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


   Dave,

   I too wondered about that Seabee. Not that I think there's anything
   wrong with what he got away with, but I do think he got away with
   something there. In that case, there were mods to the parts that they
   fabricated - my recollection is that they basically rebuilt (as in
   deriveted and mostly reskinned) most of the airframe, but overall, the
   parts were still Seabee in dimension and construction.

   In the case of a Pacer, if you cut up the fuse to extend it, you can
   claim that as work done. I'm not saying you can claim that you built
   the whole fuse. If you build a set of wings from a Supercub kit (or
   PA14 or whatever), that's a no-brainer. Building a motormount, building
   landing gear (you probably have to go longer than stock Pacer gear for
   prop clearance), fuel tanks, instrument panel, covering, painting,
   plumbing, upholstery, cowling, etc. all counts. Each of these items
   contribute to a finished airplane. Your DAR (nor the FSDO) might not
   initially agree, but if you demonstrate that you did all of this work,
   it counts. You'll want docs.

   I'm not sure what you mean about "take advantage of this good rule." In
   my opinion, if people don't take advantage of the rule, the ability to
   do good projects will absolutely be lost. The people need to continue
   to push back against moronic regulation. This is not a case of "Shhhh!
   We need to do this quietly or else they'll make it illegal."

   I believe there's nothing sacrosanct about scratch building... Or even
   original kit-building.


   Matt-


   Guys,

   Brian Robinson, the originator of the Corvette-powered Seabee is a
   stone's throw from my farm here in Central Ontario. In fact, I see
   him overflying my place regularly, as his Balsam Lake base is just
   north of here.

   I usually hear him first and always recognize the distinctive sound
   -- a subdued pleasing hum, unlike the noisy boatlike raspiness of
   typical air-cooled planes.

   I first saw this plane at a local fly-in a few years ago, when he
   had just a few hours on it. Taxiing around, the thing sounds just
   like Corvette. Even at full power, you hardly hear it. As it made a
   very short takeoff roll and steep climbout I remember thinking,
   "Wow, look at that thing go." I've never seen a Seabee climb that
   impressively -- all the while sounding like it wasn't even working
   up a sweat.

   Brian has since made a business selling V-8 engine packages for
   Seabees and various kitplanes and I think there are seven or eight
   V-8 Seabees flying all over North America. Whatever the rules may
   be, it seems to working for the owners who go this route.

   These V-8 powered planes really show how nice and civilized modern
   car engines really are. Of course, the rotary is even better.

   The Robinson website is here:

   http://www.v8aircraft.com/index.asp


   Regards,

   Gordon.


Canada has different rules. More liberal.