![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Which aircraft certification is required for R&D? | Netgeek | Home Built | 5 | November 23rd 04 05:59 AM |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
Question about Question 4488 | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | October 27th 03 01:26 AM |
Partnership Question | Harry Gordon | Owning | 4 | August 16th 03 11:23 PM |
STC question | John Galban | Owning | 1 | August 9th 03 01:00 AM |