Need help finding an example AcmeAero strut FAA 337 field approval application

AcmeAero Struts----Has anyone recieved FAA 337 field approval and if so can you share your 337 application for the experimental AcmeAero struts on a certified Supercub. The Milwaukee Fisdo does not appear to be willing to provide a field review. But, if another FIsdo has already approved these struts, the paperwork process would be followed by the Milwaukee Fisdo. Because there are so many of these struts on certified Supercubs, the field approval and example signed off paperwork I would hope is available from someone. I have been told AcmeAero is “a few months away from offering certified struts”; but, Ive heard this before with FAA certifications that can drag on for years. Id like to install the struts now and start flying with the new struts. Can someone help me?

steve@appliedeco.com

That paperwork your looking for is part of the Catto prop, Summit Ski STC, it allows the Acme shocks to be installed
at same time.
Of course I am kidding. There is no path to F/A with any of them at the moment. Except the old "should er bought experimental" option.
Good luck if you decide to board the " it's coming next month train". :???:

Just an observation for those who might be considering an experimental and might not be aware. No doubt exp. is the way to go for some who want to be able to use their choice of prop, gear, skis, etc.. I have been flying my exp for 25 yrs and for my purposes wouldn't have it any other way. The major alterations you may want to make can be mostly done in a pretty straight forward manner to satisfy your needs and wants. Just keep in mine that you have to make them as outlined in your particular operating limitations that were part of the certification process of your aircraft. If done per that process, you are good to go. If you just bolt things on and go, your plane is no more legal than putting those same items on a certificated craft. If done according to your oper. limitations and proper log book entries are made that's about as easy as it can get and well worth the effort.

supercrow said:

Just an observation for those who might be considering an experimental and might not be aware. No doubt exp. is the way to go for some who want to be able to use their choice of prop, gear, skis, etc.. I have been flying my exp for 25 yrs and for my purposes wouldn't have it any other way. The major alterations you may want to make can be mostly done in a pretty straight forward manner to satisfy your needs and wants. Just keep in mine that you have to make them as outlined in your particular operating limitations that were part of the certification process of your aircraft. If done per that process, you are good to go. If you just bolt things on and go, your plane is no more legal than putting those same items on a certificated craft. If done according to your oper. limitations and proper log book entries are made that's about as easy as it can get and well worth the effort.

Click to expand...

Also recognize that there is a significant difference in requirements for Experimental Amateur Built, and Experimental Exhibition, especially if taking a certified airplane to Experimental Exhibition. If you read 14 CFR 43.1, you will find that if the aircraft had a different type of certificate prior to being Experimental, all of the requirements of Part 43 still apply! You would still need approved data, you still need to file 337s, and all the work done still needs to be signed by an A&P.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ive been flying experimental planes for several decades and have thoroughly enjoyed the freedom to "make and alter the planes" as I wished and with my choice to always have AP oversight and participation. But, now, I have a certified supercub and am trying to not violate the certification requirements.

So, of all the Acmeaero shocks out there, even on certified airplanes, nobody is aware of any that have been installed with 337 field approvals?

thanks so very much everyone

steve@appliedeco.com

SIAbird said:

Ive been flying experimental planes for several decades and have thoroughly enjoyed the freedom to "make and alter the planes" as I wished and with my choice to always have AP oversight and participation. But, now, I have a certified supercub and am trying to not violate the certification requirements.

So, of all the Acmeaero shocks out there, even on certified airplanes, nobody is aware of any that have been installed with 337 field approvals?

thanks so very much everyone

steve@appliedeco.com

Click to expand...

Suggest you get the N# of a couple of the ones that have Acmeaero shocks and send for the FAA data package for each. If they did it legally, the Field Approval will be in the file.

The problem with doing a field approval, or a DER approval is that the “applicant” still needs to show compliance to the applicable regulations, which may require drop tests, and analysis. Would Acmeaero provide the necessary data to show compliance to the CAR 3 requirements? Without that, you are pretty much dead in the water unless to want to invest in all the testing requirements yourself.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I thought Acme offered an STC for us certified folks?

dgapilot said:

Also recognize that there is a significant difference in requirements for Experimental Amateur Built, and Experimental Exhibition, especially if taking a certified airplane to Experimental Exhibition. If you read 14 CFR 43.1, you will find that if the aircraft had a different type of certificate prior to being Experimental, all of the requirements of Part 43 still apply! You would still need approved data, you still need to file 337s, and all the work done still needs to be signed by an A&P.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing your knowledge over the years DGA.

Your above statement ( I went to 43. to read it myself ) brings up the question of why would someone move from certified to Exp Exhibition when all the Field Approval hoops would still need to be stepped thru?

I cant think why. thanks. d

There is no good reason other than for Airshows where you are operating outside the published limitations. So many people don’t really understand the regulations or limitations for the various types of Experimental certificates.

If you want to be creative and try all kinds of things, the appropriate certificate would be Experimental Research and Development, but the operating limitations and 91.319 say you can only use the aircraft for that research and development process, and the certificate is only good for at most one year.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Draco comes to mind. A couple of other social media stars, too. Interesting.

I owned and operated a sailplane registered as experimental - racing, exhibition for many years. The only burden was sending an annual program letter to the local FAA FSDO. The only reason it was experimental was that the German manufacturer had not yet been issued a standard type approval.

Draco is (was) experimental, exhibition. Scrappy is experimental, amateur built.

frequent_flyer said:

I owned and operated a sailplane registered as experimental - racing, exhibition for many years. The only burden was sending an annual program letter to the local FAA FSDO. The only reason it was experimental was that the German manufacturer had not yet been issued a standard type approval.

Draco is (was) experimental, exhibition. Scrappy is experimental, amateur built.

Click to expand...

The sailplanes operating Exhibition-racing never had a TC in the US, and were never eligible for a Standard certificate. Much different situation than taking an airplane with a Standard Certificate, surrendering it, and applying for Experimental Exhibition. The key is text in 14 CFR 43.1.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

dgapilot said:

The sailplanes operating Exhibition-racing never had a TC in the US, and were never eligible for a Standard certificate. Much different situation than taking an airplane with a Standard Certificate, surrendering it, and applying for Experimental Exhibition.

Click to expand...

Agree it's a different situation but do not agree with "never had a TC in the US, and were never eligible for a Standard certificate". My sailplane was not eligible for a standard certificate when I imported it. It became eligible for a standard type certificate later. It remains experimental.

Suspect you have a Pegasus or a PIK. Several of them came into the US before the FAA validated the TC from France for the Peg, or Finland for the PIK. Most of them can’t get a Standard since there was no Export C of A from the original country of manufacture attesting to the fact they meet the US Type Certificate. They also might not qualify by serial number. Depending on how your operating limitations read, if you have a Pegasus, you may be better off as the 3000 hour life limit may no apply under an Experimental certificate if the op limits don’t call out compliance with the manufacturers life limits.

They aren’t a problem, only aircraft that actually had a Standard, Restricted, or Limited and subsequently change to Experimental are impacted by the inclusion of Part 43 requirements. Read 43.1 where it states this part does not apply unless the aircraft previously held a different type of certification.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk