Restoring and upgrading a vintage panel

DaleB

DaleB

Final Approach
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
7,210
Location
Omaha, NE
Display Name
Display name:
DaleB
So let's assume for a moment that a guy wants to buy a vintage plane... we'll drive a stake in the ground and say, for the sake of argument, that it's a '46 Aeronca Chief with the original panel. Let's also say for the sake of argument that the plane is in need of restoration -- it's a "project plane", and that the new owner is not terribly concerned with maintaining the original appearance. And, let's say the owner is comfortable with doing most or all of the work himself, and has a local A&P/IA willing to work with him for signoffs and paperwork.

I know the owner can install an owner-produced panel. Would all the primary instruments (oil temp & pressure, altimeter, tach, airspeed) have to be TSO'd? What about adding things that were not in the plane originally -- modern radio, transponder, AOA, etc? The goal is to have equipment and instrumentation appropriate to flying in modern airspace, "talking & squawking", and have everything properly documented and legal.

I'm guessing that any replacements for the original complement of instruments need to be TSO'd, and anything added can be done on a 337, but I suspect there's more to it.
 
Squawking in a 46 Chief, ehhhh gross.:D
 
DaleB said:
So let's assume for a moment that a guy wants to buy a vintage plane... we'll drive a stake in the ground and say, for the sake of argument, that it's a '46 Aeronca Chief with the original panel. Let's also say for the sake of argument that the plane is in need of restoration -- it's a "project plane", and that the new owner is not terribly concerned with maintaining the original appearance. And, let's say the owner is comfortable with doing most or all of the work himself, and has a local A&P/IA willing to work with him for signoffs and paperwork.

I know the owner can install an owner-produced panel. Would all the primary instruments (oil temp & pressure, altimeter, tach, airspeed) have to be TSO'd? What about adding things that were not in the plane originally -- modern radio, transponder, AOA, etc? The goal is to have equipment and instrumentation appropriate to flying in modern airspace, "talking & squawking", and have everything properly documented and legal.

I'm guessing that any replacements for the original complement of instruments need to be TSO'd, and anything added can be done on a 337, but I suspect there's more to it.
Click to expand...

Your A&P-IA is the guide on this, what they will do paper on you are good to go.

Instruments are not required to be TSO'ed although you'll be hard pressed to find the ones you like, that are not.
 
JMO but for the "talking and squawking" part you will need a source or power and that means a C-85, C90 (-12 for the acc. case drive pad?) or O-200 for a generator.

We have a Chief that comes to fly-in's that has a nice panel ("new" vintage) instruments and in the center he has a Microair 2 1/4" Transponder and a Microair 2 1/4" flip-flop comm. I think he has an C-85-12 with a small alternator and battery...it's still flip-to-start so no need for much else.
The plane still has it's old-time charm but can fly B/C/D (SLOWLY).

Best of both worlds!

Chris
 
A transponder requires testing and certification for which the average A&P doesn't have the test equipment -- you'll probably have to take it to an avionics shop for that. Otherwise, have fun.

As for instruments, if you look in the catalogs for places like Aircraft Spruce, they tell you whether the instruments are approved for production-certified aircraft or only allowed in Experimentals. And transponders and GPS's must be TSO'd, although comm and VOR nav radios do not.
 
Hiperbiper said:
JMO but for the "talking and squawking" part you will need a source or power and that means a C-85, C90 (-12 for the acc. case drive pad?) or O-200 for a generator.

We have a Chief that comes to fly-in's that has a nice panel ("new" vintage) instruments and in the center he has a Microair 2 1/4" Transponder and a Microair 2 1/4" flip-flop comm. I think he has an C-85-12 with a small alternator and battery...it's still flip-to-start so no need for much else.
The plane still has it's old-time charm but can fly B/C/D (SLOWLY).

Best of both worlds!

Chris
Click to expand...

I used to see old 'pre electric' planes like this carry an alternator with a drive fan from an Ag plane pump mounted to the gear.
 
Ron Levy said:
A transponder requires testing and certification for which the average A&P doesn't have the test equipment -- you'll probably have to take it to an avionics shop for that. Otherwise, have fun.

As for instruments, if you look in the catalogs for places like Aircraft Spruce, they tell you whether the instruments are approved for production-certified aircraft or only allowed in Experimentals. And transponders and GPS's must be TSO'd, although comm and VOR nav radios do not.
Click to expand...
These little aircraft have a very limited Panel space, an weight limits, IMHO he is much better off using a hand held radio, and a portable GPS, these require no installation paper and save space in the tiny panel of the champ/chief.
The instruments them selves can be completed as a portion of the panel re-design on a field approval, so any thing the owner likes can be approved. ( it's really up to his A&P-IA)
 
Last edited:
DaleB said:
So let's assume for a moment that a guy wants to buy a vintage plane... we'll drive a stake in the ground and say, for the sake of argument, that it's a '46 Aeronca Chief with the original panel. Let's also say for the sake of argument that the plane is in need of restoration -- it's a "project plane", and that the new owner is not terribly concerned with maintaining the original appearance. And, let's say the owner is comfortable with doing most or all of the work himself, and has a local A&P/IA willing to work with him for signoffs and paperwork.

I know the owner can install an owner-produced panel. Would all the primary instruments (oil temp & pressure, altimeter, tach, airspeed) have to be TSO'd? What about adding things that were not in the plane originally -- modern radio, transponder, AOA, etc? The goal is to have equipment and instrumentation appropriate to flying in modern airspace, "talking & squawking", and have everything properly documented and legal.

I'm guessing that any replacements for the original complement of instruments need to be TSO'd, and anything added can be done on a 337, but I suspect there's more to it.
Click to expand...
If I were coaching you and making the return to service entries I would start with a plan, drawing up the changes you want to make as a pre approval request for a field approval on a 337. It may require several to complete the whole restoration, I'd try to use STCed up grades like the whelen strobe, 0-200 engine up grade, and keep the alterations as simple as possible and hope they can be returned to service as minor alterations in a log book entry.

Things to keep in mind, the aircraft of this type are best kept light as possible. make them heavy and they really don't do well. I'd use hand held radio, with a mounted antenna and a patch chord, and a hand held GPS.

then up grade the engine to a 0-200 and get electrical system, and more parts availability.

but don't forget, that will decrease the useful load of the aircraft, Which it doesn't have vary much of to start.
 
Tom-D said:
These little aircraft have a very limited Panel space, an weight limits, IMHO he is much better off using a hand held radio, and a portable GPS, these require no installation paper and save space in the tiny panel of the champ/chief.
Click to expand...
That won't help him with the transponder he says he wants, which must be installed with paper, a TSO, and testing/certification. Further, hand-held radios have notoriously limited range. But portable GPS I'll buy since it's not likely he's planning to fly this Chief IFR.

The instruments them selves can be completed as a portion of the panel re-design on a field approval, so any thing the owner likes can be approved. ( it's really up to his A&P-IA)
Click to expand...
Installing unapproved instruments in a production certified airplane is not within his mechanic's discretion, and I've never heard of field approval for unapproved instruments other than for instruments not required by 91.205, and oil temp & pressure, altimeter, tach, and airspeed are required instruments for Day VFR.
 
If I were to pick up a project like this... first off, it's got to end up with electric start and a battery. Hand-propping is simply not something I'm interested in. I wouldn't be looking to load the poor thing down with 40# of radio gear. During a very brief review of what's available, I found a COM radio, transponder and engine monitor, all of which could be panel mounted in original holes and all of which together would weigh in under 4#. Given the original instruments that could be removed, it would likely break even on weight or possibly even save a little.

Being completely new to this whole class of airplane, I'm not up to speed on which engines do and don't have provisions for electric start, generator, etc. or what STCs are out there for the Champ/Chief... but I'm slowly learning.

Just in case, you know.
 
DaleB said:
During a very brief review of what's available, I found a COM radio, transponder and engine monitor, all of which could be panel mounted in original holes and all of which together would weigh in under 4#. Given the original instruments that could be removed, it would likely break even on weight or possibly even save a little.
Click to expand...
The comm radio and transponder are easy. Since they are not 91.205-required, your mechanic need only install them and document the installation on a 337. The 337 is technically not required for this, but the FAA still wants 337's on avionics installations so they can track how many airplanes have what equipment so they can better plan for the future.

Using the engine monitor to replace your primary engine instruments is not easy, unless it is TSO'd or has an STC to replace primary engine instruments. If it is so STC'd for the Chief, it's a piece of cake for your A&P/IA to install and document its existing approval on a 337. If it is so STC'd for another aircraft, it's usually pretty easy for your A&P/IA to obtain field approval based on that STC. The manufacturer of the unit can tell you about any STC's they have. If it is only TSO'd for that purpose, it can be field approved by the FSDO fairly easily (that's how I got the JPI EDM-930 approved to replace all my engine and fuel instruments when it first came out), but will take a bit more paperwork. If it is neither TSO'd nor STC'd, it is not likely you'll be able to obtain field approval to replace the primary engine instruments.

As for finding out what STC's are available for your Chief (11AC, right?), go to the FAA's STC database, select "By Make," then "American Champion," then "11AC". And I note that there is one for "Installation of Electronics International Inc. Glass Panel Engine Monitor (with In Flight Data)".
 
Last edited:
Ron, thanks for finding that and the pointer to the STC database. The copy of the STC that is linked to from the Aircraft Spruce web site is from 1988 and doesn't list the 11AC/11BC or Champs, only the prewar models -- so the newer one was nice to find. It's looking like doing what I want to do will be fairly straightforward, at least from a paperwork standpoint. I just want to make sure before starting something like this that it's done right from the beginning.

And yes, I have a copy of AC 43.13-1B & 2B. :)
 
DaleB said:
Ron, thanks for finding that and the pointer to the STC database. The copy of the STC that is linked to from the Aircraft Spruce web site is from 1988 and doesn't list the 11AC/11BC or Champs, only the prewar models -- so the newer one was nice to find. It's looking like doing what I want to do will be fairly straightforward, at least from a paperwork standpoint. I just want to make sure before starting something like this that it's done right from the beginning.

And yes, I have a copy of AC 43.13-1B & 2B. :)
Click to expand...

Before you start following Ron's advice you best talk to your A&P-IA that will be supervising you in this project, he will know what the FSDO will approve and the method of gaining approval.

Like I've said start with a reasonable plan, and get your A&P-IA's approval that they will return it to service. And remember they are the one in charge.

I upgrade the panel on all projects I do. I've been down this road before and you don't know what the FSDO will approve until the 337 comes back. Both the attitude indicator and the directional indicator in the Fairchild were non TSOed instruments, I asked my PMI if they needed a 337 to approve the installation? and was told no.

So again I repeat Start with a plan, you and your A&P-IA design the instrument panel, and run it by the FSDO on a 337 for approval, If they approve it you are golden, If not, change what they don't like and resubmit. rinse and repeat until you gain approval.
 
Ron Levy said:
That won't help him with the transponder he says he wants, which must be installed with paper, a TSO, and testing/certification. Further, hand-held radios have notoriously limited range. But portable GPS I'll buy since it's not likely he's planning to fly this Chief IFR.

The reason I didn't mention/argue the transponder is because you got it right the first go.

Installing unapproved instruments in a production certified airplane is not within his mechanic's discretion, and I've never heard of field approval for unapproved instruments other than for instruments not required by 91.205, and oil temp & pressure, altimeter, tach, and airspeed are required instruments for Day VFR.
Click to expand...

Why are you certain the FSDO won't approve non TSOed instruments? Have you tried ? Have you actually submitted a 337 for approval?

When you request a field approval for a project like this you submit the whole ball of wax to FSDO, prior to the start of the work or the buying the supplies. That's called a pre-approval if you have never heard of the term.
 
Remember folks, the A&P-IA in the field never "APPROVES" the modification. All we do is return to service the modification/repair, by signing block 7 certifying that the work was completed IAW block 8.

The approval comes from either the STC process, or the FSDO when they sign block 3.
 
Tom-D said:
Why are you certain the FSDO won't approve non TSOed instruments?
Click to expand...
I never said they won't approve non-TSO'd instruments. In fact, for most instruments, there is no requirement that they be TSO'd.

However, for production-certified aircraft, they must be approved parts, and as I said, Aircraft Spruce and others note in their catalogs which instruments are only for use in Experimental Aircraft. I've heard of people requesting approval from the FSDO to use such EXP-only instruments as replacements for required instruments in production-certified aircraft, and they were always denied. Permission to use them as backups, yes, that's been approved, but not as replacements.
 
My 46 champ had been owned by a retired airline pilot. It was in very nice shape, ceconite, 85 hp with milinium cylinders, transceiver, transponder, light weight starter, alternator. All original instruments rebuilt, perfect. I wanted to increase the horsepower to 100 hp and researched this carefully. The don swords conversion to the 85 hp seems best. However I also would need wing tank-s so I wouldn't have to constantly land for gas. I didn't want to spend the additional money so I sold it for 32500.00. It can be seen by googling the n number 85916. It in Huston Texas, and may be for sale.
 
I have mis stated the n number. When I look it up, I'll post it. It's cubby green and white. Nice airplane!
 
HI Jim. I've seen a few nice looking Chiefs and Champs in that price range. One is pretty close to me (maybe a 3 or 3-1/2 hour drive) but has a sale pending.

The one I really wanted was a Chief, ready to cover and reassemble. Frame was epoxy primed and painted, and he had all new Polyfiber covering ready to go... but of course when I called him to talk about it, it was already gone. That's happened a few times now, I really wish people would take their ads down when they sell a plane. So, the hunt continues. I'd rather spend $15K for a good, sound project than twice that for a plane that for all I know may need fabric in a couple of years. And having invested as much time, work and everything else into the RV-7... the idea of flying something I put together myself is a lot more appealing than I ever thought it would be.

Tom & Ron: Thanks for the valuable advice, I appreciate it. I haven't even located a project yet -- have found a few, but it seems that if it's a decent candidate it's long gone. I just know that some of even the flying examples I see advertised have panels that look like something dug up from under a barn, and I don't think flying with a handheld radio and no transponder is the way I want to go.
 
One thing I haven't seen mentioned, but I'm no big fan of squawking. Unless one wants to actually land inside the class B, access to the mode-C veil is fine for non-transponder equipped aircraft without an engine driven gen/alt. Of course, if you want a txp for some other reason, there's nothing stopping you from getting one. However, if you have a non-1200 code dialed in, you are also talking, which means more current draw.

So, if you want to do this upgrade, it would benefit if you used an air driven gen. Then you have the option to install a txp. Of course, any comm or nav equip should be low-draw to not stress the electrical charging system. You can also put in a starter with the battery, however a small air gen may not have the capacity to recharge the batt if you make a lot of stops and starts.

All this of course will affect your empty weight. Take that into account before starting as well, cause the early non-elec ships don't always have the most generous gross weights, and cutting into that can affect load hauling.
 
DaleB said:
HI Jim. I've seen a few nice looking Chiefs and Champs in that price range. One is pretty close to me (maybe a 3 or 3-1/2 hour drive) but has a sale pending.

The one I really wanted was a Chief, ready to cover and reassemble. Frame was epoxy primed and painted, and he had all new Polyfiber covering ready to go... but of course when I called him to talk about it, it was already gone. That's happened a few times now, I really wish people would take their ads down when they sell a plane. So, the hunt continues. I'd rather spend $15K for a good, sound project than twice that for a plane that for all I know may need fabric in a couple of years. And having invested as much time, work and everything else into the RV-7... the idea of flying something I put together myself is a lot more appealing than I ever thought it would be.

Tom & Ron: Thanks for the valuable advice, I appreciate it. I haven't even located a project yet -- have found a few, but it seems that if it's a decent candidate it's long gone. I just know that some of even the flying examples I see advertised have panels that look like something dug up from under a barn, and I don't think flying with a handheld radio and no transponder is the way I want to go.
Click to expand...

Have you considered doing a kit ? lot less worries.
 
Ron Levy said:
I never said they won't approve non-TSO'd instruments. In fact, for most instruments, there is no requirement that they be TSO'd.

However, for production-certified aircraft, they must be approved parts, and as I said, Aircraft Spruce and others note in their catalogs which instruments are only for use in Experimental Aircraft. I've heard of people requesting approval from the FSDO to use such EXP-only instruments as replacements for required instruments in production-certified aircraft, and they were always denied. Permission to use them as backups, yes, that's been approved, but not as replacements.
Click to expand...

As stated the Chief had no directional gyros, adding one then could be a non TSOed gyro, is that what you are saying?

If the Field approval for the instrument panel, includes a non TSOed instrument and gains approval can you use it?

I'd like to see the 337 that was disapproved that was submitted for use of a non TSOed instrument, I'll bet that the TSO issue wasn't the reason.
 
Tom-D said:
As stated the Chief had no directional gyros, adding one then could be a non TSOed gyro, is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...
No. Try reading it again.

If the Field approval for the instrument panel, includes a non TSOed instrument and gains approval can you use it?
Click to expand...
Certainly.

I'd like to see the 337 that was disapproved that was submitted for use of a non TSOed instrument,
Click to expand...
I never said that would happen.

One last time, for Tom, since he appears to be the only one who doesn't understand what I said: TSO's are generally not required for instruments, but any required instrument must be approved for use on a production-certified aircraft. The catalogs will tell you if an instrument is or is not so approved and that approval is not, repeat not the same as a TSO.
 
Ron Levy said:
TSO's are generally not required for instruments,

Explain " Generally" they either are or are not. which is it?


but any required instrument must be approved for use on a production-certified aircraft.

Approved by what ? replacement part number? TSO, or ?

The catalogs will tell you if an instrument is or is not so approved and that approval is not, repeat not the same as a TSO.
Click to expand...

The statement in any catalog is just that, a statement in a catalog, that means nothing.

If a Chief came with an oil temp gauge of the bulb and tube type of gauge, can that gauge be replaced by a electronic one ? where does one get approval to do that ?
 
How many folks believe these instruments must be TSO compliant to be legal?

91.205
(b) Visual-flight rules (day). For VFR flight during the day, the following instruments and equipment are required:

(1) Airspeed indicator.

(2) Altimeter.

(3) Magnetic direction indicator.

(4) Tachometer for each engine.

(5) Oil pressure gauge for each engine using pressure system.

(6) Temperature gauge for each liquid-cooled engine.

(7) Oil temperature gauge for each air-cooled engine.

(8) Manifold pressure gauge for each altitude engine.

(9) Fuel gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank.

(10) Landing gear position indicator, if the aircraft has a retractable landing gear.
 
The-problem-with-arguing-with-idiots_zps84dd1cb1.jpg
 
I was working on a kit before. I would again, if I could find one that met my needs. So far I have not. Not to say one does not exist, but I haven't found it yet.
 
Wow. I guess it's no longer safe to ask an aviation related question here.

Thanks for the useful and on-topic responses, guys... before it slid down hill.
 
DaleB said:
Wow. I guess it's no longer safe to ask an aviation related question here.

Thanks for the useful and on-topic responses, guys... before it slid down hill.
Click to expand...

Sorry your thread went into the ****ter.

But, there has been some good advice here. Personally, given the capabilities of a Chief, why not go with a total loss electrical system with a starter and forget the transponder? You will rarely fly high enough to rub elbows with even the C-172 crowd, and all of the avionics in the world aren't going to make a Chief into anything more than a fun flivver.
 
Back when I was considering the Luscombe 8A, I had a similar idea. I was just going to go with a small batt, an air driven gen, and a charger port for a GPS or handheld. No interest in a starter or txp.
 
I've owned quite a few of these little trainers. 1. 65 hp is a real bore and if you are a heavyweight, a real drag. Side by side , if your overweight, large and your passenger is of similar dimension, very crowded and not much fun. Tandem, like a champ , is better and the visibility is much better. The best one is the F model Luscombe, 90 hp, but small cockpit and again a side by side. I flew these all over the place with a Hand held, external antenna and most without a transponder. 85 hp is a minimum for me, this can be converted to a true 100 hp with the don swords conversion but it's still not a 150 Citabria which is a lot more fun. Building airplanes never appealed to me, trying to find parts, etc. I'd rather find a real nice one already rebuilt and go flying instead.
 
DaleB said:
Wow. I guess it's no longer safe to ask an aviation related question here.
Click to expand...

It is and will continue to be. We often have differences of opinions and I often ask questions to inform those who are still trying to learn, which is misconstrued as lack in intelligence by one member here.

The instruments that came with all aircraft from the factory are a part of the type design and need no TSO. Their replacements must conform to the replacement part regulations set fourth in FAR 21&23 That's all there is to it.
 
Tom-D said:
The instruments that came with all aircraft from the factory are a part of the type design and need no TSO. Their replacements must conform to the replacement part regulations set fourth in FAR 21&23 That's all there is to it.
Click to expand...
THANK YOU FOR AGREEING WITH WHAT I SAID!

And the catalogs will tell you whether or not the instruments they are selling conform, or whether they are for EXP use only.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
I've owned quite a few of these little trainers. 1. 65 hp is a real bore and if you are a heavyweight, a real drag. Side by side , if your overweight, large and your passenger is of similar dimension, very crowded and not much fun.
Click to expand...
Hey, I resemble that remark! But less and less daily, and my passenger is far more petite. I'm certainly not ruling out the Champ - I would prefer a stick over a wheel. The performance numbers don't look much different though.
Jimmy cooper said:
Tandem, like a champ , is better and the visibility is much better. The best one is the F model Luscombe, 90 hp, but small cockpit and again a side by side. I flew these all over the place with a Hand held, external antenna and most without a transponder. 85 hp is a minimum for me, this can be converted to a true 100 hp with the don swords conversion but it's still not a 150 Citabria which is a lot more fun. Building airplanes never appealed to me, trying to find parts, etc. I'd rather find a real nice one already rebuilt and go flying instead.
Click to expand...
While it would be nice to find just what I want already flying and in great shape (for what I'm willing to spend), so far I'm not seeing it. Most of what I am seeing are 65HP birds... I think I'd want 85 or better. An electrical system with a starter is a requirement. And of course it's got to be LSA - which leaves that Luscombe 8F in the cold, too.

I'm more than a little leery of covering that was done in the 80s, as a lot of them seem to have been. If I'm going to have to re-cover the airplane any time soon (like during my lifetime) I'd just as soon do it up front. So far I haven't gotten a good answer about how long a Polyfiber or Ceconite covering will last, other than "It depends". Seems like a crapshoot to me, unless there's a good way to tell how much life is left in the fabric.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top