The things we find, hopefully.

[Shepherd]

Boundary Waters posted about weight an balance in a Luscombe, and I have found some weirdness in my PA 17, dealing with weight, tach readings and equipment that was (maybe) illegally installed.

Bought a plane? Weigh the plane!
Do the arithmetic! Don't assume the numbers work.

I found two egregious mistakes in the logbooks going back decades.
The guy who put the C-85 and metal prop on the plane re-weighed it correctly.
Then he made a serious mistake in his weight and balance arithmetic. That was in 1958.
No one ever caught the mistake, and I'm assuming no one has ever bothered to actually sit down and calculate the W&B since then.
When I tried to do a W&B, the CG was back behind the baggage compartment. I had a couple other guys try it, with the same results.
After hours of reading through 73 years worth of log entries I spotted the mistake.
But I'm still going to have the plane re-weighed.

The other mistake was a +1,000 hour mistake in the tach reading, by the same mechanic.
Other mechanics kept carrying the mistake forward with a note that it was a bad number, and the corrected number next to it until 1998 when a mechanic said "enough is enough" and said I'm not doing this anymore.

Lucky for me I have every logbook, and every receipt for every part, piece, quart of oil, and repair ever purchased for the Plane.
Except the original Bill Of Sale.
I have no idea what was on the plane when it was purchased.
I have a couple of later, updated equipment lists. Which is another problem.
The plane has fiberglass wheel pants.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but they didn't make fiberglass wheel pants in 1946.
And I can find NO entry anywhere in the massive pile of documents when they were purchased and put on.
So I took them off until I figure it out.

 

[Magman]

A common mistake is with Actual Weight vs Net Weight Change using TCDS.

ie. Actual Weight would be 17 lbs.

Net Weight Change of +17 would indicate it weighs 17 lbs more than

the item it replaced.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Exceedingly common.
I'm sure I posted about my finding that the normally-loaded airplane of mine that showed a CG of some 10? feet behind the wing (it's a 4 seat single).
Our organization just got back the new W&B data for the CJ and the EWCG has a factor-of-ten error following a radio change.

 

[scarcherpilot]

When I bought my plane last October, I had it weighed and it was 75lbs heavier than the most current weight and balance from 10 years ago. Once I had that, I literally weighed everything I carry in my plane which I think some people forget or just don't do. Stuff adds up quickly. So for example, i have two ram mounts for my ipad and phone, a charger for my cig lighter, cords, phone and tablet, CO2 monitor and various junk in my glove compartment. Add it all up and there is roughly 5 lbs and then add up the roughly 15 lbs of stuff I normally carry in the baggage compartment (oil, tools chocks etc) and while that extra 20 lbs total may not matter too much normally, on days where I am pushing the max gross...it could make a difference. But glad I weighed my plane when i first bought it.

Also like you, I went through all my airplane/engine logbooks and found a 10 hour fat finger mistake a mechanic made in tach time. Not the end of the world or course, but made the correction in my logbook.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

I went through +100 W&B entries, found about 20 mistakes…in the end they balanced out to within about a pound.
Every mechanic wants to reweigh my plane, instead of doing the math after changes, but after questioning them, none of them would do it correctly.

 

[steingar]

Gotta weigh the airplane and go through years and years of logs just to buy one. No wonder no one wants to be a pilot anymore.

 

[Magman]

Assuring the Equipment List agrees with the airplane after weighing and

dating it the same as the weigh date can prevent confusion later.

Were the fairings ON or OFF etc?

Having several reports to reflect different configurations allows

changes w/o recalculating.

 

[Joe_B1]

When I bought my plane, I paid for a new W&B which gave me the actual numbers. No guessing... plug that into Garmin pilot and W&B becomes trivial!

 

[nrpetersen]

Be prepared for a substantial loss of useful load......

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Be prepared for a substantial loss of useful load......

My ride lost weight since the last weighing.

 

[MauleSkinner]

One habit I got into with new-to-me airplanes is flipping through the superseded weight and balances looking for a CG change. Like people, most airplanes gain weight over the years, but unless there’s a major mod, the CG shouldn’t change much. Sometimes I’d see it move one way and then move back at a later weighing. I found about a dozen with bad current empty CGs, including a couple where they weighed the airplane but used the wrong arms for the scale locations.

As far as I know, I’ve only flown one airplane out of CG, but it was about an inch out forward…made the flare a little more difficult.

with regard to illegally installed equipment (I agree that a PA-17 probably didn’t come with fiberglass wheel pants), I suspect that happens quite often. Most of it just isn’t that obvious.

 

[Joe_B1]

Be prepared for a substantial loss of useful load......

Nope, lost 11 pounds with the panel upgrade.

 

[Bell206]

I have no idea what was on the plane when it was purchased.

And I can find NO entry anywhere in the massive pile of documents when they were purchased and put on.

A number of current TC holders keep original certification documents by aircraft S/N to include those TCs that may have changed ownership. However, sometimes those old records get lost. Have used these original records as a starting reference/template to rebuild/verify aircraft documents in the past.

The other mistake was a +1,000 hour mistake in the tach reading, by the same mechanic. Other mechanics kept carrying the mistake forward with a note that it was a bad number, and the corrected number next to it until 1998 when a mechanic said "enough is enough" and said I'm not doing this anymore.

FYI: except for certain inspections there is no requirement to include TT in most maintenance write-ups which can lead to these types of situations where the errors are carried forward. It actually falls to the owner to maintain a correct aircraft total time and some don't want it corrected. I usually had the owner sign off on a TT correction if needed as it can have far reaching effects especially if it re-clocks a recurring AD or other required inspection.

 

[Bell206]

Every mechanic wants to reweigh my plane, instead of doing the math after changes, but after questioning them, none of them would do it correctly.

Having corrected 100s of EWB problems for some of the strangest reasons, curious to know what they were not doing correctly.

Gotta weigh the airplane and go through years and years of logs just to buy one. No wonder no one wants to be a pilot anymore.

And the reason in most cases is simply because most pilots/owners don’t think they need to follow those pesky FAA rules.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Having corrected 100s of EWB problems for some of the strangest reasons, curious to know what they were not doing correctly.

And the reason in most cases is simply because most pilots/owners don’t think they need to follow those pesky FAA rules.

1. They weigh with fuel in the tanks and just calculate it’s weight based on the factory fuel gauges. I had this happen to me.
2. They fill the tanks and subtract full tank weight.
3. They don’t level the plane, won’t effect the total weight, but will throw off the calculated arm.
4. Their scales have never been calibrated or haven’t been in years.

 

[asicer]

2. They fill the tanks and subtract full tank weight.

What's the issue with this method?

 

[MooneyDriver78]

What's the issue with this method?

1. You assume the specification matches actual capacity, generally the real capacity is greater. You can imagine the lawsuits if pilots were running out of fuel and found the tank capacity wasn’t to spec.
2. What is a full tank. Ever filled up and then shook the wings to free up trapped air and found you can add a little more.

I was able to get an extra 1.5 gallons per side and probably could get a little more with some effort during my JPI calibration procedure. That would result in extra 18lbs added to my empty weight.

 

[asicer]

1. You assume the specification matches actual capacity, generally the real capacity is greater. You can imagine the lawsuits if pilots were running out of fuel and found the tank capacity wasn’t to spec.
2. What is a full tank. Ever filled up and then shook the wings to free up trapped air and found you can add a little more.

I was able to get an extra 1.5 gallons per side and probably could get a little more with some effort during my JPI calibration procedure. That would result in extra 18lbs added to my empty weight.

If you used the real measured capacity and shook the wings during filling then would you consider it a viable method?

 

[wsuffa]

If you do have a W&B done, check the math. Mechanics make math mistakes, too.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

If you used the real measured capacity and shook the wings during filling then would you consider it a viable method?

So the only way to do that is to empty the tanks first then fill them with real measured fuel, why not just weigh it with empty tanks?

 

[Bell206]

1. They weigh with fuel in the tanks and just calculate it’s weight based on the factory fuel gauges. I had this happen to me.
2. They fill the tanks and subtract full tank weight.
3. They don’t level the plane, won’t effect the total weight, but will throw off the calculated arm.
4. Their scales have never been calibrated or haven’t been in years.

Also for #3 is they do not level the aircraft at the required station. But #3 and #4 are unfortunately an issue.

However, as to #2 and by extension #1, weighing an aircraft with full fuel is actually an acceptable method and for some OEMs like Mooney the preferred method with weighing defueled being the optional method. The main purpose to use full fuel is to get the most accurate unusable fuel weight given that specific amount has a number of certification limits tied to it. Personally, I defuel all aircraft when I weigh them but weighing with fuel is not improper or incorrect and is more common in my experience.

 

[Brad W]

Yep, my question too....why not drain the tanks?
except
I wonder....how does one go about draining the tanks but not draining the "unusable" fuel"?

 

[Bell206]

how does one go about draining the tanks but not draining the "unusable" fuel"?

You don't. You drain all the fuel then either add the unusable fuel physically or mathematically (if you have figures) to each tank. Never saw anyone that good to defuel and leave only unusable left.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Yep, my question too....why not drain the tanks?
except
I wonder....how does one go about draining the tanks but not draining the "unusable" fuel"?

This may not work on all planes, but at least on Mooneys: disconnect the fuel hose from electric boost pump to the engine, turn on the pump till empty.

 

[Boundary Waters]

Yep, my question too....why not drain the tanks?
except
I wonder....how does one go about draining the tanks but not draining the "unusable" fuel"?

The most significant reason for the big annual / cosmetic restoration on my Luscombe 8A was replacing the 75 or so year old fuel system, tank, lines, hoses... So when it went back together it had an empty fuel system. The A&P got it up on the scales and we weighed it.

It was weighed after having the engine oil drained, on modern certified scales, properly leveled both side to side and fore and aft, and with fuel added-- by moi on a stepladder-- to the new tank until it exited the hose disconnected from the carburetor.

So we recorded the weights both empty, and after I slowly poured gas in while it was still on the scales. Two things surprised me. There was a lot more unusable fuel in level flight attitude than I had expected for there to be (2 gallons-- but it also did not have ram air pressurizing the tank as it would in flight), and the arm of the unusable fuel (backed out of the two measurements) was much further forward than I expected it to be (there is a fair bit of gas in the gascolator though).

That isn't how unusable fuel is determined.

No, but...

Normally, one consults the POH or the Type Certificate Data Sheet for that figure, but the TCDS for the Luscombe 8 series doesn't give it. In any case, it's the fuel that will not leave the tank to get to to the engine in an attitude most critical for flight.

Since I have usable numbers on how much fuel it took to fill after it was weighed, perhaps the next time its in the shop I can figure out the unusable fuel as it sits on three wheels. I wonder if it would be significantly different. (No idea how to determine the angle of the most critical attitude though.)

 

[Bell206]

after I slowly poured gas in while it was still on the scales.

Curious. Do you have a written procedure that tells you to add the gas? It was my understanding, at least on the later Luscombes, that all the fuel was drained and the remaining fuel was considered residual vs unusable. Is that different on the 8A?

 

[Boundary Waters]

Curious. Do you have a written procedure that tells you to add the gas? It was my understanding, at least on the later Luscombes, that all the fuel was drained and the remaining fuel was considered residual vs unusable. Is that different on the 8A?

The later Luscombes had paired wing tanks, IIRC first 11.5 gallons and later 12.5 gallons apiece. But the 8, 8A, 8B, and 8C all were built with a single 14 gallon fuselage tank.* There is a lot of conjecture about exactly how much of that fourteen gallons is usable-- which should not to be confused with the "lot of conjecture," generally without any supporting math, about everything else in GA -- some sources say as little as ten gallons.**

We didn't have a set of written instructions for the 8A, just FAA manuals stating that unusable fuel be included in the aircraft's empty weight. FWIW: FAA H8083-1B the "Weight and Balance Handbook" uses the words residual and unusable as synonyms. But it is concerned with weighing an aircraft that presumably had fuel in the lines from use.

We had an aircraft where we drained the fuel and replaced the system components. On an 8E the bolt that serves as the fuel tank drain would be under the wing-- in other words outside the airplane. On the 8A it is right on top of the baggage compartment-- in other words inside the airplane.

Would anyone care to venture an educated guess as to why the 75-year-old fuel tank, all the fuel lines, the carpet, the upholstery, and the seat cushions were replaced at the same time?

To me it's six of one and half a dozen of the other so long as it isn't double counted. But, I can see where saying a 12 pound heavier airplane that has 72 pounds of fuel on board rather than 84 pounds of fuel on board might make a difference. Well, for somebody pushing the limits and going around after balking a landing after using 105% of their reserve to divert due to IIMC.

* Personal preference: I prefer having the weight on the center-line in the fuselage to out on the wings.

** Twelve gallons usable fuel-- the quantity we measured-- falls into this particular airplane's pattern of "threes." I figure a gallon to warmup, takeoff and climb to 3000 AGL. That figure was taken right from the ARMY TM-1 on the L-2-- which has the same engine and similar performance-- and confirmed through a few flights. I also figure 3.6 gph at cruise-- it's generally 3.3 to 3.5... So twelve gallons is three hours usable (2:15 + 0:45) after climbing to 3000 (3.6 x 3 = 10.8 + 1 = 11.8).

 

[NordicDave]

Be prepared for a substantial loss of useful load......

For me, it’s a crazy maker… Don’t re-weigh your plane because it will be heavier than the logs and W&B indicate?

The useful load is a useful load. Just because the paperwork is in error does not mean an aircraft has more safe carrying capacity.

Speaking generally on the topic and not this specific aircraft, a plane with overly optimistic useful load already has a loss of actual useful load regardless of any errant paperwork to the contrary.

 

[Bell206]

There is a lot of conjecture about exactly how much of that fourteen gallons is usable-- which should not to be confused with the "lot of conjecture,"

Actually when its comes to determining the aircraft’s certified empty weight there is no conjecture at all. I believe your are intermixing performance requirements with maintenance requirements so perhaps we’ll take a step back.

To begin, keep in mind it is not your or my responsibility to determine unusable fuel for the aircraft weighing process. That falls to the CAA/FAA or the OEM during the initial certification process. So if an aircraft has a required amount of unusable fuel to be included in the empty weight configuration it will be stated in the TCDS/Aircraft Specification or in the appropriate OEM manual. If there is no unusable fuel listed then any fuel left after the aircraft is completely defueled is considered residual fuel. Most guidance states this. Some older aircraft like your 8A, J3s, Taylorcrafts, etc. are the same way.

Now where the conjecture comes into to play is when you’re flying around and you are wondering if the fan will stop at 10 gallons or 13.9 gallons—which has zero to do with the empty weight calculations.

We didn't have a set of written instructions for the 8A, just FAA manuals stating that unusable fuel be included in the aircraft's empty weight.

Anytime you perform maintenance, i.e., weighing the aircraft, you need to have a reference in order to satisfy Part 43.13. When the OEM does not provide it then usually there is some FAA general reference like an Advisory Circular or as back when your 8A was new the CAA had CAMs which is where the ACs came from. So there is a weighing reference. And if you look in AC 43.13-1B, Chapter 10 it provides a legal weight and balance procedure for your 8A. And considering the 8A Aircraft Specification listed no required "unusable" fuel for the certified empty weight, it should be drained of fuel as follows:

 

[Boundary Waters]

(First, I truly appreciate those who are making the effort to share their accumulated wisdom with me.)

Looking at AC 43.13-1B, Acceptable Methods, online... This would be the "FAA manual stating that unusable fuel be included in the aircraft's empty weight." from my earlier post. The A&P's copy was paper and well used with plenty of smudges. "10-2. TERMINOLOGY... b. Empty Weight. The empty weight of an aircraft includes… residual fuel, and oil... d. Useful Load. The useful load is the empty weight subtracted from the maximum weight of the aircraft. This load consists of the pilot… maximum oil, fuel, passengers, and baggage unless otherwise noted…"

As an aside the difference between having a separate line item for oil (as we did because the aircraft was certified under CAR 3) and the later method of icluding it in the empty weight is moot. Because: "q. Full Oil. The full oil is the quantity of oil shown in the Aircraft Specifications or TCDS as oil capacity. Use full oil as the quantity of oil when making the loaded weight and balance computations."

What we did is straight out of AC 43.13-1B, Acceptable Methods: "10-15. PROCEDURES. Accepted procedures when weighing an aircraft are: a. Remove excessive dirt, grease, moisture... b. Weigh the aircraft inside a closed building... c. Determine the empty weight c. g. by placing the aircraft in a level flight attitude."

A-694: "Specifications Pertinent to All Models: Datum: Wing leading edge. Leveling means: Top of horizontal splice plate on side of fuselage."

AC 43.13-1B, Acceptable Methods: "10-15. PROCEDURES. d. Have all items of equipment that are included in the certificated empty weight report installed in the aircraft when weighing... f. Drain the fuel system until the… tanks are empty with the aircraft in level flight attitude, unless otherwise noted in the TCDS or Aircraft Specifications. The amount of fuel remaining in the tank, lines, and engine is termed residual fuel and is to be included in the empty weight..."

This procedure clearly states that the fuel tank be drained. "The amount of fuel remaining in the tank, lines, and engine is termed residual fuel and is to be included in the empty weight..." It must have fuel in it to be drained. The intent is not to have an empty fuel weight of zero because the fuel tank and the lines were just installed. Had we fueled it up to test for leaks before we weighed it we would have drained the tank by disconnecting the line from the gascolator to the carburetor. Because the fuel in the gascolator, lines, and sump are not usable "with the aircraft in level flight attitude" as required by "f."

Sure, in the real world ram air would push a bit more fuel out, but I'd rather be conservative and say that the airplane weights 811 pounds empty and has 72 pounds of gas than to say it weights 799 pounds and has 84 pounds of gas on board. On the W&B it is the same, but I also say it burns 3.6 gph in cruise, when it's really a range of 3.3 to 3.6. Because I plan on living to be a very old and experienced pilot.

 

[Boundary Waters]

Actually when its comes to determining the aircraft’s certified empty weight there is no conjecture at all...

I don't believe that I said there was...

There is a lot of conjecture about exactly how much of that fourteen gallons is usable.

Later, I made a non-specific reference about there just plain being a lot of unsupported conjecture in GA.

It is not your or my responsibility to determine unusable fuel for the aircraft weighing process. That falls to the CAA/FAA or the OEM during the initial certification process... If there is no unusable fuel listed then any fuel left after the aircraft is completely defueled is considered residual fuel.

Technically you are correct. But I like information. I'm the only person truly responsible for my own safety in the air.

We could have just put fuel in the tank until it ran out the other end, or checked the system for leaks before, instead of after weighing it. But we used the opportunity to find out something about the airplane, so we did. The aircraft may have been weighed at the factory with a bone dry fuel system. I'm certain that the subsequent W&B had residual fuel included, and I doubt anyone would be so foolish as to drain it other than the way we did.

 

[Bell206]

Had we fueled it up to test for leaks before we weighed it we would have drained the tank by disconnecting the line from the gascolator to the carburetor.

??? So you didn't complete the maintenance on the fuel tank replacement before weighing? While I give you credit for wanting to learn your aircraft you are missing the trees from the forest on this one. But if that is your approach to things so be it, but..........

but I'd rather be conservative and say that the airplane weights 811 pounds empty and has 72 pounds of gas than to say it weights 799 pounds and has 84 pounds of gas on board.

Unfortunately, given the empty weight value is a certification requirement, "conservative" opinions are not permitted or technically legal. So if your concern is to build in a buffer to your fuel load then the proper place to do so is in your loading figures added to the certified empty weight.

 

[Boundary Waters]

??? So you didn't complete the maintenance on the fuel tank replacement before weighing?

Technically, we interleafed procedures and completed both safely and correctly.

Unfortunately, given the empty weight value is a certification requirement, "conservative" opinions are not permitted or technically legal. So if your concern is to build in a buffer to your fuel load then the proper place to do so is in your loading figures added to the certified empty weight.

AC 43.13-1B, Acceptable Methods: "10-15. PROCEDURES... f. Drain the fuel system until the… tanks are empty with the aircraft in level flight attitude..."

"The amount of fuel remaining in the tank, lines, and engine is termed residual fuel and is to be included in the empty weight..."

It must have fuel in it to be drained.

It is conservative, like rounding a weight up, but it isn't an opinion. To weigh the aircraft without residual fuel in it would directly contravene the wording in the manual that it be drained and "The amount of fuel remaining in the tank, lines, and engine is termed residual fuel and is to be included in the empty weight..."

In the end it doesn't matter whether the 12 lbs. is on line one or line seven when the W&B is done, just as it doesn't matter if 7.5 lbs. is on line one or line two. But the rules say residual fuel is included on line one and oil is not... So that's the way we did it. The truly important thing is understanding the relationships between natural forces that allow us to be like birds for too short periods of time. How being over weight-- in both senses of the word-- is the enemy of our ability to soar.

There are threads where people act as if the imperfect attempts by-- hopefully well meaning-- individuals to legislate and regulate safety can supercede the laws of physics. That if they have a 1946 factory W&B that says the airplane weights 710 pounds empty it really has a useful load of 510 pounds, and that O-145 really cranks out 65 hp no matter what the compression gauge says...

I said before, I'm a noob. But I am learning from guys who've been doing this for decades. Guys who are willing to share their knowledge with me. In order, I want to do it all Safely, Correctly (sustainably for the aircraft), and in accordance with all applicable regulations.

 

[Boundary Waters]

A question was posited to me elsewhere.

My aircraft was certified with narrow tires, tail skid, single ignition engine, 17 lb. prop, and no cabin heater.
The factory weighs one aircraft and uses its weight for the next X number of aircraft, supposedly periodically double-checking the accuracy. So my plane probably did not get individually weighed and neatly explaining why several aircraft have exactly the same empty weight.
The airplane was delivered with a tail wheel (+6 lb.), double ignition engine (+10 lb.), and cabin heater (+2 lb.).
Somewhere along the way it received a 13.5 lb prop (-3.5 lb.) and wider tires (+9 lb.). It may have been delivered with these items.

(The airplane was delivered in 1947) Would these items have typically been listed by the factory as "equipment" rather than added to the empty weight of the aircraft? Things were less "standardized" back then and for practical purposes it doesn't make any difference where the weight is listed so long as it is accounted for. (773.5=750+18+5.5=750+23.5)

 

[Magman]

If you haven’t already done so ; I’d like to suggest you get the CD of your

Aircraft Records from FAA in OK.

You may find some answers and surprises there.

 

[Boundary Waters]

If you haven’t already done so ; I’d like to suggest you get the CD of your

Aircraft Records from FAA in OK.

You may find some answers and surprises there.

We have a copy. There is not nearly as much as I thought there would be after 75 years, but it really hasn't been modified.
"Look, it has a FA for the baggage compartment and a mogas STC."
We have the paper log books as well, some of the oldest entries are a hoot for their brevity. IE: "R&R prop, wood."
The older stuff on paper is not on the CD.
And I have a rare (and probably VERY valuable) "Cont. A-56-8 (65hp)"-- you don't see those very often.

 

[danhagan]

Be prepared for a substantial loss of useful load......

My ride lost weight since the last weighing.

Same results as Geoffrey with my previous Tiger - lost about 23 pounds of weight. Weigh the plane if there have been years of changes ....

 

[Bell206]

The factory weighs one aircraft and uses its weight for the next X number of aircraft,

As I recall the use of production block weights by the OEM didn’t come into practice till a number of years after your 8A was produced. However, the use of block weights had limitations in that each aircraft had to be identically configured. Perhaps call the current TC holder for your 8A and see if they have a record of your S/N at the time of production. Some keeps original records even though ownership has changed.

Would these items have typically been listed by the factory as "equipment" rather than added to the empty weight of the aircraft?

That would depend on the OEM and how they offered/tracked their options.

Things were less "standardized" back then and for practical purposes it doesn't make any difference where the weight is listed so long as it is accounted for.

It wasn’t that it was less standardized as it was a different set of rules (CARs vs FARs). Compare the 8A Aircraft Specification sheet layout with that of a TCDS layout. Back then all you needed was that list of options on that sheet to install any applicable equipment as none are considered a major alteration requiring a 337. With the FAR TCDS system you won’t see a similar listing as the “aircraft specifications” were moved and the OEMs covered those options through separate OEM bulletins instead of listing them on the TCDS.

In addition, the majority of the alterations back then were performed by repair stations as there were no private IAs only CAA inspectors and a few DMIRs. So some of the records you maybe searching for were dealt with in RS workorders and discarded. Also, while I don’t recall if a 1947 aircraft would have been affected, but in that same timeframe an aircraft received a new AWC each annual inspection which corrected any outstanding equipment issues with a minimal paper trail.

 

[Boundary Waters]

Perhaps call the current TC holder for your 8A and see if they have a record of your S/N at the time of production. Some keeps original records even though ownership has changed.

A-694 has been around. Currently it is held by GEO / the Good Earthkeeping Organization, a Corona California environmental remediation company. They obtained it from Renaissance Aircraft LLC of Cape Girardeau who had apparently built a few 8Fs (one source says 12, another 16) as LSAs in the early 2000s under a licencing agreement with the Don Luscombe Foundation, a non-profit in Phoenix AZ. I am given to understand the TC was awarded to RA as partial payment of a $2.7 million lawsuit judgement against the foundation. The foundation got the TC from Univair who got it from the Silverair Uranium and Aircraft Company of Fort Collins CO who had in fact got it from Univair to begin with. They got it from Temco (as in Ling-Temco-Vought) who bought out the original Luscombe Corp. of Dallas Texas in 1946 after Don Luscombe the founder (1933) and designer of the 8 was driven out by bankers in 1942 (when the company was in New Jersey)...

Compare the 8A Aircraft Specification sheet layout with that of a TCDS layout. Back then all you needed was that list of options on that sheet to install any applicable equipment as none are considered a major alteration requiring a 337.

I have a copy of A-694, it lists six of the items that are on my aircraft, the C-65-8 (+10 lb.), 6.00-6s (+9lb.), the Scott TW (+6 lb.), the cabin heater (+2 lb.) it also mentions the rear float fittings and brace but does not give weights. It also lists a wood prop at 17 lb. but that prop was replaced decades ago and the current Sensenich 76/44 is a lighter 13.5 lb.

With the FAR TCDS system you won’t see a similar listing as the “aircraft specifications” were moved and the OEMs covered those options through separate OEM bulletins instead of listing them on the TCDS.

What? They've made airplanes since 1947?

In addition, the majority of the alterations back then were performed by repair stations as there were no private IAs only CAA inspectors and a few DMIRs. So some of the records you maybe searching for were dealt with in RS workorders and discarded. Also, while I don’t recall if a 1947 aircraft would have been affected, but in that same timeframe an aircraft received a new AWC each annual inspection which corrected any outstanding equipment issues with a minimal paper trail.

Yes, I'm not really searching for records. A couple people sent me messages and I have pieced together a 100% plausible history that includes my paper records and reasonable assumptions based on theirs. From from the FAA CD the airplane was invisible the first 13 years that it existed.

 

[Bell206]

Currently it is held by GEO / the Good Earthkeeping Organization, a Corona California environmental remediation company.

So did you contact them to see if they had a copy of the original EWB and Equipment List for your S/N 8A?

What? They've made airplanes since 1947?

From from the FAA CD the airplane was invisible the first 13 years that it existed.

Or there was no requirement for the 1st 13 years to send anything in. Since the items you mentioned above were listed on the Aircraft Specifications no requirement to document externally.

And...?