Question on Owner Produced Interior parts

[NW_PILOT]

I was reading on http://150cessna.tripod.com about owner
manufactured parts. I was wondering if I could make my own interior
parts? For example change plastic parts to aluminum, or titanium
such as the plastic instrument bezels, mike holder ECT.

I have access to a really nice machine shop, CNC equipment, laser
cutter's and etchers ect. I can almost make/help make any plastic
part on the inside of the airplane out of aluminum or titanium.

Any advice on this!

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"NW_PILOT" > wrote:

> I was reading on http://150cessna.tripod.com about owner
> manufactured parts. I was wondering if I could make my own interior
> parts? For example change plastic parts to aluminum, or titanium
> such as the plastic instrument bezels, mike holder ECT.
>
> I have access to a really nice machine shop, CNC equipment, laser
> cutter's and etchers ect. I can almost make/help make any plastic
> part on the inside of the airplane out of aluminum or titanium.
>
> Any advice on this!
>
>

The FARs specify "equivalent or better," so it should be a no-brainer to
substitute .010 Aluminum for plastic. As for titanium, I can think of a
few applications, but the stuff is really a bitch to work!

Get a friendly AI and fill out some 337s.

[Bill Zaleski]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 02:29:35 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote:

>In article >,
> "NW_PILOT" > wrote:
>
>> I was reading on http://150cessna.tripod.com about owner
>> manufactured parts. I was wondering if I could make my own interior
>> parts? For example change plastic parts to aluminum, or titanium
>> such as the plastic instrument bezels, mike holder ECT.
>>
>> I have access to a really nice machine shop, CNC equipment, laser
>> cutter's and etchers ect. I can almost make/help make any plastic
>> part on the inside of the airplane out of aluminum or titanium.
>>
>> Any advice on this!
>>
>>
>
>The FARs specify "equivalent or better," so it should be a no-brainer to
>substitute .010 Aluminum for plastic. As for titanium, I can think of a
>few applications, but the stuff is really a bitch to work!
>
>Get a friendly AI and fill out some 337s.

The FAR's do NOT specify "equivelant or better". Owner produced parts
must conform to the original specifications and production processes.
You are not allowed to make an aircraft part "better" unless you
obtain an STC or field approval. Owner produced parts do not require
a 337, as they are not major repairs or alterations.

[Jim Weir]

Having said that, the FAR police are not about to come out and see that you've
fabricated a bracket or panel out of aluminum to replace a cracked plastic
panel. Me? I'd stay away from titanium and make it all out of aluminum just to
keep the odd inspector out of the picture. They understand aluminum. They
don't have a freakin' CLUE about titanium.

Do NOT, under ANY circumstances allow yourself to be drawn into the
337-FSDO-Engineering paperwork nightmare. Do it, be safe, and be happy.

Jim




Bill Zaleski >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->The FAR's do NOT specify "equivelant or better". Owner produced parts
->must conform to the original specifications and production processes.
->You are not allowed to make an aircraft part "better" unless you
->obtain an STC or field approval. Owner produced parts do not require
->a 337, as they are not major repairs or alterations.



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[James M. Knox]

Bill Zaleski > wrote in
:

> The FAR's do NOT specify "equivelant or better". Owner produced parts
> must conform to the original specifications and production processes.
> You are not allowed to make an aircraft part "better" unless you
> obtain an STC or field approval. Owner produced parts do not require
> a 337, as they are not major repairs or alterations.

True for a wheel strut, but you would be amazed at how much "decorative
trim" there is in the interior. <G>

[Bill Denton]

But it would probably be a good idea to give your insurance policy a
thorough read before you use any non-standard parts.

It may be just a rinky-dink arm rest bracket, but if your policy calls for
original factory equipment they can refuse to pay, even if the part in no
way contributed to the accident or subsequent damages.


"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
> Having said that, the FAR police are not about to come out and see that
you've
> fabricated a bracket or panel out of aluminum to replace a cracked plastic
> panel. Me? I'd stay away from titanium and make it all out of aluminum
just to
> keep the odd inspector out of the picture. They understand aluminum.
They
> don't have a freakin' CLUE about titanium.
>
> Do NOT, under ANY circumstances allow yourself to be drawn into the
> 337-FSDO-Engineering paperwork nightmare. Do it, be safe, and be happy.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> Bill Zaleski >
> shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
>
> ->The FAR's do NOT specify "equivelant or better". Owner produced parts
> ->must conform to the original specifications and production processes.
> ->You are not allowed to make an aircraft part "better" unless you
> ->obtain an STC or field approval. Owner produced parts do not require
> ->a 337, as they are not major repairs or alterations.
>
>
>
> Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
> VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
> http://www.rst-engr.com

[Jay Masino]

In rec.aviation.owning Bill Denton > wrote:
> But it would probably be a good idea to give your insurance policy a
> thorough read before you use any non-standard parts.
> It may be just a rinky-dink arm rest bracket, but if your policy calls for
> original factory equipment they can refuse to pay, even if the part in no
> way contributed to the accident or subsequent damages.

I'd be surprised to see any insurance policy with that exact wording,
because that would effectively prevent you from getting modern avionics
installed. Ususally there's language to the effect of the airwortiness
certificate must be in full effect. There are provisions in the FARs for
owner produced parts, so that wouldn't "neccessarily" effect the
airworthiness.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Bill Denton]

Ya got to start thinking like an insurance company lawyer...

I don't want to get bogged down in semantics, but here's how it works:

The armrest bracket would be considered part of the airframe, just like the
wings, the seats, whatever. But the radios would be considered to be
accessories. You could have King, Garmin, or whatever.

So, if the bracket was not a factory-supplied part or approved replacement,
you could well be screwed if you go to your insurance company with your hand
out!



"Jay Masino" > wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.owning Bill Denton > wrote:
> > But it would probably be a good idea to give your insurance policy a
> > thorough read before you use any non-standard parts.
> > It may be just a rinky-dink arm rest bracket, but if your policy calls
for
> > original factory equipment they can refuse to pay, even if the part in
no
> > way contributed to the accident or subsequent damages.
>
> I'd be surprised to see any insurance policy with that exact wording,
> because that would effectively prevent you from getting modern avionics
> installed. Ususally there's language to the effect of the airwortiness
> certificate must be in full effect. There are provisions in the FARs for
> owner produced parts, so that wouldn't "neccessarily" effect the
> airworthiness.
>
> --- Jay
>
>
> --
> __!__
> Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
> http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
> http://www.oceancityairport.com
> http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Jim Weir]

Bill...

Please.

If you can put JD behind your name and tell us how many aviation lawsuits you've
handled in this matter, please give an opinion.

or

If you've been through an accident and been sued and have direct experience with
the process, please give an opinion.

Until then, what you say is poppycock.

Jim (been there, done that)



"Bill Denton" >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:


->So, if the bracket was not a factory-supplied part or approved replacement,
->you could well be screwed if you go to your insurance company with your hand
->out!


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[John Gaquin]

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
>
> Until then, what you say is poppycock.

I can't address the aviation side of this, but people have, and do, redefine
reality in bizarre ways to effect an advantage. About 15 years ago I needed
a carburetor replacement on a Chrysler minivan at about 50K miles. The
dealer and higher Chrysler people told me with a straight face that it was
not covered by the 7/70 powertrain warranty because the carburetor was not
part of the powertrain, but merely an accessory attached to the engine. I
eventually won the argument, but they really did try.

[gatt]

Crap...meant to post this to the group. Sorry for the private mail, Orval.

> The FARs specify "equivalent or better," so it should be a no-brainer to
> substitute .010 Aluminum for plastic. As for titanium, I can think of a
> few applications, but the stuff is really a bitch to work!

....and heavier than aluminum. A titanium instrument panel would rule,
though. Scrap Ti is available from the Boeing surplus in Seattle.

Another very lightweight option is Lexan plastic, which is available in
Portland at TAP Plastics. A 1/2" thickness will stop most small-arms fire
but it doesn't flex well. This is what they use for bulletproofing cockpit
bulkheads now, by the way.

My RobotWars days are coming back to me.

-gatt

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "NW_PILOT" > wrote:
>
> > I was reading on http://150cessna.tripod.com about owner
> > manufactured parts. I was wondering if I could make my own interior
> > parts? For example change plastic parts to aluminum, or titanium
> > such as the plastic instrument bezels, mike holder ECT.
> >
> > I have access to a really nice machine shop, CNC equipment, laser
> > cutter's and etchers ect. I can almost make/help make any plastic
> > part on the inside of the airplane out of aluminum or titanium.
> >
> > Any advice on this!
> >
> >
>
> The FARs specify "equivalent or better," so it should be a no-brainer to
> substitute .010 Aluminum for plastic. As for titanium, I can think of a
> few applications, but the stuff is really a bitch to work!
>
> Get a friendly AI and fill out some 337s.

[NW_PILOT]

"James M. Knox" > wrote in message
2...
> Bill Zaleski > wrote in
> :
>
> > The FAR's do NOT specify "equivelant or better". Owner produced parts
> > must conform to the original specifications and production processes.
> > You are not allowed to make an aircraft part "better" unless you
> > obtain an STC or field approval. Owner produced parts do not require
> > a 337, as they are not major repairs or alterations.
>
> True for a wheel strut, but you would be amazed at how much "decorative
> trim" there is in the interior. <G>
>

That's my point decorative trim, there are things like Bezels, overlays,
seatbelt holders, mike holders, foot pads on the carpet, fuel selector
placecard on the carpet, plastic seat backs, dash eyebrow's and many other
trim items that are flimsy brittle plastic that dull out and break. With
today's technology on alloys almost the same thing could be made out of
another material it may weigh few grams more than stock and it will be a lot
stronger and will last longer saving me a lot of money in future replacement
parts. As another post said most all of these materials can be found as
surpluss "scrap" for very little money andf only thing lost would be my time
for making the part and I know I have more time than money.

[Newps]

Bill Denton wrote:
> But it would probably be a good idea to give your insurance policy a
> thorough read before you use any non-standard parts.
>
> It may be just a rinky-dink arm rest bracket, but if your policy calls for
> original factory equipment they can refuse to pay, even if the part in no
> way contributed to the accident or subsequent damages.

That's pure crap. Having been thru an insurance claim and seeing many
others on the field do likewise it's fairly painless to total an
airplane or even just get a large payout. The insurance company will
send a rep out to look at the wreckage. Assuming you didn't add another
wing somewhere just for the hell of it you can expect to be paid off in
less than 30 days.

[Dave Stadt]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> But it would probably be a good idea to give your insurance policy a
> thorough read before you use any non-standard parts.
>
> It may be just a rinky-dink arm rest bracket, but if your policy calls for
> original factory equipment they can refuse to pay, even if the part in no
> way contributed to the accident or subsequent damages.

If somebody buys insurance that is that restrictive they deserve it. I
doubt your scenario has ever come into play. If it has please cite.

[NW_PILOT]

"James M. Knox" > wrote in message
2...
> Bill Zaleski > wrote in
> :
>
> > The FAR's do NOT specify "equivelant or better". Owner produced parts
> > must conform to the original specifications and production processes.
> > You are not allowed to make an aircraft part "better" unless you
> > obtain an STC or field approval. Owner produced parts do not require
> > a 337, as they are not major repairs or alterations.
>
> True for a wheel strut, but you would be amazed at how much "decorative
> trim" there is in the interior. <G>
>

That's my point decorative trim, there are things like Bezels, overlays,
seatbelt holders, mike holders, foot pads on the carpet, fuel selector
placecard on the carpet, plastic seat backs, dash eyebrow's and many other
trim items that are flimsy brittle plastic that dull out and break. With
today's technology on alloys almost the same thing could be made out of
another material it may weigh few grams more than stock and it will be a lot
stronger and will last longer saving me a lot of money in future replacement
parts. As another post said most all of these materials can be found as
surpluss "scrap" for very little money andf only thing lost would be my time
for making the part and I know I have more time than money.

[NW_PILOT]

Hello, every one well my first custom gps/cup holder mount was temporary
fitted today after an ok from my A&P/IA as no holes were needed to be
drilled in to the aircraft this mount replaced the brittle and cracked mike
mount.

Link to RAM mount cup Holder
http://rammount.com/ramwebcompthumb/ramb132b.jpg

6 hours of work went in to drawing up, and hand shaping drilling and taping
this little piece of alloy,

Here is the mount with RAM Mount ball installed ready for any ram-mount 1"
ball attachment,
http://www.warflying.net/gps2/m5.JPG

Here is the GPS On the mount,
http://www.warflying.net/gps2/m11.JPG

GPS with universal ram mount
http://www.warflying.net/smap/smap1.jpg &
http://www.warflying.net/smap/smap2.jpg

Cessna Seat Rail Mount
http://www.warflying.net/smap/smap3.jpg

http://www.warflying.net/smap/smap4.jpg


As you can see the seat rail mount with the 12" flex arm is to long and
interferes with the power controls I think a 9" flex arm would bring it down
to a nice level but then it would be in your legs not good. nice mount
though holds secure and great quality product may put it behind the seat and
use the 1/2" hole for a cam corder mount.
http://www.warflying.net/smap/smap5.jpg &
http://www.warflying.net/smap/smap7.jpg








"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
> I was reading on http://150cessna.tripod.com about owner
> manufactured parts. I was wondering if I could make my own interior
> parts? For example change plastic parts to aluminum, or titanium
> such as the plastic instrument bezels, mike holder ECT.
>
> I have access to a really nice machine shop, CNC equipment, laser
> cutter's and etchers ect. I can almost make/help make any plastic
> part on the inside of the airplane out of aluminum or titanium.
>
> Any advice on this!
>
>