rudder/tailwheel horn

Roger Anderson · Post by **Roger Anderson** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 09:43

I'll be darn. It worked.....posting pics, that is.

[/img]

[/img]

tiav8r · Post by **tiav8r** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 09:55

Roger,

Can't help but lust after your tailwheel horn......still trying to find a replacement for mine!!

Terry

Post by **joea** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:03

Roger,

Thanks for that! Been looking for that photo for an hour and see you posted it!

Terry,

This will save your rudder horn, so pls use it.

Joe A

tiav8r · Post by **tiav8r** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 17:08

Will do, Joe! Thanks!

Terry

flyingfool · Post by **flyingfool** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 22:49

Did a 337 have to be done for the eyebold installation? One A&P I mentioned this upgrade to thought that it would be considered a major repair and thus would need a 337.

Also should castle nuts be used in this instllation? It is a bit questionable to me if this is considered a "moving" part or not.

Also do you know what length and diameter eyebolt was used?

I definately want to do this at my annual which is scheduled for April.

Thanks,

Tom

Post by **joea** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 00:01

Tom,

Any A&P who thinks that this is a "major repair or alteration" that needs a 337 might want to go back to school and get back into the books IMHO.

I know of two FAA inspectors who have seen this modification done and neither of them felt that any additional paperwork was needed to make it safe nor legal.

Frankly I feel that its like someone using updated model springs in the tailwheel to rudder horn attachment. No, its not stock but yes its a lot better and safer than what flew out of the factory in the 1940's.

When your A&P changes out an original airspeed indicator with a newer one, do you file a 337 as a "major repair" to denote this upgrade to a more accurate version? Nope, its a simple logbook entry, or should be.

Joe

Paul Agaliotis · Post by **Paul Agaliotis** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 08:17

Tom,
This would probably be considered a minor alteration. Have your A/P look up the definitions and it should clear things up.
Many of the older installations used castellated nuts because it was one of the only safety methods available. Fiber lock nuts were a one time use item, elastic lock nuts were not around. You could use boot nuts or it is also legal to peen the end of the bolt. So either a lock nut or castle nut will work. The eyebolts should be tight in the arms. I use eyebolts on both ends.
Have this A/P order your eyebolts. Make sure he knows the lengths are measured differently than bolts.
Paul

Roger Anderson · Post by **Roger Anderson** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 10:16

flyingfool wrote:Did a 337 have to be done for the eyebold installation? One A&P I mentioned this upgrade to thought that it would be considered a major repair and thus would need a 337.

Also should castle nuts be used in this instllation? It is a bit questionable to me if this is considered a "moving" part or not.

Also do you know what length and diameter eyebolt was used?

I definately want to do this at my annual which is scheduled for April.

Thanks,

Tom

Hi Tom. Mine are snuggly tightened to not move. The holes in my rudder horn were elongated. If these moved they would continue the wear. These are to stop any future wear. I have nylon lock nuts on them. Now...I certainly don't want to encourage anyone doing anything wrong....however....I guess I grew up in an era when most aviator just took the bull by the horns and did common sense, simple things themselves.

My dad (world's greatest non A&P airplane mechanic) certainly went far beyond simple things doing repairs on all the many airplanes we had....not to say it was right...but that's the way it was. So, I myself considered this issue just a 30 second fix that I just went ahead and did. I just measured the thickness of the horn to determine what shank length of eyebolt I needed, determined what the maximum diameter I could use reference the elongated holes, and bought them out of a parts bin at Sun n Fun.

Like Joe said, I think if an A&P is going to consider this a major event in their professional lives, I think they failed the part of the course about judgement and common sense. Don't mean to preach and only my opinion however, but I think it was Capt. Grumps (Doug) that said something about some people these days thinking much to deeply about "who gives a s### stuff". I kinda agree. Oh...I got the idea from a couple of Piper Pacers I saw using the eyebolts. roger

Holcombe · Post by **Holcombe** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:24

One issue in whether something is "legal" or not is how it will be used in court. For a matter to be serious, someone is going to have to show that it contributed to whatever went really wrong. You go off the runway because of a cross wind. A non original eyebolt that didn't fail cannot sucessfully be called a contributing factor.
Use a hardware store eyebolt, and it fails, you're toast, and the insurance company has you by the short and curlies.
Life is too short to live in fear of common sense.

flyingfool · Post by **flyingfool** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 16:46

The A&P I corresponded with, is an extremely knowledgeable IA that maintains the fleet of aircraft a well known university (including a Dehaviland Chipmunk) and he is also an antique aircraft guy owning two Stinsons, a Taylorcraft and a tailwind. He also did not see any pictures so a written discription which he may have conjured up in his mind that this was more of a process than a drilling and installation of a couple of eyebolts.

Maybe a silly question or I'm making this harder than it needs to be by too much thinking. But if the hole in the horn is a bit elongated from wear, how do you drill through the damaged hole and end up with a clean round perpendicular hole? There also must be some sort of minimum edge clearance requirements to dictate the maximum size of eyebolt diameter.

Maybe a perfectly round hole is not a huge deal as the shank of the eyebolt along with the enlarged area under the eye and a washer sunder the nut spreads the tension load from the chain over a larger surface area than before the upgrade.

MikeB · Post by **MikeB** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 19:12

Personally I would consider the screen door chains that come with the tail spring kits to be more of a safety factor than eye bolts. We almost took a jolly ride off the runway

once in a Luscombe when a chain broke (looked good too) in crosswind.

Mike Berg

Mnflyer · Post by **Mnflyer** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 19:30

There was no need to do any drilling when I installed the AN42b bolts on my fork the original holes was a number 10 hole and the AN42B is a #10 or a 3/16" bolt. A slight elongated hole would not be a big deal if to the piont were edge is a concern then a new fork maybe needed anyway. The A&P must be envisioning something else, as installing an AN42B bolt is not a major alteration.

Post by **joea** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 20:26

Agree, and there should be no drilling needed. Stick the eyebolt in the hole, tighten it up, attach the chains and fly.

This is a 10 minute operation, and that includes putting the beer in the fridge to get cold for after the flight.

Roger Anderson · Post by **Roger Anderson** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 21:10

joea wrote:Agree, and there should be no drilling needed. Stick the eyebolt in the hole, tighten it up, attach the chains and fly.

I think that's all I did. I may have cleaned it up just slightly with a drill bit the same size as the eyebolt shank, whatever size that was. Just stick it in, tighten it down, and it should never move again. I did use a washer under the lock nut, of course. When you look at the finished product, you'll see this is a very low tech issue. Oh...yes, do inspect your chains. Recently, I saw one of mine had a surprising amount of wear into one of the links.

Paul Agaliotis · Post by **Paul Agaliotis** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 07:58

If you need to drill hole and the pilot is elongated you need to use a steamboat. It is secured in place using an adjustable plate and a drill guide keeps the bit from walking.
Paul