PDA

View Full Version : So Who Has a Piper-Based Project In Work?



Frankenpacer
12-09-2007, 10:40 AM
I spent all day yesterday cutting, fitting and welding. Anybody else got something cooking?

EDIT:
I figured I should add the list of "stuff" in work/planned on this airplane, just in case it gets lost over at the "other" site.

Vans RV-7 cowl
Widened firewall
Zero thrustline
Cessna spring gear
600x6x15 tires and very tight "pressure recovery" wheelpants
Flat floor from firewall to baggage compartment
Swing-up front doors both sides
Significantly enlarged rear windows
No rear door
Tapered rod tailwheel assembly
Ailerons moved out one rib bay
Extended flaps (chord and length)
2x 25+ gallon (stressed member) fuel tanks
Squared (not clipped) tips
All electric (glass) panel
Constant speed prop
Tuned, 4 into 1 exhaust
Overhead manual, or all electric flaps (manual prefered)

Steve Pierce
12-09-2007, 10:55 AM
I don't have anything experimental going yet but would love to see pictures of yours.

Stephen
12-09-2007, 05:19 PM
FrankenP, what are some of your specific plans? I've got two general ideas on experimental short wing projects. One using a PA-22 frame and wings, and someday one using the basic Vag fuselage. Right now I'm still trying to figure how far to push the mods on my current Pacer.

Frankenpacer
12-10-2007, 11:03 AM
Well, The most significant structural change has to be the provisions for the Cessna spring gear. The loads imposed by the spring gear are highly concentrated, which is often a problem for retrofitting a tubular structure. Fortunately, the axle centerline allows the spring to be centered at a fairly major tube cluster at the forward door frame. There is some additional structure that will be added to spread the load to other areas, but it is pretty straightforward. One of the most visable changes is the removal of the hydrasorb/seat truss, and the rework of the lower door frame. The doorframe will run in a straight line from the existing location at the rear door frame to the lower longeron/front frame location. This not only straigtens out the load path, but enlarges the door a bit (about 2 inches lower).

Steve Pierce
12-10-2007, 12:17 PM
I had a friend put spring gear on his Clipped Winged Cub. I remember him welding some supports in for the clamps that go around the spring gear. I will have to see if he has any pictures. Are you going to use the Grove gear? I know you can get it gun drilled for the brake fluid to run through. I met Roby Grove at Sun & Fun last year. He is a Cub guy. :D

Wheelie Wayne
12-10-2007, 01:12 PM
I am currently flying a 22/20 that is licensed "Experimental". Technically it is a Wagabond Traveller, but in reality it is 99.9% 1952 PA 22/20. The builder convinced the FAA it was a Traveller back in the early 80's. I am also building another exprimental Pacer that orginally was destined to be a V6 STOL but I have decided not to use the recommended Ford V6. I started the project 11 years ago and figured it was two years to flying, now I figure it is still just about two years from flying (although this estimate is considerably more realistic).

Frankenpacer
12-10-2007, 02:09 PM
I had a friend put spring gear on his Clipped Winged Cub. I remember him welding some supports in for the clamps that go around the spring gear. I will have to see if he has any pictures. Are you going to use the Grove gear? I know you can get it gun drilled for the brake fluid to run through. I met Roby Grove at Sun & Fun last year. He is a Cub guy. :D

Though the gun drilled Grove gear has its appeal, I am going with stock Cessna 170 legs. Despite the fact that I am into the cutting and welding stage, I would like to see any pictures you might have. There is a rumor that there is a STC for Cubs using Cessna gear. BIG speed gains from what I understand.

Stephen
12-10-2007, 06:10 PM
Why do you want to use Cessna gear? I would think that the one piece Groove gear might be stronger and absorb more shock, with less transfer to the fuselage. Rubb used to have pictures of his project and how he modified the frame to accept the one piece gear. Maybe he would post them.

Frankenpacer
12-10-2007, 06:21 PM
Because the Cessna gear legs are widely available if I happen to damage one, and most important, they were free. Also, the Grove gear are pushing the limits for the gross weight of a 4 place aircraft. Last time I checked, most of their product line was with lighter stuff like Kitfoxes and Skybolts.

skyking897
12-12-2007, 09:48 PM
Hi guys, new here. Was just reading all the bashing on the other site over an "Experimental" forum. When things get that narrow minded I guess it's time to move on.
I'm building a Wag-aero Wagabond that has a lot of Pa22 lineage (parts). Got a lot of useful info from the other site and hope to continue that here.

Kind of a coincidence you are talking about spring gear on your pipers. When I decided to proceed with this project I saw a Cub in the EAA Sport Aviation, completion section with spring gear. Managed to get in touch with the builder and he emailed me photos of his gear box (which I've since lost after my computer crashed). Anyway I've duplicated his efforts into my project but instead of the Cessna steel gear I've modified an aluminium gear leg from a BD4.

Stephen
12-12-2007, 10:40 PM
Sky, good to have you. Got any pics so far of your project? Love to see what you are doing.

Curly
12-13-2007, 01:27 AM
Frankenpacer - have you been reading my mind or something?

I have a Colt that I intend to rebuild "Experimental" so that I can incorporate many of the mods you have outlined. (Patsy the Pacer will also be rebuilt Experimental but basically standard except for a left hand "seaplane" door.) I intend to use spring gear (but it will not be Grove - they apparantly don't like overseas customers and don't even respond to requests for information and prices.) similar to Roger Rupp's Racer. I have started making ribs using Harry Riblett's GA30-613.5 airfoil but other than the change in airfoil the wing will be standard shortwing.

An earlier post mentioned the SWPC site and the crap that went on there - Steve and Steve are to be congratulated and must feel very vindicated by the response this site is getting.

For someone like me and "Student Pilot" who live on the other side of the world, it is great to be able to communicate with like minded people, see photo's of their projects and generally feel "part of the family".

Regards,

Curly.

Frankenpacer
12-13-2007, 01:50 PM
Hi Curly,

I thought about changing my airfoil also, but I think I'll see how it flies with the mods to the stock wings. I can always build a new set of wings down the road if I feel really motivated. I think that my fuselage modifications can be accomplished fairly quickly (I hope it's on the gear again within the next few weekends), but the planned mods to the wings are going to take a fair amount of work as it is. Changing the airfoil would doom this to a long, long term project, I suspect.

Anyway, I look forward to getting the ideas out there and see what works, and what doesn't. Good luck and stay in touch.

Frankenpacer
12-13-2007, 11:13 PM
At the risk of releasing a picture before it's really ready, here's the very beginings of a great airplane...

Noteworthy is the modified lower door sil; It's .75x1.5x.035 4130 tube.

Frankenpacer
12-13-2007, 11:16 PM
Well that sure doesn't post a very big picture, does it?

Steve Pierce
12-13-2007, 11:30 PM
What size picture did you upload? This one is 264x200 10.9KB

Gilbert Pierce
12-13-2007, 11:34 PM
You got to start with a big picture

Homer Landreth
12-14-2007, 10:36 AM
While I don't have any blast to level at anyone over previous discussions, I do have a problem that needs some information(and in fact was the root of some of my previous opinions). On the basis of last year my completing the import and re-registration of a plane from South America, another person importing a plane was sent to me. He flew into the country with a PA22 that needs re-licensing and wanted a quote from me. The first thing needed is to do a TC compliance comparison. His plane and it's past maintenance yielded issues that were completely prohibitive for re-licensing without major work. When I detailed needs and costs, he made this statement "I can't afford that, so I will just declare it "Experimental" and fly it that way". I informed him that I am certain that you don't just "declare your plane Experimental " but I admited that I DON"T KNOW HOW TO DO IT ! I also told him that just because you are "Experimental" doesn't mean you are immune from all compliance relative to airworthiness, (I believe in being frank and honest). Now, in the vein of customer satisfaction I told him I would investigate it, and began to do so. Now straight from not only two FSDO, but from a regional ACO, I was told that YOU CAN'T DO THAT. I was told that the plane has to be 51 percent a kit, or not a manufacturer part number assembly, or has to be from approved detail design drawings. So, in the spirit of the stated need for this page, which was to foster experimental aircraft activity and exchange information, I am asking for information. Has anyone simply "declared their completely serviceable PA22 to be Experimental" and do you have any documentation, or "paper trail" to show how it is done and by whom the requirements are defined, and who all needs to be involved ? I believe that this question has been asked before, but to my knowledge it has never been answered, and I have found no submittals where the procedure to do it has been detailed. All information will be apprecitated, however it would be more meaningful if it were not "tribal knowledge" and it be substantiated with documentation because on the basis of discussing this with ACO persons who did indeed have specific information, it CANNOT be done with the simplicity that the owner believes. Also, I was referred to check out "the Lancair issues" where, as explained to me, for some reason it was determined that the Lancair was too much of a production airplane to be "experimental" and they had to make changes to require more owner assembly of a couple of components. Anyway, assistance will be appreciated, I am kind of intrigued over this. (See I am not an "Experimental" Ogre at all, I just want to do things right and know that stated actions can be substantiated.) :?

Frankenpacer
12-14-2007, 11:07 AM
Homer, you are absolutely correct. A production aircraft CAN NOT be "declared" Experimental, Amatuar built. Understanding that there are several "Experimental" categories (market research, flight test, air racing, etc), I think we are talking about "Amatuar built" here. HOWEVER, the FAA clearly allows "salvaged' production components in "homebuilts". Unfortunately, the interpretation of how large the percentage of components can be used is left entirely up to the FSDO, and they have a HUGE difference of opinion. The Van Nuys FSDO, for example, told me that if a part had EVER been installed on a production aircraft, they would NEVER allow it's use in the construction of a homebuilt. Shocked, I asked if that included raw sections of tubing cut out of a derelict airframe. Yes, they said, even though the tube caries no part number, if they knew about it being installed in my homebuilt, they would shoot it down. This contrasts sharply with the recent certification as an amatuar built Seabee that is nothing more than a fine restoration - with a Chevy V8 engine installed! The Reno FSDO figured that was good enough for them. And the fact is, the FAA is taking a very close look at this issue right now as a response to (we think) the practice of hiring a shop to build your homebuilt. There are many so called "hired guns" out there who will build your RV, Lancair, etc to your spec. All you have to do is write a check.

With all that said, the so called 51% rule is based upon a FAA developed checklist that has a long list of tasks and next to each is a box marked (to the effect) "manufactured" and another "owner fabricated". So you check off all these blocks as appropriate and if at the end you have even ONE more check in the "owner fabricated" column, you have satisfied the "major" portion of constuction. You have met the 51% rule.

Now, to "converted" PA-22s. This is a bit of a grey area if the fuselage carries no serial number (if it does, it's a production airplane and all bets are off). In this case, it is the same as buying a fuselage from Wag and building a "kit". Depending on the scope of your rebuild, you should be able to apply the FAA checklist to the project and produce the airplane to the feds as "ametuar built" with a straight face. I know I will be able to.

Steve Pierce
12-14-2007, 12:47 PM
Here is a link to a similar discussion on the Super Cub site.

http://www.supercub.org/phpBB2/viewtopi ... perimental (http://www.supercub.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=13492&highlight=experimental)

Joe Norris sheds some light on it very well I thought in the very last post. Joe works for the EAA on these type matters.

Homer Landreth
12-14-2007, 07:37 PM
Thanks for the information, I appreciate it. I think I will be not participating in that job. :o

Homer

Stephen
12-14-2007, 08:57 PM
Homer, thanks for your questions, I have also found it frustrating when I hear pilots say that they want to simply turn their perfectly good certified planes into experimental. Part of the confusion comes straight from the FAA and their inconsistent practices. Last summer at Arlington some guy had an experimental Pacer recently built from stock parts, signed off and apparently legal. The 51% rule has some obvious exclusions, such as; engine, instruments, avionics, but it appears to leave a great deal of gray area. Constructing a scratch built or kit built are major undertakings and need to continue to be allowed. Experimental technology like it or not, is well ahead of our certified stuff for the regular pilot. Good luck FrankenP, and keep sending us updates. What do you think a zero thrust line would do for the Pacer?

rexandkim
12-14-2007, 10:46 PM
Gilbert, I saw the picture of your fuselage with the white paint. Can't wait to get mine looking like that. I have it here at Steve's
shop working on it now. Still have to finish blasting it to get a real good look at it. I am glad Steve suggested that I cut off the door frames. Hope everyone heeds that advice.

Rex

Frankenpacer
12-15-2007, 09:58 AM
Thanks for the information, I appreciate it. I think I will be not participating in that job. :o

Homer

Homer, there are a few "legitimate" ways to make a former production airplane/parts fit into the experimental, amateur-built category, but it is not an easy path by any means. It is quite literally equal to a full on restoration. There are some "legitimate" reasons for doing it as well, but "It's too hard/expensive to do it right" (as you indicate your customer is thinking) is certainly NOT among them. As an A&P myself, I applaud your decision to stay away from that job... It would be a "career-limiting move" to work for this guy.

Frankenpacer
12-15-2007, 10:15 AM
Snagged from the "Modifications" section:



Start with PA22 frame, use Steve's cool jig to straighten it.

1. Convert to conventional gear, considering Roger Rupp's one piece alumimun gear idea.
2. Add both sides front swing-up doors, light weight alumimun with clear plactic, I like the Maul style rear door idea and extended baggage area.
3. Remove front and rear seat cross tubing, install seats on tracks that move well back for easy acess and adjust up and down. Make rear seat easy pop out.
4. Move the ailerons out to the wing tip and increase the size of the flaps.
5. Move flap mechanism to overhead for easy actuation, and eliminate a mile of cable and bunch on pulleys.
6. Remove mechanical flap system and convert to stick accuated electric motor.
7. Add flaperons, add a mile of cable and a bunch of pulleys.

opps; and the engine mods.......

What does this make....Pacermaulbeaver, that runs on 8 gph and looks cool

I have been looking at your #5 as well. I really want to keep the stock trim system though, so I am torn between mounting the handle on the left side, or getting it in the middle somehow. The left side is easier, but forces you to do a juggling act between flaps/throttle/yoke. Another downside is the fact that it is unavailable to the person in the right seat.

pistoncan
12-17-2007, 01:14 PM
I have a pacer/vagabond/LSA/J-5? project in the works. Not sure what to call it. (Grizzley cub?) I am using a corvair engine. I have the engine about ready to run. I am debating about doing it tandem instead of side by side as I am OLD and 6-4 and close to 300 lbs. I can sit in the middle of the front seat with my feet on the two outboard rudder pedals and feel comfortable. If I go that way I will leave the rear door for access to the rear seat I would like to somehow trade short wings for long wings but I may end up just using the short wings as I have them. I also have two wing tanks that I need to sell to finance other items on the project Gary

Stephen
12-17-2007, 01:59 PM
"move flap mechanism to overhead for easy actuation, and eliminate a mile of cable and bunch on pulleys."
"I have been looking at your #5 as well. I really want to keep the stock trim system though, so I am torn between mounting the handle on the left side, or getting it in the middle somehow. The left side is easier, but forces you to do a juggling act between flaps/throttle/yoke. Another downside is the fact that it is unavailable to the person in the right seat."

I will place the handle in the middle, unlike what Cub Crafters is doing. Because, I can keep my left hand on the stick and put in flaps. Also, I think it is an easier mod, running the cables forward means that all I have to do is move the over head flap cables to the back side of the center pulleys and run the cable forward, this will eliminate cable and a couple of pulleys needed to run it all the way around the cockpit to the floor. Originally, I was thinking that it would be nice to get rid of the mechanical trim system and go to a much simpler electric motor placed near the jack screw and actuate it with a rocker switch on the stick, but too much work for now and I'm going to first try to run this all through as an STC. Also, I think there is good clearance for both the mechanical trim and flap handle. If the STC does not work out I will go your route and start with a bare fuselage and apply for an experimental certification. The ergonomics of placing an overhead flap handle seems fine to me. I already have shortened and bent my original flap handle on the floor to fit for the stick installation and it works fine. I would not hesitate to make it as short as it needs to be to fit.

I wish we could easily post my drawings, then we could debate and share.

I've now designed a flaperon interconnect to this overhead flap handle idea and I'm still considering moving my ailerons and increasing the flap lengths similar to what Eddie Trimmer has done, which I may send in as part of the STC application.

Steve Pierce
12-17-2007, 05:14 PM
Stephen, Here is a jack screw on a Cub Crafters Sport Cub with electric trim.

Stephen
12-17-2007, 07:57 PM
It looks like they used a direct attachment to the bottom of the jack screw and geared the motor to the drive. Now, if we knew which motor and gear ratios. I suppose a C......a flap motor would work.

Steve Pierce
12-17-2007, 10:00 PM
Maybe you need to fly over to Yakima and take a tour with camera and notepad in hand. 8-)

Stephen
12-17-2007, 10:49 PM
Yes, that is exactly what I need to do. It seems that there is a great deal of action over on the east side of the Cascade Mountains. Yakima Aerosport, Cub Crafters and the Stewart Bros. I'm sure that they would not mind me coming in and taking pictures of all their stuff and sharing it around. Hey, I've got an idea, Tom is closer, we should send him in, he should be flying any time now.

Stephen
12-18-2007, 03:35 AM
FP, I did skip over one "vey minor" issue on putting the flap mechanism in the middle; where the support goes. I will add extra tubing. But, if I were experimental, Iwould take out the two overhead tubes that form a "V". And, replace them with three slightly larger tubes that form a "Y". The engineering strength of this should be checked. I'm no engineer and any skills I might have had has be weakened from 30 plus years teaching HS physics, sorry. One advantage that I like from moving the overhead tubes is more head clearence. I've gotten my head smacked in moderate turburelence a couple of times.

Frankenpacer
12-18-2007, 09:06 AM
FP, I did skip over one "vey minor" issue on putting the flap mechanism in the middle; where the support goes. I will add extra tubing. But, if I were experimental, Iwould take out the tow overhead tubes that form a V. And, replace them with three slightly larger tubes that form a Y. The engineering strength of this should be checked. I'm no engineer and any skills I might have had has be weakened from 30 plus years teaching HS physics, sorry. One advantage that I like of moving the overhead tubes is more head clearence. I've gotten my head smacked in moderate turburelence a couple of times.

Well, if you come up with something, let us know. I'll be concentrating on the gear, doors, elevator controls and cowling for the next few weeks. Once that is done, I'll look at the flaps. We should be able to come up with something. Modification of that cross tube is something that will take some considerable thought; it is probably THE most critical structural element in the fuselage.

jnorris
01-02-2008, 10:30 AM
I'm still collecting parts and making plans for a Piper P-2 replica/representation. It's been a bit of a challenge because there is so little info on this airplane, but I'm getting there (slowly but surely). Here's a picture...

[attachment=0:3e8j0bce]Piper P-2.jpg[/attachment:3e8j0bce]

Joe

Frankenpacer
01-02-2008, 11:24 AM
Cool project Joe! Welcome to the site. Your expertise concerning the "experimental" side will be very valuable here...

Africub
01-02-2008, 12:33 PM
Hi

Ok I will admit my ignorance, what is a Piper P2? it looks like maybe a short wing cub?

Thanks for enlightening me!

Tim

jnorris
01-02-2008, 03:26 PM
Ok I will admit my ignorance, what is a Piper P2? it looks like maybe a short wing cub?

Tim,

The P-2 was a one-off prototype built by Piper in the early 40s. It pioneered a lot of the features that ended up being incorporated into the Vagabond, but was a tandem seat aircraft. it had clipped J-5 wings, and was originally powered by a 50 hp Franklin engine. The aircraft was destroyed in an airshow accident (it was being used by Bill Sweet in his National Air Shows program at the time). It was powered by a fuel injected 85 Continental at the time of its demise.

Joe

Africub
01-03-2008, 03:54 AM
Hi Joe

Many thanks for the information, it looks like a nice project, and I would think it should fly well, is it shortened in the fuselage compared to the J3 and such? I loved the vagabond's flight behaviour so I can believe the P2 would be very nice.

Tim

jnorris
01-03-2008, 11:08 AM
Many thanks for the information, it looks like a nice project, and I would think it should fly well, is it shortened in the fuselage compared to the J3 and such? I loved the vagabond's flight behaviour so I can believe the P2 would be very nice.

Hi Tim,

the P-2 is the same length overall as the Clipper or Pacer. Not as long as a Cub but not as short as a Vag. The Cruiser ailerons and balanced elevators will make it fly very nicely for sure!

Joe

stevesaircraft(Bri)
01-04-2008, 06:08 PM
Joe,

Although I have not personally seen it, I have heard that there is a clipped wing and shortened fueselage J-3 based in Grants Pass Oregon. Not to far from my home field. I have a engine to install on a Super over there sometime in the next month or so. I will see about looking it up and getting a few pics.

Brian.

jnorris
01-04-2008, 09:28 PM
Although I have not personally seen it, I have heard that there is a clipped wing and shortened fueselage J-3 based in Grants Pass Oregon. Not to far from my home field. I have a engine to install on a Super over there sometime in the next month or so. I will see about looking it up and getting a few pics.

Brian,

Sounds good. It would be an interesting airplane for sure. Not structurally the same as the P-2, but interesting none the less. I'd love to see pictures!

Cheers!

Joe

Steve Pierce
01-04-2008, 09:53 PM
Joe, Isn't there a shorten fuselage J-3 in the EAA museum? I heard it didn't fly very well by an aerobatic guy.

stevesaircraft(Bri)
01-04-2008, 10:47 PM
From what I have heard, the owner is not a very prolific tailwheel pilot and it suposedly sits most of the time. I also do not know what it has for an engine either. I am definatly going to go ahead and look for it the next time I am over there.

Brian.

Frankenpacer
01-05-2008, 12:05 AM
It looks like they used a direct attachment to the bottom of the jack screw and geared the motor to the drive. Now, if we knew which motor and gear ratios. I suppose a C......a flap motor would work.

I found the following in Grainger. Pretty sure they will have something usable for a electric trim if this one is not it.

Gearmotor,50 RPM,Torque 10,12VDC,TENV
DC Gearmotor, Parallel Shaft, Nameplate RPM 50, Input HP 1/90, Gear Ratio 74:1, Voltage Rating 12VDC, Full Load Amps 1.1, Overhung Load 13 Lb, Full Load Torque 10 In-Lbs, Totally Enclosed Nonventilated, Ambient 40 C, Thermal Protection None, Motor Type DC, Rotation Reversible
Grainger Item # 1LNH2
Price (ea.) $68.70
Brand DAYTON
Mfr. Model # 1LNH2
Ship Qty. 1
Sell Qty. (Will-Call) 1
Ship Weight (lbs.) 1.73
Usually Ships** Today
Catalog Page No. N/A

Jim
01-05-2008, 11:26 PM
Hi,

I wrote a friend of mine over in Oshkosh with a question about the clipped J-3.

......Hi Gary,

.......Is there a shortened fuselage J-3 in the EAA museum or one that belongs to some affiliated guy over there? The topic of short wing Piper planes came up in a news group I read.

Hi Jim, Yes there is a shortened Cub that use to belong to a fellow called Pete Meyers. He was an Airline pilot that did an airshow routine during the convention years ago. Also Adam Smith, our museum director has one flying but only the wings are shortened. He bought it about one year ago. In years past the conversion was called a Reed conversion. I did one of those years ago and I may still have some drawings for that. We are leaving next Friday weather permitting. Hope this helps.

Gary Buettner

7083
01-25-2008, 12:47 PM
I am building a clipped wing cub using Colt wings and tail and a Spraker fuselage. I plan to keep it light for LSA category. I will be using a 0235 presently flying on my Colt and want to keep the wings in an unmodified state. In order do do this I plan to reverse the aileron cable hook-up like a PA-16. A good idea from frankenpacer is the use of a titaniun rod tailwheel hook-up. I will make a bracket to attach it to un-modified airframe in case I ever find the need to use flat tailwheel spring.
I know of one exp cub using tripacer wings so it is possible and will make a good inexpensive project.

Jim Miller

Steve Pierce
01-25-2008, 09:12 PM
Jim, I would run the aileron cables like a Cub. The Clipper bottom cable runs from the stick mixer, up the strut and to the bottom of the aileron bellcrank. A Cub runs from the pivot on the bottom of the stick, up the strut, through the wing and to the top of the aileron bellcrank. You could probably leave the balance cable behind the rear spar instead of behind the front spar like in a Cub.

7083
01-27-2008, 08:22 AM
Steve
Since it is important not to mod the Colt wings I am in process of building a torque tube with two aileron horns 180 degrees apart. It is going to have only a single stick so at the back I will have a second horn where the other stick mast would have been. This way if the reversed aileron cables don't work out I can move to original hook-up. I saw your posted photo of the zero thrustline lower fitting that is about 1 1/4 longer. Does the attach bolt come thru from cabin side and screw into threads in this fitting? Also what does the top fittings look like?

Thanks
Jim Miller