Can I fly it at night?

[bstanton]

I have a 1941 Chief with lights on it. There's one light on
each wingtip and one on the top of the fin. There's no
anticollision light/strobe or landing light. There are
wires from the 3 position lights to the cockpit, where they
end. The engine has no alternator or generator and never
has had one. There's no battery, battery compartment,
starter or electrical system. I do have a portable sealed
lead acid battery that I charge between flights to power a
radio and intercom.

There's nothing in the paperwork about "day VFR only" and
there's no AFM or even any POH.

I've looked at 91.209 and 91.205 (c). I've got position
lights, I won't be operating for hire, so I suppose a
landing light is not legally required. I suppose a larger
battery would be an adequate source of electrical energy for
short flights. Can I fly at night if I install an
anticollision light? Anyone want to comment on what I need
to legally fly at night for short local flights? Does
anyone think the disconnected lights have made the aircraft
legally unairworthy for the last 65 years? Does anyone know
how these were originally powered (Dry cells?)

Thanks for any information.

[Larry Dighera]

On 4 Jan 2006 09:06:03 -0600, bstanton <null.com> wrote in
>::

>I have a 1941 Chief with lights on it. [...] Does anyone know
>how these were originally powered (Dry cells?)
>
>Thanks for any information.

The information should be in the aircraft's Type Certificate. You
should be able to find it here:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

[Robert M. Gary]

I read it as you must have the anticollision light. We had to install
it on the Cessna 140 for this reason too. I think the only difference
is that you have more choice in color because of your age. I don't see
anything here that counters the statement "An approved aviation red or
aviation white anticollision light system".

91.205.(c)
(3) An approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light
system^M
on all U.S.-registered civil aircraft. Anticollision light systems
initially^M
installed after August 11, 1971, on aircraft for which a type
certificate^M
was^M
issued or applied for before August 11, 1971, must at least meet
the^M
anticollision light standards of part 23, 25, 27, or 29 of this
chapter, as^M
applicable, that were in effect on August 10, 1971, except that the
color^M
may^M
be either aviation red or aviation white. In the event of failure of
any^M
light of the anticollision light system, operations with the aircraft
may be^M
continued to a stop where repairs or replacement can be made.^M

[Robert M. Gary]

In this case the type certificate doesn't make a difference. The FAA
current FARs seem to require a strobe for night flying. Its not like
college catalog rights, FAA FARs don't grant historic rights. :)

-Robert

[pittss1c]

I am very interested in the response to this question as well.
My clipper came with a full electrical system, nav lights and a panel light,
but no anti-collision.
The rules for anti-collision coverage don't go back as old as my plane, yet
I do not see any "grandfather" clause in the FARs.
I know there are rules that are not articulated in the FARs sometimes (like
shoulder harness rules).

Does anyone here know the whole story?

Mike


"bstanton" <null.com> wrote in message
...
>I have a 1941 Chief with lights on it. There's one light on
> each wingtip and one on the top of the fin. There's no
> anticollision light/strobe or landing light. There are
> wires from the 3 position lights to the cockpit, where they
> end. The engine has no alternator or generator and never
> has had one. There's no battery, battery compartment,
> starter or electrical system. I do have a portable sealed
> lead acid battery that I charge between flights to power a
> radio and intercom.
>
> There's nothing in the paperwork about "day VFR only" and
> there's no AFM or even any POH.
>
> I've looked at 91.209 and 91.205 (c). I've got position
> lights, I won't be operating for hire, so I suppose a
> landing light is not legally required. I suppose a larger
> battery would be an adequate source of electrical energy for
> short flights. Can I fly at night if I install an
> anticollision light? Anyone want to comment on what I need
> to legally fly at night for short local flights? Does
> anyone think the disconnected lights have made the aircraft
> legally unairworthy for the last 65 years? Does anyone know
> how these were originally powered (Dry cells?)
>
> Thanks for any information.

[Jim Macklin]

See an aircraft mechanic who will ...
install a legal anti-collision light (LED strobe uses the
least power)
fabricate a proper battery box for a battery,
perhaps install a voltmeter,
fabricate an electrical bus, circuit breaker and switch,
perhaps an external power connection for charging,
do the weight and balance and update the paperwork and
aircraft logs.

The airplane may have had an external wind-driven generator
originally, you could restore that with a modern alternator
at the cost of a 1 or 2 mph.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"bstanton" <null.com> wrote in message
...
|I have a 1941 Chief with lights on it. There's one light
on
| each wingtip and one on the top of the fin. There's no
| anticollision light/strobe or landing light. There are
| wires from the 3 position lights to the cockpit, where
they
| end. The engine has no alternator or generator and never
| has had one. There's no battery, battery compartment,
| starter or electrical system. I do have a portable
sealed
| lead acid battery that I charge between flights to power a
| radio and intercom.
|
| There's nothing in the paperwork about "day VFR only" and
| there's no AFM or even any POH.
|
| I've looked at 91.209 and 91.205 (c). I've got position
| lights, I won't be operating for hire, so I suppose a
| landing light is not legally required. I suppose a larger
| battery would be an adequate source of electrical energy
for
| short flights. Can I fly at night if I install an
| anticollision light? Anyone want to comment on what I
need
| to legally fly at night for short local flights? Does
| anyone think the disconnected lights have made the
aircraft
| legally unairworthy for the last 65 years? Does anyone
know
| how these were originally powered (Dry cells?)
|
| Thanks for any information.

[Robert M. Gary]

Is there room in a Chief to put an alternator? When I had my Chief we
thought about this for a minute and decided it was way too much work. I
did look at a Champ that had the wind generator thing but it seemed
that it put out very limited power. When you only have a few hundred
pounds of useful load adding a battery can seem overwhelming.

-Robert

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"bstanton" <null.com> wrote in message
...
>
> I have a 1941 Chief with lights on it. There's one light on
> each wingtip and one on the top of the fin. There's no
> anticollision light/strobe or landing light. There are
> wires from the 3 position lights to the cockpit, where they
> end. The engine has no alternator or generator and never
> has had one. There's no battery, battery compartment,
> starter or electrical system. I do have a portable sealed
> lead acid battery that I charge between flights to power a
> radio and intercom.
>
> There's nothing in the paperwork about "day VFR only" and
> there's no AFM or even any POH.
>
> I've looked at 91.209 and 91.205 (c). I've got position
> lights, I won't be operating for hire, so I suppose a
> landing light is not legally required. I suppose a larger
> battery would be an adequate source of electrical energy for
> short flights. Can I fly at night if I install an
> anticollision light? Anyone want to comment on what I need
> to legally fly at night for short local flights? Does
> anyone think the disconnected lights have made the aircraft
> legally unairworthy for the last 65 years? Does anyone know
> how these were originally powered (Dry cells?)
>

This doesn't seem to be worth the trouble for only short flights. Let's say
you are able to install the required lighting and operate it with only a
battery. Are you going to be content to make only short flights at night,
or are you going to wish you could fly a bit further? Longer flights would
require a complete engine-driven electrical system, which is probably out of
the question. If you want to fly at night sell the Chief and buy an
airplane with an electrical system.

[bstanton]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

>I read it as you must have the anticollision light.

That's how I read it too.

[bstanton]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:


>This doesn't seem to be worth the trouble for only short flights. Let's say
>you are able to install the required lighting and operate it with only a
>battery. Are you going to be content to make only short flights at night,
>or are you going to wish you could fly a bit further?

I think the answer is yes, I'd be OK with short flights.
Here's my thinking:

1) I could keep night currency. That way I could just rent
a plane with lights and an electrical system for longer
night flights with less hassle and less expense getting
current. Right now, if I want to rent a plane and return at
night it's a royal pain to get night current before the
flight I want to make, and half the time the planned
night-return flight gets canceled anyway.

2) I could still do the quick flight up and around the
pattern with a friend who wanted to just see what it looked
like at night.

3) I would have a bit more flexibility with return flights.
I've occasionally found more headwind than expected and
worried about making it home before night.

4) It would be nice to make myself a bit more more visible
in the pattern at the end of a flight.

It appears a wind driven generator was probably originally
used for the lights - are they still available?

[Blanche]

I'd call the local FSDO.

[ET]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in news:l%
Tuf.40406$QW2.18045@dukeread08:

> See an aircraft mechanic who will ...
> install a legal anti-collision light (LED strobe uses the
> least power)
> fabricate a proper battery box for a battery,
> perhaps install a voltmeter,
> fabricate an electrical bus, circuit breaker and switch,
> perhaps an external power connection for charging,
> do the weight and balance and update the paperwork and
> aircraft logs.
>
> The airplane may have had an external wind-driven generator
> originally, you could restore that with a modern alternator
> at the cost of a 1 or 2 mph.
>
>
>

But with a "modern alternator" you now have an engine driven electrical
system, and all of the requirements that go along with it...
(transponder within mode c veil).

I would do the battery thing and/or investigate the wind generator.

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Montblack]

("karel" wrote)
[snips]
> Excuse me if I am in a bad mood tonight
> but this "answer" does not answer any of O/P's questions.
> Whether something is worth the trouble is up to him to judge,
> your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

> Again, my apologies if this sounds rude, it is not meant so.
> Only I would request all and sundry to either bring useable answers,
> or keep silence. For myself I don't have the slightest knowledge
> on these matters, so I keep my trap shut.


You're excused. (I just got off the phone with my mother, so the same
applies to me)

The OP began a conversation. SPM entered the discussion. The topic hadn't
yet strayed too far afield when you piped up, informing all this is a strict
Q &A forum only.

I disagree.

BTW, IIRC, SPM flys something similar to the OP's '41 Chief.


Montblack
Open mike Wednesday

[Morgans]

"karel" > wrote

> Whether something is worth the trouble is up to him to judge,
> your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

You took the words right out of my mouth. Everything is not black and
white, but he thinks it is.
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Macklin]

You can drive the alternator with a propeller just like the
old generator, it just makes power with less drag. I'd use
a self-exciting alternator that would not need to battery,
that would make it fully redundant. A standard automotive
alternator requires a battery to energize the rotor, the
aircraft types used by Beech, have small magnets and will
build a current as soon as they begin rotation and will have
DC output even with the battery turned off.

Not all aircraft manufacturers use such self-exciting
alternators because they cost a little more.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"ET" > wrote in message
...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in news:l%
| Tuf.40406$QW2.18045@dukeread08:
|
| > See an aircraft mechanic who will ...
| > install a legal anti-collision light (LED strobe uses
the
| > least power)
| > fabricate a proper battery box for a battery,
| > perhaps install a voltmeter,
| > fabricate an electrical bus, circuit breaker and switch,
| > perhaps an external power connection for charging,
| > do the weight and balance and update the paperwork and
| > aircraft logs.
| >
| > The airplane may have had an external wind-driven
generator
| > originally, you could restore that with a modern
alternator
| > at the cost of a 1 or 2 mph.
| >
| >
| >
|
| But with a "modern alternator" you now have an engine
driven electrical
| system, and all of the requirements that go along with
it...
| (transponder within mode c veil).
|
| I would do the battery thing and/or investigate the wind
generator.
|
| --
| -- ET >:-)
|
| "A common mistake people make when trying to design
something
| completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of
complete
| fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Robert M. Gary]

Crap, your right! When I had the Chief I used the transponder exemption
all the time. We used to fly around the SF Bay area (inside the mode C
veil) since we were exempt. We could also fly around Sac Intl. I once
landed a Champ at Sacramento Intl (class C) using the same transponder
exemption (had to give 1 hr notice though).

-Robert

[Morgans]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote

> You can drive the alternator with a propeller just like the
> old generator, it just makes power with less drag.

You do need to use a special propeller, that is designed for converting
thrust into power, instead of power into thrust. The more curved surface
needs to be on the backside of the airstream, unlike a regular prop.

For a generator, you can use a 12 volt motor with magnets in it, and a
voltage regulator added to it.
--
Jim in NC

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"bstanton" <null.com> wrote in message
...
>
> I think the answer is yes, I'd be OK with short flights.
> Here's my thinking:
>
> 1) I could keep night currency. That way I could just rent
> a plane with lights and an electrical system for longer
> night flights with less hassle and less expense getting
> current. Right now, if I want to rent a plane and return at
> night it's a royal pain to get night current before the
> flight I want to make, and half the time the planned
> night-return flight gets canceled anyway.
>
> 2) I could still do the quick flight up and around the
> pattern with a friend who wanted to just see what it looked
> like at night.
>
> 3) I would have a bit more flexibility with return flights.
> I've occasionally found more headwind than expected and
> worried about making it home before night.
>
> 4) It would be nice to make myself a bit more more visible
> in the pattern at the end of a flight.
>
> It appears a wind driven generator was probably originally
> used for the lights - are they still available?
>

I believe I've seen one advertised in the not too distant past. They didn't
work very well, historically speaking. They had a tendency to throw blades.

How long is a "short" flight? Have you determined what the power
requirements are for the anticollision, position, and instrument lights for
a flight of that length? Have you done any calculations on the weight?

[Dave Stadt]

"ET" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in news:l%
> Tuf.40406$QW2.18045@dukeread08:
>
> > See an aircraft mechanic who will ...
> > install a legal anti-collision light (LED strobe uses the
> > least power)
> > fabricate a proper battery box for a battery,
> > perhaps install a voltmeter,
> > fabricate an electrical bus, circuit breaker and switch,
> > perhaps an external power connection for charging,
> > do the weight and balance and update the paperwork and
> > aircraft logs.
> >
> > The airplane may have had an external wind-driven generator
> > originally, you could restore that with a modern alternator
> > at the cost of a 1 or 2 mph.
> >
> >
> >
>
> But with a "modern alternator" you now have an engine driven electrical
> system, and all of the requirements that go along with it...
> (transponder within mode c veil).

Nope, only required if the plane came from the _factory_ with an engine
driven electrical system.

> I would do the battery thing and/or investigate the wind generator.
>
> --
> -- ET >:-)
>
> "A common mistake people make when trying to design something
> completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
> fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Robert M. Gary]

No, "or which has not subsequently been certified with such a system
installed"

91.215(b)
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(2) of this section, any aircraft
which^M
was not originally certificated with an engine-driven electrical
system or^M
which has not subsequently been certified with such a system
installed,^M
balloon or glider may conduct operations in the airspace within 30
nautical^M
miles of an airport listed in appendix D, section 1 of this part
provided^M
such operations are conducted--^M

[Dave Stadt]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> No, "or which has not subsequently been certified with such a system
> installed"
>
> 91.215(b)
> (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(2) of this section, any aircraft
> which^M
> was not originally certificated with an engine-driven electrical
> system or^M
> which has not subsequently been certified with such a system
> installed,^M

Added on after the fact is not "subsequently been certified with such a
system." That is from the local FSDO.

[Jim Macklin]

True, but a modern alternator will produce power at lower
rpm which means less drag. Also it should have lower frontal
area and internal cooling drag. Alternators don't need
heavy cast iron housings and w/o a commutator, should be
electrically quieter.

Ag planes often use a wind driven pump, so getting a proper
prop isn't difficult, just tell the prop shop how many watts
and what a/s, etc.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
|
| > You can drive the alternator with a propeller just like
the
| > old generator, it just makes power with less drag.
|
| You do need to use a special propeller, that is designed
for converting
| thrust into power, instead of power into thrust. The more
curved surface
| needs to be on the backside of the airstream, unlike a
regular prop.
|
| For a generator, you can use a 12 volt motor with magnets
in it, and a
| voltage regulator added to it.
| --
| Jim in NC
|
|

[Michael Ware]

Someone mentioned the LED anti-collision light, I know Whelen offers LED nav
lights as well. Perhaps a call to them to find out what the draw would be
for anti-collision and the 3 nav lights to make him legal and safe, then see
what the different scenarios would be (i.e. a fully charged, 15 pound gel
cell battery might run those lights reliably for 3 hours). The light retro
would be a little costly, but it would be a simple system to maintain,
versus introducing an alternator or generator, and a belt or propellor or
whatever else you might need to run the thing.

[Jim Carriere]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> True, but a modern alternator will produce power at lower
> rpm which means less drag. Also it should have lower frontal
> area and internal cooling drag. Alternators don't need
> heavy cast iron housings and w/o a commutator, should be
> electrically quieter.
>
> Ag planes often use a wind driven pump, so getting a proper
> prop isn't difficult, just tell the prop shop how many watts
> and what a/s, etc.

This one say 6 amps (yep, not much, but a lot more than nothing) at
85mph, weighs 5 lbs and is 5" diameter. Seven hundred bucks though...

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/turboalt.php

Let's see... a lot more expensive than another battery, but a lot
lighter too.

[Richard Lamb]

for standard aircraft bulbs, figure about 1-1/2 amp each for tip and tail
lights.

And a 12 volt 15 AH gell cell beats a generator - for simplicity and
reliability...

Richard


Michael Ware wrote:

> Someone mentioned the LED anti-collision light, I know Whelen offers LED nav
> lights as well. Perhaps a call to them to find out what the draw would be
> for anti-collision and the 3 nav lights to make him legal and safe, then see
> what the different scenarios would be (i.e. a fully charged, 15 pound gel
> cell battery might run those lights reliably for 3 hours). The light retro
> would be a little costly, but it would be a simple system to maintain,
> versus introducing an alternator or generator, and a belt or propellor or
> whatever else you might need to run the thing.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"karel" > wrote in message
...
>
> Excuse me if I am in a bad mood tonight
> but this "answer" does not answer any of O/P's questions.
>

I didn't realize responses without "answers" were prohibited.


>
> Whether something is worth the trouble is up to him to judge,
> your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.
>

The relevancy of my opinion with regard to his project is up to him to
judge. Your opinion on the relevancy of my opinion with regard to his
project is irrelevant.


>
> When he asked what is required for short local flights,
> who needs wonder if he'll be content with that tomorrow?
>

Him.


>
> Actually, can _you_ tell what you'll be content with tomorrow?
>

Yes.


>
> And if you recommend him to buy another plane, are you going to pay for
> it?
>

No.


>
> Again, my apologies if this sounds rude, it is not meant so.
>

You don't sound rude, you just sound stupid.


>
> Only I would request all and sundry to either bring useable answers,
> or keep silence.
>

Request denied.


>
> For myself I don't have the slightest knowledge
> on these matters, so I keep my trap shut.
>

But you didn't keep your trap shut. If you don't have the slightest
knowledge on these matters how can you judge what is a useful response?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
>
> BTW, IIRC, SPM flys something similar to the OP's '41 Chief.
>

I fly a 1946 Aeronca 7AC Champion, but not at night.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ET" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The airplane may have had an external wind-driven generator
>> originally, you could restore that with a modern alternator
>> at the cost of a 1 or 2 mph.
>>
>
> But with a "modern alternator" you now have an engine driven electrical
> system, and all of the requirements that go along with it...
> (transponder within mode c veil).
>

Not if the "modern alternator" is used in a restoration of the external
wind-driven generator. But that wouldn't be a restoration, that would be a
conversion.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:zoXuf.40449$QW2.13845@dukeread08...
>
> You can drive the alternator with a propeller just like the
> old generator, it just makes power with less drag.
>

Maybe you can, maybe you can't. This is a certificated airplane, not a
homebuilt.

[Jim Macklin]

Field approval. No doubt there is an approved wind
generator from the 1940s. The conversion should be a simple
matter, even on a certificated airplane.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:zoXuf.40449$QW2.13845@dukeread08...
| >
| > You can drive the alternator with a propeller just like
the
| > old generator, it just makes power with less drag.
| >
|
| Maybe you can, maybe you can't. This is a certificated
airplane, not a
| homebuilt.
|
|

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:Qf0vf.40490$QW2.8070@dukeread08...
>
> Field approval. No doubt there is an approved wind
> generator from the 1940s. The conversion should be a simple
> matter, even on a certificated airplane.
>

Field approvals are not always so simple.

[George Patterson]

Michael Ware wrote:
> Someone mentioned the LED anti-collision light, I know Whelen offers LED nav
> lights as well. Perhaps a call to them to find out what the draw would be
> for anti-collision and the 3 nav lights to make him legal and safe, then see
> what the different scenarios would be (i.e. a fully charged, 15 pound gel
> cell battery might run those lights reliably for 3 hours). The light retro
> would be a little costly, but it would be a simple system to maintain,
> versus introducing an alternator or generator, and a belt or propellor or
> whatever else you might need to run the thing.

I would be surprised if Whelen has an STC for a '41 Aeronca, but it's worth a try.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Jim Macklin]

True, when you are doing something strange, new and
unproven. Wind generators and pumps are common, have been
in use for decades. The only change is that you might be
changing from a DC generator to an alternator with a solid
state rectifier for DC output. The mount design and
location should already be present in approved data, for a
heavier generator. So, a field approval should be well
within the stricture of "at least as good as original."


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:Qf0vf.40490$QW2.8070@dukeread08...
| >
| > Field approval. No doubt there is an approved wind
| > generator from the 1940s. The conversion should be a
simple
| > matter, even on a certificated airplane.
| >
|
| Field approvals are not always so simple.
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

A PMA/STC'd part can be installed and approved by a mechanic
and given a field approval by the local FAA. The parts will
be performing the same purpose, weigh the same or less and
make no change in structure, electrical load, or
aerodynamics. Before I bought parts, I'd certainly ask the
local federal inspector and be prepared to show why I
thought it complied with 43.13 and CAR3/FAR23, etc.
In general, such things as lights are approved generically,
as replacements for any previously approved installation.
Such hardware as autopilots and engine controls do require
more extensive approval, but changing from [or adding]
approved type lights is very minor, W&B being perhaps the
most critical.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:Nj0vf.17936$Uf7.12519@trnddc01...
| Michael Ware wrote:
| > Someone mentioned the LED anti-collision light, I know
Whelen offers LED nav
| > lights as well. Perhaps a call to them to find out what
the draw would be
| > for anti-collision and the 3 nav lights to make him
legal and safe, then see
| > what the different scenarios would be (i.e. a fully
charged, 15 pound gel
| > cell battery might run those lights reliably for 3
hours). The light retro
| > would be a little costly, but it would be a simple
system to maintain,
| > versus introducing an alternator or generator, and a
belt or propellor or
| > whatever else you might need to run the thing.
|
| I would be surprised if Whelen has an STC for a '41
Aeronca, but it's worth a try.
|
| George Patterson
| Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by
rights belong to
| your slightly older self.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:Zk0vf.40492$QW2.9687@dukeread08...
>
> True, when you are doing something strange, new and
> unproven. Wind generators and pumps are common, have been
> in use for decades. The only change is that you might be
> changing from a DC generator to an alternator with a solid
> state rectifier for DC output. The mount design and
> location should already be present in approved data, for a
> heavier generator. So, a field approval should be well
> within the stricture of "at least as good as original."
>

There is no original. An anticollision light installation on a 1941 Aeronca
Chief IS something strange, new and unproven.

[George Patterson]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Field approval. No doubt there is an approved wind
> generator from the 1940s. The conversion should be a simple
> matter, even on a certificated airplane.

Finding one may not be a simple matter. A friend of mine has an L-4. He was
looking for the correct generator for years. Dunno if he ever found one.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[George Patterson]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> In general, such things as lights are approved generically,
> as replacements for any previously approved installation.

Right. Tell that to Jay Honeck (who spent several thousand dollars removing
unapproved strobe lights from his Warrior).

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Jim Macklin]

There may not have been an anti-collision light on the 1941
Aeronca, but there are on newer airplanes of the same
general type. Strange and unproven would be a multi-colored
smoke generator, with high output lasers and fireworks
dispensers.

Engineering drawings, FAA approved data, an general
acceptable standards and practices exist for installation of
lights that are PMA/TC parts and they can be installed very
easily. The cost of parts, the extra utility gained by
night flying vs. the expense and paperwork are the
obstacles. FAA field approval is a minor bump.

see http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/ac43-210.pdf

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:Zk0vf.40492$QW2.9687@dukeread08...
| >
| > True, when you are doing something strange, new and
| > unproven. Wind generators and pumps are common, have
been
| > in use for decades. The only change is that you might
be
| > changing from a DC generator to an alternator with a
solid
| > state rectifier for DC output. The mount design and
| > location should already be present in approved data, for
a
| > heavier generator. So, a field approval should be well
| > within the stricture of "at least as good as original."
| >
|
| There is no original. An anticollision light installation
on a 1941 Aeronca
| Chief IS something strange, new and unproven.
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

If you can't find an original wind generator and mount
system, the drawings should be available and you can
fabricate repair parts.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:jM0vf.5086$Yc2.4180@trnddc04...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Field approval. No doubt there is an approved wind
| > generator from the 1940s. The conversion should be a
simple
| > matter, even on a certificated airplane.
|
| Finding one may not be a simple matter. A friend of mine
has an L-4. He was
| looking for the correct generator for years. Dunno if he
ever found one.
|
| George Patterson
| Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by
rights belong to
| your slightly older self.

[Jim Macklin]

You and your mechanic visit the local Fed over a cup of
coffee and talk about the proposed modification. You get
the "ducks in a row" and get something in writing before you
order parts. You do the conversion and the FAA signs off on
the field approval [see
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/ac43-210.pdf ].
If you make the changes and call in the FAA after the fact,
you have shown a rebel streak and if the Fed is an a..hole
he can refuse to do what is reasonable and proper.

There FAA has many nice aviation people and a few retired AF
Col. who didn't make their star. Talk to the local EAA
chapter, the local DER and then make friends with the FAA
guys and gals. Most are great people, but have the right
attitude.
Ask the Feds advice, "What's the best way to add
anti-collision lights to my airplane, I think they'll make
flying safer for everybody?" Don't say, "I think FAA rules
are too strict, I want to add these parts I bought to my
airplane and that jerk over in maintenance won't sign the
field approval."


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:oO0vf.5087$Yc2.3298@trnddc04...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > In general, such things as lights are approved
generically,
| > as replacements for any previously approved
installation.
|
| Right. Tell that to Jay Honeck (who spent several thousand
dollars removing
| unapproved strobe lights from his Warrior).
|
| George Patterson
| Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by
rights belong to
| your slightly older self.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:q71vf.40583$QW2.3201@dukeread08...
>
> If you can't find an original wind generator and mount
> system, the drawings should be available and you can
> fabricate repair parts.
>

To repair a generator you do not have?

[Jim Macklin]

Yes, the drawing are approved data and you can "repair them
and have those repaired parts approved. Yes, you do have to
jump through the hoops, but it can be done.

The feds will look at your materials list, fabrication
methods and such parts that you substitute, such as an
alternator for a generator, to assure that they are
airworthy. Most FAA types do the job because they love
airplane, stroke their egos just a little and they will help
you get your airplane in the air. But they are bureaucrats,
show some respect for the procedure, get their help and
approval first.

The wind generator does not have to be original factory
installed in 1941 on that model airplane. It could be from
any similar airplane anytime from 1941 to the present time.
Your job is to show a proper method for attachment of a wind
driven something on the airplane. So if you find a spray
rig for a Champ, Cub or Chief, you can infer that the
installation of a generator/alternator in the same manner in
the same location would have the same aerodynamic effect
[none/insignificant] and similarly show each part you will
install has met the FAA standards on other aircraft of
similar types.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:q71vf.40583$QW2.3201@dukeread08...
| >
| > If you can't find an original wind generator and mount
| > system, the drawings should be available and you can
| > fabricate repair parts.
| >
|
| To repair a generator you do not have?
|
|

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:bO1vf.40586$QW2.11660@dukeread08...
>
> Yes, the drawing are approved data and you can "repair them
> and have those repaired parts approved. Yes, you do have to
> jump through the hoops, but it can be done.
>
> The feds will look at your materials list, fabrication
> methods and such parts that you substitute, such as an
> alternator for a generator, to assure that they are
> airworthy. Most FAA types do the job because they love
> airplane, stroke their egos just a little and they will help
> you get your airplane in the air. But they are bureaucrats,
> show some respect for the procedure, get their help and
> approval first.
>
> The wind generator does not have to be original factory
> installed in 1941 on that model airplane. It could be from
> any similar airplane anytime from 1941 to the present time.
> Your job is to show a proper method for attachment of a wind
> driven something on the airplane. So if you find a spray
> rig for a Champ, Cub or Chief, you can infer that the
> installation of a generator/alternator in the same manner in
> the same location would have the same aerodynamic effect
> [none/insignificant] and similarly show each part you will
> install has met the FAA standards on other aircraft of
> similar types.
>

You're not repairing anything, you're fabricating a new appliance.

[Jim Macklin]

from old, approved drawings, and since the presence of the
wiring indicates that there once was a generator installed,
I would be repairing the aircraft.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
k.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:bO1vf.40586$QW2.11660@dukeread08...
| >
| > Yes, the drawing are approved data and you can "repair
them
| > and have those repaired parts approved. Yes, you do
have to
| > jump through the hoops, but it can be done.
| >
| > The feds will look at your materials list, fabrication
| > methods and such parts that you substitute, such as an
| > alternator for a generator, to assure that they are
| > airworthy. Most FAA types do the job because they love
| > airplane, stroke their egos just a little and they will
help
| > you get your airplane in the air. But they are
bureaucrats,
| > show some respect for the procedure, get their help and
| > approval first.
| >
| > The wind generator does not have to be original factory
| > installed in 1941 on that model airplane. It could be
from
| > any similar airplane anytime from 1941 to the present
time.
| > Your job is to show a proper method for attachment of a
wind
| > driven something on the airplane. So if you find a
spray
| > rig for a Champ, Cub or Chief, you can infer that the
| > installation of a generator/alternator in the same
manner in
| > the same location would have the same aerodynamic effect
| > [none/insignificant] and similarly show each part you
will
| > install has met the FAA standards on other aircraft of
| > similar types.
| >
|
| You're not repairing anything, you're fabricating a new
appliance.
|
|

[bstanton]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>How long is a "short" flight? Have you determined what the power
>requirements are for the anticollision, position, and instrument lights for
>a flight of that length? Have you done any calculations on the weight?

My original post was intended to start the process of
looking at the problems I would encounter, so I had not done
a lot of work on the practicality of the project.
Nonetheless, since the plane originally had lights, it seems
reasonable to expect that this is possible to do.

As to your questions, I've thought a bit about power
requirements. There are three position lights. I've seen
LED systems that draw less than 1.5 amps total for the three
lights. The strobe LED system I looked at had specs of .4
amps at 24 volts, so it's probably close to twice that at 12
volts, say 2.5 amps for the whole system if I spend lots of
cash for an LED based system. I currently use a single 8 AH
sealed lead acid, and could afford the weight of two more of
those, so an hour flight seems possible with some margin and
that still leaves a fully charged backup battery and my comm
battery.

Does anyone here have current draw specs for standard lights
and strobes?

When I first considered this, I hoped I could just replace
the bulbs, and substitute a sealed lead acid for original
dry cells. It didn't take much work to confirm I'd need to
install at least a strobe, and it looks like a wind
generator is probably also needed to get it back to its
original certified condition. Does anyone know of any
aircraft flying at night using only batteries?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:SFavf.40609$QW2.12408@dukeread08...
>
> from old, approved drawings, and since the presence of the
> wiring indicates that there once was a generator installed,
> I would be repairing the aircraft.
>

The presence of the wiring does not indicate a generator was installed.
Wiring for navigation lights was factory-installed standard equipment.
Navigation lights, landing lights, radio gear, battery, and a wind-driven
generator were optional equipment.

[Rich S.]

Maybe "bstanton" could get together with "keepitrunning"? One of them has
too much electricity http://tinyurl.com/8zydr and the other needs some. If
they share ideas, it should all balance out and be feng shooie.

Rich S.

"Half this game is ninety percent mental."
-- Philadelphia Phillies manager, Danny Ozark

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"bstanton" <null.com> wrote in message
...
>
> My original post was intended to start the process of
> looking at the problems I would encounter, so I had not done
> a lot of work on the practicality of the project.
> Nonetheless, since the plane originally had lights, it seems
> reasonable to expect that this is possible to do.
>

Well, it's certainly possible to run position lights, but that's not enough
today, today you also need an anticollision light. When your airplane was
built wiring for navigation lights was factory-installed standard equipment.
Navigation lights, landing lights, radio gear, battery, and a wind-driven
generator were optional equipment. You said there are lights on each
wingtip and the fin, are there actual lampholders there or is there just a
mounting pad for them? I have a 7AC, they were also pre-wired for position
lights but I never saw one that had them. The mount pads are clearly
discernible under the fabric, however.


>
> As to your questions, I've thought a bit about power
> requirements. There are three position lights. I've seen
> LED systems that draw less than 1.5 amps total for the three
> lights. The strobe LED system I looked at had specs of .4
> amps at 24 volts, so it's probably close to twice that at 12
> volts, say 2.5 amps for the whole system if I spend lots of
> cash for an LED based system. I currently use a single 8 AH
> sealed lead acid, and could afford the weight of two more of
> those, so an hour flight seems possible with some margin and
> that still leaves a fully charged backup battery and my comm
> battery.
>
> Does anyone here have current draw specs for standard lights
> and strobes?
>
> When I first considered this, I hoped I could just replace
> the bulbs, and substitute a sealed lead acid for original
> dry cells. It didn't take much work to confirm I'd need to
> install at least a strobe, and it looks like a wind
> generator is probably also needed to get it back to its
> original certified condition. Does anyone know of any
> aircraft flying at night using only batteries?
>

Do you have the type certificate data sheet for your airplane? That would
specify what electrical gear was available for installation.

I own a Champ' but like most Aeronca owners I've become a bit of a buff on
the whole line. I've seen many photos of pre-war Chiefs with the mount pads
for position lights quite discernible but without the actual lights. I've
seen some with position lights installed but without a wind-driven
generator, so it was certainly possible to operate them with just a battery.
The only Chief I recall seeing with a wind-driven generator had it mounted
above the cabin, but that was the Chief Johnnie Jones used on his
transcontinental flight in 1938 so it was probably not the standard
installation. That generator looked significantly larger than others for
this purpose.

[George Patterson]

bstanton wrote:

> Does anyone here have current draw specs for standard lights
> and strobes?

Whelen makes a small power supply for a single strobe that pulls 1.7 amps at 14
volts. They also make a flasher that will drive two wingtip strobes that pulls 4
amps.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Robert M. Gary]

Or later certified with one per 91.215(b)(3)

[Robert M. Gary]

If that's what the FSDO says I won't argue! :) To me all parts on
aircraft are "certified" as are all installations. However, if they
take "certified" as extream as to mean part of the original type
certificate then I'll go along with it. However, I think technically,
all STCs are technically considered modifications to the individual
type certificate. Many (including this) even require updates to the
POH. Certainly such as system would include emergency procedures
addendum to the POH.

-Robert

[Jim Macklin]

But that means there was "factory-CAA/FAA" approved
documentation for LIGHTS and AC43.13 includes FAA
instructions for "acceptable practices" to add a battery
box, generators, switches and such other items of equipment.
I did not say at any time that it was as simple as putting a
Ford rear end in a Chevy, but I also gave the current FAA
procedures for beginning the field approval process...
It begins with research of regulations, previously approved
installations of similar types, manufacturers assistance,
writing a manual and creation of checklists, maintenance
procedures and placards, getting approval and finally;
actually doing the modification and approving for "return to
service."


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:SFavf.40609$QW2.12408@dukeread08...
| >
| > from old, approved drawings, and since the presence of
the
| > wiring indicates that there once was a generator
installed,
| > I would be repairing the aircraft.
| >
|
| The presence of the wiring does not indicate a generator
was installed.
| Wiring for navigation lights was factory-installed
standard equipment.
| Navigation lights, landing lights, radio gear, battery,
and a wind-driven
| generator were optional equipment.
|
|

[bstanton]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>Well, it's certainly possible to run position lights, but that's not enough
>today, today you also need an anticollision light.

Yes, I read 91.205(c) before posting and it appeared that
I'd need the anticollision light, but I was also looking for
confirmation from anyone with experience. It helps to know
how the regs are actually applied. Just reading them
doesn't always give you all the information you need.

>You said there are lights on each
>wingtip and the fin, are there actual lampholders there or is there just a
>mounting pad for them?

Not only are the lampholders there, there are bulbs in them.
I've pulled the bulbs out, but can't tell for certain if
they are intended for 6 volt or 12 volt use. The TDC
indicates an optional 6 volt battery.

> I have a 7AC, they were also pre-wired for position
>lights but I never saw one that had them.

The 7AC that used to be hangared near the Chief also has
lampholders and bulbs, but the owner had no more info than I
do.

>Do you have the type certificate data sheet for your airplane? That would
>specify what electrical gear was available for installation.

I've looked at it, but I'll look again. IIRC, it had a 6
volt battery listed as optional and a wind driven gen.

>I own a Champ' but like most Aeronca owners I've become a bit of a buff on
>the whole line. I've seen many photos of pre-war Chiefs with the mount pads
>for position lights quite discernible but without the actual lights. I've
>seen some with position lights installed but without a wind-driven
>generator, so it was certainly possible to operate them with just a battery.

The A&P I asked thought my lights were originally battery
operated, but I can't really tell. That's one reason I
posted here.

>The only Chief I recall seeing with a wind-driven generator had it mounted
>above the cabin, but that was the Chief Johnnie Jones used on his
>transcontinental flight in 1938 so it was probably not the standard
>installation. That generator looked significantly larger than others for
>this purpose.

There's no sign of any wind gen mounts on mine, but I
suspect that they were merely bolt on accessories, so if
mine had one, the traces are long gone. There's nothing in
the logbook about this.

If you are a Champ owner, have you read about the great bank
robbery using a Champ for the getaway, CFI's as bank robbers
and bullet holes in the fabric as they escaped?

[Jon Woellhaf]

"bstanton" wrote

> ... Just reading [the FARs] doesn't always give you all the information
> you need.

They are specifically crafted to be that way.

[Rich S.]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:gKdvf.26704$Uf7.17185@trnddc01...
>
> Whelen makes a small power supply for a single strobe that pulls 1.7 amps
> at 14 volts. They also make a flasher that will drive two wingtip strobes
> that pulls 4 amps.

Here's one that shouldn't draw much in the way of current.
http://www.greatplainsas.com/scelectrical.html

My first Emeraude had one on the top of the tail and it worked pretty well.
I had to replace the transistors once when the leads broke from vibration. I
installed two of these in the wingtips of my new Emeraude, but heat would
affect them badly, slowing the rate of flashing until it stopped. I had
"potted" the transistor leads with clear silicone to prevent breaking, which
may have contributed to the heat build-up.

They have been replaced with a Whelan unit from
http://www.strobesnmore.com/.

Rich S.

[George Patterson]

bstanton wrote:

> I've pulled the bulbs out, but can't tell for certain if
> they are intended for 6 volt or 12 volt use.

If the bulbs have a GE identifier, you can find out the voltage.

> There's no sign of any wind gen mounts on mine, but I
> suspect that they were merely bolt on accessories, so if
> mine had one, the traces are long gone.

From period photos I've seen, the generator attached to the left wing struts.
Here's a link to a photo of one.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/3287/11AC1.html

In case you decide to pursue the generator idea, here's a link to a 337 filed by
the owner of an Aeronca 7A. Might help, especially if WagAero still sells this
thing.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"bstanton" <null.com> wrote in message
...
>
> If you are a Champ owner, have you read about the great bank
> robbery using a Champ for the getaway, CFI's as bank robbers
> and bullet holes in the fabric as they escaped?
>

Yes, in "AOPA Pilot" about a year ago.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:yUjvf.15561$Gu6.9039@trnddc06...
>
> From period photos I've seen, the generator attached to the left wing
> struts. Here's a link to a photo of one.
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/3287/11AC1.html
>

The 11AC is the postwar Chief.


>
> In case you decide to pursue the generator idea, here's a link to a 337
> filed by the owner of an Aeronca 7A. Might help, especially if WagAero
> still sells this thing.
>

What link?

[George Patterson]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> What link?

Whoops!

This one .....
http://www.aeronca.com/337/air_driven_generator.pdf

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Montblack]

("George Patterson" wrote)
[snip]
> From period photos I've seen, the generator attached to the left wing
> struts. Here's a link to a photo of one.
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/3287/11AC1.html


45 minutes later...

"The GeoCities web site you were trying to view has temporarily exceeded its
data transfer limit. Please try again later."

I wonder if it's because of George's post? <g>


Montblack

[Michael Ware]

Whatever the OP decides to do, I am interested in knowing how it all works
out.

--
Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict...

[Richard Lamb]

If the wing wires are indeed installed, 90% of the work is already done..

We ran wires in Leo's BC12D Tailorcraft using 1/4 x 1/2 inch spruced capstrip
stock as a pusher. We worked the wires from one inspection plate to the next.
His wings already had the bulbs installed - but no wires. Go figure...

Somebody else already mentioned the light socket question. The bulbs (12 volt
only) and mounts are available from Aircraft Spruce.

A Plain Jane pair of tip lights ruin a hundred bucks or more.
Fancy ones are available with built in strobes (!)

I'm curious if the strobes would fill the anti collision ewquirement?

We didn't rig up a rotating collision light.
But a small roller from an EMS/police supplier (or your local truck stop?)
should prove serviceable. Or dig deeper and get a "real" one.

Mounting it is problematic. Depends on the light, and the airplane.

Where would you put it on a Champ? On the belly metal?

Your choice of power sources. Wind driven generators are heavy
(at least the originals were!) and add a lot of drag.

A Gel Cell 12 volt battery is the simplest solution.
And it is not necessarily a permanent installation. (Think "Hand Held")

One last thought...

How will you light the panel?

Richard

[George Patterson]

Richard Lamb wrote:

> I'm curious if the strobes would fill the anti collision ewquirement?

Yes. Maules come that way from the factory.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Richard Lamb]

Would be a lot simpler, wouldn't it...


Richard

George Patterson wrote:

> Richard Lamb wrote:
>
> > I'm curious if the strobes would fill the anti collision ewquirement?
>
> Yes. Maules come that way from the factory.
>
> George Patterson
> Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
> your slightly older self.

[Roger]

On 4 Jan 2006 09:39:41 -0800, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

>In this case the type certificate doesn't make a difference. The FAA
>current FARs seem to require a strobe for night flying. Its not like
>college catalog rights, FAA FARs don't grant historic rights. :)
>

Welll... Kinda. I have wing tip position lights, but no rotating
beacon. Just top and bottom strobes which are legal in that old
airplane.

Never plan on a single landing light working.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>-Robert

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:NVevf.40638$QW2.33692@dukeread08...
>
> But that means there was "factory-CAA/FAA" approved
> documentation for LIGHTS and AC43.13 includes FAA
> instructions for "acceptable practices" to add a battery
> box, generators, switches and such other items of equipment.
> I did not say at any time that it was as simple as putting a
> Ford rear end in a Chevy, but I also gave the current FAA
> procedures for beginning the field approval process...
> It begins with research of regulations, previously approved
> installations of similar types, manufacturers assistance,
> writing a manual and creation of checklists, maintenance
> procedures and placards, getting approval and finally;
> actually doing the modification and approving for "return to
> service."
>

Actually, you pretty much did say that it was as simple as putting a Ford
rear end in a Chevy. You just substituted "alternator" and "generator" for
"Ford" and "Chevy". The point is a field approval is often not as simple as
you seem to believe.

[Highflyer]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> news:NVevf.40638$QW2.33692@dukeread08...
>>
>> But that means there was "factory-CAA/FAA" approved
>> documentation for LIGHTS and AC43.13 includes FAA
>> instructions for "acceptable practices" to add a battery
>> box, generators, switches and such other items of equipment.
>> I did not say at any time that it was as simple as putting a
>> Ford rear end in a Chevy, but I also gave the current FAA
>> procedures for beginning the field approval process...
>> It begins with research of regulations, previously approved
>> installations of similar types, manufacturers assistance,
>> writing a manual and creation of checklists, maintenance
>> procedures and placards, getting approval and finally;
>> actually doing the modification and approving for "return to
>> service."
>>
>
> Actually, you pretty much did say that it was as simple as putting a Ford
> rear end in a Chevy. You just substituted "alternator" and "generator"
> for "Ford" and "Chevy". The point is a field approval is often not as
> simple as you seem to believe.
>

It depends a great deal on HOW you go about it. I have averaged four or
five field approvals every year for the last ten or so years and never had
one fail to get approved the first time. You do have to get all of your
ducks in a row and make sure you use good data. It also helps to discuss
what you are trying to do with your PMI at the FSDO and make sure you pay
attention to the PMI's suggestions. Make sure you have your "Instructions
for Continued Airworthiness" in order and don't skip any of the sixteen
required entries. They can be done. I have done several alternator field
approvals.

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )