I Want Facts

[cpirrmann]

Re: I Want Facts

And now we know why so many people have said 'screw it' and started making their own airplanes. We all know our Tcrafts don't require this complexity and bureaucracy but we're stuck with it to keep our aircraft certified. 'The state is your friend'. I dearly love my Taylorcraft, but I refuse to have my flying restricted by the draconian regs of the FAA. Viva EAA!

[VictorBravo]

Re: I Want Facts

Mike, I think I can speak for several of this group when I say hat's off to you for even THINKING about making parts! the problem is that your lack of tolerance for bureaucracy, plus the FAA's known penchant for adding bureaucracy where it is not really appropriate, means that you will have to partner with (or hire) someone who can deal with them on your behalf. This means a DER in all probability.

IMHO, the bungee fairings are a non-issue since there are people who make them, and it is not a flight-critical part by any means.

Lower cowlings and cowl hinges are on the top of everyone's list. Landing gears are on top of everyone's list. (Making a landing gear that will support a modern Cleveland wheel/brake assembly would be a good move, but involves an STC in addition to the manufacturing)

Struts are available on order from Univair I believe, because I know a guy who just ordered and received a set of L-2 struts from them.

Strut fittings (original BC type or better yet the F-19 type) would be a good thing to have available.

Cooling baffles would be an instant winner, because the vast majority of old airplane baffles are chewed up, JB weld glued, pop riveted, ten times stop drilled and beer-can patched to death. I'm making up new set now myself, and I'm cursing it every hour on the hour.

Firewalls with or without boot cowls would probably be welcome in the restoration market.

The right side brake kit would be a big seller IMHO, especially for any new pilots buying old Taylorcrafts for Light Sport flying that need an instructor to transition them.

That !(#$*%^@# little curved aluminum strip at the front of the windshield where it meets the boot cowl is a big annoyance to most of us, they never fit right after you remove it once.

The wing root cover strips are a HUGE pain in the butt, heavy, they never fit right, and they're a pain to get on and off. If you made a Fiberglass or carbon root fairing that fit better, you'd be e hero... but this is not on the "critical" list.

On the "not critical" list but certainly of interest would be BC-12D instrument panel blanks, bungee covers, hubcaps, wheel pants nd their mounting brackets, etc.

[Forrest Barber]

Re: I Want Facts

Kelli-Belle is laying on the couch with her paws over her ears from my latest tiraid over Taylorcraft , the Cleveland MIDO got the phone call from Washington to "investigate" my doing data plates, the first thing I faxed them was a few "letters of authorization" FROM the FAA to do this action.
They will now look into quite a few irregular things the factory has been doing since 2003 OR before!! Harry you started it!!

This PMA situation is very easy to do. I agree that noone who hates the FAA should try to do this operation. To me it is real simple, we have a lot of that stuff going an around us here in NE Ohio. Make the application, follow the procedure, do the job, make the profit.

I am going to attach my comments that have been posted all over from back in 2003 to HELP Harry get going! Read these I do not know why none of this was done. Wag-Aero has this list, Univair knows what we need, it is a matter of BUSINESS and PROFIT !!!
I was in the factory for 10 years or more and understand TC's, PC's , DMIR's, PMA's, STC's, APIS, it is my understanding that the requests for PMA's & setting up a PC down in Texas have been withdrawn by Harry, is this true? Someone call the MIDO's down there and find out! IF so what about the parts these fellows just bought?

[OldBits2]

Re: I Want Facts

Hi Mike Cushway and all,

I operate Antique Aluminum LLC which holds FAA-PMA on a number of vintage airplane parts, mostly for Luscombe, but some for Taylorcraft. We do maintain an FAA accepted QA system and records. We supply Classic Aero, Spruce, and others who market- we only produce.

I obtain most FAA approvals with test and computation/comparison submittals. It is a time consuming process to get the first approval, but I have been working with some decent folks in the FAA who are making my job a little easier because they know CAR-4 airplanes. We have proposed the production of parts to foks in your organizations but there has been a real lack of interest in getting the data together, or maybe a fear of liability in doing so.

If there were a couple of volunteers that wanted to do drawings and FAA packages (simple stuff please), we would be pleased to add some new numbers to our PMA approval list and help out other vintage owners. One must remember that many items are of very low volume and so manufacturing breaks do not trend well unless we go for a three or four year inventory at minimum. I use lots of vendors for various manufacturing processes and do as little as possible in-house, so as to reserve the final quality assurance. I would suggest that your group form a committee of three or fewer and we then discuss adding a few parts each quarter. I will gladly brief them, and they can brief/discuss with others. Usually we have found that concentrating on one or two parts we can support the first production run on advance purchase orders of 20 or more units.

Before I go too much further a word of caution about expenses. If you figure out the baseline cost of doing a job, then double that for the costs of QA & records, you need to add at least double that to make it economically viable for a producer to undertake and inventory those components. Most producers add 300 and 400% over actual costs to cover liability insurances and other things like storage and sales personnel. This is how we get to $900 toilet seats, $70 bungees, and $120K Taylorcrafts in production- it really is that expensive due to the extremely low volume.

So if you want to talk seroious, give us a call at 480-650-0883- or contact moderator Bob for my private Email.

[Forrest Barber]

Re: I Want Facts

Hi Donna Losey, I do appreciate your thoughts. However, we have this FACTORY with an alledged TC holder who may object to your doing this stuff. I have been dragged throught the mud too many times in the past by trying to do the right thing.
IF a small group of folks wish to get into this PMA of parts for Taylorcraft then send me e-mails to [email protected] off list and we will form a group e-mail system for this purpose. I see we do have experts out there willing to help. OR if anyone else wants to take over the project say so and do so!!!
I have been busy trying to find a good home for the Model 20 6669N that is back on Barnstormers ; WE did find a good home for 7915A the Model 15A , she is coming home to Ohio at Medina. At least that worked out!!

[cpirrmann]

Re: I Want Facts

Something here doesn't make sense to me. Someone please correct me if my conclusions are incorrect.

All of this PMA stuff sounds reasonable (as far as reasonable applies to the FAA) if you're manufacturing a new part with a different material or design, etc. But, couldn't someone just obtain the PMA from the last person who had it and manufacture parts as long as they followed the specs, drawings, etc? Or, even building them under license as long as the procedures were followed as approved? It doesn't make any kind of sense to have to go through the whole procedure for PMA to manufacture the same parts of the same material to the same specs in the same manner. Is that to say that if Aircraft Spruce bought out Univair and moved all their manufacturing to their own facility, Aircraft Spruce would have to go through a new PMA procedure for every PMA'd part they build and sell that was done by Univair previously? I can't imagine that. Seems to me that they'd purchase the PMA or whatever rights there are and maybe undergo an inspection by the FAA to ensure compliance, and off they go. Of course, I could be wrong, please weigh in. Thanks

[Forrest Barber]

Re: I Want Facts

It is what it is! Identicality is usually the issue , a lot of the materials are not now available, then an E.O. ( engineering order) is the answer.
Sure a previously issued PMA is easier to set up than a brand new one; for instance, Safe-Air Repair had the PMA's to do "all Taylorcraft" parts, WOW that was a broad one.
NOW Wag-Aero ( who bought out Safe-Air) is setting up to do some of them. It will be easier than starting fresh. We have a very knowledgable PMA FAA guy in the Cleveland MIDO , Matt Tomchak , he is with us . The PMA Group that I suggested is rolling , we have five members as of this morning, when I get to the airport, I will compile a list , form a group e-mail and send each person the other persons thoughts and e-mail ( with some comments deleted for privavy reasons) . Yes Donna I will include you and Doug, e-mail me directly please!

[OldBits2]

Re: I Want Facts

PMA is a process authorization by the FAA. To get that you have to have approved data that has been reviewed by the engineering department of the FAA for conformity to type design and specifications. The TC and STCs are approved type design data, however to produce those parts/components one must have a Fabrication Inspection System (FIS)inspected by the FAA manufacturing folks at a particular facility . With that FIS in place the PMA letter is issued. One can add new products to the approved production list under that PMA by submiting drawings and an application for PMA on the related part numbers and designs. ERGO, it is easiest for one with PMA in place to add to that production and charge accordingly, then it is to begin the process anew.

Forrest got to the real crux of this by referring to "business and Profit" Neither are guaranted, and profit is very elusive in the business of manufacturing for an out of production airplane, in a limited marketplace. Making matters worse, that marketplace for Luscombes, Aeronca, and Taylorcraft is inhabited mostly by hobbyists who grouse at spending $100 for an FAA certified part that they believe they can make for $10. Those barriers discourage producers from stepping forward.

PMA is not transferable, however the approved data underlying the PMA is transferrable, and may be used with permission of that owner. ERGO it is is wise to have the data owned by a relatively permanent fixture and utilized by license at a PMA facility.

[barnstmr]

Re: I Want Facts

Some readers may be a bit confused on what PMA actually means. The initial cost and effort is not in the parts as much as it is in your fabrication and inspection system. PMA means that your organization has Parts Manufacturing Authority. So, even if you get licensed to produce PMA parts from the PMA holder, you will still need the FAA to grant you a PMA for your facility. Clear as mud?

[Forrest Barber]

Re: I Want Facts

I got it!! WE have formed the PMA Group with five initial members. I will only do the organization of the study group for the moment. I will post much more on a new thread over the week-end. I ahve a great article from 2001 to post along with other good stuff. Donna is right on the basic problem no body wants to spend money if they can find a cheaper way.
I am finding out lately that a few do want to spend money if they get a good product and quickly! maybe this can work.

[crispy critter]

Re: I Want Facts

Anything I can do to help?

[OldBits2]

Re: I Want Facts

Some readers may be a bit confused on what PMA actually means. The initial cost and effort is not in the parts as much as it is in your fabrication and inspection system. PMA means that your organization has Parts Manufacturing Authority. So, even if you get licensed to produce PMA parts from the PMA holder, you will still need the FAA to grant you a PMA for your facility. Clear as mud?

The contract with a PMA authority holder PAH (Production Approval Holder) can minimize the expense of setting up and maintaining a separate PMA for a group that wants parts produced for their own purposes or members.

PMA cannot be licensed or otherwise transferred, however a PAH can license the data and manage the production process for other under their FIS. There will be fees for the use of equipment, the cost of inspection, the costs to recal and calibrate, the costs to maintain records and the liability invested in having a traceable name on the product/certification. My experience (15 years in PMA production), is that this side of the process is equally or more expensive than the actual cost of 'production' (creating product) outside the PMA process. After that set of costs one has the costs of inventory, marketing and typical sales stuff like profit to the seller.

D

[Forrest Barber]

Re: I Want Facts

Well said , we will look to you for advise a lot thanks D ( I like that then we know who you are) D = Donna Losey

[Ragwing nut]

Re: I Want Facts

The contract with a PMA authority holder PAH (Production Approval Holder) can minimize the expense of setting up and maintaining a separate PMA for a group that wants parts produced for their own purposes or members.

PMA cannot be licensed or otherwise transferred, however a PAH can license the data and manage the production process for other under their FIS. There will be fees for the use of equipment, the cost of inspection, the costs to recal and calibrate, the costs to maintain records and the liability invested in having a traceable name on the product/certification. My experience (15 years in PMA production), is that this side of the process is equally or more expensive than the actual cost of 'production' (creating product) outside the PMA process. After that set of costs one has the costs of inventory, marketing and typical sales stuff like profit to the seller.

D

I have a couple friends doing this with old Bonanza and T-34 parts using someone in KS area, I think Webco.

Mike