juliecat13
Registered User
Does anyone have field approval for a J-3 with wood spars and an 0200 engine? Thank you, Julie
J-3 with wood spars and 0200 engine
- Thread starter juliecat13
- Start date
bob turner
Registered User
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.
juliecat13
Registered User
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.
supercub
MEMBER
Let me check my GPS, gee how'd we ever navigate w
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.
cubdriver2
FRIEND
upstate NY
bob turner
Registered User
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.
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.
BC12D-4-85
SPONSOR
Fairbanks, AK.
Aircraft records: https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certif...on/aircraft_registry/copies_aircraft_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/search.php?searchid=4755382
Gary
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/search.php?searchid=4755382
Gary
Last edited:
cruiser
Registered User
South Glens Falls, NY
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
Attachments
BC12D-4-85
SPONSOR
Fairbanks, AK.
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
Gary
Steve Pierce
BENEFACTOR
Graham, TX
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.
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. That’s why if you look at items 9 & 10, for the C85 and C90, they are limited to 80HP “for all other operations”
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
Has nothing to do with structure, only available fuel. That’s why if you look at items 9 & 10, for the C85 and C90, they are limited to 80HP “for all other operations”
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
cruiser
Registered User
South Glens Falls, NY
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:
Can’t argue with what you have from NY ACO, but from experience, I’ve 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!
I’d be in agreement with 90 hp for TO, and 80 HP continuous.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.)
hotrod180
FRIEND
Port Townsend, WA
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 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.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dan Gervae
FRIEND
Upper Peninsula of Michigan
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
BC12D-4-85
SPONSOR
Fairbanks, AK.
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/testing/test_guides/media/faa-g-8082-19.pdf
Gary
Last edited:
You are correct, 10/1/1955.it is in Order 8300.16A.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
supercrow
FRIEND
Smith Pond near Millinocket, Me
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!
BC12D-4-85
SPONSOR
Fairbanks, AK.
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
Gary
cubdriver2
FRIEND
upstate NY
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
Glenn
CenterHillAg
PATRON
Texas Coast
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
So I’ve been told, I’d never run that since it’s not a legal prop on a C85
Steve Pierce
BENEFACTOR
Graham, TX
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.
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. I’m 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. It’s currently for sale here: https://www.barnstormers.com/classif...Cub-O-200.html
If you have metal spars, you don’t have a Reed Clip Wing as that approval is only for wood spars. That said, I suspect someone provided an approval for a “Reed like” 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), I’d be interested to see the analysis to make that determination.
I’ve 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
I’ve 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:
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 don’t conflict because they are consecutive in nature. Univair has it all in the logs approved. I think this one is a real “ one off “ for sure.
bob turner
Registered User
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.
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:
