A list of lift strut suppliers (updated 12 Dec 2007)

[Buell Powell]

Re: A list of lift strut suppliers (updated 10 Nov 2007)

So far looks like there are 3 sources for struts

Please add others that I missed.

Prices below are for four struts only, 2 front and 2 rear I round prices up to the next $50 increment. I kept it to 4 struts only so its a fair compare. Don't compare a price with jury struts included to a price witout them. Just keep it to comparison of the four needed struts.


********** I only list FAA/PMA sources below **************

1) Univair about $2750 => http://www.univairparts.com/

2) Tayorcraft about $3250 => http://www.taylorcraft.com/zencart/

3) Airfames Inc about $1800* => http://www.supercubs.com/fab_manufacturing.html
* base strut includes jury strut clamps too


Appears that Airframes Inc is a reality now and you can order struts from them.

David

Here is an eligilibilty list for Wag Aero's struts also. The price isn't set yet but they are saying they will try to keep below 1800.00 and will let us know soon. They have the PMA at the SA office now and should have the AMOC soon and will let us know on that.Univair has not yet gotton a PMA to add the pre-war and F models and may take some time-they will let us know.

Re: A list of lift strut suppliers (updated 10 Nov 2007)

Dave,
I think I understand the STC part ok. AF PMA was developed using an existing STC for data. (see my entry above) The UV one was developed using new raw data. Both done under part 21. So much for the STC. So the 337 biz is the only thing that is a question to me. I see the Univair one as being a problem given the information we have presently.
Think we need some more information from UV or the FAA engineer. Question is: does a PMA precede a 337, making it unnecessary?
Edit: and what does a PMA as a "modified part" mean? Requires same paperwork as doing a splice (major repair--337), plus the AMOC?
Pictures multiple inspectors running screaming into woods, LOL.
DC

I noticed something, Univair's PMA catalog lists their strut as a replacement part not a modification part so the FAA RGL is out of date as stated earlier by Levi. I checked a few other parts. I think the RGL is screwed up. I saw Piper part numbers called out in Aeronca PMAs !

Dave

Re: A list of lift strut suppliers (updated 10 Nov 2007)

This will probably seem like a stupid question but my Dad has an L2-B which is a DCO 65. Does the AD apply to it, I ony see A, B, and F models listed. If it doesn't apply can somebody tell me why?
Thanks
Dave

Dave, read thru the AD to find the answer. Dave.

Re: A list of lift strut suppliers (updated 10 Nov 2007)

It's a new one on me. Always thought a 337 got filed with an STC. Seems the STC is superfluous paper in this case. Maybe we will hear from others on this.

Gary, you are correct and part 91 says this too;

§ 91.403 General.

(d) A person must not alter an aircraft based on a supplemental type certificate unless the owner or operator of the aircraft is the holder of the supplemental type certificate, or has written permission from the holder.

so some type of written permission is required, holders often issue it by a/c serial number.

[Dave Weisgerber]

Re: A list of lift strut suppliers (updated 10 Nov 2007)

This will probably seem like a stupid question but my Dad has an L2-B which is a DCO 65. Does the AD apply to it, I ony see A, B, and F models listed. If it doesn't apply can somebody tell me why?
Thanks
Dave

[flyguy]

Re: A list of lift strut suppliers (updated 10 Nov 2007)

Thanks, had finally found it late last night.
DC

[jstall]

Re: A list of lift strut suppliers (updated 10 Nov 2007)

Is that article still there, can't find it. Assume General Aviation News--right? Found it, more or less, but I don't see anything on the Ingram "quote."
DC

Try this link

http://www.generalaviationnews.com/editorial/articledetail.lasso?-token.key=13500&-token.src=column&-nothing

It is the 10/6/06 GAN article written by Meg Gadlewski

[Gary Snell]

Re: A list of lift strut suppliers (updated 10 Nov 2007)

It's a new one on me. Always thought a 337 got filed with an STC. Seems the STC is superfluous paper in this case. Maybe we will hear from others on this.

[flyguy]

Re: A list of lift strut suppliers (updated 10 Nov 2007)

That should offer them a little challenge. Am looking forward to hearing their conclusions on all of the above. Hope the guys at your FSDO are a lot more capable....well, that is all I am going to say about that.
DC

Re: A list of lift strut suppliers (updated 10 Nov 2007)

I pay good money for taxes to the Feds, I am calling the FSDO Monday and let them earn it, and explain!

My PMI is good at figuring this stuff out and has helped in the past when I wanted to do something unusual, maybe he will get this one.

Gonna give it a whirl.

[flyguy]

Re: A list of lift strut suppliers (updated 10 Nov 2007)

Reference the PMA? Must be in the FAA data base, right? On the AMOC? Copy of PMA from UV?
Good question.
DC

Re: A list of lift strut suppliers (updated 10 Nov 2007)

I think the STC was the basis of the data for the PMA so it is irrelevant as far as the end user is concerned. You would be installing it under the PMA, not the STC.
I believe the UV AMOC would satisfy the FAA for AD compliance, but it would still require a 337 to install them legally on the plane as they are a "modified part" which would be the same as repairing (as in splicing) them, which is a major repair. But I am assuming a lot on a couple of words, which is often not a wise thing to do.
DC

hmm...

in that case where would you get the approved data from for the 337?

[flyguy]

Re: A list of lift strut suppliers (updated 10 Nov 2007)

I think the STC was the basis of the data for the PMA so it is irrelevant as far as the end user is concerned. You would be installing it under the PMA, not the STC.
I believe the UV AMOC would satisfy the FAA for AD compliance, but it would still require a 337 to install them legally on the plane as they are a "modified part" which would be the same as repairing (as in splicing) them, which is a major repair. But I am assuming a lot on a couple of words, which is often not a wise thing to do.
DC

Re: A list of lift strut suppliers (updated 10 Nov 2007)

Dave,
I think I understand the STC part ok. AF PMA was developed using an existing STC for data. (see my entry above) The UV one was developed using new raw data. Both done under part 21. So much for the STC. So the 337 biz is the only thing that is a question to me. I see the Univair one as being a problem given the information we have presently.
Think we need some more information from UV or the FAA engineer. Question is: does a PMA precede a 337, making it unnecessary?
DC

Hi Darryl,

I think I get that UV one. UV has a PMA for a part so its a legal installation requiring log entry only (under part 43 and its appendices). They have no STCs. But they need an AMOC approval from McAnaul's office because their part does not replace the new MA... sealed struts. They do have an AMOC, I have a copy of it so that fits together for me. There is nothing that one does when installing a UV strut that makes it a major repair per part 43 appendix A so no 337 needed and they have no STC so no 337 needed for that.


Why AF needed an STC still perplexes me but it would seem that the mere presence of the STC makes a 337 required as Terry said earlier. Its a tangled web then because if I follow this correctly you have a PMA approved replacement part that requires at 337 because its also a major change to the type design. Seems a contradiction.

Thanks for the help, Dave

I am hoping the light will come on for me soon and I 'll get all of this!

[Ed O'Brien]

Re: A list of lift strut suppliers (updated 10 Nov 2007)

I'd agree that it looks like a factory born infection caused most of the FAA puss. Interesting thing is: The factory seems unable to take advantage of it... due to poor customer service, bad mangement, incompotent manufacturing, inability to clear FAA hoops (take your pick or come up with your own)... on and on. I've worked for a couple of manufacturers with a clean sheet of paper and from-scratch-built planes that are closer to getting their final FAA flight test and manufacturing approvasl... while building much more complicated airplanes than the factory. These companies have been in business about the same time as the new Taylorcraft factory... The Taylorcraft factory already had an approved and airworthy craft to begin with.

Your conclusions to these tribulations are your own. BUT, if bulls@$t had wings it could have gotten FAA approval by now.
Meaning -- some BS flies and some dosen't.
With regards; ED OBRIEN