Peter wrote:
Can anyone suggest how the paperwork for this could be done?
At worst, you would need a complete flight test regime – because the rivets might be generating some “useful” turbulence.
The labour would of course be very significant but that’s a different topic. Everybody knows how to do flush rivets!
Hmmm, sounds like you’re ready for a rivet-less plane ! 
We need to meet-up so you can have a go at my Lancair …
I would like to repeat my earlier question:
Can anyone suggest how the paperwork for this could be done?
At worst, you would need a complete flight test regime – because the rivets might be generating some “useful” turbulence.
The labour would of course be very significant but that’s a different topic.
Could this be done as a Field Approval or would it need an STC?
Sorry @Peter, not a beginning of an answer regarding your sacred paperwork
And no, @Michael, I am not going to take over your project aluminium is not (yet?) my prima materia. Actually, I do even NOT know how to do flush rivets.
Still, who wants to talk rivets in the 21st century? Already in the 1970’s or so, Mr Bede knew that bonding is the way to go in aluminium construction, and neatly illustrated it on the BD-4.
Could this be done as a Field Approval or would it need an STC?
Field Approval = 1 Time/ 1 Aircraft
STC = Multiple times / Multiple Aircraft
Obviously, an STC is going to be much more rigorous than a Field Approval.
Sure, but that’s not the whole story, is it?
Certain mods require an STC anyway. EFIS, autopilot, what else?
BTW: A couple of things to think about :
- The wing profile on the TB Series is NOT considered a Laminar Profile, so cleaning up the surface will have little to no affect on speed efficiency;
- Flush rivets require that the supporting sheets be counter-sunk by either drilling or dimpling. Both techniques require different sheet thickness to avoid cracking and/or deformations. A good example of this is found on the Cessna 210 and 177 wings. Originally developed for the heavier 210 when the engineers had to use thinner wing skins for the lighter 177 they found that the dimpling process was introducing alot of deformations and waviness which virtually destroyed the benefit od using flush rivets !
/
Peter wrote:
Certain mods require an STC anyway. EFIS, autopilot, what else?
Only because it would be next to impossible to sell anything like those SANS a proper STC, and better yet, an AML STC !
So you can install an autopilot under a field approval?
Peter wrote:
So you can install an autopilot under a field approval?
Sure, if you can get one !
… The point being is that if you are going to develop something as sophisticated as an autopilot system or EFIS then you might as well get the STC rather than have the installers have to sweat a Field Approval.
To my knowledge, there is nothing in the FARs that state which class of equipment MUST be installed under STC versus Field Approval.
