Lights and Parts - Inexpensive Non Certified Alternative

[Seth]

The purpose of this poll is to see if you the owner of your plane (Part 91) would be willing to use non-aviation certified parts for certain applications.

 

Select as many answers as you'd like.

 

For instance - the light thread going on where I'm looking to replace my landing lights.  There is an LED Par 36 light that is for tractors but many beachcraft owners use as drop in replacements, for much less than any other LED on the market.

 

Then again, some poeple get a bulb from home depot for incandescnet landing lights vs the approved lights.  Same blub without the stamp.

 

There is the door seal that Jose talks about often, which you can again get at home depot.

 

Let me know the application of hypothetically speaking (since none of you actually do this on your certified aircraft) that you would or would not use non certified parts and what they are.

 

Thanks,

 

-Seth

[Hank]

Do you seriously expect anyone to admit in a public forum that they use non-certified replacement parts on their certified aircraft?

 

Personally, I just use the wonderful GE incandescent with the little stamp that triples the price while halving the life to land with. Even paid extra to get wheel bearings with the little stamp, too, although it's depressing to see the price difference at Auto Zone.

[Seth]

We are speaking hypothetically

 

And so far for what I know, I've stayed 100% certified. 

 

However, as everyone here knows, if an FAA examiner wants to, they could probably look over 90% of our aircraft and ground them by finding something that makes it not airworthy (even though it's been signed off for 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years of annuals).

 

-Seth

[bd32322]

I was in the door seal replacement boat recently and the cost of the door seal was 170$ according to my AP. And the cost of the marine seal was 10-20$ (somewhere in that range).

 

At that point as a new owner I wasn't sure what needed to be certified replacement and what didn't need to be. My AP said I had to replace with a certified door seal. I checked with AOPA - they were not sure. Checked with the forum here and the advice was to go read the Technical Standard Order (TSO).

 

When I read that for door seals, it seemed to have a lot of specifications that make sense for aircraft. For example, flammability, how it holds up to cold etc. Its not 17x better - but just saying ...

 

Also the marine store seal may hold up just as well to cold and fire and what not - just that its properties are not known. Whether you are willing to pay a premium for those properties is up to you.

[bd32322]

Forgot to mention - I think if a TSO exists - then you need to replace with a TSOd part.

If a TSO does not exist - then I don't know ... things like paint come to mind - there is no TSO paint for aircraft I think - get it from autozone and patch some paint scratches

[DonMuncy]

Naturally, I would never use a non aviation product on or about my plane, but I believe my hangar elf is not quite so pickey.

[robert7467]

I love those money saving hangar elf's...

[Seth]

Kind of like the fairy that creates the cooling hole behind cylinder number 5 in ovations.

 

-Seth

[robert7467]

 I know most of the pilots at my airport are not A&P's, so how is that little hangar elf able to carry those huge toolboxes I see in people's hangars?

[Cruiser]

There is gaining interest in rewriting the Part 23 certification rules to address some of the excessive costs related to certified aircraft. 

When you can currently equip an experimental aircraft with better, more sophisticated and superior performing instruments at about ONE TENTH the cost there is something wrong with the regulatory process.

Perhaps the FAA will recognize the issues............ replacing an incandescent bulb with a low current LED equivalent just makes sense. ect.

 

Certification was intended to make aircraft safer......... now regulations are clearly preventing innovation and enhanced safety from happening.

[robert7467]

Amen Cruiser. At least we now have the iPad, so we can get cool stuff too. What's really sad, is that I have to scavenge my buddies garmin 155, and pay almost 2500 to install it, so I can have an ifr GPS to replace my old faulty VOR....

[robert7467]

Would it be beneficial to change our planes to experimental, so we can have all this cool stuff?

[Bennett]

Cruiser, You are right about safety and regulatory obstacles.  I've previously posted comments about how I equiped by former LSA with dual screen Dynons (EFIS/MFD), dual battery backed AHRS, AOA with heated probe, TruTrac 2 axis autopilot with altitude hold, and an AvMap IV 7" panel mounted moving map, and more, for less than $10,000.  A couple of Garmin flip flop comm radios, PS engineering audio panel, and a Garmin transponder brought the total up to less than the typical costs of a GTN 750 installation with remote transponder and remote audio panel. If I still owned that LSA aircraft, I would have replaced the TruTrac with the new Dynon autopilot and servos for a truly integrated autopilot, replaced the AvMap 1V with a much more capable AvMap V, with XM weather at very little cost after selling the earlier versions.  And now Dynon has synthetic vision as a low cost option.  My experience over the two years or so that I used Dynon avionics was excellent. In contrast, my current panel with all certified equipment cost at least 3 times as much, and I have some units that "do not play well with others", and maintenance costs are astronomical when compared to the Dynon units.  Moreover, dealing with Dynon, as opposed to Honeywell, is a world apart. The Dynon folk are just great to work with, and eager for new ideas from the field.  But, of course, they are not certified for use with certified aircraft.   Funny how the LSAs and experimentals that use their gear are not falling out of the sky. 

 

In the old days, 337 forms were easy to obtain, and many of my earlier Monney mods were done that way, rather than STCs.  Now, as I understand it (from direct experience) 337 Form mods are now very difficult to obtain, and the FAA is seemingly very reluctant to even allow the simplest of substitutions, such as lights.  I doubt if I could get approval for the wingtip LED lights; landing/recognition/strobes, that I had installed last year under 337 forms.

[Seth]

Bennett -

 

You can't get your wingtip recognition light alteration  under the Baltimore FSDO - that's for sure.  I have my MSC looking at what you sent me, thank you by the way, and they are going to make some alterations to the design and work with the FSDO to see about getting it installed for me.

 

337s and STCs are indeed harder.  I'm curious what would happen to our insurance rates should we turn our personally owned aircraft expiramental. 

 

Parker - do you think they would charge more or less for an expiramental Mooney vs a certified Mooney?  How does it work for expiramental vs certified aircraft now?  I know that certified aircraft have less crashes/accidents/incidents, but on similar models that have similar incident percentages, how does the pricing work out?

 

-Seth

[bd32322]

Would it be beneficial to change our planes to experimental, so we can have all this cool stuff?

I am pretty sure, you cannot turn certified aircraft or parts of certified aircraft into experimental. It might be some other category like research/test aircraft or show aircraft etc .. I forget the exact terminologies, but there are many more restrictions then. You cannot fly as freely as the experimental guys. You will probably need permission from the FAA for every flight if its test aircraft for example.

I remember reading this a while back when thinking about going the experimental route - so might have changed now.

[DonMuncy]

 I know most of the pilots at my airport are not A&P's, so how is that little hangar elf able to carry those huge toolboxes I see in people's hangars?

I have quite a collection of tools, and suspect that my elf borrows them when I'm not around.

[jetdriven]

Guys, you can use non-aviation parts according the FAA's own vintage aircraft AC 23-27 if your aircraft was Type Certificated before 1980 (Mooney's are), they are "standard parts", meet ANSI DOT, or SAE specs, or are substantially the same or better than the original parts installed, to give a few examples.  This includes belts, bearings, batteries, windows, steel tubing, and electronic parts.  Yes, you can replace the transistors in your instrument light dimmer switch if the new design transistors are equal or better to the 1976 transistors it came with. I did that, I got the numbers off the transistors, found the specs, and ordered modern transistors from Mouser (rated to twice the original specs)  and put the things in. Same with the two diodes in the electric trim circuit.   Same applies to bulbs, the parts catalog shows a "PAR 46" or "1156" lamp, and since the auto store bulbs conform to that standard, you can replace them with those equivalents.  Its not a "legal or not" issue, its a parts catalog exact replacement or a "equal or better" replacement from another source.

You know good and well the panel dimmer on your 1956 Custer Channelwing is bad, and the factory isnt taking calls. Since the Radio Shack rheostat they sell is good for 250 volts and 50 amps, you swap one in.

 

It is a legal replacement.

 

My IA rebuilt an OX-5 engine with pistons from an performance auto manufacturer.  He sent them the drawings and they forged up some pistons that met the specs, but since Curtiss aircraft engines is long out of the OX-5 market, and the pistons are way better than what came out of it,  they are legal.

 

Read up on this:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC%2023-27/$FILE/AC%2023-27.pdf

[1964-M20E]

I am pretty sure, you cannot turn certified aircraft or parts of certified aircraft into experimental. It might be some other category like research/test aircraft or show aircraft etc .. I forget the exact terminologies, but there are many more restrictions then. You cannot fly as freely as the experimental guys. You will probably need permission from the FAA for every flight if its test aircraft for example.

I remember reading this a while back when thinking about going the experimental route - so might have changed now.

 

 

As rfar as I know right now nothing has changed.  You can list the aircraft as an experimental or research for a specific task but you remove it from general use as you do now and when finished you  need to return to original status.

 

I have long advocated that we should be able to list our aircraft as experimental and be treated as if we bought an RV-XX from an individual builder.

 

Another way would be to let  us remain certified and eliminate certified requirements on instruments, interiors and regular maintenance.  Have your annual done with an IA and authorize the owner pilot to do all other work he feels competent in doing.  Essentially the same as being experimental.

[aviatoreb]

 

Certification was intended to make aircraft safer......... now regulations are clearly preventing innovation and enhanced safety from happening.

 

Spot on cruiser. One mod I am personally really keen to get is the amsafe airbag seatbelts.  They are certified for some of the newest model Mooneys even but not for my M20K.  This is just plain silliness that only some paper work stands between me and installing tomorrow a well conceived and clearly safety enhancing mod - the engineering part of the problem is already completely solved.  And you know what, it is not clear at this moment if such an STC will ever become available to install am safe in M20Ks (or the rest of the Mooney line).

 

 

1964-M20E

>Another way would be to let  us remain certified and eliminate certified requirements on instruments, interiors and regular >maintenance.  Have your annual done with an IA and authorize the owner pilot to do all other work he feels competent in doing.  >Essentially the same as being experimental.

 

That would be too sensible John.  I would also get a Dynon to backup what I already have if I could....  

[MB65E]

Due to the fact that Mooney was a production aircraft, it would never be able to be in the experimental armature built category like the kit aircraft. It would need to be in the Experimental Exibition category. This EE category has its own seperate issues and limitations. Ops limits, program letters, Restrictions on range, class brovo prohibited, and a few others. I think the reasons mooney has done so well for so long is the fact that it is certified. I agree that the paperwork makes things hard, but that's the game we play. Go find a 4 place experimental that does 140kts on 9-10 gph for 40-50k. I don't think it exists.

Fly safe.

[Piloto]

Not all the parts used in a certified aircraft are FAA approved. Ty-wraps, safety wire and headphone jacks are good example of these. And they are used in flight critical components such as engines, flight controls and avionics. Have you ever seen an FAA approved can of zinc chromate. As far as using marine products such as coatings, lubricants and door seals, they are exposed to a more tougher environment than anything on an airplane. If you want to know about corrosion don't bother to look into airplanes but into boats in salt water. Growing up with boats and marinas I can tell you that many of the marine products offer better protection and performance than some of the wimpy aviation products.

 

José   

[Bennett]

Piloto, I absolutely agree about marine lubricants. preservatives, sealants, and the like. I have a 39 year old Islander 30 auxiliary sailboat that I have owned since new, and with progressive maintenance she still looks and performs as well as the day she was first commissioned In fact the engine is a gasoline Palmer 30HP inboard engine, that has never been rebuilt, although the carburetor has been rebuilt twice. I bought a Yanmar diesel (because the price was simply too good to pass up) to replace the Palmer, when (if ever) she finally dies, but so far, so good. Thus, once again proving that good maintenance is worth while, and that marine products are up to the very harsh marine environment - no carpeted hangar for her. I've also owned a trawler yacht, and again using progressive maintenance, and the best marine products, she was in better shape when I sold her than when I bought her.

[kurtsnyder]

Thanks for sharing this, Byron! Very, very informative!!

 

 

Guys, you can use non-aviation parts according the FAA's own vintage aircraft AC 23-27 if your aircraft was Type Certificated before 1980 (Mooney's are), they are "standard parts", meet ANSI DOT, or SAE specs, or are substantially the same or better than the original parts installed, to give a few examples.  This includes belts, bearings, batteries, windows, steel tubing, and electronic parts.  Yes, you can replace the transistors in your instrument light dimmer switch if the new design transistors are equal or better to the 1976 transistors it came with. I did that, I got the numbers off the transistors, found the specs, and ordered modern transistors from Mouser (rated to twice the original specs)  and put the things in. Same with the two diodes in the electric trim circuit.   Same applies to bulbs, the parts catalog shows a "PAR 46" or "1156" lamp, and since the auto store bulbs conform to that standard, you can replace them with those equivalents.  Its not a "legal or not" issue, its a parts catalog exact replacement or a "equal or better" replacement from another source.

You know good and well the panel dimmer on your 1956 Custer Channelwing is bad, and the factory isnt taking calls. Since the Radio Shack rheostat they sell is good for 250 volts and 50 amps, you swap one in.

 

It is a legal replacement.

 

My IA rebuilt an OX-5 engine with pistons from an performance auto manufacturer.  He sent them the drawings and they forged up some pistons that met the specs, but since Curtiss aircraft engines is long out of the OX-5 market, and the pistons are way better than what came out of it,  they are legal.

 

Read up on this:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC%2023-27/$FILE/AC%2023-27.pdf

[aaronk25]

So since the Xevision landing light or any non-certified HID landing lights arnt being approved does this mean that since previous feild approvals have been issued that as long as I get copies of one, (which the mfg supplies on line) its only a log book entry and dosent need to have a Fsdo sign off on the feild approval?

[Oscar Avalle]

Guys, you can use non-aviation parts according the FAA's own vintage aircraft AC 23-27 if your aircraft was Type Certificated before 1980 (Mooney's are), they are "standard parts", meet ANSI DOT, or SAE specs, or are substantially the same or better than the original parts installed, to give a few examples.  This includes belts, bearings, batteries, windows, steel tubing, and electronic parts.  Yes, you can replace the transistors in your instrument light dimmer switch if the new design transistors are equal or better to the 1976 transistors it came with. I did that, I got the numbers off the transistors, found the specs, and ordered modern transistors from Mouser (rated to twice the original specs)  and put the things in. Same with the two diodes in the electric trim circuit.   Same applies to bulbs, the parts catalog shows a "PAR 46" or "1156" lamp, and since the auto store bulbs conform to that standard, you can replace them with those equivalents.  Its not a "legal or not" issue, its a parts catalog exact replacement or a "equal or better" replacement from another source.

You know good and well the panel dimmer on your 1956 Custer Channelwing is bad, and the factory isnt taking calls. Since the Radio Shack rheostat they sell is good for 250 volts and 50 amps, you swap one in.

 

It is a legal replacement.

 

My IA rebuilt an OX-5 engine with pistons from an performance auto manufacturer.  He sent them the drawings and they forged up some pistons that met the specs, but since Curtiss aircraft engines is long out of the OX-5 market, and the pistons are way better than what came out of it,  they are legal.

 

Read up on this:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC%2023-27/$FILE/AC%2023-27.pdf

 

 

This is REALLY interesting! But does it mean that we can replace landing lights? I don't see them listed, only batteries...