Harer (Barber) STC update

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

I used the STC in the opposite way I upgraded the GW to 1280 but not the engine.

I did that as an IA and submitted it, went right thru, no field approval needed.

Field approval works though, nothing wrong with that, I am not saying that at all.

Sometimes there is more than one way to solve a problem.

I ahd asked Bob Harer and he told me that it was an acceptable way to use the STC and had been used in that way before and that the FAA agreed (maybe he knew about your letter). It also just made sense.

And an IA has some flexability in the installation.

I didn't install the windows either.

[Dano"T"]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

I don't see how that letter authorizes anyone to do anything. I says you can deviate from the STC. Still, you must use the STC, which we already established can only be used with permission from the holder.

Exactly.....everybody keeps talking about an STC to slap a bigger engine on.....I thought this might help.....I mean, If the Harer family won't make the STC available anymore...and someone makes a new STC, they can use this.....It is from the Chief Engineer at the Great Lakes Office.....If I'm wrong about it helping, then no skin of my Butt......It worked for me for a field approval to do only the fuel and engine upgrade. Yes, I bought the Harer STC.....but I thought this thread developed into "who's gonna step up to the plate if the Harer family does not come through". A simple engine upgrade STC would also be more marketable...IMHO. If the family plays it right, or if they find it in their hearts to let the foundation become the keeper/owner.....many will be sold....I don't know why I'm rambling on.....I'm sure someone else will come up with a good idea.

[barnstmr]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

I did donate a copy of the letter I spoke of to the Foundation a couple of years ago....I also posted a copy on this forum.....I'll search for it and resurect it......it could be used as engineering data to support the modifications spoken of here.

I don't see how that letter authorizes anyone to do anything. I says you can deviate from the STC. Still, you must use the STC, which we already established can only be used with permission from the holder.

[Dano"T"]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Here Y'all go

[Dano"T"]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

I have posted this before, but I'll bring it up again. I bought a plane that had a C90 in it, wing tanks, wing root valves (like Bill mentioned), I added an extended baggage made of canvass.....NO WING MODS...So 1200lb gross remains......THEN I bought the Harer STC....my IA inspected everything and submitted a 337 along with a letter I found from 1973 from the FAA stating that if you buy the STC then it really covers these mods in their opinion....you just need a 337 for the increase fron 85 to 90HP (10% increase allowed on 337) They state that you are to buy the Harer STC and do the engine upgrade....gross weight mods not required. So we don't have to re invent the wheel....we only need to hope that the Harer family makes the STC available again.....If that doesn't work....I did donate a copy of the letter I spoke of to the Foundation a couple of years ago....I also posted a copy on this forum.....I'll search for it and resurect it......it could be used as engineering data to support the modifications spoken of here.

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

If everyone is bootlegging the STC on their own, it's revenue generation potential will be zero.

I for one am going to reverse a mod that has been done on my plane because I just can't afford the costs of litigation if it is discovered, and because I don't want to end up having to do it during an annual some day.

You may be able to keep some or all of the physical mods but just not modify the paperwork (ie. remove the stc paper work) until you buy the STC and apply it when it is available.

My airplane had the structural changes but not the engine mods done before I purchased it but the stc had not been applied to the paperwork in any form.

I purchased the stc a few years ago and applied it so now I do have a higher GW.

[VictorBravo]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Bill go for it. If you wait around no one will do it and it seems you have a way of getting things done. Marv

Thanks Marv, however I'm committed to at least two other projects for the near future. I have one STC that is complete for Cessnas (Piper aircraft being added now) and then I have another CIA top secret "bright idea" that will either make me a wealthy man or a divorced/badly beaten/homeless man.

One of the tings I'd do after that second STC succeeds (and I have the wolf backed away from the door) is to do one or more Taylorcraft related things, including restore the carcass that is suspended from the hangar rafters now and one or more STC's to give people more options.

But like I said, because the T-craft stuff is now on the back burner compared to other stuff, I will gladly step aside and let someone else pursue it. We have at least one very talented guy on the forum who has personal experience with T-craft engine upgrade STC's, and a number of other engineers and long-time experts with more brain cells than I.

However, there should definitely be respect shown for the existing STC, and a fair effort put in to resurrect it into a functioning and available product. The existing STC creates a safe airplane without doubt, and should not be automatically be discounted because of a brief interruption in its availability.

[Ray36048]

Re: PK Screws

How about someone getting control of the STC to use PK screws. STC SA1-217.

Capital Air seems to be long gone. There was some guy who claimed to own the STC, but I understand he was selling the same old paper work with the Capital Air name on it.

[Pearson]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

In terms of the value of the STC that would be determined, not by the cost to get the STC, but its revenue generation potential.

If everyone is bootlegging the STC on their own, it's revenue generation potential will be zero.

I for one am going to reverse a mod that has been done on my plane because I just can't afford the costs of litigation if it is discovered, and because I don't want to end up having to do it during an annual some day.

[Marv]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Bill go for it. If you wait around no one will do it and it seems you have a way of getting things done. Marv

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

I sure do!

[VictorBravo]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

This group's conjecture is leading to slandering a very nice family.

Then I hope they will accept my apology for any unwitting or unintended wrongdoing on my part. I'll stay out of this one (the actual existing Gilberti/Harer STC) from now on.

If I have the opportunity, and no one from this group has done it in the interim, then at some time in the future I will be happy to spearhead a newer STC that allows a larger engine to be put on a T-craft, keeping it in the LSA category, eliminates the confusion and extra steps, etc. etc.

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

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

It would appear that communication with the family dosen't happen easily. I do not mean to be critical of the family. Perhaps the FAA has tried to determine the status of the STC ownership and if they have had the same success as the TOC causing them to reach the conclusion that it was orphaned.
In terms of the value of the STC that would be determined, not by the cost to get the STC, but its revenue generation potential.

That is just not true.

I found it quite easy to contact them and got a prompt phone call acknowledging the receipt of my letter a very pleasant conversation and clear indication of what will happen next.

This group's conjecture is leading to slandering a very nice family.

I am dissipointed at the reactions I've seen here.

Has it occurred to anyone that just they may not want to do business?

[lfries]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

It would appear that communication with the family dosen't happen easily. I do not mean to be critical of the family. Perhaps the FAA has tried to determine the status of the STC ownership and if they have had the same success as the TOC causing them to reach the conclusion that it was orphaned.
In terms of the value of the STC that would be determined, not by the cost to get the STC, but its revenue generation potential.

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

OK Terry, then why is the FAA allowing me (I have a letter to prove it) to use the data contained within STC SA1-210 as the basis for my own "one time" STC?

It could be because they don't know the law or have not been in court yet or have not read the register.

They don't make they law or judge it. They could be wrong. Just because they work for the FAA doesn't make them perfect or all powerful.

I don't pretend to know how the courts will come down on this if it was brought to court.

But the federal register paragraph does end with this;
"however a person may neither infringe upon, nor otherwise
exercise, the rights of the owner of this property without that person’s consent."