located, in Atlanta, GA. the FSDO says the LSA has nothing to do with certified aircraft and they want to see it in the TCDS, but that's just how the FAA operates, go to enough FSDO's and somewhere it'll get by, gary

Actually the LSA Champ is type certified. It was too heavy to meet ASTM requirements to be certified as a SLSA.

[Edwin Otha]

Re: Another tailwheel discussion

The TCDS is nothing more than a record of parts the manufacturer will use, for application for the PC to build the airplane. There is no installation approval based on the TCDS.
I install the Aviation Products tailwheel IAW CAR 4 regulations, as a minor alteration. The only FSDO involvement would be if there was a problem. Then the only discussion would be about major/minor alterations and not about FAR 43.12.
Yes, the FAA has no interest in the LSA aircraft. I look at it as, If there is no reason to involve the FAA, why do so? You have a regulation that says the component is not regulated, and that's good enough for me. If the FAA wants to regulate them they can issue the appropriate regulations.
EO

[Guest]

Re: Another tailwheel discussion

The TCDS is nothing more than a record of parts the manufacturer will use, for application for the PC to build the airplane. There is no installation approval based on the TCDS.
I install the Aviation Products tailwheel IAW CAR 4 regulations, as a minor alteration. The only FSDO involvement would be if there was a problem. Then the only discussion would be about major/minor alterations and not about FAR 43.12.
Yes, the FAA has no interest in the LSA aircraft. I look at it as, If there is no reason to involve the FAA, why do so? You have a regulation that says the component is not regulated, and that's good enough for me. If the FAA wants to regulate them they can issue the appropriate regulations.
EO

Hi Paul and all,

The TCDS specifications (ie. Specifications Pertinent to all Models at or near the bottom of the TCDS) section does indicate approval for installation of the items listed there as "alterations" (a.k.a. minor alterations) and therefore do not require a 337 and are not major alterations.

You can verify by looking at the definition of major alteration or looking up major alteration in the FAA request for legal interpretation database.

As you pointed out regarding CAR 4 requirements this list says nothing about what did not require approval per CAR 4 and are "minor alterations" but on other things for example like adding a wing tank that may be listed there it means we can add the tank as a minor alteration and need no 337.

Hope this helps someone, Dave R.

[LostnSpace]

Re: Another tailwheel discussion

Hi Paul and all,

The TCDS specifications section does indicate approval for installation of the items listed there as "alterations" (a.k.a. minor alterations) and therefore do not require a 337 and are not major alterations.

You can verify by looking at the definition of major alteration or looking up major alteration in the FAA request for legal interpretation database.

As you pointed out regarding CAR 4 requirements this list says nothing about what did not require approval per CAR 4 and are "minor alterations" but on other things for example like adding a wing tank that may be listed there it means we can add the tank as a minor alteration and need no 337.

Hope this helps someone, Dave R.

Guess I wasted my money and time on getting that Harer STC to put the C-85 in, it's in the TCDS, so it will just be a logbook entry, thanks, gary

[Guest]

Re: Another tailwheel discussion

Gary that is not listed in the specifications section so you did it just right.

[Edwin Otha]

Re: Another tailwheel discussion

Gary, you did the correct installation procedure.
The installation approval statement is the best I can describe the situation. There are a whole bunch of items on the TCDS that the factory could use on an individual ship. Once the factory installs the components, and it meets type design, it gets its certificate from the FAA after review. So just because it's on the TCDS doesn't give the authority for installation, should the installation be of a major design modification.
There are a whole bunch of FAA ASI Goo-Roos that ask for silly stuff all the time. I ask to see the regulation they are referring to, most can't provide one. It becomes an installation approval based on opinion, not regulation.
EO