Hi Lynn,
What both Kevin and Ed say below is quite logical.
As to hand brakes such as you describe, perhaps John Cooper would have
knowledge as to 337s as have been approved utilizing brake cylinders
they now supply.
while I don't recall having a copy, it seems to me that such hand
brakes have previously been approved with a 337 referencing the
acceptability of the components being "approved" for such purpose in
certain Piper airframes. That would still leave us the task, if and
when asked, to get one or more owners with such installations properly
documented with FAA approval via 337 to step forward with a copy for Ed
to post.
Regards,
WRB
--
On Sep 27, 2009, at 11:38, [email protected] wrote:
Hey Guys and gals: I thought of one other type of "unauthorized" holes
that have occurred in the main spar cap. I have seen two or three
installations of a brake lever with a hydraulic cylinder (master brake
cylinder) located in the center. In fact, as I recall, serial 1777
(the Sebring aircraft) had this arrangement. I do not have, nor do I
recall the paperwork for the installation. (sometimes I am lucky to
remember my way home)
Lynn Nelsen
In a message dated 9/27/2009 9:27:32 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
Also for number 4. If extra holes that don't follow a standard
pattern, if they were approved by a field approved 337 there should
be no required action.
Kevin1
--- In [email protected], "Ed Burkhead" <e...@...> wrote:
>
> http://edburkhead.com/Ercoupe/fred_weick_reply_on_holes.htm
>
>
>
> And, indeed, before an AD is issued or amended, the FAA should show
that
> spar holes degrade the strength beyond acceptable limits. So far,
we have
> only a single instance in which a spar failed, very possibly due to
extreme
> loads due to aileron flutter and/or a sudden high-g pull-up,
possibly at
> higher than normal airspeed. I question that this instance
justifies
> grounding aircraft due to the spar holes.
>
>
>
> As always, aircraft which have controls that don't meet the
specifications
> in ERCO Service Department Memorandums 56 and 57 are unairworthy.
>
>
>
> Ed
