The International Cessna^® 170 Association

melcessna wrote:Chris is a very very good guy. The work will be perfect. I shipped mine and then it was returned. I am happy to get under the panel and give you measurements of my Y yoke. 170A and 170B will more than likely be the same, but I can't assure absolutely as I don't really know.

when you sent your yoke in did you do his whole stc with the panel or will he just do the yoke and send it back? I ask because I am just going to make my own panel.

I did the panel. I drew it all up and Del-Air did it and the lower panel for all the switches. I am happy to talk with you if you would like.

Finally cutting aluminum and making it happen. Lower switch and control panel test fitted.

Just a thought, I always take the firewall off. It is easy to do and improves access considerably for a whole host of work to follow. Easy to take off and re-rivet. Hope I am not intruding. Mike

melcessna wrote:Just a thought, I always take the firewall off. It is easy to do and improves access considerably for a whole host of work to follow. Easy to take off and re-rivet. Hope I am not intruding. Mike

You take the firewall off for a new panel? Not intruding at all.

Yeah, easier to wire and comb the wires. Easier to plumb. Excellent opportunity to clean below the pedals. Chance to check the motor mount attach points for corrosion. Chance to clean firewall, close unneeded past firewall holes with soft rivets, prime and paint firewall. Just a lot of good things happen when you have it off. Mike

Looks kinda sad, but the access is great! Standing up sure would beat laying on your back under the panel...

Somebody still has the parking brakes hooked up!

Rough panel drawn out on a piece of scrap aluminum. Trying for a field approval using the stock t column just shortened around 3" to get the standard 6 pack and still fit a nav/com and transponder up top and ipad below that down the center.

I'm a bit bugged about the nav head location, either need to move the center stack over so I can put it on the right or leave it alone. any ideas?

kylegreen229 wrote:... Trying for a field approval using the stock t column just shortened around 3" ... .

I would highly recommend getting the field approval prior to making the modifications. The FAA may want to see a DER involved when you start modifying control yoke throw, etc.

n2582d wrote:

kylegreen229 wrote:... Trying for a field approval using the stock t column just shortened around 3" ... .

I would highly recommend getting the field approval prior to making the modifications. The FAA may want to see a DER involved when you start modifying control yoke throw, etc.

Yea not cutting or modifying anything until we submit the paperwork. My IA has it all printed and drawn up, spoke with the local FSDO and they said to do up a 337 unsigned with what we propose to do and then that will get sent up to Seattle engineering.. It that does not fly, then might leave the yoke alone or rob a bank for the STC panel from one of the companies out there. haha

Here is the panel cut..it was with hole saws and a drill press. For the first time it turned out ok. I need to add a few more holes for various instruments but overall this it. It is more than likely me noticing more than anyone but some of the holes are not right in line or a little high, little low etc. Bugs me but I dont know if it is enough to drive me to recut...

Standard 6 pack on the left, maybe cut a hole for a nav indicator, although using a KX125 I believe. Then on the left, top big hole tach and the rest engine instruments etc.

open to opinions please!

Mount instruments and check for interferences as soon as possible. The custom panel in my airplane has an instrument hole about 1/8" too low so the control tee hit the AI. It's clear the problem wasn't discovered until the panel was made, engraved, and painted. Rather than making a new panel they shimmed and tweaked to eliminate the interference. You'll never discover that kind of problem without a full assembly of all the parts.

A word of caution, the center of rotation on the T bar is behind the vertical face of the panel. This means as the yoke is moved forward, the T goes up. In fact if you push the yoke all the way forward, the top of the T is only a few inches from the top of the panel. The result is that there can be interference with some of the longer instruments in your stack. I would recommend double checking this before you go much further.

Keep in mind there is a reason Cessna didn't just lower the T bar and went through the extra work and cost to design a U or Y yoke. I haven't looked lately, but I thought the Association had copies of a couple 337's doing this. As long as you follow those 337's (and they are signed by the FSDO), you are using "approved data" and are good to go. Attach a copy to your 337 and send it in. (Theoretically. Some people read the regs differently, and I can't necessarily argue with them. It's a gray area.)

DEM

flyboy122 wrote:A word of caution, the center of rotation on the T bar is behind the vertical face of the panel. This means as the yoke is moved forward, the T goes up. In fact if you push the yoke all the way forward, the top of the T is only a few inches from the top of the panel. The result is that there can be interference with some of the longer instruments in your stack. I would recommend double checking this before you go much further.

Keep in mind there is a reason Cessna didn't just lower the T bar and went through the extra work and cost to design a U or Y yoke. I haven't looked lately, but I thought the Association had copies of a couple 337's doing this. As long as you follow those 337's (and they are signed by the FSDO), you are using "approved data" and are good to go. Attach a copy to your 337 and send it in. (Theoretically. Some people read the regs differently, and I can't necessarily argue with them. It's a gray area.)

DEM

Actually recent changes with regard to approved data now prohibit the use of 337's as approved data unless they were completed in the 50's. Like aircraft installations do not apply anymore, unfortunately. This was a FAA legal determination. I forgot the date on it but it is a recent change to the way the FAA does business. IA Renewal seminar is saying engineering data must be approved by DER and that is not a DAR!. I hope people still have a line on their favorite Fed because it is harder to get things done smoothly.Your mileage may vary. Please make sure you talk to the FAA on what they want before you start tearing into your aircraft.