Suction cup mount would resolve any possible issues.
What airplane and how do you intend to mount it?
Also, why do you need it?
Ok, I am curious. Super Cub and Citabria. No back window. Just where are you looking and what are you looking for?
Otherwise, just mount it on the tubing however you like and forget it.
If it has a skylight, it works pretty well to see out the back, especially during ground operations when you have ground crew positioning and hooking up the glider.
\__[Ô]__/;1569060 said:Super Cub and Citabria. I'm looking to attach it to the frame tubes by the windshield.
Purpose is for towing operations. A solution more permanent than using Velcro or a suction mount is preferred.
would you feel free to run bolts thru a structural spar?I'm with Greg -- I don't see this as a major alteration requiring a 337 and FAA approval even if it is bolted to the frame tubes, just a log entry signed by an A&P. Since it's probably less than 1 lb, the W&B effect should be "negligible", making it that much easier.
would you feel free to run bolts thru a structural spar?
no bolts thru a structural frame member.....how bout P-clamps?
I wouldn't use those on metal to metal....maybe if there was rubber between the metals.How about hose clamps?
How about hose clamps?
cause that would imply an install....which inplies a log book entry....which also implies interpretation of minor vs. major alteration....which may or may not imply bad things from your local FSDO.Well, geez. I give people credit for having more common sense than that. Is that misguided?
And why not adel clamps? We are talking the exposed tubing here.
cause that would imply an install....which inplies a log book entry....which also implies interpretation of minor vs. major alteration....which may or may not imply bad things from your local FSDO.
cause that would imply an install....which inplies a log book entry....which also implies interpretation of minor vs. major alteration....which may or may not imply bad things from your local FSDO.
which leads me back to velcro....which is not interpreted as an install.
I cannot 100% guarantee that the feds won't say anything, but I am pretty sure they wouldn't give that a second glance. If it were me, I would mount it and forget it.
Yep. Worst case scenario is they ask you to remove it. ( highly doubtful they even care)
and something as silly as a sun visor requiring an STC?I cannot 100% guarantee that the feds won't say anything, but I am pretty sure they wouldn't give that a second glance. If it were me, I would mount it and forget it.
Adel clamp plus wing nut. Finger removable.cause that would imply an install....which inplies a log book entry....which also implies interpretation of minor vs. major alteration....which may or may not imply bad things from your local FSDO.
which leads me back to velcro....which is not interpreted as an install.
Through the spar? No, not unless the holes were already there for some other approved purpose.would you feel free to run bolts thru a structural spar?
Bolted to the spar with an Adel clamp? No problem. And that is the sort of mounting I had in mind.
and something as silly as a sun visor requiring an STC?
....who woulda thunk it?
Rosen visors are STC'd for exactly the reasons we see here, to preemptively put to bed any questions that will inevitably arise from those who completely misinterpret the regulations. The STC is not "required" it just makes things simpler.