Citabria H.O. Aircraft STC 150HP (O-320), 7ECA

Bartman

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
1,047
Location
New Jersey, USA
#1

aftCG

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2018
Messages
293
Location
Tacoma, WA
#2
My plane has a single-airplane STC for the -A1A and -A2B.
I would swear I've read that the -A2B is what the factory uses on the current production 150hp planes, and that all you need is the factory installation drawing (no STC required).

Added trivia:
I have learned that the -A2B is a narrow deck engine, and as such produces 150hp at 2700rpm, rather than the more common wide deck which produces 150hp at 2500.
 

Bob Turner

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 4, 2018
Messages
681
#3
I am with Aft. If it is on the type cert, it is a logbook entry. The new aircraft are coming with 160 hp - in my opinion a far superior engine to either the 150 or 180 Lycs. Wish my Super Dec had the 160.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2019
Messages
3
#6
Bartman, under the TCDS I see the B2B, 160hp but not the A2B, 150hp. I am in the process of doing this and checked with Ho Aviation and he is asking $1395 for the STC.
 

Bob Turner

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 4, 2018
Messages
681
#10
I think the 7GCAA comes from the factory with 160 hp. Without checking, I would say that the 160 Lyc is indded on that type cert.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2019
Messages
3
#11
Has anyone actually done this conversion,on a ECA without the STC, that I can call? I have a few questions. or who has done it with a STC. Please provide your number.
 
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Messages
6
#12
Put a narrow deck A1A in a 65 eca years ago. It is and still should be a log book entry. Anyone whom wants to tell you different has been confused by our over regulation and lack of understanding these aircraft. Yes I am one of those A&P IA's whom differ with the factory on more then one point on these aircraft. Keep in mind this is a factory that has created its own ADs over time because of bad practices.
 

Bob Turner

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 4, 2018
Messages
681
#13
So I finally checked. I have no dog in this fight; mine is a stock 180 Dec.

Type Cert A-759 (see Bart's link)
Page 12 - 7ECA - item 125 Lycoming O-320 B2B
But the aircraft must be modified per note 15, which appears to require factory metal spar wings.

To do this without an STC you need to follow that rather difficult to follow sequence from item 125 through note 15. You have to read them together, and take notes.

So - new wings, or a field approval, or an STC.

Opinion, but easy to verify.
 
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Messages
6
#14
Bob, thanks for this and I do agree with you but I'm also very aware as you point out there are direct disparities in the way these regulations are dished out and applied. I have no direct bitches with the STC holder for this Lycoming 150 conversion in a 7ECA aircraft. I just believe its ridiculous that the manufacturer was allowed to build a requirement into the TCDS directly financially benefiting the company while at the same time punishing the owners of these aircraft. Owners get whip sawed by FAA regulation and the only benefit is to the manufacturer and or the STC holder whom is smart enough to know that there is a work around but you will have to pay me for it. This T.C.D.S. has been in place for decades and now because the owner of the TC wants to alter it for financial gain and not for proven safety engineering we have to pay. American Champion Air has not proved to my liking that there is any proof engineering wise that their metal spar wings should be a requirement for upgrade. This is not a safety issue. The 7GCAA is the same aircraft as a 7ECA with a certain version of a lycoming 150 installed. I do have a dog in the fight and I am tired of the arrogance and technical ignorance of the feds whom work in lock step with the manufacturer to take advantage of the owners and operators of these legacy aircraft. Yes I do realize its a big fight with a big dog but something just snapped in me in resent days about freedom of flight and the simple pleasures in life. Stay tuned, Brian
 

Bob Turner

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 4, 2018
Messages
681
#15
Well, if you have a copy of the type certificate without the note 15 requirements you can use that. The type certificate revisions do not negate earlier approvals.

If the B2B was added at the same time as the wing requirement that is the manufacturer's choice. It is difficult to fault a manufacturer who does profit-making changes. This is, after all, a semi-capitalist economy.

Without getting all political about it (I admit to being far more liberal than the average pilot) there is enough good about Capitalism and free enerprise that we ought to keep a good bit of it.

The thing that bothers me about type certificates is that they are a bit like perpetual patents. That's not in line with free enterprise.

Opinion.
 
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Messages
6
#16
Bob, In short I do agree with your thinking. I too am not against corporate profit making. Perhaps it would do me some good if I also went experimental with a aircraft and therefore felt a little less confined. I just wish customer service was a bit better. Perhaps I could live with these changes more readily if I did not know the track record of ACA. I am still glad they are in business and there are good folks working there. So to get to the heart of the issues, here is just one of many examples of a lack of quality control over the years w/ ACA. A/D 2005-24-10 that applied to some citabria's because the control cable nicopress's were not swaged correctly. This went on for 5 plus years before it was caught and thankfully no one was killed. Their answer to better help you inspect the control cable after their screw up, they will provide a fifteen dollar go no go gauge. After almost killing someone it should have been free. Flash forward ten years I decide to replace control cables on a customers citabria and ask do you want me to produce or do you want factory control cables, answer factory, so at that point I contend they must have their act together and I order the cables. When I received them I looked them over and it was not a quality product, as in a sloppy job. Would they have worked yes probably but after all the drama of almost killing someone years before you could expect better. Keep in mind from my perspective correctly swaging nicopresses on a control cable should be a relatively basic skill for a A&P or repairman in that environment. They also had a huge paint issue w/ PPG paint years ago that to my liking never was resolved correctly. I am not against them doing business I just want responsible quality control. That of course comes with a price. Quality control should also go hand in hand with your license to make changes to your type certificate. Please excuse me for perhaps getting too far off topic but for me they are directly connected. Cheers to you, Brian
 

Bob Turner

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 4, 2018
Messages
681
#17
I can see some of that. Fuel tanks around 2003 were a big issue.
I agree - the folks who work there are friendly and helpful. I cannot afford their prices - $100 for a copy of a drawing?

But that’s the beauty of a free market - I am free to not buy. The problem is, there is no longer any way for free market competition to work. It is just too expensive to get PMAs.

Experimental has a lot of advantages - the free market works there.

Want an example of a place where the free market can’t work? Health care.

All opinion.