PDA

View Full Version : Questions



Michael Tracy
09-03-2004, 01:08 PM
One of the differences between the J3 and PA18 airframes is the addition of vertical tubes in the sides. I know these were added to stiffen the sides and keep the longerons from flexing. My question is why isn't there one in the bay in front of the jackscrew?
Next question different subject. Has any experimental builder tried disigning a quick remove wing? I'm toying with this thought and have several ideas. for a fraction of the cost of a hanger rental I can build a trailer with wing craddles and a fuel cell to drain the tanks into. I can park it in my backyard and when it's time to fly I can take it anywhere there is room to takeoff. Some of the problems to overcome are the weight of a hinge system if the wings fold. Removing the wings sounds like a better idea but there is the danger of accidentally dropping one. Another problem is wing root fairings. they will have to be easily removable and the cables, fuel lines, electrical wires also. Any brainstorms on this?

Mike

highroads
09-03-2004, 01:44 PM
If you haven't already done so, take a look at the sailplane construction. They have really quick R&R wings with super strong structure as well. Also using innovative dollies, they can be assembled with just one man for the most part.

Rookie
09-03-2004, 03:14 PM
Boy I don't know. Sorry to be a wet blanket, but when I had my airplane in an open T, the extra time it took to doff and don a set of wing covers I needed to protect the fabric was valuable flying time lost, as well as a pain in the butt. You'd also have some risk of damage with handling fabric wings that isn't there with glass wings, like on a glider...

For what you're after, maybe a Kitfox with folding wings would be the way to go:
http://www.skystar.com/images/wingsfolded1.JPG

More info:
http://www.skystar.com/classic4.htm

While I very much appreciate my PA-18, one of the reasons I own this particular aircraft is the value it has in the market; you never know when you might have to sell an airplane. An experimental PA-18 is going to have all the issues in the market place that any experimental has, and you might be better off with an airplane that was designed to your spec, and to be amateur built (I assume you're an amateur, forgive me if that's incorrect) rather than something that's based on a certified aircraft.

Apologies for anyone that really really likes experimentals. I do too, but if I were going that way, I'd go all that way, and leave the lycosaur and other artifacts of the long history of the PA-18 certification behind.

YMMV, and good luck in any case,
-->Aaron

Michael Tracy
09-03-2004, 06:43 PM
I don't like the KitFox. It won't go up to the gross weight I want and won't handle the baggage I plan to carry. I already have my cub with a lycosaur (cute term)and I plan on finishing it. I'm not interested in resale value. The reason I'm building an experimental cub is cost. When finished I will have a new aircraft that has never flown before. It has a rebuilt o320, a used boot cowl, and a used control torque tube. Everything else is new and I will have less than 35 thousand in it. I know removing the wings is not going to be a ten minute job but it is something I'm thinking about.

Mike

Rookie
09-03-2004, 07:48 PM
Well shoot, you can at least update the ignition system, can't you?

I hope your airplane is everything you plan it to be. There is a lot to be said for the experimental route. Good luck!

-->Aaron

Steve Pierce
09-03-2004, 07:58 PM
Look at the Kit Fox folding wing system, especially the Model IV and later. It was a simplier system. That is what I like about Experimental, you can borrow the best of everything else and incorporate it into one airplane.

Michael Tracy
09-03-2004, 08:49 PM
Seeing a KitFox on a trailer is what got me thinking about a cub with folding or removable wings. I don't know if anyone else has done that with a Cub. I also think one of the advantages of an experimental project is doing things like this.

Mike

Ahmet Kamil
09-06-2004, 05:10 AM
Could one of you guys tell me what is the diffrence between a certified PA-18 and a similar but amateur built, experimental one (advantages, limitations) ?

CrossedControls
09-06-2004, 07:06 AM
The major difference between certified and experimental is liability.
This will depend on what country you live in. In the US the builder of an experiment is possibly liable if they sell it on to someone else and they have an "incident" with it. In the UK all kits and builds are strictly controlled by the PFA, so it is almost like a certification process.
There are other related issues, such as cost of maintainance, resale values etc. All of these will be influenced by the aviation authority in the country you live in.

I haven't a clue what the deal is in Turkey.
Pete

SJ
09-06-2004, 07:54 AM
I'm curious how big general aviation is in Turkey? I know we have it real nice over here in the US (although not as big as it should be), I always find other countries situations fascinating.

sj

CptKelly
09-06-2004, 08:52 AM
Merhaba Offendi.....forgive my spelling. I spent a year at Sinop.

Mike

Michael Tracy
09-06-2004, 06:10 PM
Another concern is commercial operations. They are not allowed. You can do anything with an experimental that you can do with a certified aircraft except charge for flying it. If you build it you are the one who certifies it. When the FAA or DAR inspects it they look at construction materials, building techniques, hardware, safeties, but they do not certify the design. You do and you will prove it flying for 25 to 40 hours in a designated flight test area before you can go anyplace else or carry a passenger. I don't intend to sell mine. I will pass it on to my son. It's a fun project and very cost effective considering prices for certified aircraft. Having a cub I can fly or tow sounds like a great idea so I will work on engineering folding wings. When your the certifier you can do stuff like that. I wonder if they will make me tow it for 25 hours.

Mike

Ahmet Kamil
09-07-2004, 10:31 AM
It should be (Merhaba Efendi / Hello Mr.). This World is really small !
So, we're all talking about US of course. How liability effects your flights if you fly an experimental (say alone, with proper licence). Do insurance companies reject your insurance ? Do controllers stop you if you enter high class airspaces or airports ? I mean do the authorities certify your "experimental", just to let you "circle" around your "back garden", and do nothing more (you naughty boy :lol: )?

S2D
09-07-2004, 11:16 AM
Another concern is commercial operations. They are not allowed. You can do anything with an experimental that you can do with a certified aircraft except charge for flying it.

Mike

If I'm not mistaken ( and I usually am) I thought experimental aircraft were included in the type aircraft ( along with PT 137 aircraft) not allowed on large airports with scheduled passenger service ( airlines) althought I've seen it done lots.
Have to go find it in the regs

Michael Tracy
09-07-2004, 01:19 PM
Many restrictions to general aviation were imposed after 911. Most have been lifted. Experimental aircraft land and take off at New Orleans International (class B) all the time. Your aircraft does have to meet class B requirements including 2 way radio and transponder. The EAA and AOPA have done wonders to suport general aviation including homebuilts.

CrossedControls
09-07-2004, 01:26 PM
Ahmet


How liability effects your flights if you fly an experimental (say alone, with proper licence). Do insurance companies reject your insurance ? Do controllers stop you if you enter high class airspaces or airports ? I mean do the authorities certify your "experimental", just to let you "circle" around your "back garden",

The liability we were talking about with US experimental, is that if the builder sells the aircraft, and any subsequent owner comes to grief, the family could sue the builder as the buck stops with him. This is why most people here make the comment that if they go experimental they will keep the aircraft in the family or scrap it. This is not the case in other countries where a certification of sorts is performed by the equivalent to the EAA, in the case of the UK it's the PFA.

Pete

S2D
09-07-2004, 06:11 PM
Many restrictions to general aviation were imposed after 911. Most have been lifted. Experimental aircraft land and take off at New Orleans International (class B) all the time. Your aircraft does have to meet class B requirements including 2 way radio and transponder. The EAA and AOPA have done wonders to suport general aviation including homebuilts.

FAR 91.313(e) for Restricted Category
FAR 91.319(c) for Experimental Category

Does everyone automatically get a "Special Operations Limitations" certificate to operate in congested airways and over populated areas when they get their Experimental Certificate. Or is that what the 25-40 hr flyoff gets you? (I thought it just let you fly farther from home.)

Michael Tracy
09-07-2004, 08:08 PM
I didn't mean to overly simplify the process. The reality is if you build an aircraft that has problems in the test phase you may never have permission to fly anywhere else. But a properly built replica of a certified design or a new design can be granted permission to operate just like any other aircraft under part 91. The 25 hour test period is for known aircraft with a certified engine and prop. They will usually impose a longer test period for non certified engines. After the test phase if you have no problems you can get special operating limitations that will either restrict or grant approval for certain operations. The FAA likes certified engines, so do insurance companies. If you build an IFR equipped aircraft you can get approved to fly IFR. The same applies to night flying. There are a lot of homebuilts out there with questionable engines. I assume for liability reasons some 2 stroke aircraft engines are placarded with the warning "this engine may quit suddenly and without warning". You probably won't get permission to takeoff or land over a congested area with one of these. The restrictions or approvals are based on the the individual aircraft. Even with an approval to operate over congested areas 91.119 spells out the safety restrictions. And then there's the catch all 91.13. These restrictions are all about public safety. If we (the general aviation community) continue to use good judgement and common sense then we will continue to have the freedom to fly. I for one intend to due my part to make sure Washington doesn't feel pressured into restricting us further. But who wants to fly a cub over congested areas. I'm building mine to get away from congestion. Thats more typing than I've done in a while.

Mike

S2D
09-07-2004, 09:29 PM
:) thanks for the info Mike. Always curious whether everyone was just getting by or were legal at big airports. Never been thru the experimental rigamarole. I went into a big airport with a spray plane using light signals (prearranged) once but looking back, I don't think it was legal without a waiver from the FAA.

bob turner
09-08-2004, 12:28 AM
I went in to Denver Stapleton once in a J-3! Almost couldn't get out - different controller.

Ahmet Kamil
09-10-2004, 02:49 AM
Foldable wings I think is the most important enhancement in the Cub. Pls keep me informed if you come up with a solution.

FixedWing
09-11-2004, 09:09 PM
Has any experimental builder tried disigning a quick remove wing?

I too am very interested in this topic but my reason is different.

I would like to be able to break down and transport a Supercub in an ocean going container and then reassemble it reasonably quickly and reasonably easily at the destination to use there. When finished I would again disassemble it and repack it into the container to ship back to the origin.

In this way it would become easy to enjoy a Supercub in places such as Australia, Africa and so on.

It wouldn't be necessary that the Supercub go back together in minutes but it would need to be a relatively speedy process with minimum risks and no "set-up" sorts of adjustments or special tools required.

Stephen

FixedWing
09-11-2004, 09:23 PM
...a properly built replica of a certified design or a new design can be granted permission to operate just like any other aircraft under part 91.

Mike and others, I think you are missing a very important problem with aircraft flying on Experimental airworthiness certificates.

Yes, all of the issues of flying in USA airspace can likely be dealt with. The problem comes when trying to operate the same aircraft internationally. Where a Normal airworthiness certificate is valid in all ICAO member countries by agreement, an Experimental airworthiness certificate is not automatically valid and the pilot is supposed to seek permission of each jurisdiction prior to flying in their airspace.

There is a blanket grant of permission between Canada and the USA and I believe that there are some arrangements with Mexico but if you go outside of North America there can be problems. I believe many countries will pretty much automatically deny permission. I have heard of this happening.

I believe a lot of people ignore this requirement and simply fly into the jurisdiction without seeking permission. It isn?t automatically obvious what category an aircraft is in and few are really aware of the differences. For example, when was the last time you heard of a foreign aircraft being grounded in the USA because it had an Experimental airworthiness certificate and permission hadn't been sought? But there is always the risk that the aircraft could be grounded overseas and might need to be broken down and shipped out of the country. :(

Stephen

Steve's Aircraft (Brian)
09-12-2004, 06:08 PM
A few years ago there was a comedy airshow act called the ACME Duck and Airshow co. starring a clown, dog, a few ducks and a modified J3. I know the performers of the show real well. We rebuilt the J3 a couple of years before they quit the show. Set it up with quick disconnects on the wings and cables so that they could haul it in a custom built trailer. Had it down to about an hour to assemble and disassemble. Keep in mind though that they did it avery couple of days and had a system down for speed. Also, the J3 was certified, everything was done on field approvals and STC's. Also had a 0-290 on the nose with a supercub type cowl.

Ursa Major
09-12-2004, 07:00 PM
A few years ago there was a comedy airshow act called the ACME Duck and Airshow co. starring a clown, dog, a few ducks and a modified J3. I know the performers of the show real well. .

I saw them perform around 20 years ago, great show! He sure could fly that cub.

Michael Tracy
09-12-2004, 08:22 PM
I am aware of all the requirements pertaining to flying experimental aircraft in different countries. If I fly someplace other than the United States and Canada I will deal with it. The fastest growing category of single engine aircraft in general aviation is homebuilts. With the new sport pilot rules this will grow even faster. I don't have time to express all my views on homebuilt aircraft now. It's been a long day. I'm flying a 20 place helicopter this week evacuating the Gulf of Mexico in advance of hurricane Ivan and I still have a lot of flying scheduled for tomorrow.

Mike