More questions.

[Peter Collin]

What is everyone useing for for a prop and what cruise speeds are you getting?
Is there an STC for a extended baggage?
The factory doesn't have any instrument panels any other suggestions.

Thanks
Peter

[astjp2]

Re: More questions.

Look at the previous post for the instrument panels, I sent in a pic of mine. You can your A&P make one IAW far 21.303b2, and AC43-13-2a chapter 1. You dont need to make this into a bigger deal than it is. I would make it out of a min. of .032 2024T3 to a max of .050. I would keep it as thin as possible but if you add a bunch of instruments then you are going to need more structure. Some aircraft had a subpanel that has vibration isolaters but there are lots flying out there without them.

The baggage requirements you can goto 200lbs gross if you have the structral mods to incorproate the long engine mount wing/strut attach fittings and a few others. IF you do NOT want to increase from your original weight, you could do a FIELD APPROVAL and install a plywood floor and sides like the F-19, if you install it the same as the F-19.

I am using a M74ck-0-46 repitched to 43 and I can get 104 KIAS @2600 rpm in level flight with full throttle. That is just me and Fuel, no baggage or anyone else. I usually cruise at80-90 KIAS @2200-2300 rpm and I burn about 5.2 gph.

I hope this helps you. Tim

[Ragwing nut]

Re: More questions.

I have a few panels in varying conditions if you need one. The Harer STC has extended baggage as a part of the conversion, but don't think it can be done by itself. Don;t rember the "N" number right now, but one we restored years ago had an extended baggage in it.

mike

[VictorBravo]

Re: More questions.

You can "repair" the existing baggage sling with additional material and PROBABLY not have any problems with anyone.

[Peter Collin]

Re: More questions.

I was hoping for an uncut panel, or one that has the three holes on top for the basic flight instruments and two holes for the oil instruments plus one for the ignition key.

Thanks
Peter

[Robert Lees]

Re: More questions.

The baggage requirements you can goto 200lbs gross if you have the structral mods to incorproate the long engine mount wing/strut attach fittings and a few others. IF you do NOT want to increase from your original weight, you could do a FIELD APPROVAL and install a plywood floor and sides like the F-19, if you install it the same as the F-19

I'm not quite sure I understand your thinking, Tim. Extending the baggage compartment without a long mount is not mentioned in the Harer STC, and IMHO is unsafe, so no Field Approval should be applied for.

The only way to fit the extended baggage in compliance with the STC is to fit an 85 on the long mount with starter & generator.

If you have an engine on a short mount with the long baggage compartment, you are at dire risk of going too far aft cg to sustain safe flight.

What is a more reasonable solution is to do the structural wing mods and with the engine on a short mount, you can increase the g.w.to 1280lb (landplane).

Hope I'm making sense.

Rob

[Ragwing nut]

Re: More questions.

I'm not quite sure I understand your thinking, Tim. Extending the baggage compartment without a long mount is not mentioned in the Harer STC, and IMHO is unsafe, so no Field Approval should be applied for.

The only way to fit the extended baggage in compliance with the STC is to fit an 85 on the long mount with starter & generator.

If you have an engine on a short mount with the long baggage compartment, you are at dire risk of going too far aft cg to sustain safe flight.

What is a more reasonable solution is to do the structural wing mods and with the engine on a short mount, you can increase the g.w.to 1280lb (landplane).

Hope I'm making sense.

Rob

The CG is toward the foward envelope and actually have restored 2 that had the big baggage in them with a short mount and A65's. You are still restricted to 50 lbs and as long as you stay within legal baggage weight I have been able to go beyond the rear envelope. It is nice to have when carrying a duffle bag or something big and light on a short trip.

mike

[astjp2]

Re: More questions.

I was never talking about getting the STC, you can still get FIELD APPROVALS if you provide the data. Harry was going to sell me the drawing to make my BC12 have the same baggage as the F-21. I could use that data to get the increase baggage. The FAA might have me jump through some hoops, but it is doable....If you dont change the max baggage, and you can prove that in the most aft CG condition (i.e. 40 lbs max in my case) for the new baggage is still within the flight envelope of the Aircraft CG requirements, then you could get a field approval for a larger baggage compartment. The cub guys get them all of the time....I hope that I explained this correctly...Tim

[Robert Lees]

Re: More questions.

I'm still not convinced, but if you say it's OK, then it's OK.

I've suffered rear cg situations with the normal baggage compartment, let alone one that allows the "40 lbs" (50lbs for a BC12D) to slip to the aft end of a Gilberti-sized plywood floor. I suppose it depends on the passenger weight and forward fuel tank loads in landing configuration.

I'll leave it with you, but please be careful with meeting the aircraft cg limitations with the short mount.

Rob

[Dusty]

Re: More questions.

I have 5 feet of plywood behind the seat and a C-90 in front. I've heard rumors of half a moose back there, plus all the usual stuff.... It's field approved.

My sleeping bag/survival gear hang behind the rear wall of the baggage, wired to a longeron and the back wall of the baggage itself.

A 74/40 Mccauley prop gets me around 90@2350 with 26" tires, a couple MPH faster with 8.50s, at around 5GPH.

[astjp2]

Re: More questions.

Would you mind posting a copy of the field approval on here? When I can get to a scanner, I have about 15 or so that I am going to submit. Tim