Smoke systems

[RyanShort1]

Has anyone designed something that could be attached, say in a rear compartment that wouldn't require a 337 or STC?

Ryan

[Matt Gunsch]

Has anyone designed something that could be attached, say in a rear compartment that wouldn't require a 337 or STC?

Ryan

No, because to get the oil into the exhaust you have to drill a hole in the firewall, and into the exhaust system. You are also adding to the electrical system load so you will need to add breakers, relays, and switches. All must be approved.

The West coast Skytypers SNJs did not have a tank under the rear seat. They did not even have a rear seat, the back cockpit was gutted and a tank that filled the whole area was fitted. At one time they had a red dye added to the oil and that stuff was awful. I pulled a couple of tanks out and by the time I was done you would have thought the hangar floor was a floor from a slaughter house.

[mustanglover]

Has anyone designed something that could be attached, say in a rear compartment that wouldn't require a 337 or STC?

Ryan

Matt seems to have these questions pretty well handled, but there is a difference in required paperwork when dealing with an experimental A/W vs. a Standard/Limited type A/W.

Not sure what airplane you are referring to and what A/W it might have.

[RyanShort1]

Well, for instance, if you had a Stinson, or a Cessna, and had a way to vent the smoke to the outside, could you theoretically build a piece of "baggage" that was legal...

Ryan

[51fixer]

Try this site-
http://www.smokingairplanes.com/SA-100% ... 20KITS.htm
They make fairly self contained systems.
Rich

[RyanShort1]

Try this site-
http://www.smokingairplanes.com/SA-100% ... 20KITS.htm
They make fairly self contained systems.
Rich

Now we're talking!

Ryan

[bdk]

The West coast Skytypers SNJs did not have a tank under the rear seat. They did not even have a rear seat, the back cockpit was gutted and a tank that filled the whole area was fitted.

I think the tank I saw was out of their G-model. It had vertical holes for the seat tubes to go through.

Well, for instance, if you had a Stinson, or a Cessna, and had a way to vent the smoke to the outside, could you theoretically build a piece of "baggage" that was legal...

You could just set some oily rags alight in the tailcone, or if you had a Stearman, you could belt a smoke generator into the front cockpit with a smokestack sticking up high enough so that the smoke wouldn't get into the pilot's eyes...

Seriously though, anything in the baggage area would not be able to use the exhaust for heat and you'd still need some kind of approval for the smoke exit port and the electrical connections (unless it could work using the cigar lighter which I doubt). I would expect the FAA to frown on smoking baggage anyhow!

[LadyO2Pilot]

Ryan....next time you are going to be out to Boerne after work or on weekend give me some advance warning and I'll show you how my system was plumbed, etc. The smoke system was original equipment on the O-2A believe it or not, so we just needed to restore the various parts without having to get an STC. But the whole thing is very visible after removing some panels and may give you some ideas.

[Matt Gunsch]

Well, for instance, if you had a Stinson, or a Cessna, and had a way to vent the smoke to the outside, could you theoretically build a piece of "baggage" that was legal...

Ryan

If you look at the site 51fixer posted, you are still required to fill out a 337, unless you have a T-34, Stearman, or Bonanza, or get a field approval.

If you have a experimental homebuilt plane, then you are in a different area, It would be a logbook entry, W&B update.

[RyanShort1]

Understood. Still, looks interesting - down the road a bit.

Ryan