Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 60

Thread: J-3 with wood spars and 0200 engine

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    2
    Post Thanks / Like

    J-3 with wood spars and 0200 engine

    Does anyone have field approval for a J-3 with wood spars and an 0200 engine? Thank you, Julie

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    7,281
    Post Thanks / Like
    The field approval would be for a J3C65. There is no difference between wood and metal spars. Problem is, you cannot simply use a field approval; you need the original installer or a new field approval.

  3. #3
    39-J3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    560
    Post Thanks / Like
    Does F. Atlee Dodge have field approval Drawings for this conversion?

    I am asking, not saying they do.

    Larry.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    2
    Post Thanks / Like
    My Dad has a J-3 with original wood spars. He had the engine replaced with an 0200, 100 HP engine. When the current owner of the airport where the work was done placed an ad on Barnstormers, he found out that this combination is "illegal" or not approved by the FAA. The previous owner who did the work, passed away, sadly. So, if we understand it correctly, the plane isn't "legal" with wood spars and this 0200 engine. If anyone on this thread believes otherwise, please let me know. Our Ag Pilot suggested that I post a question on this Forum to see if there is possibly anyone else who has this same setup and has been able to obtain field approval from the FAA. If so, he believes that we could use that precedence for our plane. At least it may help. Like you say, we would probably have to get a field approval on our plane. Thanks so much for any advice we can get.

  5. #5
    supercub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Let me check my GPS, gee how'd we ever navigate with those sectional things?
    Posts
    859
    Post Thanks / Like
    I believe Univair is the only STC for an O-200 in a J-3. I believe it calls for the addition of a wing tank also. I know a lot of O-200 installations are field approved by limiting the RPM (red line on the tach) to 90hp........still takes a field approval.
    Thanks juliecat13 thanked for this post

  6. #6
    cubdriver2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    upstate NY
    Posts
    10,315
    Post Thanks / Like
    Check over here also

    www.j3-cub.com

    Glenn
    "Optimism is going after Moby Dick in a rowboat and taking the tartar sauce with you!"
    Thanks juliecat13 thanked for this post

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    7,281
    Post Thanks / Like
    Julie - look for a 337 filed for that engine. If you don't have all the paperwork, you can get it from the FAA records branch.

    If no 337 has been filed then you indeed do have an illegal installation, and it has nothing to do with the spars.

    I run into this stuff fairly often, considering that I do not make a living being a mechanic. The latest was a C-90-12, and the 337 listed neither an STC nor did it have a field approval stamp in block 3. One of those two things is required.

    So for a quarter century that bird went through annual after annual, and nobody caught it. Last month I got it field approved.

    As I understand it, I might have gotten the last five field approvals of my career that day - but now that aircraft is legal!

    Best of luck.
    Thanks juliecat13 thanked for this post

  8. #8
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    2,539
    Post Thanks / Like
    Aircraft records: https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certifi...craft_records/

    The CD takes a week to a bit more by USPS and included Airworthiness (Form 337 and others) and Registered Owner records. No logbook data. If you can find another plane with the mods you want approved then obtain the records for that as a help.

    Edit: Search for "JimC" here as I recall him mentioning a J-3 and O-200: https://www.supercub.org/forum/searc...archid=4755382

    Gary
    Last edited by BC12D-4-85; 09-22-2019 at 11:33 PM.
    Thanks juliecat13 thanked for this post

  9. #9
    cruiser's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    South Glens Falls, NY
    Posts
    1,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    I do not have the face side of the 337 and N42527 is now a Bell helicopter, however N23375 is still around. Perhaps purchasing a CD of the OK City file on the airplane would be helpful. I owned 3590K for awhile, it had an 0200 although some of the paperwork might be sketchy. Or try to gain some traction with the FSDO letter, should be fun, Jim
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0200 337.png 
Views:	165 
Size:	503.2 KB 
ID:	44568   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FSDO 0200.png 
Views:	167 
Size:	245.1 KB 
ID:	44569  
    Thanks juliecat13 thanked for this post
    Likes skywagon8a liked this post

  10. #10
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    2,539
    Post Thanks / Like
    Maybe contact JimC here if he has e-mail listed (click on his name in the searches I linked above) and ask about the combo. He's very good about helping and knows what it's all about.

    Gary

  11. #11
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    20,203
    Post Thanks / Like
    The problem is that the 100 hp STC calls out aluminum spars only. Worked on a Clipped wing Cub with the O-200 STC and wood spars. There was a field approval to derate the engine to 90 hp via RPM because the C90 is on the type certificate. I guess someone thought the O-200 was to much horse power for the wood spar. I have never seen anyone get 100 hp out of an O-200 on a Cub because they prop won't get that high an rpm. Only way I can see to do it would be via a field approval using these other 337s as acceptable data.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  12. #12

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    777
    Post Thanks / Like
    The bigger issue is under CAR 4, if you only have the 12 gallon tank, maximum continuous HP is limited to 80 HP by CAR 4.620. 0.15 gallons per maximum HP except take off. .15X 80= 12

    Has nothing to do with structure, only available fuel. Thatís why if you look at items 9 & 10, for the C85 and C90, they are limited to 80HP ďfor all other operationsĒ

    Now, if you add additional fuel tanks and want to go beyond the 80HP continuous limit, structure could enter into it, and you would need to verify that.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    cruiser's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    South Glens Falls, NY
    Posts
    1,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    Citing the authority spelled out by the Manager, Systems and Flight Test Branch letter dated March 20, 1997 install the 0200, remark the red line on the tach to derate the engine to 90 hp, amend the W&B as required and consider it a minor alteration. He certainly has.
    Last edited by cruiser; 09-24-2019 at 01:15 PM.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    777
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cruiser View Post
    Citing the authority spelled out by the Manager, Systems and Flight Test Branch letter dated March 20, 1997 install the 0200, remark the red line on the tach to derate the engine to 90 hp, amend the W&B as required and consider it a minor alteration. He certainly has.
    Canít argue with what you have from NY ACO, but from experience, Iíve had to educate the same engineer in that office that CAR 4 is a predecessor regulation to CAR 3. They simply have no idea when it comes to old airplanes!

    Iíd be in agreement with 90 hp for TO, and 80 HP continuous.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    32
    Post Thanks / Like
    Does the Univair O-200 STC apply to the PA-11 as well? It wasn't explicit, I know they share the same TCDS, but not all things are the same between them. Anyway I'm looking at a PA-11 project, but sure would like to have a starter; don't need the rest of the electrical system though (generator, lights, etc.)

  16. #16
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    3,240
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by bob turner View Post
    The field approval would be for a J3C65. There is no difference between wood and metal spars. Problem is, you cannot simply use a field approval; you need the original installer or a new field approval.
    An existing field-approved 337 can be used to document "accepted data",
    whether or not that helps you actually get a new field approval depends on your inspector and/or FSDO.
    FWIW I've heard that a field approval dating from before 1956(?) is considered approved data,
    and that this can be cited on a 337 which can then be signed off by an IA--
    just like an STC.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!
    Likes dgapilot liked this post

  17. #17

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    777
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    An existing field-approved 337 can be used to document "accepted data",
    whether or not that helps you actually get a new field approval depends on your inspector and/or FSDO.
    FWIW I've heard that a field approval dating from before 1956(?) is considered approved data,
    and that this can be cited on a 337 which can then be signed off by an IA--
    just like an STC.
    You are correct in that pre Octoberí56 orí57 (I need to double check the date) is approved data and can be used to modify additional aircraft of the same make and model providing you do it the same way.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  18. #18

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Upper Peninsula of Michigan
    Posts
    492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Dnh98221 View Post
    Does the Univair O-200 STC apply to the PA-11 as well? It wasn't explicit, I know they share the same TCDS, but not all things are the same between them. Anyway I'm looking at a PA-11 project, but sure would like to have a starter; don't need the rest of the electrical system though (generator, lights, etc.)
    I think a PA 11 would fit into the 10% HP increase rule since that plane is approved for 85 and 90 HP on the TC. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    33
    Post Thanks / Like
    Who would want to put an o-200 engine on a J-3 anyways, save the hassle, sell the 0-200 and slap on a C-85 stroker with just a logbook entry, lighter weight and puts out almost as much power.

  20. #20
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    2,539
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by dgapilot View Post
    You are correct in that pre October’56 or’57 (I need to double check the date) is approved data and can be used to modify additional aircraft of the same make and model providing you do it the same way.
    I have a note here that it's a 337 prior to 10/1/55. I found several Taylorcrafts that had engine and gross weight changes post WWII that were later covered by STC's.

    Edit: See page 8 item 6: https://www.faa.gov/training_testing...-g-8082-19.pdf

    Gary
    Last edited by BC12D-4-85; 01-17-2020 at 12:56 PM.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    777
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by BC12D-4-85 View Post
    I have a note here that it's a 337 prior to 10/1/55. I found several Taylorcrafts that had engine and gross weight changes post WWII that were later covered by STC's.

    Edit: See page 8 item 6: https://www.faa.gov/training_testing...-g-8082-19.pdf

    Gary
    You are correct, 10/1/1955.it is in Order 8300.16A.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Thanks BC12D-4-85 thanked for this post

  22. #22
    supercrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Smith Pond near Millinocket, Me
    Posts
    425
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by AKjurnees View Post
    Who would want to put an o-200 engine on a J-3 anyways, save the hassle, sell the 0-200 and slap on a C-85 stroker with just a logbook entry, lighter weight and puts out almost as much power.
    I have to respectfully disagree with you on this statement. I have never seen an 0200 that puts out what a correctly done 85 stroker does. The stroker puts out 10% to 15% more power. I have seen very few 0200s that will run with a good C90!

  23. #23
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    2,539
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have a C-85 Stroker w/Cessna exhaust and would not trade for a higher rpm O-200. Finding the right prop for an O-200 helps, but...

    Gary

  24. #24
    cubdriver2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    upstate NY
    Posts
    10,315
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have owned and run all of them, C85 stroker, C90 and 0200. A prop that turns rated hp rpm taking off is where the magic is.

    Glenn
    "Optimism is going after Moby Dick in a rowboat and taking the tartar sauce with you!"
    Likes BC12D-4-85, CenterHillAg, DENNY liked this post

  25. #25
    CenterHillAg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Texas Coast
    Posts
    122
    Post Thanks / Like
    A McCauley 7438 pulling a C85 stroker on a non-electric Cub is an outstanding combination.

    So I’ve been told, I’d never run that since it’s not a legal prop on a C85

  26. #26
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    20,203
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Dnh98221 View Post
    Does the Univair O-200 STC apply to the PA-11 as well? It wasn't explicit, I know they share the same TCDS, but not all things are the same between them. Anyway I'm looking at a PA-11 project, but sure would like to have a starter; don't need the rest of the electrical system though (generator, lights, etc.)
    The starter is approved for the engine, C85-12, C90-12 or an O-200 etc. You can install a battery in a J3 or PA11 via logbook entry and AC43.13. no need for an STC or a field approval.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Posts
    5
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Univair STC is the only way to get an O-200 installed on the J3. I currently own the only certificated and legal clip wing cub with metal spars and an O-200 continental. Its a Reed clip wing per the type certificate and then the Univair O-200 STC was utilized. A requirement of the STC is metal spars. Also an 18 gallon wing tank an a PA-18 rear deck / birdcage. Iím reinstalling the battery, alternator, starter along with a Becker com radio this week so no more hand prop. This aircraft was built up by Univair for Jane Dyer, the owners wife in 1977 and has all documentation and logs. It qualifies as light sport as well. Itís currently for sale here: https://www.barnstormers.com/classif...Cub-O-200.html

  28. #28

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    777
    Post Thanks / Like

    J-3 with wood spars and 0200 engine

    If you have metal spars, you donít have a Reed Clip Wing as that approval is only for wood spars. That said, I suspect someone provided an approval for a ďReed likeĒ clip wing. Another point is that the Reed Clip wing is limited to only an A-75 engine. Installing another engine takes you away from the Reed Clip Wing approval as well. Remember, it is the installer that has to determine if the installation of multiple STCs might cause an unairworthy condition. Since the O-200 STC conflicts with the Reed (actually part of the TC), Iíd be interested to see the analysis to make that determination.

    Iíve done DER approvals to install an O-200 on wood spar J3 as well, so the Univair STC is not the only way to put an O-200 on a J3.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Last edited by dgapilot; 10-29-2020 at 03:20 PM.
    Likes mam90, Brandsman liked this post

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Posts
    5
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Reed clip wing was done first then the O-200 STC. ie not concurrently. Apparently the FAA went with the logic that the Reed clip wing was per the TC as stated, then the O-200 STC required metal spars. The two donít conflict because they are consecutive in nature. Univair has it all in the logs approved. I think this one is a real ď one off ď for sure.
    Likes DENNY liked this post

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    7,281
    Post Thanks / Like
    dga may be correct - if an STC requires metal spars, you cannot later decide to install wood, without a field approval. Univair cannot do field approvals. If there is an FAA stamp in block 3 of the O-200 337, then you are home free. If not, then get Dave to do his magic.

    oops - sorry - you do have metal spars. You need the stamp in block 3 of the clip wing 337. Either that, or a metal spar clip wing STC.
    Last edited by bob turner; 10-29-2020 at 05:51 PM.
    Likes DENNY liked this post

  31. #31

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    777
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by bob turner View Post
    dga may be correct - if an STC requires metal spars, you cannot later decide to install wood, without a field approval. Univair cannot do field approvals. If there is an FAA stamp in block 3 of the O-200 337, then you are home free. If not, then get Dave to do his magic.

    oops - sorry - you do have metal spars. You need the stamp in block 3 of the clip wing 337. Either that, or a metal spar clip wing STC.
    Bob, the funny thing is, doing a Reed Clip wing (per the drawings, wood spars and A75) is a minor alteration since it is on the TC. Can be done with just log book entry. All that said, I would do a 337, but by the letter of the law it is a minor!


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  32. #32
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    20,203
    Post Thanks / Like
    I recovered a Clipped Wing J3 with O-200 and aluminum spars with all the approvals. Previously owned by Patty Wagstaf now owned by Todd Peterson of King Katmi 182 fame.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    7,281
    Post Thanks / Like
    Used to be easy to get approvals. I have no doubt that this one has been approved, but I would not license it without at least looking at the 337. As Dave said before, a metal spar clipwing is not in the type certificate, and would need a field approval.

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    7,281
    Post Thanks / Like
    Saw your ad. If the Dyers got a field approval, that sounds like a good deal. Put a copy of the 337 in your ad?

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Posts
    5
    Post Thanks / Like
    There is no 337, one is not required. The Reed modification was done IAW the TC as dgapilot stated can be done. Then after that, the Univair STC was used to install the 0-200 which specifies metal spars. Two separate modifications, two different but acceptable authorizations. Again, one IAW the original type certificate (Reed clip wing) the other IAW the supplemental type certificate ( 0-200 )

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    7,281
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't think it works that way. What do I know - check with dga.

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,185
    Post Thanks / Like
    If by letter of the law it is a minor, WE SHOUD FOLLOW THE LAW!! Just saying!!
    DENNY
    Last edited by DENNY; 10-30-2020 at 12:01 AM.
    Likes hotrod180 liked this post

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Posts
    5
    Post Thanks / Like
    You know, I had these same questions when I was buying the airplane so I called the folks at Univair and I had no trouble understanding their explanation of how they did it. And when I called my FSDO to make sure, the inspector had no trouble understanding it. So Iím not sure what the problem with you guys is. Look, I donít know who or what DGA is, all that know is the FAA says itís legal, and so has every IA thatís signed the annual for the last 43 years, so if you guys want to poke holes in everything and try to say my airplane isnít legal then go ahead, I donít care, Iíll sell it to someone who isnít so obtuse. Have a nice life.

  39. #39
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    10,697
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Smonroe View Post
    You know, I had these same questions when I was buying the airplane so I called the folks at Univair and I had no trouble understanding their explanation of how they did it. And when I called my FSDO to make sure, the inspector had no trouble understanding it. So I’m not sure what the problem with you guys is. Look, I don’t know who or what DGA is, all that know is the FAA says it’s legal, and so has every IA that’s signed the annual for the last 43 years, so if you guys want to poke holes in everything and try to say my airplane isn’t legal then go ahead, I don’t care, I’ll sell it to someone who isn’t so obtuse. Have a nice life.
    Smonroe, I see you are a new member here, welcome aboard. It takes a while to understand where the other members are coming from, who is serious about what he is addressing and who is the BSer. We have folks here from all walks of life with experience levels from the very green behind the ears newby to some of the most qualified in their respective industry. We as a group have a tendency to dig deep in "the weeds" on most any discussion at hand. It so happens DGA is a DER (Designated Engineering Representative). He is our resident authority on the FAR's and possesses the FAA's blessings to approve aircraft alterations such as yours.

    The discussion with which you have taken offense, has only been to ensure your airplane has been legally modified. It has been intended to help you in preventing some sort of problems in the selling of your Cub and to educate the rest of us. Sometimes the words get twisted in an unintentional manner which gets misunderstood. I can assure you that all of the "talk" about your situation has been with an effort to help you.

    Univair has a long time good reputation. I'm sure they have done the right thing with your Cub. It's just in the explanation which has been presented here, there were some detail questions raised which needed to be understood. We get deep into details, all with good intentions.

    I hope you have now had a good night's sleep and a tasty refreshing morning cup of coffee. Stick around, this is a fun place. You will find many new true friends.
    N1PA
    Likes jrussl, bob turner liked this post

  40. #40

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Maynard,MA
    Posts
    1,237
    Post Thanks / Like
    75-35 on an 0-200 will outperform a 90 with a 76 ak40-2 but the 90 with 75-35 outperforms everything just not approved.

Similar Threads

  1. Wood spars
    By donnuts in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-15-2007, 06:26 PM
  2. Wood Spars
    By J5Ron in forum Tips and Tricks
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-12-2004, 08:37 PM
  3. wood spars /flaps
    By T Willson in forum The Art and Science of Flying
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-22-2004, 08:19 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •