A newsletter for the Bellanca and Champion Airplane owner to assist them in restoring and maintaining this wonderful marque.

New Bellanca-Champion Web Site

Bellanca Champion Webmaster: Robert Szego

Robert Seals' 14-19 Oshkosh Winner
Dean Tilton's 14-9

Maule Tail wheel problem

The FAA reports they have received reports of Maule tail wheel tires failing upon landing resulting in minor damage to the airplane and some control difficulties.

There was a problem with the manufacturing process. There is a possibility that during the rubber molding process, the steel inner tube could have been deformed which weakens the side wall and can cause an out -of - balance condition. In addition, there have been some cases in which the rubber was not properly cured and remained soft inside. There is also some indication that the molded rubber tire is not adhering properly to the steel inner tube. They go on to say its only a recommended action at this time and FAA will continue the investigation and issue an AD if warranted.

The recommendations: Determine is tail wheel P/N TW-23, or assembly P/N SFSA-1-1/1-2/3-4 was replaced with a new Maule assembly between 5 May 97 and 13 Jul 98. If so look it over for possible distress (defined as a bulge, ridge, tear, crack, delamination or other deterioration. It may slightly rounded instead of flat if the rubber was not cured properly.

If its bad, replace it with a wheel that was manufactured before 5 May 97 or after 13 Jul 98. You can get a copy of the Maule SB#19 by calling 912 985-2045

14-19-2 Service Difficulty

One of our members had a very scary inflight emergency in his 14-19-2. The gage line running from the selector valve to the fuel pressure gage developed a hole under the "Adel" clamp up under the instrument panel. Sprayed gas everywhere. Fortunately, no fire and he was able to safely land. So check this line under the panel. He said that it was corroded under friction tape under the clamp. So if you have a 14-19, you should check this possiblity.

After sending the above notice, I received this from another member...

"When I purchased my 14-19-3a, there was a pin hole under the black tape on the main fuel line in from the wings where it was taped to avoid chaffing from the cables running over it. I then found that corrosion was common under the tape in other places. It had a continous oooz under the tape. This might be something to look into. Remember mine was from FL and had corrosion everywhere anyway but it seemed that it like to collect in dark places like under this tape."

So I know I'm going to check my plane for friction tape wrapped on the fuel lines. You should too!

Update on Champion Spar ADs

Service letter 406 has been revised and is an alternative method for AD compliance. NO HOLES are added, just some inspection guide lines to help your mechanic to do a better job of inspecting your wing spar. Once again, NO HOLES NEEDED! Click on underlined text to see full Service Letter 406 which has been FAA approved.

Li'L Red Aero, Inc. Don Maxfield FAA CRS MS2R016L R.R. 1, Box 120 Municipal Airport Kearney, Nebraska 68847 308-234-1635 Debs Aircraft Jerry Debs 1348 Brookside Blvd. Grants Pass, Oregon 97526 541-474-2732 Richard Coon Aviaton 4181 Wookey Chico, Calif. 916-343-7101 Charlie Hart Winfield Aviation 9074 Henry Clay Clay, New York 13040 315-652-4405 Carl Baker Co. Rick Hoffman Mon-Wed 9AM-5PM Pacific 4464 McGrath Street Suite 117 Ventura, California 93003 805-644-9328 Coastal Aviation Industries Connecticut 203-748-7303 Charles Sullivan C&S Engineering P.O. Box 1112 Bolingbrook, IL 60439 630-759-5775 815-722-6330 (Fax) Leggat Aviation Inc. Toronto Bottonville Airport Markham, Ontario, Canada L3P3J9 416-477-7900 George & Irene Heinley P.O. Box 482 Country Place Estates Jewett, Texas 75846 903-626-5122

Reed Cams Dave Keyton 170 Andrew Drive Stockbridge, GA 30281 770-474-6664 Aerocenter Franklin Parts. Pierce County Airport 16923-B Meridian E. Puyallup, WA 98373 253-848-9349 253-848-5047 (fax) 800-331-4375 http://www.aerocenter.com e-mail info@aerocenter.com New Aviation, Inc. (PZL engines) 11901 Swearingen Lane, Suite 54 Austin, TX. 78758 voice 512.837.0593 fax   512.837.7753 cellphone 512.496.1527 Harrison Engine Services 301 Detroit St. Porte, Indiana 46350 800-348-0257 219-362-9707 Gene Hamilton 1515 NE 49th Street Portland, OR 97213 503-282-6805 Bill and Debbie Snavely 115 Heinley Rd Lake Placid, FL 33852 813-465-6101 813-465-6101

Pictures for this web site... E-mail files to cgalley@accessus.net

The Classic Beechcraft Bonanza

Upper main gear struts on these models get cracks and new replacements are horifically expensive from the factory. The question is to weld or not to weld and the answer is yes, maybe, and no. The struts are oil damped action using a constant size orifice to let the oil flow at a controlled rate when the strut is compressed therefore absorbing the shock. When the strut is not actively being compressed the oil is not being compressed either. Super Vikings of 3325 pounds gross had the upper strut also filled with compressed air to aid the shock absorbing function.

Cracks in the struts mean several things. The shock oil can leak out and the shock loads must be entirely absorbed by the large taxi spring inside which can then crack and lead to further damage of the strut. The cracks also mean the strut can no longer distribute loads into metal areas engineered to absorb those loads and more areas can crack or break. (When that goes too far the gear can collapse altogether.) Finally on the later Super Vikings the cracks can let the helpful compressed air leak out. Cracks are detected from seeing fluid leaks or stains where they shouldn't be, premature loss of air pressure, hairlines on the metal, and chips of paint missing.

If you are having a daunting day and are informed that you have such a strut, here are the options. If the crack is near the top of the strut where the vertical tube is welded to the horizontal piece it may be weldable if the cracks isn't too extensive and its not become very rusty. If the crack is near the attachment point for the scissors chances are you need to find another strut. Joe Vella of Toronto had it happen to him on his 260. He E-mailed this - "The local DOT approved welding outfit says they can weld it. It's at their shop now. I'm not sure if this is money well spent or not, but I think it's worth a shot, at only $175 CDN (about $126 USD) compared to the most reasonably priced $600 USD for a used leg, and I'm told $2900 USD for a new one. What do you think ? Tom Witmer says that the factory used to weld these, but quit due to high failure rates. We think that the crack happens from too many landings with a bit of forward slip when touching down. Of course we also think it must have happened before current owner acquired aircraft!"

I responded to Joe that the gear is not heat treated and is 4130N chrome molly steel as is most of the fuselage, and therefore a good candidate for welding. I believe the factory is still willing to take a shot at welding them if the crack is on the top instead of near the scissors. They say that its best to send them both the upper and lower struts because after welding the upper, they put the two together, compress them, and wait a few days to see if anything leaks out before yellow tagging them. Ace Viking mechanic, Dan Torrey of Mobile Aircraft Repair Service in Santa Paula, CA told us he has a lot of success getting them welded and will do that for you through his service. Generally Tom Witmer isn't as confident that the welds hold up but some of the time has a very good used gear leg to sell you as a replacement at fractions of the cost of a new one. It happened to the 74 Super Viking I owned with 2 buddies. That aircraft is still flying with a used strut purchased from Tom.

Referring to Joe's problem we told him, "We think that the crack happens from too many landings that are slightly sideways. Of course we also think yours must have happened before you acquired the aircraft!" The point being that with a cross wind you really want to get your slip technique up to muster. The only other cause I know of is poor maintenance. If the taxi spring is broken, or no oil inside, or no compressed air in the later kind, the strut has to take unusual loads and eventually something is going to break. There you have it, - toodles.

Want to ask Joe Vella? Phone him at 905-936-9100 or e-mail him at... joevella@user.rose.com

The following is a letter I wrote after a phone call for help from a member. I thought it was good information for everybody.

Symptoms: his fuel pressure drops under full throttle. Although he has a Cruisair, it applies to all aircraft, cars, motorcycles, and boats, too. If air can't get into a tank, you can't get the gas to come out either. He had already checked the pressure relief bypass by plugging it.

"I have given your fuel pressure problem much thought. From your description of the pressure dropping off, I think you ought to check your tank vents. It sounds like they are partial plugged. I have always wondered why that there was a vent hole drilled in both of the caps on my airplane even though there is a vent line that comes out of the back of the each tank. If the air can't get into the tank, you can't get the gas to come out either.

This is my theory of the situation. With full tanks, the regular tank vent may be covered by gas. It is not a very large tube so that this provides a restriction to the fuel pick up by the engine driven pump. The wobble pump being closer to the tank can overcome this restriction. Even Cessna retrofitted vented caps on the 172. If these vents become clogged with dirt or paint, then there is not enough venting for the tank and the pressure drops off. There also could be some thing floating in the tank that gets washed up to plug the back tank vent.

Also, mud daubers like small round holes. This can happen to any open hole over night. Another reason for vents to plug, airspeeds to quit.

Before you start digging into the pump once again, I would most definitely check the vents. You could even leave the cap of the tank in use a little loose instead of tightening it down completely and then make a flight check. (There is a secondary cover on the Cruisair so the cap won't fall over board.)

You can clean out the vent tubes by pushing an old tach or speedometer cable through them.

Hopefully your tanks have NOT been sloshed. This coating sometimes comes loose and causes all sorts of problems. The last thing could be some dirt or rust in the bottom of the tank that is sucked up onto and restricts the screens.

Notice that I said "screens" as there is a screen in each tank, two screens in the gasolator, a screen in the engine pump, and a screen in the inlet of the carb. There might even be a screen in the wobble pump. All these must be clean, free of all lint, dirt, sand, rust, paint flakes, and other nasties.

If you have ever used any silicone rubber (bathtub caulk) or teflon tape as a sealer, you need to disassemble each joint, carefully clean and reassemble without any goo. If the joint leaks then parts are damaged and need replacing

Remember, lineboys have been pumping junk along with gas into your tanks for several decades. This junk needs to be removed. In my own plane, I have carefully drained all the gas out of my tanks through a metal tractor funnel. These funnels have a very fine mesh screen to catch junk before it goes into a tank. You would be surprised at the amount of sand, rust, paint flakes, and other solids that came out of my tanks that was caught in the funnel. After draining, I removed the quick drain. More gas will come out so that all draining of gas should be into metal tanks, grounded to the airframe. Do NOT use any plastic hose, funnels, or tanks. It only takes one spark to set it off. Make sure all electric devices are off. All flames extinguished, and the hangar door is open for ventilation. Gas fumes are very explosive. Take all precautions. Have a fire extinguisher handy. Burned corpses are not very pretty... Besides it ruins a good airplane. After I had everything drained, I used mineral spirits, (paint thinner or Stoddard solvent) to flush the tanks until I stopped getting junk out of the drain into the funnel screen. You can use a pump-up garden sprayer to agitate the crud to the drain. If you run it though the funnel, just dump the filtered mineral spirits back in and flush again until it comes out clean. I would still check any rubber hose connections. They might have swelled from the solvents in the either autogas or 100 LL. The old mil-spec 6000 hose does not resist solvent degradation. 100 LL is especially bad as it has toluene as an ingredient for octane enhancement. As a side note, I would also replace all the 6000 hose connections from the engine to the oil cooler on a regular basis as they harden and get brittle from heat and age. After all tanks, lines, and vents are clean, you should have trouble free flying. Good Luck."

Most restorers, mechanics, and pilots are well aware of the hazards of Carbon Monoxide poisoning. That is why we check our heat muffs, open the garage door when running our cars, and leave the door open a crack when using a non-vented heater like a torpedo space heater.

Last month a friend who is stripping his Czech Jet in a Box got a good case of carbon monoxide poisoning. He wasn't running an engine, using a heater, but just had a door closed to his hangar. It was a chilly rainy windy day so he had the door closed while he stripped off all the old ugly paint from his Delfin L-29. About noon he had a headache so he quit. That afternoon he just didn't feel good; nauseated, no pep. He felt so bad that he didn't go back to the airport for a week.

As he is one of the Saturday Noon Lunch Bunch, he and I got to talking about his paint stripping and how bad it made him feel. Then I remembered the article I wrote almost 2 years ago. One the sources claimed that one could get CO poisoning from Methylene Chloride. At the time it was news to me. So I asked him if the warning label mentioned "Methylene Chloride." He said that it was one of the active ingredients. Only then did I know that he had gotten CO poisoning. The next week when I asked how the stripping was going, he replied a little slower since he got rid of the stripper with the Methylene Chloride, but he wasn't getting headaches and was feeling much better. Why do they still sell strippers with methylene chloride... Because it is fast and cheap. The label on a can of stripper that I have says..

"Hazards: DANGER! POISON! VAPOR HARMFUL. MAY AFFECT THE BRAIN OR NERVOUS SYSTEM CAUSING DIZZINESS, HEADACHE OR NAUSEA. REDUCES THE BLOOD'S OXYGEN CARRYING CAPACITY...MAY BE HARMFUL IF ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN. CANNOT BE MADE NON-POISONOUS. WARNING USE OF THIS PRODUCT WILL EXPOSE YOU TO METHYLENE CHLORIDE, BENZENE, AND TOLUOL ... WHICH ARE KNOWN TO CAUSE CANCER... BIRTH DEFECTS!... repeated and prolonged exposure have been associated with permanent brain and nervous system damage. USE ONLY WITH ADEQUATE VENTILATION."

The above label was paraphrased but I think the message is very clear. If you are going to use this kind of stripper, do it outside. Use gloves. Incidentally, all the health warnings almost overcome the other big, big problem. It is very flammable. No open flames, pilot lights, electric motors, or smoking should be done in the general area of the stripping until all the vapors have evaporated.

So there you have it. Methylene Chloride is a fast cheap stripper. But read the labels of the other strippers. You may just decide that the ease and quickness are outweighed by the safety and health considerations. If you do use the methylene chloride type stripper, make sure you do it outside, use gloves, and extinguish all flames. If you are sensitive to these chemicals, a proper respirator is recommended. A dust mask won't do. The ideal would be a fresh air mask and pump so you didn't get any of these nasties in your system.

As my friend commented. It is a good thing I found out about this problem before I stared on the interior of the plane. I would have been inside breathing all those chemicals with no ventilation.

He learned his lesson and lived to fly another day. Isn't that what life is all about. Learning to live to fly another day!

I have heard and been told for years that "owners" could have parts made for their airplanes and there was an FAR which permitted you as a owner to produce a necessary part for use on your airplane. I never spent much time researching for the particular line and verse, but since I own a plane that is an orphan, a Bellanca 14-13-2, I have to make many bearings and bushings on my lathe to keep the old bird flying. My AI was surprised that I had the drawings for these parts. Where did I get them? Through the Bellanca Champion Club and Larry D'Attilio. Even after the work was approved and signed off, I always wondered what FAR granted this benevolent permission. When I found this article on the Internet, I was overjoyed. Here is in black and white with every thing explained. Even names and phone numbers of real people are included if you have further questions.

First question: Does the owner have to manufacture the part himself, in order for the part to be considered an "owner produced" part?

Answer: No. An owner would be considered a producer of a part if the owner participated in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of the part. We would look at many factors in determining whether a person participated in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of a part. The following would tend to indicate that a person produced a part:

1. The owner provided the maufacturer with design or performance data from which to manufacture the part. (This may occur, for instance, where a person provided a part to the manufacturer and asked that the part be duplicated.)

2. The owner provided the manufacturer with materials from which to manufacture the part.

3. The owner provided the manufacturer with fabrication processes or assembly methods to be used in the manufacture of the part.

4. The owner provided the manufacturer with quality control procedures to be used in the manufacture of the part.

5. The owner supervised the manufacturer of the part.

We would not construe the ordering of a part, standing alone, as participating in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of a part.

Second question: Can the owner contract for the manufacture of the part, and still have a part that is considered an "owner produce" part?

Answer: Yes, in certain circumstances. The owner would still be considered a producer of the part if he participated in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality control of the part. Note that, as explained in Attachment A, the person with whom the owner contracted would also be a "producer."

Third question: Can the owner (merely) supervise or assume responsibility for a mechanic manufacturing the part for the owner, and still have a part that is considered an "owner produced" part?

Answer: Yes, with respect to supervision. Owner supervision would indicate that the owner participated in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of the part. A common example would be where an air carrier mechanic manufactured a part for installation on the air carrier's aircraft; the part produced would be owner or operator produced. We are not sure what you meant by the owner "assuming responsibility" for manufacture of a part. If your reference was to something other than participating in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality control of the part, our opinion is that the owner probably would not be determined to have produced the part.

Fourth question: Can an owner contract with a non-certificated individual to manufacture a part for use on the owner's aircraft, and still have a part that is considered an "owner produced" part?

Answer: Yes, in certain circumstances. If the owner participated in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of the part, the part would be considered to be produced by the owner. However, as explained in Attachment A, the non-certificated person would also be considered a "producer."

Fifth question: If a mechanic manufactured parts (e.g., wing ribs) for an owner, and the parts were associated with a repair the mechanic was performing, would manufacture of the parts be considered maintenance associated with the repair, or production of a part by the owner for maintaining the owner's aircraft?

Answer: It could be one or the other; in neither case, however, would there necessarily be an FAR violation. If it was concluded that the owner participated in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of the part, he would be a producer, and the exception in FAR 21.303(b)(2) would apply. Therefore, the mechanic would not be in violation of 21.303(a). If it was concluded that the mechanic produced the part for the purpose of effectuating the repair, the question would remain whether the mechanic would be in violation of 21.303(a). We submit that the mechanic would NOT [emphasis in original, as are all following, including Attachment A - Alan] be in violation of 21.303(a), because as explained in Attachment A, the mechanic did not produce the part FOR SALE for installation on a type certificated product.

We hope the above answers respond to your needs. For further discussion, please telephone Carey Terasaki, AGC-210, at (202) 267-8018.

(signed)
Donald P. Byrne
Attachment
==================================================================
Attachment A

BACKGROUND
Section 21.303(a) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) states:
"Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may produce a modification or replacement part for sale for installation on a type certificated product unless it is produced pursuant to a Parts Manufacturer Approval issued under this subpart."
Section 21.303(a) appears to contemplate that more than one person can "produce" a modification or replacement part. We base this observation on the following:
1. The regulation proscribes certain behavior unless the PART is produced pursuant to a PMA; it does NOT specifically state that each person who is producing the part must hold a PMA. In fact, prior to Amendment 21-41, FAR 21.303(a) prohibited each person producing a replacement or modification part for sale for installation on a type certificated product from doing so without holding a PMA. In Amendment 21-41, the FAA amended 21.303(a) to allow a PMA holder to contract with a subcontractor or supplier to manufacture a modification or replacement part under the holder's PMA. That amendment recognized that more than one person can participate in the production of a part.
2. The only meaningful interpretation of FAR 21.303(b)(2) accommodates the view that a modification or replacement part can be "produced" by more than one person. Section 21.303(b)(2) excepts from the PMA requirement of 21.303(a) "[p]arts produced by an owner or operator for maintaining or altering his own product." [brackets "[", "]" in original - Alan] If the 21.303(b)(2) exception were to apply only when the owner or operator produces the part, it would only except from 21.303(a) the production of a part produced by the owner or operator for sale TO HIMSELF. This result would be illogical. Thus, 21.303(b)(2) must be interpreted as addressing the situation where a part is produced by an owner (or operator) and also is produced by another person.
As noted above, prior to Amendment 21-41, FAR 21.303(a) prohibited each person producing a replacement or modification part for sale for installation on a type certificated product from doing so without holding a PMA. In Amendment 21-41, the FAA amended FAR 21.303(a) to allow a PMA holder to contract with a subcontractor or supplier to manufacture a modification or replacement part under the holder's PMA. In that amendment, the FAA recognized that a modification or replacement part can conform to the approved design data and be safe for installation on a type cerificated product, as long as the part is produced under an approved fabrication inspection system (FIS).
Amendment 21-41 did not specifically address who "should have held the PMA" where the part was produced in the absence of a PMA. However, any interpretation of FAR 21.303(a) should be consistent with the focus in that amendment on the establishment and maintenance of the FIS; therefore, we submit that 21.303(a) creates liability for production of a modification or replacement part for sale for installation on a type certificated product for each person who:
1. Participates in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of the part.
2. And does so with the intent that the part be sold for installation on a type certificated product.
We would look at many factors in determining whether a person participated in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of apart. The following would tend to indicate that a person participated in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of a part (i.e., "produced" the part):
1. The person provided the manufacturer with design or performance data from which to manufacture the part. (This may occur, for instance, where a person provided a part to a manufacturer and asked that the part be duplicated.)
2. The person provided the manufacturer with materials from which to manufacture the part.
3. The person provided the manufacturer with fabrication processes or assembly methods to be used in the manufacture of the part.
4. The person provided the manufacturer with quality control procedures to be used in the manufacture of the part.
5. The person supervised the manufacturer of the part.
We would not construe the ordering of a part, standing alone, as participating in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of a part.
One other issue needs to be addressed. Section 21.303(a) prohibits a person from producing a part for sale for installation on a type certificated product when the part is not produced pursuant to a PMA.
The general intent of the proscription in FAR 21.303(a) is to prevent the introduction of an unapproved part into the aviation stream of commerce, where it could be subsequently installed on a type certificated product(s). The terms of 21.303(a), including "for sale," are defined in that context.
Not withstanding that repair stations and mechanics bill their customers for parts, along with the labor of installing the parts, those entities produce the parts for THE PURPOSE of accomplishing maintenance on products, limited to those products brought in by their customers. As described in Order No. 8000.50, a repair station may produce a replacement or modification part, under FAR Parts 43 and 145, for an STC modification or a field-approved repair or alteration, given certain circumstances that assure quality control of the part produced. Compliance with Part 43 gives the assurances of the quality control for a part produced by a Part 65 mechanic. In addition, compliance with the maintenance record keeping requirements memorializes the circumstances of production and installation of the part. Accordingly, the objectives of Subpart K are achieved when a part is produced by a repair station or mechanic for installation on a customer's product: the installed part is introduced into the aviation stream of commerce with the necessary evidence of the part's suitability. Thus, one can conclude, as a matter of law, that a repair station or mechanic has not produced the above-described part "for sale" for installation on a type cerificated product, as defined in the context of 21.303(a).

---

---

FastCounter by LinkExchange