So Who Has a Piper-Based Project In Work?

[Stephen]

Sky, good to have you. Got any pics so far of your project? Love to see what you are doing.

[Curly]

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]

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]

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]

Well that sure doesn't post a very big picture, does it?

[Steve Pierce]

What size picture did you upload? This one is 264x200 10.9KB

[Gilbert Pierce]

You got to start with a big picture

[Homer Landreth]

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]

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]

Here is a link to a similar discussion on the Super Cub site.

http://www.supercub.org/phpBB2/viewtopi ... perimental

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.