Harer (Barber) STC update

[tim]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

How hard/expensive would JUST and engine upgrade STC be to obtain, WITHOUT any gross weight increases? What I'm driving at is, would it be easier to do a number of those things people want separately or all at once?

no just a bigger headake to keep all the stc paperwork i just need one stc bigger motor and more weight

or like this there is the olds stc for 150hp in a cessna 150 no weight increase not a fun plane the w&b was bad always fling over weight now there is a 120 lb or so increase now it makes for a much better plane to fly

i plan on doing it to my dads 150 so i can have the 0200 for the tcart

[akndrifter]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Someone else is more than welcome to step in and do it before I get around to it, however. Just somebody should !($*% do it, and it don't really matter who. The parameters for this proposed "new" upgrade STC should be (in my humble opinion) :

85, 90, or 100 HP engine on short mount for best handling and least modifications
Options of no electrical, or newfangled lightweight starter/alternator
One or two wing tanks being optional. Fuel valves at the wing root end of the tank
-6 fuel line from gascolator to carburetor, with integral firesleeve
Medium sized baggage compartment, no major CG changes but bigger :sack"
Teflon/stainless ball main fuel valve at main tank outlet
Improved pitot wing tank vents at wing leading edge, eliminating complex cross-vent and plumbing rat's nest
Strengthen spar root and strut attach fittings per Model19
Spar root bushings per Model 19
Additional lower cowling air exit "gills" similar to Cessna and Beech for improved cooling

How hard/expensive would JUST and engine upgrade STC be to obtain, WITHOUT any gross weight increases? What I'm driving at is, would it be easier to do a number of those things people want separately or all at once?

[Ragwing nut]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Isn't the O-235 and O-290 almost as heavy as the O-320? I think the real problem is mounting any of the engines further forward. It puts more loads on the engine mount and causes balance problems.

The 235 is quite a bit lighter than a 320. The f-21 flies quite well on the 235. Balance was achieved with a scott 3200 tailwheel and 7 pound lead weight right in front of it on the f-21

[tim]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

but if he feels 100% about what it does the the liability should be no problem for him

[VictorBravo]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Isn't the O-235 and O-290 almost as heavy as the O-320? I think the real problem is mounting any of the engines further forward. It puts more loads on the engine mount and causes balance problems.

Although safe but not yet fully legal, I submit to the group that there are options that would greatly resolve this problem in the long term.

My old friend Klaus Savier (Light Speed Engineering) manufactures an electronic ignition system that would provide many many big advantages for a Taylorcraft if and when it is allowed on a certified aircraft. No more magneto to firewall clearance problems. No more safety concerns hand starting. Far less physical difficulty hand starting. Far more reliability hand starting. Significant performance/economy gains. Less weight than magnetos.

Klaus' system has won the CAFE races numerous times, as well as other speed races. Klaus has done thousands of hours of flight and ground testing. His unit works and works well, with greater service reliability than a magneto, fewer failure modes, and no moving components, bearings, points, etc.

As Klaus put it to me once... "Over the last 50 years, the family car has doubled its horsepower AND doubled its gas mileage at the same time. Not much has changed on the big moving parts inside an engine... it's the electronic ignition system that has made this possible more than any one single thing. And you very rarely have an ignition system failure in your car while driving. Matter of fact, if you had a backup electronic ignition and a second set of spark plugs in your car the operational reliability would be statistically just about 100% perfect"

Most importantly, along with the newer small starters and alternators an electronic ignition would allow the O-200 and other engines to be mounted on the existing short T-craft mount with far less problems.

The FAA reportedly encouraged Klaus to certify the ignition system, but the liability issue was more than he wanted to deal with.

You know, I think I just talked myself into going experimental when I finally get to the basket case '46 hanging in my shop!

[tim]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

While an 0320 would be really cool, they make the airplane very nose heavy. And it is getting real hard to find 0290 parts. A hydrolic brake engine, combo would be the cats meow. I would also love to upgrade to a 1500gw. Maybe even a heavy(er) duty landing gear (for skis) would be the icing on the cake!

ok but i still would like an 0200 or an 0235 then

but on a side note my dad has a c150 and i have talked him in to going up to a 150hp stc for it i have an old engine from a friend so now we have have a 0200 for the taylorcraft i just need a new stc for it

[Ragwing nut]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

terry, sent you a pm couple days ago.

My Deluxe with the F-19 conversion ran a 74-43 and I never really liked it as I had to push the rpm up to keep it "on step". Otherwise flew great, just needed little more pitch. Due to its weight, it was not really that much faster than a lighter burd. about 115 if I pushed it. However I REALLY liked our F-21. Only downside to it was the staight stacks that made talking on the radio pointless. Full power it would run 125 easy. Loved the extra power as well.

[fearofpavement]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Cool - Which prop do you have?

Guess I should know that since I do the annuals on the plane but I don't have a clue. It's a metal Sensenich. I expect you wanted more details than that but I don't have the logs here...

[barnstmr]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

I fly a BC12D that had a one time STC applied to it in 1995. It uses a non electric O-200. It flies great and exhibits no strange characteristics. Cruise is probably not much different than a 65 but it sure gets off the ground expeditiously.

Cool - Which prop do you have?

[fearofpavement]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

I fly a BC12D that had a one time STC applied to it in 1995. It uses a non electric O-200. It flies great and exhibits no strange characteristics. Cruise is probably not much different than a 65 but it sure gets off the ground expeditiously.

[Dano"T"]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

It's my understanding that an O-200 or C90 powererd T-Craft will out perform one with an O-290....I think I read that on supercub.org

[akndrifter]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

While an 0320 would be really cool, they make the airplane very nose heavy. And it is getting real hard to find 0290 parts. A hydrolic brake engine, combo would be the cats meow. I would also love to upgrade to a 1500gw. Maybe even a heavy(er) duty landing gear (for skis) would be the icing on the cake!

[tim]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

well i had some time to think about a new stc i would want a 1500lb gw or more and yes an 0200 /0235 also could do the stc to bump it up to 125hp /0290 really i want up to 160 hp really would want some thing like a f22 in fact could call it a model 22 stc

[Pearson]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Personaly if i were going to apply for paperwork to do any engine on the Taylorcraft BC12D it would be for a 100 hp continental. They manufacture brand new ones today, so parts are readily available. The 85 is a thing of the past and getting scarce as are some of the parts. The 100 hp is factory made and is very dependable and mechanics can get all specs readily available from Teledyne. Just my thoughts. Marv

I agree with Marv. My personal opinion is that the Harer STC is worth very little as it is. It allows the use of an engine that is very difficult to find or get parts for. It is extremely ambiguous due to the lack of written instructions. And now it is unavailable for anyone to use.


Somehow I missed Terry Bowden's post about his attempts to buy the STC from the Harer family. Thanks to Tim quoting it, I had a chance to read it.

Someone else had previously mentioned the Harer family not realizing the liability factor of owning an STC. My question is this; would there be less chance of someone being successful in a liability law suit against an STC holder if the holder happened to be a non-profit entity, such as the Taylorcraft Foundation? Do we have any lawyers on the forum? Or is that part of the reason the Foundation hasn't purchased the STC, due to the liability concerns.

I think that no matter who ends up owning the Harer STC, or if Terry or someone else develops a new one similar to it, there need to be improvements in the choice of engines and the quality of the instructions.

[tim]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

The owners and operators of the B-series need the Harer STC or equivalent as a means to keep this fleet alive for years to come. I have a passionate belief in this. 4 years ago... the D-series fleet needed it worse. I don't even own a D model. I have a B. And I desparately want to upgrade to a C90. But... I am not made of money so... with the urging of others on this forum, I got involved in a project to help out the D-series problem... we got the D-series problem taken care of and I hope it has been helpful relief to the fleet. (When I say "we" I truly mean that there were several sincere people on this forum who provided information and other help get this thing done... John Collier, Dick Huish, Dick Fisher, Bill Berle and others... some who prefer not to be mentioned by name). Here is some history on the way it went.

When I got the STC for C85/C90/O200 in the D-series, I started with copies of almost a dozen 337's for C85/O200 field approvals, two one-time STC's, and 2 FAA letters that were similar to the one DanoT has. All of these were submitted with the initial application and I was told by the FAA (LA-ACO) that these would count for nothing toward a new STC certification because I did not have permission form the STC holder or 337 approval holder.

Subsequently, I contacted Mr. John Collier who was the holder a one-time STC for O200 installation. John gave me all of his data and a letter of permission to use it. The total # of pages for that STC was less than 30 as I recall. The FAA accepted that data for partial credit. Yet, they still required me to address every detail of all compliance issues. I ended up with a data package of reports, drawings, inspection records, and other administrative paperwork that stacks up over 2-inches tall.

In the end, the Collier data only saved me some of the legwork for fuel system verification, structures, and got me out of having to include a placard to prohibit spins. I still was required to go through the structural analysis again for the engine mount (for all the configurations). I still had to go through all of the electrical system reports, powerplant cooling requirements, propeller compatibility reports and static testing, engine controls drawings/inspections, and more...

My point to all of this is that today's FAA is nothing like it was back in the days of the Gilberti STC submittal. Even with permission... the FAA is still going to take you to task for showing compliance with all applicable regs. To obtain a new multiple STC these days takes a lot of time, much of which is spent teaching the young FAA engineers about the way compliance to the old CAR requirements applied to these old airplanes.

So now to the B-series problem.

I have considered going for a new stand-alone multiple STC for the B-series STC myself on my own. It is tough in my work to put aside paying customers that pay big $ to do DER work on more modern airplanes. But I enjoy Taylorcrafts enough that I may just do it. I have even talked with the LA ACO about taking credit for a lot of the work I did on the D-series. I think I can get there on the B- models with a reasonable amount of work. Yet I have not done this for a couple of reasons. For one thing,.. I feel that the Harer family deserves the shot at selling the rights to SAI-210. Secondly, I saw that Forrest and the foundation were saying they had a deal in the works to acquire it. I have no desire to undermine anything that the foundation wants to do. But after several months of nothing happening on that end, I contcted Bob Harer (the son) myself. He said that he had received a call from Forrest several months prior but there was no offer on the table and no contact in many months. So I made an offer. He said he would get back to me. Then over eight months passed and I could never reach Bob. And then one day about 2 months ago he called me out of the blue and said he had talked it over with his mother and they were going to accept my offer. We started email and phone dialog and drafted up papers talked with NY-ACO and everything seemed to be in place for the deal to happen. Then all discussions went cold. Then recently this thread started back up and such is that. I am confused about whats going on.

I have kept this under my hat out of consideration for the Harer's to negotiate with others. I made it clear to Bob that I do not intend to undermine anything Forrest or the Foundation is doing. I offered what I could afford and what I felt was reasonable. I told Bob if someone else had a better deal on the table that I would harbor no ill feelings over any decision to sell to another person.

The reason I am now saying all of this in a public forum is because I want to publicly state that I will do whatever I can to help the foundation or anyone else to bring the Harer STC (SAI-210) back into availability. Or if it is time to do something else, I am here to help. To me it would be a shame for this thing to fade from the scene. But at some point it may be time to move on. I think most people on this form would agree with me on that. I have no belief that holding the rights to this STC would make any of us any richer. My motivation in all this is to keep my 6 kids in shoes and hopefully have enough left to someday convert my BC12D to an O200. I have no personal intent to get rich over this thing or to feed my ego... I just simply enjoy Taylorcrafts and hope to do everything I can to keep them flying. As a DER and as the holder of a similar STC, I believe I have all of the resources in place that I could keep the STC going for many years to come and could develop some useful upgrades to the STC over time to make it best fit the needs of the fleet. I think thats what we all want and need. So... maybe it is time to get on with something new?

this is a :goodpost:

first off hell ya i for one want an 0200 also it should be said to the harers that they work with the foundation or we will make the stc obsolete with a new one

one thing i would like to see is fuel injection i found a company that makes one for the 0200 this would be cool to have

oh and barnstmr if there is any thing i could do to help let me know my friend bob has half a airframe one could rig up a fwf o200 with if you want to