Harer (Barber) STC update

[Guest]

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?

I bet that no more that 5 STC's would sell in a year regardless of 85hp or o200 (100hp).

What do others think?

[akndrifter]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

I bet that no more that 5 STC's would sell in a year regardless of 85hp or o200 (100hp).

What do others think?

You might be able to even sell that many in Alaska. I would highly consider it.

[freightpilot27]

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.

You cannot change or modify the BC12D to BC12D-85 or -4-85 using the TCDS because of the serial numbers.
I.E. to change to the 85 hp no electrical, your serial number must be 12001 or higher. To change to he 85 hp w/electrical your serial number must be 4-13010 or higher. (This is shown on the TCDS)

HOWEVER, if you have a letter from the factory stating YOUR SERIAL NUMBER AIRFRAME is similar enough to the model you want to change to, you may use the TCDS as long as you have all the factory documentation (drawings) of all the changes required and that letter. (The existing letter stating the similarities between BC, BF, & BL models is not usable in this instance)

I have tried this, Antonio said he would look into it, but I have been unable get any more information from him at this time.

[NY86]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

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

Erco published a service bulletin listing the changes required, so I guess that's sufficient, but you need *something*...

[Guest]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

I wonder then if an easy path would be to accomplish all the changes listed in the Erco bulliten (assuming one might find it) thru a field approval for the GW to 1280 and the HP change to 85 BUT leave the model number as is?

I Would try that I think.

[T-Rex]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Thanks Bob It makes sense to me that if you had all of the proper drawings and and documentation you could get a field approval for this. Once again all we need is a little factory support.

[freightpilot27]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Was Erco associated with the Taylorcraft in some way?
I thought they designed the Ercoupe?

[freightpilot27]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Thanks Bob It makes sense to me that if you had all of the proper drawings and and documentation you could get a field approval for this. Once again all we need is a little factory support.

Yep, its the factory support we are lacking. I hope the new owners are better than the last.
My fingers are crossed.

How do we know what drawing numbers to get (specific to the differences only)? And how do we know we got all of the right ones. Forrest says the foundation has 28,000 drawings!

Maybe that service bulletin?

[Guest]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

You might be able to even sell that many in Alaska. I would highly consider it.

I wonder then if there would be any sales in the second year?

If you sold 5 per year at $250 each at $1250 a year income you can't even pay the liability insurance.

Ok so let's imagine that you don't need insurance.

At $1250 a year revenue how much do you want to invest up front to make this STC?

Copying costs eat away at the $1250, wittles it down to say $1125.

If you wanted to pay off your investmeant in say 5 years then you could put $5625 into this game (check my math).

Then you start to make money in year six.

Do we think that there are enough folks around that want to PURCHASE an STC that you would put up $5625 to invest with the confidence that you would sell 25 copies in the first 5 years and 5 copies in the 6th year?

There is a lot of talk about it, but how many folks purchased the STC versus circumvented it for some reason (cost, awareness, taste...)

Frankly I am sincerely not sure how much money it would take to reinvent an STC like that. Engineering costs are high. barnstmr may have some insight on this.

Dave

[Guest]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Was Erco associated with the Taylorcraft in some way?
I thought they designed the Ercoupe?

I think that in the '50s and '60s ERCO and UNIVAIR owned some of the T-craft type certificates (and other TCs) for a breif periods.

Much like the last 10years I guess.

[Guest]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Yep, its the factory support we are lacking. I hope the new owners are better than the last.
My fingers are crossed.

How do we know what drawing numbers to get (specific to the differences only)? And how do we know we got all of the right ones. Forrest says the foundation has 28,000 drawings!
Maybe that service bulletin?

I didn't know that.

I asked if I could come and make copies, was there a copy place nearby, if I could take the drawing to be copied (I don't know if taking them off premise is allowed) and if there was a list of the drawings but never got a response.

[freightpilot27]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

I asked if I could come and make copies, was there a copy place nearby, if I could take the drawing to be copied (I don't know if taking them off premise is allowed) and if there was a list of the drawings but never got a response.

Same here, no response till recent-
Forrest wrote: "….. Tues Wed thurs afternoons. I had two members hfere today on Sunday picking ut parts and drawings..."

I have not followed up with him yet, but sounds like those days are available to sort through drawings. In addition, we need an official list of the drawings associated with the 85 hp models. The FAA wont let me just tell them what drawings are required. - Can't use the parts manual, it's not considered "approved data" by the FAA.


The last thing I want to do is bootleg an STC from the rightful owners. BUT I want an 85 and electrical system in mine. I will get it some way.
My plan is to continue what I'm working on. If the STC comes available before I finish, I will buy it and use it. I don't have the engineering background to design and substantiate the structural changes required. Nor do I have the resources to pay for a DER.
I could go experimental, but that would be my last resort only.

The big problem is the horsepower increase. Its more than 10%- no 337 (stupid FAA blanket rule).
Everything else can be done via field approval.
If only there was an A-70......
A-65 to an A-70 to an A-75 to an A-80 to a C-85 to a C-90 to an O-200
I have done similar before with only one physical engine change.

[NY86]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

I wonder then if an easy path would be to accomplish all the changes listed in the Erco bulliten

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. the Erco bulletin applies to model changes for Ercoupes...

On a slightly different note, a friend of mine was able to get an STC approved to increase the gross weight of an Ercoupe 415C to 1320 lbs, retain the original model designation and stay LSA complaint using the model change data as justification.

[barnstmr]

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?

[Marv]

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