Harer (Barber) STC update

[Dano"T"]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Here Y'all go

[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

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.

[Guest]

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.

[T-Rex]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Someone help me out here. Why can't we just modify our planes per the type certificate. That would allow up to a C85 and a max gross of 1280. And if you want more power do the O200 crank mod. Yes it would need to be field approved but what is the difference. You do the paperwork before you do the work and away you go. If I am wrong on this someone please educate me.

[Guest]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

I suppose that could be done IF you new what the minor structural changes were that are listed in the TCDS for the bc85 (and there may be other fuel system changes I can't recall for sure).

But we don't know what the minor structural changes are since Taylorcraft never published them in the TCDS like Aeronca did for its models.

I believe that is the problem we face.

I think that I know what the structural changes were but for it to count T-craft has to put it in the TCDS and I suspect at this time there is no way that will happen. So my guess whether right or wrong is useless.

Aeronca listed these in the TCDS for all to know and see and laid out the model conversion eligibility, that was nice.

In the end I figured it was cheaper/easier to pay $250 for the STC.

[Guest]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

My belief is that the STC merely documents that info that is "missing" from the TCDS.

[T-Rex]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

I agree that the STC is the way to go because it is a slam dunk with the feds. But what about the factory drawings (approved data)? Wouldn't the changes be noted in the drawings for each later model? And doesn't the foundation have a complete set of drawings? The manuals and drawings I ordered from ESCO are very detailed. I have not studied them that closely but if one could obtain a set of official BC12D-85 or BC12D-4-85 drawings it would all be there. Just a thought I'm sure someone has had before.

[T-Rex]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Drude you type to fast. Hunt and peck.

[Guest]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

I agree that the STC is the way to go because it is a slam dunk with the feds. But what about the factory drawings (approved data)? Wouldn't the changes be noted in the drawings for each later model? And doesn't the foundation have a complete set of drawings? The manuals and drawings I ordered from ESCO are very detailed. I have not studied them that closely but if one could obtain a set of official BC12D-85 or BC12D-4-85 drawings it would all be there. Just a thought I'm sure someone has had before.

Probably that could be done but so far I have not seen a single drawing from the foundation and have no clue what drawings they have if any at all and the factory certainly won't give me one.

So I don't see any hope there.

[Guest]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Drude you type to fast. Hunt and peck.

ha!

I must have had too much coffee !

[NY86]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Even if you know exactly what the differences are between the models, you cannot just willy-nilly change from one model to another without factory data to allowing the model changes and stating the requirements for making them. Then, you need a new dataplate and airworthiness certificate.

[Guest]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

So you are saying that it does need to be listed in TCDS like Aeronca, did I get it?

[Guest]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Good point about the data plate.

Aeronca gives instructions in the TCDS about what to do with the data plate - basically restamp model and add CONV at the end

[swoeric]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

So how much of a hp change is there on the 0-200 crank upgrade?
is there an stc for an 0-200 or larger engine in place?
what size of market is there for an stc?
what is a reasonable cost for an end user to buy an engine stc?

why are we chasing the harer stc so hard when we have the cost of rebuilding the c85 why not start over with 0-200?