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.
--
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
Paul,
The rules here in Canada are much more realistic in meeting the
needs of amateur-builders and others do-it-yourselfers.
For example, the owner-maintenance category introduced a few years
ago lets you take any certified plane into what is baically
amateur-built status -- without having to do any work on the plane
whatsoever. All you need to do is to remove the engine data plate
and do the paperwork. You can then do your own annuals, just like
with your homebuilt plane. You can sell the plane afterwards, but
you can't take it back into certificated status.
I know several people with older planes that have taken advantage of
this. It means you can also take an older plane in unflyable
condition, fix it up and get it flying without having to go through
this 51 percent business.
Another difference is in the amateur-built rules. It is perfectly
legal to pay someone to build your entire plane for you. There is a
booming little cottage industry here with people building Van's and
Murphys and other kits for customers who would rather not do the
work themselves.
This is actually a very good value proposition for a lot of people
who want a new plane. A Van's 2-seater will typically cost about
$40,000 to $50,000 for labor. If you figure the cost of the kit and
new engine to be about $50,000 to $60,000, you can fly away in
a brand new airplane for half of what it costs to buy the cheapest
Cessna.
This kind of activity goes on in the US anyway with a lot of the
"builder-assist" centers, but there is a lot of wink-nudge going on
-- with builder-owners having to at least give the impression that
they did the legally required amount work, where in fact, oftentimes
they don't do anything except write a check (and mabye pose for
pictures at the workbench).
Why not just recognize that this goes on and make it legal? At least
then you can have some regulatory control over the process. I don't
know why the EAA and its members aren't lobbying for rule changes
along these lines.
Regards,
Gordon.
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2006 All world wide rights reserved.