Too Many STC's

Bearhawk Builder said:

I'm up to 23 STC's so far

Click to expand...

So of course the FAA just listed a webinar titled, Frankinplane - Too Many STC This will be a discussion when not all STCs play well together.

This does not in anyway refer to Dave's or any other project but just struck me that earlier today I was getting caught up on this site and read the STC count for Dave's project.

CharlieN said:

So of course the FAA just listed a webinar titled, Frankinplane - Too Many STC This will be a discussion when not all STCs play well together.

This does not in anyway refer to Dave's or any other project but just struck me that earlier today I was getting caught up on this site and read the STC count for Dave's project.

Click to expand...

link?

Frankenplanes: https://www.faasafety.gov/spans/event_details.aspx?eid=91720&caller=/spans/events/EventList.aspx

Earlier: https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/dah/media/2017_der_recurrent_seminar.pdf Note page 21 on for this destroyed aircraft business.

Wonder if the trip would be worth some recreation - are the fish biting in North Carolina?

Gary

This should get to the Webinar,
https://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/event_details.aspx?eid=91715

On all forums except this one I use my company motto, "If it ain't broke, modify it"
Which is why my project is an EX build, there are not enough STCs in the book to cover what I am doing.
I am curious to see what they have to say.

Special mission aircraft should not be part of the discussion as they are "special" so are not expected to comply with normal safety standards.

"STC Compatibility is not a new issue. You can imagine that special mission aircraft, and even sometimes less than special aircraft, need multiple modifications. These modifications need to play well together. Sometimes it does not end well."

The rest of the issue has some merit since a large percentage of FAA types (not all of them) have no clue what is or isn't compatible. I can reveal a personal interaction, but will remain silent to protect the guilty. Also, I'm sorry to say there are also a lot of IAs who "just don't get it" as well. Bob Turner has been pointing out some improper modifications recently. That being said there are also a lot of pilots who being only average do not understand how different STCs can somehow conflict in their performance enhancements. There are countless modifications and STC'd kits which make performance improvement claims. There are also many airplane owners who think that these modifications are cumulative and that if they spend the money the improvements will magically appear. Then after spending the money they will brag about the improvements with no more proof than the money was spent, so the improvement must have happened.

I agree with Charlie. In his case with the improvements which he is making, he would not live long enough to satisfy the FAA and still be able to enjoy his plane without going the E-AB route.

There is a note on all STCs which states that the installer must ensure that that particular STC will be compatible with whatever other modifications have been done. Yet there is no guidance which I have seen which addresses how this is accomplished. Good judgement is the only requirement.

My Super Cub has 35 STCs installed, several others that have been removed, and some minor mods. They seem to be working together just fine.

Add to Pete: Some modifications will take me to places I don't want to go; never felt a need for them. Taylor, Piper and others knew what they were doing, and those who learned to fly 65hp, wheels, skis and floats shouldn't need them. Ninety per cent of my 66 years of flying, 62 as owner, has been off-airport.

Admittedly, some of my mods are just for fun. Others are for convenience, and some for safety. I'm pretty happy with my choices. When we redo Chris's plane, we'll focus on the safety mods.

I have several STCs that allow me to work out of my cub (ext. baggage). I have several STCs that cover up poor judgement (35s). All the rest of the STCs and outlaw mods I have help make up for a lack of skill.

I recall a 206 that I put together years ago. That airplane had well over 35 STCs and several Field Approvals for deviations to STCs. Each one was evaluated for comparability and there were no problems. This thing had a SOLOY RR-250, R STOL, Whipeline Floats, Whipeline right front door, aux vacuum pump, Sierra fuel system and on and on.

Had the chance to evaluate a PA-12 with lots of STCs, and right off the bat, it had Atlee Dodge fuel tanks where the STC Limitations stated they weren’t eligible if there was any increase in wing area, yet someone had put a set of tips on the wings that extended the outboard ribs to full chord and the tips extended past where the original tips ended. Told the guy he had a nice pile of parts, but don’t expect me to work on it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dgapilot said:

.

Had the chance to evaluate a PA-12 with lots of STCs, and right off the bat, it had Atlee Dodge fuel tanks where the STC Limitations stated they weren’t eligible if there was any increase in wing area, yet someone had put a set of tips on the wings that extended the outboard ribs to full chord and the tips extended past where the original tips ended. Told the guy he had a nice pile of parts, but don’t expect me to work on it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Common mod. There was a FAA pissing match with one of the inspectors and Atlee. Quite a few with extended wings.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app

mike mcs repair said:

Common mod. There was a FAA pissing match with one of the inspectors and Atlee. Quite a few with extended wings.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app

Click to expand...

But clearly a violation of the STC limitations unless they got some other engineering approval.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I split this off from the Bearhawk thread at the request of one of the posters.

sj

I love the experimental category. STCs are so 20th century.