A friend of a friend is interested in putting a 13B in a Super
    Pacer. A
         Super Pacer is a stretched Piper Pacer (longer fuse, bigger wing).

         Has anyone done one in the past?

         Paul, would you be willing to do a FWF 3D for him? If so, what
    info
         would you need?

         Doc Custer
         Retired Software Engineer and sometime Audiologist

         Sketch of the firewall hard point dimensions.
         Position of the thrust line. Any angular thrust offsets
         and length of the cowl from prop flange to firewall.
         --
         Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.


    I had considered doing this too..  I think it's a good fit.  I know of a
    couple of Pacer's with STC'd 180hp Lycomings (in an essentially stock
    airframe).  They make good performers.  With a stretched wing and fuse
    you end up with a nice utility airplane.  Pacer airframes are still
    pretty cheap too.

    Other airframes that are a good deal and a pretty good match:

    Cherokee 140
    Stinson 108x
    Cessna 175

    The Pacer is probably the easiest to accomplish this kind of thing on
    since they are tube and fabric and relatively easily modified.  Plus,
    several of them have already moved to Experimental (amateur built) -
    putting on Ford V6's.  I don't see that a Stinson would be any harder
    though.  And I think there are several things about Stinsons that
    are nicer.


    Matt-

    Check with your local FSDO on the rules.

    Paul Lamar

It's relatively easy to mod a tube-fabric airplane enough to qualify for
amateur built..  Putting what are essentially different wings on it, and
stretching the fuse, plus all of the replumbing/recovering work, plus
completely changing the type of engine makes it pretty easy to argue
that you built more than 51% of the plane yourself.  It's a big project
compared to building something like a Lancair Legacy kit, or even an
RV.  Any airplane is just a collection of parts.

Matt-

Hi Matt,   This is a very popular MISCONCEPTION.  Go to your local FSDO
and ask to see the checklist, I did. The FAA uses only that list, and it
is interesting and informative. This item by item " you built it / you
did not build it " list is also used by DAR's when they are employed to
do the A/W inspection. Sometimes projects slip thru an examiner---look
back a few months at Sport Aviation and you will find a SEABEE with a
Corvette engine in it. The article glows with this misconception, now
look more recently and you will find an obscure article about the same
plane and the investigation that has started to determine how the A/W
certificate of "experimental-amateur built" was ever issued in the first
place. "Amateur built" is only ONE of several Experimental
sub-catagories and is GOLDEN for all who abide by the actual "I built
51%" rule. Please DONOT encourage people to take advantage of this good
rule. Simply moving production parts is not "building" the part. Yes,
you can reuse a large part like a wing, or an engine, or a rudder, or
control assembly, but you get NO checklist credit toward the sacred 51%
so you would have to make up the difference elsewhere. It's all on the
checklist for anyone to read for the asking. When the dust settles on
the SEABEE it will probably continue to fly, but the owner likely will
have to live with the MUCH stricter restrictions provided in the other
sub-catagories of the Experimental
Class.                                      Dave M



The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2006 All world wide rights reserved.