7EC landing gear options

[carlrandolph]

I have a 7EC champ with the no bounce gear. I don't like the feel of this gear on landing especially in crosswinds. Can anyone tell me if I have replacement options?

Thanks, Carl

 

[Bob Turner]

Put stronger springs in there and don't tell anybody? Buy a 7ECA with Grove gear? I doubt there are any approved ways to change that oleo setup.

 

[Sully]

According to the TCDS

Model 7EC, 2 PCLM (Normal Category), Approved November 30, 1949

Maximum Weight 1450 lb.
1300 lb. (If lower end landing gear oleo strut assembly, Aeronca dwg. 3-433, is installed).

3-433 gear is NOT the no-bounce.

 

[Bob Turner]

Any chance that legally moves it into the Sport category? Legal minds want to know?

 

[carlrandolph]

Really? I would loose 150lbs useful load if I changed the gear. I guess I’ll get better acquainted with the no bounce gear. Thank you very much for the information.

 

[Bob Turner]

You might want to check to see if they are functioning correctly. Many kind of collapse . . .

 

[Sully]

Any chance that legally moves it into the Sport category? Legal minds want to know?

Nope.

 

[carlrandolph]

Thanks Bob, I'II check it out. It hasn't flown for over a year, it needs an annual anyway.

 

[BB57]

Any chance that legally moves it into the Sport category? Legal minds want to know?

The FAA has never been helpful in that regard. Their view is "once greater than 1320, always greater than 1320".

That is, intentionally, an overly narrow read of statute and reg. The goal with LSA was to somehow magically spark the manufacture of a whole bunch of affordable LSA aircraft, and a key part of that was to limit the number of legacy aircraft out there that met the LSA requirement - and as part of that prevent legacy aircraft from being brought into compliance by reversing STCd modifications that took them over the 1320 pound limit.

The "affordable" new build LSA aircraft never happened - unless you call $100K or more "affordable".

 

[Bob Turner]

Devil’s advocate here - this is not an STC - it is type certificate. If it were me, I would study the issue further, and if ambiguous, I would document the ambiguities and fly with a driver’s license.

However, BasicMed has obviated most of that. We do have a BasicMed thread? Hottest thing that has happened to light plane flying in 3/4 century!

I am sure most of you know that I am the token liberal on airplane forums, but I sent a thank-you note to Senator Inhofe - for this, at least, he is a hero!

 

[aftCG]

Can't help much with the LSA category other than to confirm from my reading that once out of the LSA category it stays there.

My no-bounce 7ECA was converted to spring steel gear under the TCDS with a field approval (back when a mere mortal could expect to be able to do so).

 

[Bob Turner]

If spring gear is on the type certificate, you should not need a field approval. The type certificate is approved data.

I of course have not researched Light Sport - just speculating. I suppose the wording could parallel the engine driven generator/transponder conundrum.

 

[BB57]

I agree with Bob. If it's on the type certificate or on the factory drawings, there is no need for an STC or field approval as it is already an approved configuration. An example is 8.50x6 tires on a Citabria. 6.00x6, 7.00x6 and 8.00x6 tires are on TCDS, but ACA says there is no need for an STC for 8.50x6 tires as they are covered in the factory drawings that are considered part of the type certificate. (ACA indicated you might need spacers to keep the brakes from rubbing with some 8.50x6 tires and ACA will sell you those for $80.)

My take on that is as long as you convert whatever you have to a configuration that is in accordance with whatever is on the TC or in the factory drawings for what you want, no STC or field approval is required. It just needs to be signed off as being in conformance with the factory drawings.

It also cuts the other way. For example I used to rent a 180 hp Citabria in 1985 that was converted via field approval sometime prior to that. However when ACA came out with the metal spar wings in 1991, they added a note on the type certificate indicating ACA metal spar wings are requirement for the 160 and 180 hp engines. That means no more STC or field approval for those engine upgrades on a wood wing spar Citabria as those old STCs or a new attempt at a field approval now conflict with what is on the current type certificate.

 

[aftCG]

To be fair, in the case of my aircraft it was a major repair that included repairing fuselage tubing from an "incident" which wasn't fully described in the logs. The conversion happened under that entry

 

[Bob Turner]

. . .That means no more STC or field approval for those engine upgrades on a wood wing spar Citabria as those old STCs or a new attempt at a field approval now conflict with what is on the current type certificate.

Not sure that is correct. A field approval gives you approved data for one aircraft, and similar aircraft for the original installer. Approved data stays approved until it is rescinded - I think it takes an AD to do that.

A new field approval is approved data - if your ASI and you agree, you can put a steam engine on a wood spar champ.

An STC is approved data for aircraft listed on the cover page, and it is the same - it stays approved forever, unless similarly rescinded.

No type certificate can prohibit or change previously approved data.

As an example - all fabric STCs now contain a top coat restriction. If your aircraft has a major alteration 337 for, say, Stits fabric prior to maybe 1995 or so, you can recover now, with a major repair 337, and use auto enamel or dope as the top coat. In fact, unless the STC holder explicitly states that you must use the latest revision (they probably all do) you could do a new alteration using the 1980 procedure manual. It is still approved data. The STC holder retains control over who can use their STC in all cases, of course, and can withhold approval now - but if they allowed you to use it in 1980, only the FAA can restrict you. The Administrative Procedures Act gets in the way.

As always, opinion.

 

[BB57]

I agree with you about an STC being approved data. I also agree that once a mod is approved 337 or otherwise, it will always be "approved". In other words no one is making the current owner of that 180 hp Citabria in Blunt SD, remove the O-360 engine.

However, when it's done via a 337 it's not the same as an STC. At the time that engine was installed via 337, there was no such thing as a metal spar wing for the Citabria and no mention of the need for one in the type certificate. That meant that when the data supporting the O-360 installation was submitted to the FAA via the 337, there was nothing in the type certificate that said it could not be done.

Yes, someone wishing to install an 0-360 today could go to that current owner and hopefully get the paperwork that was submitted to the FAA to make a similar request for approval to the FAA. However the person at the local FSDO is almost certainly going to check the TC and read the notes ACA has added stating that 160 hp and 180 hp engine installations require the ACA metal spar wings.

Someone *might* be able to make a case that the Millman metal spars are equivalent. But it's a "maybe".

The larger issue is the FAA's current reluctance to approve 337s. The causes were three fold:

First, mechanics were submitting 337s for even minor alterations to cover their butts in response to over zealous FAA inspectors, which inundated the FAA with 337s to approve.

Second, owners and mechanics were using 337s to circumvent using approved STCs - basically using the data and procedures, but not paying for the STC.

Third, the bureaucrats in the FAA are risk averse and are not likely to approve a 337, when it falls short of what the current owner of the type certificate in its current revised form says is required. From the FAA perspective, there are also elements of the problem of circumventing STCs that are present as well. Yes ACA will charge about $30K for their metal wings, and that's outrageous for a Citabria without an engine that might be worth $20K as it sits and will need a $25K engine and $30K wings, and then may be worth $60K. However, the FAA will still look at it as circumventing ACA who did engineering and submitted data saying ACA metal wings are required.

 

[Bob Turner]

Agree with all that, except the part about a type certificate restriction precluding a field approval. The only thing that completely stops a field approval is the ASI’s reluctance.