[f-AA] Stromberg

[Duane Fey]

Hello All,

 

I need to have my Stromberg carburetor rebuilt (I found the correct replacement for my plane, but it needs a rebuild).  The Stromberg Specialist charges $975.  Is that what I should expect to pay, or is there another source to have a Stromberg NA-3A1 carb rebuilt?

 

Thank you,

 

Duane

’46 Chief, N85981

 

 

[Rafael Gomez Blanco]

Let me ask my friend in TX he just have that done and I think for less

 

 

_______________________________________________ Aeronca mailing list Aer...@westmont.edu http://mail.westmont.edu/mailman/listinfo/aeronca

[Jennifer Wenk]

I just paid Aircraft Systems in Rockford IL 900. Dan Peter quoted 850-900. He turned my carburetor around in 2 days.

Jennifer Wenk

N2998E 7AC

Sent from my iPad

_______________________________________________

[Duane Fey]

Thanks Jennifer, I just hung up with Dan.

[Doug Rounds]

Thart is what I paid to add to a $20000 engine on what some folks
think is a $20000 Champ, but they are are a few $$$$$ short in current
events. Sorry folks the truth hurts, especially when trying to
convinence the wife. Boys and Toys..

[Ian Harvie]

DG aviation in Niles Mi did mine some years ago go half that price and it's been excellent ever since. Am at our annual AAAA gathering at the moment. Will check details when I get back

Ian

Sent from my iPhone

[Paul Anton]

 

 

 

DG aviation in Niles Mi did mine some years ago go half that price and it's been excellent ever since. Am at our annual AAAA gathering at the moment. Will check details when I get back

Ian

 

Ditto on DG. I’ve been using them for years

Paul

[Jerry Eichenberger]

My wife has a sign in our kitchen that say, " The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys".

Jerry A. Eichenberger
Eichenberger & Associates

6037 Frantz Rd., Suite 107
Dublin, Ohio 43017
614-798-1600 voice
614-798-1620 fax
www.ehlawyers.com

This message contains confidential and/or privileged information and is only for the use of the intended recipient.  Should you receive this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to the email, and delete or destroy this and all copies of this message and all attachments.  Any unauthorized disclosure, use, distribution, or reproduction of this message or any attachments is prohibited.

[Thomas Holmes]

Duane,

for that kind of money, consider a Marvel Shebler.  Get a real mixture control, and a more modern carb.

Tampa Tom

[Thomas Holmes]

Jerry,

my true love has a sign too!   AIDS = Aviation Induced Divorce!  ;-)

Tampa Tom

[Sam Burke]

Duane

Why do you feel that you need to rebuild your carb?

My carb is a NA-3A1 Ser 026683 PN 40590 on a C85-12 engine. I was burning over 6 gal/ hour which did not compute with the engine manual fuel burn curves so my A&P and I removed the carb and inspected the needle valve and and metering jets. We found that I had a C90 jet in my carb. We ordered a new jet for the C85 engine and a gasket kit from Aircraft Spruce along with a new SSTL needle valve and seat. My A&P had experience overhauling these carbs. After setting the float setting it was put back together and I did a one mile measured run with my L16a at 85 mph. The fuel use was 4.8 gal not 6 as before.

Regards,
Sam N6404C 1947 USAF L16a C84-12
Santa Maria, California

[Sam Burke]

Tom

Tell us about the Marvel Shebler carb. Where and how much and your fuel burn rate?

Regards,
Sam in Santa Maria where the wind is too high from flying today

[David Polley]

A good manual, this web site and many enthusiasts with experience and knowledge with tools u can do anything.
They are not difficult to overhaul.

David E Polley

[Duane Fey]

Sam,

I recently found out that my Chief has the wrong carb on it. It was upgraded from an A65 to an A75, before I bought it, but the carb was never changed. It has the original NA-3B, which puts it out of annual. I bought a used NA-3A1 from David Polley and know nothing about it and David couldn't give me any info about it. It could be just fine, but what if it's not? I'd hate to find out on climb out that it's trash, or not setup correctly. Maybe I'm being overly cautious, but I don't know enough about carburetors and wouldn't feel comfortable installing it without somebody knowledgable giving me a thumbs up. I, also, don't know anybody that's knowledgable. Is there anybody out there, on the list, that would go out on a limb, look at it and give me the thumbs up or down? Sounds like too much liability to ask somebody to take on. Anybody????

Duane
'46 Chief, N85981

[Roger Anderson]

Is there a carb change on the A75 upgrade from an A65? Roger

Sent from my iPhone

[Cy Galley]

If you read the service bulletin M47-16, the only real change is the rpm. Sure they made some insignificant timing changes. NO CARB changes. Rod big end had to be and should be drilled for cooling proposes and they ribbed the bottom of the pistons also for cooling. Crankshaft cannot have 1 3/16" crank pin lightening holes.

Even with an A-65, a flat climb prop run over the 2300 red line will develop more power. According to the M47-16 on page 15 the correct carb is NA-S3B. The C-series 75 is a bigger bore engine and uses the NA-3A1 with an 1 5/16" venturi. One can also run the NA-3A1 on an A-65 if it has the smaller 1 1/4" venturi.
Cy

-----Original Message-----
From: Aeronca [mailto:aeronca...@westmont.edu] On Behalf Of Roger Anderson
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 6:29 AM
To: aer...@westmont.edu
Subject: Re: [f-AA] Stromberg

[Roger Anderson]

That's what it was thinking. I think the IA is confusing an A75 with a C75. So no carb change is necessary and the Chief is airworthy now. Roger

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 16, 2016, at 9:28 AM, Cy Galley <cga...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> the

[Aeronca Flyer]

As I was reading the service bulletin Cy's email arrived. It looks like the C-75 and the A-75 have been confused by whomever told you you had the wrong carb.

Richard in Creswell, today you caught a break

[Cy Galley]

Original carb is Right according to M47-16
Cy

[Duane Fey]

Sam,

I recently found out that my Chief has the wrong carb on it. It was upgraded from an A65 to an A75, before I bought it, but the carb was never changed. It has the original NA-3B, which puts it out of annual. I bought a used NA-3A1 from David Polley and know nothing about it and David couldn't give me any info about it. It could be just fine, but what if it's not? I'd hate to find out on climb out that it's trash, or not setup correctly. Maybe I'm being overly cautious, but I don't know enough about carburetors and wouldn't feel comfortable installing it without somebody knowledgable giving me a thumbs up. I don't know anybody that's knowledgable. Is there anybody out there, on the list, that would go out on a limb, look at it and give me the thumbs up or down? Sounds like too much liability to ask somebody to take on. Anybody????

Duane
'46 Chief, N85981

On Apr 15, 2016, at 7:34 PM, Sam Burke <samb...@verizon.net> wrote:

[Duane Fey]

Thanks everybody, it was, actually, the Stromberg Specialist that told me I have the wrong carb. It really doesn't matter, as I want to add a mixture control, so I can fly into the Sierra Foothills, here in CA.

Sorry for sending the same email twice, when I opened my email app ok my phone the message said it hadn't been sent, so I sent it again. Now I see that it did go through and I got a ton of responses.

Thanks again,

Duane
'46 Chief, N85981

[Roger Anderson]

This did get me thinking about maybe an overhaul on mine sometime.  Here's the answer I got from D&G.  roger  (my Dad would have done it for me in his kitchen in an afternoon were he still alive. )

 

Roger:

 

Thank you for this request.  The cost to overhaul you’re A-65 Stromberg Carburetor is $500.00 and could be completed in 5-7 days.

 

Our address is:

 

    D & G Supply

    1916 Industrial Drive

    Niles, MI 49120

---

From: "Duane Fey" <duan...@gmail.com>
To: aer...@westmont.edu
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 2:11:10 PM
Subject: Re: [f-AA] Stromberg

[Roger Anderson]

Duane.  Not to discourage you on the mixture at all.  However,the Stromberg mixture is a weird system, not at all like what you may have been previously used to.   Cy or someone can explain how it works, but it somehow changes air or vacuum pressure..or something....and the results are not instant.  So leaning with one is strange.  I had one briefly on my last Ercoupe until I just wired it full rich.   roger

---

From: "Duane Fey" <duan...@gmail.com>
To: aer...@westmont.edu
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 2:11:10 PM
Subject: Re: [f-AA] Stromberg

[Aeronca Flyer]

I second that, I added a control to a Champ that was wired full rich and found no improvement. I wouldn't do it again. I really, really wouldn't if I had to change the carb.

Richard in Creswell, who would buy a MS if he was going to buy a carb

[Ian Harvie]

I have added the mixture and used a vermis cable to adjust. Only trouble is that there is a bit of "back lash" in the cable, so in fact it would probably be easier without to get fine adjustment.

Ian

Sent from my iPhone

[Paul Anton]

In most case an IRAN (inspect and repair as necessary) is cheaper than an OH.

 

 

 

 

[Cy Galley]

Then you want the correct Marvel Schebler - MA-3PA for a mixture control. If you have never used the mixture control on a Stromberg, you don't know how poor and worthless it is! Look in the A-65 overhaul manual. Be aware that the Marvel is more difficult to find and..... More expensive.

Cy Galley

-----Original Message-----
From: Aeronca [mailto:aeronca...@westmont.edu] On Behalf Of Duane Fey
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 2:11 PM
To: aer...@westmont.edu
Subject: Re: [f-AA] Stromberg

[Richard Murray]

So if you start looking for an MS carb this is what you need

​

Which I copied from HERE

Richard in OH who discovered an odd number on an MS carb off of an O-235 despite having been inspected annually for years this way....go figure

[Duane Fey]

Hey all,

In the Continental Operators Handbook, on Aeronca.com, it specs the Stromberg NA-S3A1 as the carburetor. Where did you guys see that the NA-S3B is the spec'd carb for the A75? Everywhere I've looked specs the A1.

Thanks,

Duane
'46 Chief, N85981

[Thomas Holmes]

 Marvel Schebler - MA-3PA, about the same price as the Stromberg,  Gph around 5/per hr, C85-12.

Tampa Tom

[Richard Murray]

Officially from the TCDS this is what you can use

​

and you can read it all HERE

Richard in OH who is pretty sure if it isn't listed in E-213 it doesn't count...))

[Duane Fey]

So, it is out of annual with the 3B

Duane

'46 Chief, N85981

On Apr 16, 2016, at 3:14 PM, Richard Murray <murra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Officially from the TCDS this is what you can use

<Screenshot 2016-04-16 at 18.09.50.png>
​

and you can read it all HERE

Richard in OH who is pretty sure if it isn't listed in E-213 it doesn't count...))

[Richard Murray]

That's what I was taught. If its not in the TCDS or you don't have an STC authorizing it it is not permitted.

A thorough examination of your logbooks should indicate when the carburetor was installed and if it was under an STC there should be a 337 in the FAA records (if you have the CD it is easy to go back and look for)

Richard in OH who has erred before but this looks like the '3B' is not permitted.

[Richard Murray]

Further investigation reveals the '3B' is authorized on the A-65

 

You can read TCDS E-205 HERE

Evidently when you engine was converted to an A-75 they neglected to change the carburetor unless somewhere in that conversion there is an STC authorizing the use of the '3B'

Richard in OH who didn't realize the A-75 (E-213) had a different TCDS than the A-65 (E-205)
​

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Duane Fey <duan...@gmail.com> wrote:

[danv...@gmail.com]

No. It's not "airworthy" if it doesn't comply with its Type Certificate. Each year it must be inspected and certified by an IA to be airworthy. As the PIC you are obligated to determine whether it is airworthy before it can be flown legally at any time whether or not it has been less than a year since the most recent annual inspection.
This is all very confusing to a new owner/ operator. FAA safety inspectors, AP/IA's, and lawyers have been arguing about the interpretation of the airworthiness rules for decades. Your only recourse is to get a good understanding of the basic responsibilities of aircraft ownership. EAA and AOPA are good sources of educational materials. Join up and take advantage of them. Find an IA who will work with you to educate you and keep your plane safe to operate and not gouge you in the process. Otherwise you are chum in a sea of sharks.
Dan v

PS. I purposely ignored the relevance of Ferry Permits, STCs, TSOs, and recent FAA liberalizations to the rules to allow for modifications to vintage GA aircraft. That's for the next semester lecture to new owners.

> On Apr 16, 2016, at 7:45 PM, Duane Fey <duan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So, it is out of annual with the 3B
>
> Duane
> '46 Chief, N85981
>
>

[joer...@suddenlink.net]

What I am curious about is how is the A75 on your Chief? Model 11AC is powered by the A65-8. Model 11BC is powered by the C85-8. The A75 is not a legal engine on an 11AC or an 11BC. So is it there by STC or field approval? Or do you have an A65 that was overhauled with A75 parts but is still being operated as an A65? jrh

[Roger Anderson]

The A75 is still an A65 with just actually very minor modifications to give it a supposed 10hp increase. It is mostly just a shorter and rep itched prop which allows it to spin up a few hundred more rpm, resulting in more performance. It is a legal change. Again, don't confuse an A75 with a C75. roger

Sent from my iPad

[Rich Dugger]

Is D&G related to the old Ducarra Aviation  or Duke Hara in Niles, MI?

I think the company split up and it opened up under a name that sounded the same but was spelled differently in the 80s?

Rich

 

"I don't know what use any one could find for a machine that would make copies of documents. It certainly couldn't be a feasible business by itself."

(The head of IBM, refusing to back the idea, forcing the inventor to found Xerox)

[joer...@suddenlink.net]

I don't think I am confusing anything. If the data tag and engine records say A65, it's an A65 and it and the carbureter were legal before anybody kicked this can of worms. If the tag has been changed to A75 or a 337 was sent to OKC for an engine model change from A65 to A75 then it needs an approval to be on an 11AC. The Continental A75 series are separate models on their own type certificate as pointed out by Richard and there is no A75 engine approved on a Champ or Chief type certificate. There was an STC, perhaps the NAA has it now and there was the possibility of field approvals. The C85-8 has its own approval to be on an Aeronca, by the type certificate, by Service Letter when converting aircraft models, and by STC from Wagner, Lasher, or now Pancake. The C75 has no approval to be on an Aeronca that I am aware of. You might think of an A75 as a hopped up A65 and that's fine, but they are two different models. The old guy that schooled me had me understand that it didn't matter if A75 parts were in an A65 case. If the data plate said A65, it was an A65. If the data plate says A75, it is not an A65 any longer. Duane said he has an A65 that was previously converted to 75 HP. So does he have an A65 and carbureter that was legal all the while or does he have an A75 and more is suspect? It cannot be both. jrh

---- Roger Anderson <11...@comcast.net> wrote:
> The A75 is still an A65 with just actually very minor modifications to give it a supposed 10hp increase. It is mostly just a shorter and rep itched prop which allows it to spin up a few hundred more rpm, resulting in more performance. It is a legal change. Again, don't confuse an A75 with a C75. roger

Sent from my iPad

[Richard Murray]

Wow Joe (jrh) what a can of worms indeed!

The confusion, I believe, is the A-65 and A-75 are treated as nearly the same engine in the Continental parts and overhaul manual (X30008 Aug 2011), but they to reference different type certificates (the document that counts)

​

A review of the TCDS found HERE confirms only the A-65 is acceptable on the 11AC

​

So the solution is simple if Duane's log books don't indicate A-75 and the data plate on the engine indicates A-65, forget we had this conversation and go fly his super-powered A-65 11AC

Richard in OH who now understands how a stock Chief can beat a Champ...;)

[Roger Anderson]

Ooooops...didn't mean to imply you were confusing the issue.   It was just a general statement not tossed at anyone specifically.   Lasher, in his Aeronca, Champs and Chiefs book has a couple of pages on converting the A65 to an A75 and says is done with a 337 and STC.   He does say after the conversion is done in accordance with the Continental M47-16, and new data plate must be obtained.     And.....to muddy this interesting water more, he also says that no...an Aeronca is not factory approved for for an engine change except to a C85, not a 75 hp job.  So the STC is the only way to do it.    Learning all kinds of stuff here...............      roger

---

From: joer...@suddenlink.net
To: aer...@westmont.edu
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 10:05:31 PM
Subject: Re: [f-AA] Stromberg

[Doug Rounds]

Now take your "old" airplane to a new school grad A&P/hopeful IA and
get his interputation and then take it to the next flyin for
validation. But don't confuse the new FAA person or old IA. You may
not be old enough. Welcome to modern general aviation..Time flies when
you are trying to determine if you are legal to go flying and watch
out for the Class A-B-C-D-E-F thru "Z" stuff. Oriville and Wilber
might have stayed with bycyles. But old age does have it privildge
having witneesed the easy go fly stuff and not pay attention to
Washington where ever it was. And the best-- having to fly real
airplanes without TV prompts in your face that do not coordinate with
the steam guages..and when having to talk to a towerd airport it was
on 278kc. .memories some will never have experience.. ..Grumps
P.S. Comments will be tolerated but be kind to old age {:>)

On 4/17/16, Roger Anderson <11...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Ooooops...didn't mean to imply you were confusing the issue. It was just a
> general statement not tossed at anyone specifically. Lasher, in his Aeronca,
> Champs and Chiefs book has a couple of pages on converting the A65 to an A75
> and says is done with a 337 and STC. He does say after the conversion is
> done in accordance with the Continental M47-16, and new data plate must be
> obtained. And.....to muddy this interesting water more, he also says that
> no...an Aeronca is not factory approved for for an engine change except to a
> C85, not a 75 hp job. So the STC is the only way to do it. Learning all
> kinds of stuff here............... roger

[Jerry Eichenberger]

Doug -
I love your stories. I got in on the very tail end of the good times, having soloed in 1965. FAA guys then were WW II veterans for the most part. After having survived that, they didn't get all twisted up over the small stuff like they do now. My first CFI had instructed in the old CPT program, right before the war started, and then he flew B-17s out of England. I learned in a Champ, got my private in a Stinson 108, and my multi in a Bamboo Bomber.
You are so right - people who learned after about 1975 or so will never experience what you did, or even what I got to see and do.
I recall when the very first Lear 23 came to Columbus. When I was a young pup CFI, corporate aviation was composed of Beech 18s, early Aero Commanders, and a couple of Howard 250s and one 500 around here. Yep, great days and even greater memories.

Jerry A. Eichenberger
Eichenberger & Associates

6037 Frantz Rd., Suite 107
Dublin, Ohio 43017
614-798-1600 voice
614-798-1620 fax
www.ehlawyers.com

This message contains confidential and/or privileged information and is only for the use of the intended recipient.  Should you receive this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to the email, and delete or destroy this and all copies of this message and all attachments.  Any unauthorized disclosure, use, distribution, or reproduction of this message or any attachments is prohibited.

-----Original Message-----
From: Aeronca [mailto:aeronca...@westmont.edu] On Behalf Of Doug Rounds
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 3:03 PM
To: aer...@westmont.edu
Subject: Re: [f-AA] Stromberg

[Tony Buttacavoli]

Sent from my iPhone

[Duane Fey]

Hello all,

So here's the issue.  The engine was upgraded to an A75, with STC.  It is stamped A75 and has the correct prop for an A75.  When they did all this they didn't change to carb and it appears that they didn't file a form 337, because the FAA still has it listed as an A65.  I will convert the carb and file the form 337, so I don't get into any hot water.

Duane

'46 Chief, N85981

On Apr 17, 2016, at 4:36 AM, Richard Murray <murra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Wow Joe (jrh) what a can of worms indeed!

The confusion, I believe, is the A-65 and A-75 are treated as nearly the same engine in the Continental parts and overhaul manual (X30008 Aug 2011), but they to reference different type certificates (the document that counts)

<Screenshot 2016-04-17 at 07.18.09.png>
​

A review of the TCDS found HERE confirms only the A-65 is acceptable on the 11AC

<Screenshot 2016-04-17 at 07.27.41.png>
​

So the solution is simple if Duane's log books don't indicate A-75 and the data plate on the engine indicates A-65, forget we had this conversation and go fly his super-powered A-65 11AC

Richard in OH who now understands how a stock Chief can beat a Champ...;)

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 11:05 PM, <joer...@suddenlink.net> wrote:

I don't think I am confusing anything. If the data tag and engine records say A65, it's an A65 and it and the carbureter were legal before anybody kicked this can of worms. If the tag has been changed to A75  or a 337 was sent to OKC for an engine model change from A65 to A75 then it needs an approval to be on an 11AC. The Continental A75 series are separate models on their own type certificate as pointed out by Richard and there is no A75 engine approved on a Champ or Chief type certificate. There was an STC, perhaps the NAA has it now and there was the possibility of field approvals. The C85-8 has its own approval to be on an Aeronca, by the type certificate, by Service Letter when converting aircraft models, and by STC from Wagner, Lasher, or now Pancake. The C75 has no approval to be on an Aeronca that I am aware of. You might think of an A75 as a hopped up A65 and that's fine, but they are two different models. The old guy that schooled me had me understand that it didn't matter if A75 parts were in an A65 case. If the data plate said A65, it was an A65. If the data plate says A75, it is not an A65 any longer. Duane said he has an A65 that was previously converted to 75 HP. So does he have an A65 and carbureter that was legal all the while or does he have an A75 and more is suspect? It cannot be both.   jrh

[Roger Anderson]

Been super interesting!  Roger

Sent from my iPhone

[psa...@graffitis.com]

Do you have the STC with permission from the holder?
Have you requested the file on thr plane from the FAA?
On CD, or faster thru AOPA title services, in a couple hours by e-mail.

May be simpler to re-stamp as A65 w/ proper prop

Paul

----------------------------------------
From: "Duane Fey" <duan...@gmail.com>
Sent: 17 April 2016 19:04

To: aer...@westmont.edu
Subject: Re: [f-AA] Stromberg

Hello all,

So here's the issue. The engine was upgraded to an A75, with STC. It is stamped A75 and has the correct prop for an A75. When they did all this they didn't change to carb and it appears that they didn't file a form 337, because the FAA still has it listed as an A65. I will convert the carb and file the form 337, so I don't get into any hot water.
Duane'46 Chief, N85981
On Apr 17, 2016, at 4:36 AM, Richard Murray <murra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Wow Joe (jrh) what a can of worms indeed!
The confusion, I believe, is the A-65 and A-75 are treated as nearly the same engine in the Continental parts and overhaul manual (X30008 Aug 2011), but they to reference different type certificates (the document that counts)
<Screenshot 2016-04-17 at 07.18.09.png>

?

A review of the TCDS found HERE confirms only the A-65 is acceptable on the 11AC
<Screenshot 2016-04-17 at 07.27.41.png>

?

[Doug Rounds]

Similar to wiring a Model T with an electric starter and doing away
with the hand crank. Doug

[Cy Galley]

Unless the STC requires change of the carb I'd leave it alone.

Cy

 

From: Aeronca [mailto:aeronca...@westmont.edu] On Behalf Of Duane Fey
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 6:03 PM
To: aer...@westmont.edu
Subject: Re: [f-AA] Stromberg

 

Hello all,

[Roger Anderson]

Duane.  Similar thing for me.. I bought an Ercoupe in about '02.  Had a C85.  It actually was a C85 conversion from the original C75 that this Ercoupe had installed from the factory.  Converted in late '50s.   I couldn't figure why the engine would not turn up as it should, having owned a C85 aircraft before.   Researched with the Ercoupe group, I found out it still had the prop for the original C75...too long and pitched wrong.  Been running around for 50 years or so like this.   Bet there's a bunch of that out there still.   roger

---

From: "Duane Fey" <duan...@gmail.com>
To: aer...@westmont.edu

Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 6:03:05 PM
Subject: Re: [f-AA] Stromberg

[Ian Harvie]

That should be vernier!

Ian

On 17/04/2016 6:25 AM, Ian Harvie wrote:
> I have added the mixture and used a vermis cable to adjust. Only
> trouble is that there is a bit of "back lash" in the cable, so in fact
> it would probably be easier without to get fine adjustment.
> Ian
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 17 Apr 2016, at 6:07 am, Roger Anderson <11...@comcast.net
> <mailto:11...@comcast.net>> wrote:
>
>> Duane. Not to discourage you on the mixture at all. However,the
>> Stromberg mixture is a weird system, not at all like what you may
>> have been previously used to. Cy or someone can explain how it
>> works, but it somehow changes air or vacuum pressure..or
>> something....and the results are not instant. So leaning with one is
>> strange. I had one briefly on my last Ercoupe until I just wired it
>> full rich. roger
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From: *"Duane Fey" <duan...@gmail.com <mailto:duan...@gmail.com>>
>> *To: *aer...@westmont.edu <mailto:aer...@westmont.edu>
>> *Sent: *Saturday, April 16, 2016 2:11:10 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [f-AA] Stromberg

>>
>> Thanks everybody, it was, actually, the Stromberg Specialist that
>> told me I have the wrong carb. It really doesn't matter, as I want
>> to add a mixture control, so I can fly into the Sierra Foothills,
>> here in CA.
>>
>> Sorry for sending the same email twice, when I opened my email app ok
>> my phone the message said it hadn't been sent, so I sent it again.
>> Now I see that it did go through and I got a ton of responses.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>>

>> Duane
>> '46 Chief, N85981
>>

>> On Apr 16, 2016, at 7:34 AM, Roger Anderson <11...@comcast.net

>> <mailto:11...@comcast.net>> wrote:
>>
>> That's what it was thinking. I think the IA is confusing an A75 with
>> a C75. So no carb change is necessary and the Chief is airworthy
>> now. Roger
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>

>> > On Apr 16, 2016, at 9:28 AM, Cy Galley <cga...@mchsi.com

>> <mailto:cga...@mchsi.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > the
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Aeronca mailing list
>> Aer...@westmont.edu <mailto:Aer...@westmont.edu>

>> http://mail.westmont.edu/mailman/listinfo/aeronca
>> _______________________________________________
>> Aeronca mailing list

>> Aer...@westmont.edu <mailto:Aer...@westmont.edu>

>> http://mail.westmont.edu/mailman/listinfo/aeronca
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Aeronca mailing list

>> Aer...@westmont.edu <mailto:Aer...@westmont.edu>

>> http://mail.westmont.edu/mailman/listinfo/aeronca
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aeronca mailing list
> Aer...@westmont.edu
> http://mail.westmont.edu/mailman/listinfo/aeronca
>
>

> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2015.0.6189 / Virus Database: 4545/12056 - Release Date: 04/18/16

[dmcarr]

Duane research the logs and 337 carefully. You may find that the carb was also converted but not restamped.  Of course you have to get the right authority to verify and to stamp it correctly. The numbers on the Strom berg are not exactly part numbers - they instead refer to the setup of the carb.  It could be set up correctly and not stamped.  Not stamped correctly is technically not airworthy.   I has one in the shop a few months ago like that. 

Dion Carr.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Roger Anderson <11...@comcast.net>
Date: 04/17/2016 6:17 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: aer...@westmont.edu
Subject: Re: [f-AA] Stromberg

Been super interesting!  Roger

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 17, 2016, at 6:03 PM, Duane Fey <duan...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello all,

So here's the issue.  The engine was upgraded to an A75, with STC.  It is stamped A75 and has the correct prop for an A75.  When they did all this they didn't change to carb and it appears that they didn't file a form 337, because the FAA still has it listed as an A65.  I will convert the carb and file the form 337, so I don't get into any hot water.

Duane

'46 Chief, N85981

On Apr 17, 2016, at 4:36 AM, Richard Murray <murra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Wow Joe (jrh) what a can of worms indeed!

The confusion, I believe, is the A-65 and A-75 are treated as nearly the same engine in the Continental parts and overhaul manual (X30008 Aug 2011), but they to reference different type certificates (the document that counts)

<Screenshot 2016-04-17 at 07.18.09.png>
​

A review of the TCDS found HERE confirms only the A-65 is acceptable on the 11AC

<Screenshot 2016-04-17 at 07.27.41.png>
​

So the solution is simple if Duane's log books don't indicate A-75 and the data plate on the engine indicates A-65, forget we had this conversation and go fly his super-powered A-65 11AC

Richard in OH who now understands how a stock Chief can beat a Champ...;)

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 11:05 PM, <joer...@suddenlink.net> wrote:

I don't think I am confusing anything. If the data tag and engine records say A65, it's an A65 and it and the carbureter were legal before anybody kicked this can of worms. If the tag has been changed to A75  or a 337 was sent to OKC for an engine model change from A65 to A75 then it needs an approval to be on an 11AC. The Continental A75 series are separate models on their own type certificate as pointed out by Richard and there is no A75 engine approved on a Champ or Chief type certificate. There was an STC, perhaps the NAA has it now and there was the possibility of field approvals. The C85-8 has its own approval to be on an Aeronca, by the type certificate, by Service Letter when converting aircraft models, and by STC from Wagner, Lasher, or now Pancake. The C75 has no approval to be on an Aeronca that I am aware of. You might think of an A75 as a hopped up A65 and that's fine, but they are two different models. The old guy that schooled me had me understand that it didn't matter if A75 parts were in an A65 case. If the data plate said A65, it was an A65. If the data plate says A75, it is not an A65 any longer. Duane said he has an A65 that was previously converted to 75 HP. So does he have an A65 and carbureter that was legal all the while or does he have an A75 and more is suspect? It cannot be both.   jrh

_______________________________________________

Aeronca mailing list
Aer...@westmont.edu
http://mail.westmont.edu/mailman/listinfo/aeronca