Restoring and upgrading a vintage panel

DaleB said:
I saw that Chief. Seems to be priced about right. What's TBO on an A65, and what would a guy expect to pay for a major overhaul? That one seems to be getting a little long in the tooth, but I know squat or less about Continentals (and only slightly more than squat about Lycomings).
Click to expand...
You don't overhaul a 65, you repair as required and keep going. You never allow it to fail, then you loose it.
 
The only LSA vintage plane with a starter that I recall is the Ercoupe 415E. Everything else is overweight.

If you're still looking at a stick plane, the two that come to mind are the Luscombe, and one of the very rare Piper PA-15/17s. There is something called a "Hamp starter" for the A65. it was a rube affair made up from a hand-drill arrangement and a flange. Doubt you could find one, but maybe find the STC and have one made?

Some Luscombes came with all metal, and some with metal fuse and fabric wings.
 
Last edited:
Some Chiefs had a remote hand starter. Big lever in the cockpit that manually started the engine, think pull start before pull start. Maybe you could find one of those.
 
I have a 1950 Navion. The panel has been redone at least three times over it's history. Fortunately, the Navion panel is NOT structural and there's only a few things you would like to leave in the same place (hydraulic control valve) but even that CAN be moved. I had a shop use one of the panel planning software package to CNC cut a nice piece of anodized black aluminum (and etch the legends). I then took the rather bare bones plane (flight instruments but little else) to a local radio shop and have them load it up with avionics, etc..

As C'RON says, with the exception of precious few things, TSO is neither NECESSARY nor SUFFICIENT to install something in an aircraft (that is to say just because it is has a TSO doesn't mean you have approval to install it and just because it doesn't doesn't mean it does). All it means is it meets the standard of the TSO and was manufactured under authority as an aviation part. Other non-TSO parts can be legally made for aircraft (PMAs, TC/STC production authority) and you'll need to delve into your aircraft type certificate, etc... to find out what authority you need to install something depending on what it is.
 
Ron Levy said:
That won't help him with the transponder he says he wants, which must be installed with paper, a TSO, and testing/certification.

Not altogether true

Further, hand-held radios have notoriously limited range.

Not if they are installed correctly

But portable GPS I'll buy since it's not likely he's planning to fly this Chief IFR.

Installing unapproved instruments in a production certified airplane is not within his mechanic's discretion,

Gee, Tom (IA) and Jim (IA) both say that this is not the case, but you seem to disagree, so your credentials are ???
Click to expand...
.....
 
Last edited:
The answer is a champ, wing tanks, 85 hp, don swords conversion. This will convert to 100 hp. Anything less with 350- 400 lbs worth of body's plus fuel is a real drag plus dangerous on a hot day at a smaller field. I've been all thru this since being forced to fly light sport. If your flying out of a longer field than 2000 feet, hard surface maybe ok if no trees, etc. if you have a newer handheld radio with ( again!) with a good external antenna they work very well with a shielded ignition. My champ had a light weight starter, alternator. Transceiver, transponder. Fun to fly with just myself and full fuel. With two people, boring!
 
Last edited:
Tom is incorrect on all three points above.


  • TSO and testing/certification after installation is required by regulation for transponders.
  • Hand-helds aren't what I'd call :hand-held" if they are "installed".
  • You cannot legally install unapproved instruments to replace required instruments in a production-certified aircraft without field approval from the FAA.
You can check all that with the Airworthiness folks at any FSDO you want.
 
Handhelds are usually kept in a holder on left side of panel, wired to the outside antenna by a screw connector. It is still a hand held. Clue......you take it out of the holder to talk. The transponder has to be reinspected every so often by an avionics shop.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
Handhelds are usually kept in a holder on left side of panel, wired to the outside antenna by a screw connector. It is still a hand held. Clue......you take it out of the holder to talk.
Click to expand...
But the antenna and holder are installed. When I was discussing hand-helds, I was assuming we weren't talking about wiring it into the aircraft. However, I agree that wiring it into the aircraft so it uses a regular installed antenna on the aircraft's exterior will dramatically extend range.
The transponder has to be reinspected every so often by an avionics shop.
Click to expand...
Not just "every so often" -- it's required before first use and within the preceding 24 calendar months thereafter, and it must include a test of the system as installed in the aircraft. See 14 CFR 91.413.
Sec. 91.413

ATC transponder tests and inspections.

(a) No persons may use an ATC transponder that is specified in 91.215(a), 121.345(c), or Sec. 135.143(c) of this chapterunless, within the preceding 24 calendar months, the ATC transponder has been tested and inspected and found to comply with appendix F of part 43 of this chapter; and
(b) Following any installation or maintenance on an ATC transponder where data correspondence error could be introduced, the integrated system has been tested, inspected, and found to comply with paragraph (c), appendix E, of part 43 of this chapter.
(c) The tests and inspections specified in this section must be conducted by--
(1) A certificated repair station properly equipped to perform those functions and holding--
(i) A radio rating, Class III;
(ii) A limited radio rating appropriate to the make and model transponder to be tested;
(iii) A limited rating appropriate to the test to be performed;
[(iv) deleted]
(2) A holder of a continuous airworthiness maintenance program as provided in part 121 or Sec. 135.411(a)(2) of this chapter;or
(3) The manufacturer of the aircraft on which the transponder to be tested is installed, if the transponder was installed by that manufacturer.
Click to expand...
The TSO requirement is covered in 14 CFR 91.215:
(a) All airspace: U.S.-registered civil aircraft. For operations not conducted under [part 121 or 135] of this chapter, ATC transponder equipment installed must meet the performance and environmental requirements of any class of TSO-C74b (Mode A) or any class of TSO-C74c (Mode A with altitude reporting capability) as appropriate, or the appropriate class of TSO-C112 (Mode S).
Click to expand...
 
DaleB said:
Hey, I resemble that remark! But less and less daily, and my passenger is far more petite. I'm certainly not ruling out the Champ - I would prefer a stick over a wheel. The performance numbers don't look much different though.

While it would be nice to find just what I want already flying and in great shape (for what I'm willing to spend), so far I'm not seeing it. Most of what I am seeing are 65HP birds... I think I'd want 85 or better. An electrical system with a starter is a requirement. And of course it's got to be LSA - which leaves that Luscombe 8F in the cold, too.

I'm more than a little leery of covering that was done in the 80s, as a lot of them seem to have been. If I'm going to have to re-cover the airplane any time soon (like during my lifetime) I'd just as soon do it up front. So far I haven't gotten a good answer about how long a Polyfiber or Ceconite covering will last, other than "It depends". Seems like a crapshoot to me, unless there's a good way to tell how much life is left in the fabric.
Click to expand...
by the time you recover it, update the engine etc. you will have spent far more than if you bought a very nice one already done. Big questions....who rebuilt it? Good logs? Has it AWAYS been hangared since rebuild?! Very important! If it was recovered in the 90s with ceonite should be ok for a good while, but you can never really inspect the spars unless they are completely uncovered, although some " experts" will say not true. In the end, unless your a very well qualified rebuilder with time on your hands.....buy a nice one already done. If too much money, drive your car instead. ( lots of these have been ground looped, some since rebuild. Spars don't like this!( Sometimes Not reported!) if the builder is good the handheld will have an external antenna , handheld mounted on the left panel and it will be all you need. They work very well done this way. A starter is a must for me. Proping one of these things in cold weather or hot starts gets old quick! It should always be purchased with a fresh annual included, NOT a prebuy and logs that don't seem like fairy tales as some do.
 
Last edited:
IIRC you can turn an 11AC into an 11BC with installation of a c-85 and a logbook entry, under the TC. But, the -12 is not in the TC and therefore only the McDowell starter can be used. Unless you want to do more paperwork, and spend more money.
 
Ron Levy said:
But the antenna and holder are installed. When I was discussing hand-helds, I was assuming we weren't talking about wiring it into the aircraft. However, I agree that wiring it into the aircraft so it uses a regular installed antenna on the aircraft's exterior will dramatically extend range.

That's what I was talking about, lots of no electric's PA-18s do this and it works well.

Not just "every so often" -- it's required before first use

USE ? like in using it in controlled airspace? you can fly the aircraft with it installed and not in compliance.

and within the preceding 24 calendar months thereafter, and it must include a test of the system as installed in the aircraft. See 14 CFR 91.413.
The TSO requirement is covered in 14 CFR 91.215:
Click to expand...
Lots of transponders are install at places that do not have the equipment to certify them, then are flown to a facility that does.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
by the time you recover it, update the engine etc. you will have spent far more than if you bought a very nice one already done.
Click to expand...
Maybe. Maybe not. Probably not. I dunno, but at least I'd have a little more control over the condition and the cost.
Jimmy cooper said:
Big questions....who rebuilt it? Good logs? Has it AWAYS been hangared since rebuild?! Very important! If it was recovered in the 90s with ceonite should be ok for a good while, but you can never really inspect the spars unless they are completely uncovered, although some " experts" will say not true.
Click to expand...
All great arguments in favor of rebuilding one yourself, IMHO. Especially since a lot of them seem to have been recovered in the 80s, not the 90s, and there's been a lot of water under the bridge since then.
Jimmy cooper said:
In the end, unless your a very well qualified rebuilder with time on your hands.....buy a nice one already done. If too much money, drive your car instead. ( lots of these have been ground looped, some since rebuild. Spars don't like this!( Sometimes Not reported!)
Click to expand...
And yet another argument in favor of picking up a cheap one and doing the rebuild yourself. Whose side are you on, anyway? :)
Jimmy cooper said:
if the builder is good the handheld will have an external antenna , handheld mounted on the left panel and it will be all you need. They work very well done this way. A starter is a must for me. Proping one of these things in cold weather or hot starts gets old quick! It should always be purchased with a fresh annual included, NOT a prebuy and logs that don't seem like fairy tales as some do.
Click to expand...
If it's got a starter, it may as well have an alternator or generator and have enough of an electrical system to support at least a COM radio and transponder. A transponder is really one of my requirements. I live and fly very close to a C airport, and there's a big ol' overlapping double-C airspace between me and a lot of my intended regular destinations. Maybe I could theoretically "thread the needle" between KOMA and KOFF to get east from here, but to me it just doesn't seem safe or prudent. If you want to see what I'm talking about, check the airspace just to the east of KMLE on the Omaha sectional. If you're transponder-less it ain't pretty.

As for the annual... I don't believe I would be inclined to trust a seller's annual, especially a recent one. My own prebuy would have to be done by someone I trust, who knows what to look for. Fortunately I have one or two of those people around. Even a "project plane" that will be coming home on a trailer would need to at least be viable as a rebuilder and right for the price.
 
Tom-D said:
But the antenna and holder are installed. When I was discussing hand-helds, I was assuming we weren't talking about wiring it into the aircraft. However, I agree that wiring it into the aircraft so it uses a regular installed antenna on the aircraft's exterior will dramatically extend range.

That's what I was talking about, lots of no electric's PA-18s do this and it works well.
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarifying.

Ron Levy said:
Not just "every so often" -- it's required before first use
Click to expand...

USE ? like in using it in controlled airspace? you can fly the aircraft with it installed and not in compliance.
Click to expand...
Yes, you can fly the aircraft that way, but you cannot legally use the transponder (i.e., turn it past STBY) until you are in compliance -- not in any airspace.

Lots of transponders are install at places that do not have the equipment to certify them, then are flown to a facility that does.
Click to expand...
Of course. But that's not what you said, and using that newly installed transponder is prohibited until the 91.413 certification is complete.

And no matter what, by the regs, it must be TSO'd to be legal for use.
 
Ron Levy said:
Thank you for clarifying.[/COLOR][/COLOR]

Yes, you can fly the aircraft that way, but you cannot legally use the transponder (i.e., turn it past STBY) until you are in compliance -- not in any airspace.

Of course. But that's not what you said, and using that newly installed transponder is prohibited until the 91.413 certification is complete.

And no matter what, by the regs, it must be TSO'd to be legal for use.
Click to expand...
Funny Ron, ATC can't see your maintenance records, they only see what is being transmitted, IF that is with in limits will they report you? You'd be surprised how bad these units must be before ATC will see any thing wrong.

Not that this is legal, but I check my Altimeter against what the ATC says my altitude is every time I report in.
I did this on the way to get my certs done, and it was worse after the certificate and adjustment.
 
Tom-D said:
Funny Ron, ATC can't see your maintenance records, they only see what is being transmitted, IF that is with in limits will they report you? You'd be surprised how bad these units must be before ATC will see any thing wrong.
Click to expand...
So now you're saying just do it even though it's illegal because you probably won't get caught? Is that your maintenance philosophy too? :eek:
 
Ron Levy said:
And no matter what, by the regs, it must be TSO'd to be legal for use.
Click to expand...

No argument there, add the ELT to that list.

They are the only two items that require TSO compliance. All your required panel installed instruments (91.205) are considered approved as the type design when the production certificate was issued by the FAA.
 
Tom-D said:
No argument there, add the ELT to that list.

They are the only two items that require TSO compliance. All your required panel installed instruments (91.205) are considered approved as the type design when the production certificate was issued by the FAA.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Tom, gotta disagree. Read the section. Read it again. It says it must MEET the requirements of the TSO. It does NOT say that it has to be TSO'd.

Grand Rapids Instruments got a ruling from the Chief Counsel that it says exactly what it says, nothing more.

Jim

.
 
weirdjim said:
Sorry, Tom, gotta disagree. Read the section. Read it again. It says it must MEET the requirements of the TSO. It does NOT say that it has to be TSO'd.

Grand Rapids Instruments got a ruling from the Chief Counsel that it says exactly what it says, nothing more.

Jim

.
Click to expand...

It met the requirements prior to gaining the production certificate, so none of the instruments coming from the factory will need a separate certification.

none of the OEM instruments in my 170 have any stamp. or indication of a TSO.

Replacement instruments must have a matching or upgraded part number by the manufacturer, or a PMA showing they are authorized to replace the OEM, or a STC to change the type design, or a field approval to do that on a 337.
 
Tom-D said:
Replacement instruments must have a matching or upgraded part number by the manufacturer, or a PMA showing they are authorized to replace the OEM, or a STC to change the type design, or a field approval to do that on a 337.
Click to expand...
Glad to see you finally agreed with me that FAA approval is necessary for instruments replacing required instruments even if a TSO is not.
 
DaleB said:
Maybe. Maybe not. Probably not. I dunno, but at least I'd have a little more control over the condition and the cost.

All great arguments in favor of rebuilding one yourself, IMHO. Especially since a lot of them seem to have been recovered in the 80s, not the 90s, and there's been a lot of water under the bridge since then.

And yet another argument in favor of picking up a cheap one and doing the rebuild yourself. Whose side are you on, anyway? :)

If it's got a starter, it may as well have an alternator or generator and have enough of an electrical system to support at least a COM radio and transponder. A transponder is really one of my requirements. I live and fly very close to a C airport, and there's a big ol' overlapping double-C airspace between me and a lot of my intended regular destinations. Maybe I could theoretically "thread the needle" between KOMA and KOFF to get east from here, but to me it just doesn't seem safe or prudent. If you want to see what I'm talking about, check the airspace just to the east of KMLE on the Omaha sectional. If you're transponder-less it ain't pretty.

As for the annual... I don't believe I would be inclined to trust a seller's annual, especially a recent one. My own prebuy would have to be done by someone I trust, who knows what to look for. Fortunately I have one or two of those people around. Even a "project plane" that will be coming home on a trailer would need to at least be viable as a rebuilder and right for the price.
Click to expand...
You seem determined so don't let me stop you by all means however it takes much less time( and money) to carefully look for a nice honest well done rebuild than do one yourself especially if it's the first one you've done. Most AIs or APs doing a prebuy on these old crates are hard pressed to know what to look for. ( I took a big hit doing this on a 195 Cessna). To properly rebuild a champ and install what I've mentioned is well over 25 grand.
 
Ron Levy said:
Glad to see you finally agreed with me that FAA approval is necessary for instruments replacing required instruments even if a TSO is not.
Click to expand...

When did I disagree?

Instruments do not need TSO. they do need to comply with parts replacement rules.

If you order a new airspeed indicator from cessna, it will not have TSO stamp or any other indication it was TSOed.
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/tso/

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/tso/tso_auth/
 
Last edited:
Jimmy cooper said:
You seem determined so don't let me stop you by all means however it takes much less time( and money) to carefully look for a nice honest well done rebuild than do one yourself especially if it's the first one you've done. Most AIs or APs doing a prebuy on these old crates are hard pressed to know what to look for. ( I took a big hit doing this on a 195 Cessna). To properly rebuild a champ and install what I've mentioned is well over 25 grand.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. I'm in the middle of a Champ restoration. A Don's Dream Machines C-85 will set you back most of $20k, and after that, new spars, lift struts, and covering will add another $10k in materials alone. Then you add in all the little bits, and even if someone gives you a free Champ carcass, you're in for $35k and you don't have the radio and transponder yet.
 
I don't get the constant rants about instruments on these old planes. The rebuilder of everyone I've bought (eight planes) over the years, sends the original instruments out for rebuild, if necessary, reinstalls them and it's all logged with receipts if you buy a nice one. There are several quality shops that do these repairs. All the ones I bought, all taildraggers, had all the proper records and receipts. If the paperwork was not really specific and complete, I simply did not buy it.
 
kyleb said:
Agree 100%. I'm in the middle of a Champ restoration. A Don's Dream Machines C-85 will set you back most of $20k, and after that, new spars, lift struts, and covering will add another $10k in materials alone. Then you add in all the little bits, and even if someone gives you a free Champ carcass, you're in for $35k and you don't have the radio and transponder yet.
Click to expand...

I'll recover both champ wings for 10k and laugh all the way to the bank.
 
kyleb said:
And if you'll throw in new spars and lift struts like I called out, you have a deal.
Click to expand...

Get real, you seen the price of Spruce?

I said recover, not rebuild. If you tell any insurance company they must pay for a wing set rebuild, they will total the aircraft.

I just did my 170 wings, the total bill was less than $700, and a weeks work.
 
A good friend , an AI at my airport, looked at my champ, how it was redone and said " I could not do it for less than 35 grand." He had recently completely rebuilt a magnificent maule and the 180 lycoming engine , and a champ. Very gifted builder. He claimed to strip a champ and recover it alone is over 20 grand alone done correctly. It's a lot of work and a lot of talent necessary to do it correctly,not to mention a nice place to work and good tools, etc. not for the feint of heart. It's why you see so many unfinished projects for sale. They get into it and realize they are in way over their head both talent and money wise.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Understanding the term TSO and not refer to it as a requirement for a panel upgrade was the premiss I disagreed with.
Click to expand...
It seems to be somtehing that most people don't understand. Not too many people have KX170B's anymore but it used to be fun when someone was giving a misguided lecture about tso's, to point out that their 170B factory-installed by piper/mooney/etc in a plane approved for IFR use, was a non-tso'd radio.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
It's why you see so many unfinished projects for sale. They get into it and realize they are in way over their head both talent and money wise.
Click to expand...
People do that with airplanes, cars, boats, houses and everything else. There are also an awful lot who succeed. You have to know what you're getting yourself into, or at least be willing to learn and adjust as you go along. And, if you're willing to do the work yourself, you don't have to pay someone else by the hour to do it. I might end up covering my airplane and enjoying the experience, but you couldn't afford to pay me to cover yours. :)

I've been banging rivets and bending metal for a year now on an RV-7. When I started I'd never squeezed a rivet in my life. If I could legally fly the thing I'd be elbows deep in the fuselage by now, but instead I'm looking for something else. Rag and tube airplanes are new to me, but they don't scare me. What I don't know, I can learn -- there are books, this Internet thingy, and a decent sized pool of fellow EAA guys who make me look young and have done this kind of stuff before. Our chapter meeting is tomorrow night, in fact, so I'll be talking to a few of them to see what their advice is. One even has a Champ sitting in his hangar. Another one will be covering his J3 this spring. I've already offered to help him out.
 
JHW said:
It seems to be somtehing that most people don't understand. Not too many people have KX170B's anymore but it used to be fun when someone was giving a misguided lecture about tso's, to point out that their 170B factory-installed by piper/mooney/etc in a plane approved for IFR use, was a non-tso'd radio.
Click to expand...

The lead ASI at the SEA FSDO was giving a lecture during a A&P-IA renewal seminar and was toting that TSO was required for parts replacement, (just like Ron) I show them the two links I used above, they changed their lecture.

You must know that radios are not a portion of the type design on the production certificate, they are optional equipment, That puts a twist in how the equipment change is documented.
 
bluerooster said:
IIRC you can turn an 11AC into an 11BC with installation of a c-85 and a logbook entry, under the TC. But, the -12 is not in the TC and therefore only the McDowell starter can be used. Unless you want to do more paperwork, and spend more money.
Click to expand...

A McDowell starter is really high button shoe stuff and wasting time. I had a 7ac converted to a 7BCM which is the logical way to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top