• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Why Experimental?

drew

Registered User
Fort Leavenworth, or KTNU, Iowa
Now that I'm two weeks out from resuming work on my years-delayed Super Cub project, I've been doing some thinking about why we're looking Super Cub and why Experimental.

For us, the Super Cub is a known entity, that provided it's constructed well, shares parts with just about every other PA- and some J- types out there. It's fast enough for what we need in an airplane, and has the possibility of good off-airport operation.

The reason we're going experimental, is because frankly, I like building stuff, and we can cash flow the aircraft in our monthly budget during construction. Plus, I can do my own annuals with my A&P license.

I recently had a guy approach me about what I thought of a kit aircraft that approximated a Cub's performance and flight profile, and I recommended against it, because he would be slave to a kit manufacturer until he finished, as he didn't want to buy the whole kit, and it would take over a year for kit delivery, because the manufacturer is a one man show.

Frankly, with a Cub, you have a wide variety of kit "manufacturers" including old wrecked ones, when it comes to parts.

I'm interested in what others think about why a guy would want to build an experimental Super Cub.
 
The ability to use the aircraft commercially is the most obvious reason not to go experimental. Then there will always be those folks that just don't care for an exp. category airplane no matter if it's a S.C. clone or not. Some folks have the "built in someones basement " mindset is not as good as built in Lock Haven. Paying as you build is the only option for me.
 
All Super Cub "replica" builders should be aware of the FAA's proposed new guidance for certification of amateur-built aircraft. Changes to certification guidance could have a drastic effect on those who wish to undertake the construction of Super Cub "clones".

You can view the draft documents at the following web site:

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/display_docs/index.cfm?Doc_Type=Pubs

EAA will be formulating our response over the next couple of weeks, and should have something posted on our web site by 22 August. We will publish instructions on how to provide comments to the FAA on the proposed guidance. The comment period is open until 30 September. Good, well thought out and constructive comments are important. Rants and raves do no good, so please act accordingly.

Thanks!
 
Thanks, jnorris!

According to the proposal, I'm golden, provided my work is deemed "airworthy".

Honestly, I don't have a problem with the proposed rules, as written.
 
I read the other day (APOA maybe) that the new rules the FAA is working on have a grand father clause for kits established before the new rules take effect. In other words, TCOW and the other kits manufactures that have their kits out now are grand fathered in. Anybody else heard or know more about this???
 
iamcamper said:
I read the other day (APOA maybe) that the new rules the FAA is working on have a grand father clause for kits established before the new rules take effect. In other words, TCOW and the other kits manufactures that have their kits out now are grandfathered in. Anybody else heard or know more about this???

Only kits that are specifically listed on the FAA's kits listing will be "grandfathered". Check out the list here:

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/kit_listing/Complete_mfr_model_listing/

None of the "Cub clone" kits are on the list as far as I can see, so they would not be "grandfathered" and would have to meet the new certification guidance requirements when such guidance goes into effect.

Keep an eye on the EAA web site later next week for info on EAA's comments and how to submit comments of your own.
 
drew said:
For us, the Super Cub is a known entity, that provided it's constructed well, shares parts with just about every other PA- and some J- types out there. It's fast enough for what we need in an airplane, and has the possibility of good off-airport operation.

The reason we're going experimental, is because frankly, I like building stuff, and we can cash flow the aircraft in our monthly budget during construction. Plus, I can do my own annuals with my A&P license.

Frankly, with a Cub, you have a wide variety of kit "manufacturers" including old wrecked ones, when it comes to parts.

I'm interested in what others think about why a guy would want to build an experimental Super Cub.

You hit most of the reasons I'm going with a home built.
- I like building as much as flying
- Since I'm going with a plane that can be built from plans I can buy materials as I need them, no big cash outlay.
- I have a good plane I enjoy flying, so no big rush to get airborn.
- By going with plans/scratch built I never have to worry about the company disappearing, everything can be fabricated myself, or is a common aircraft part.
- Of course doing my own inspections etc is nice, I'll probably have my IA look at it every couple years anyway, since different people will notice different things.
- equipment and modifications arn't paperwork limited.
- I only fly for recreation, so no plans to ever use it commercially.
- the proposed changes to the 51% rule won't affect me, I'll be fabricating 90% of it anyway.

As for why a Cub clone home built? Aside from nostalgia, I can't think of any reason to.
-First, the kits tend to be over priced, just like real cubs. For example, for ~$36k you could bet a Texas Sport Cub, or a 4 place Bearhawk quick build kit, or an RV-10 standard kit. Most kits in the Sport Cub's class are around $20-$24k. Obviously if one were to scratch build from Wagaero or similar plans that wouldn't be an issue.
- Second It's an antique design. There are far better airfoils out now than the Modified Clark Y. You could easily clean up a lot of drag and have a much more efficient aircraft without sacrificing weight or STOL ability. The flaps on a Super Cub are an afterthought. If you want a super STOL aircraft build one that was designed with big flaps and a thick airfoil in the first place. The Yaw stability is on the low side, it just barely passes the FAA certification tests for spin recovery.

Just my 2 cents. 8)

Phil
 
Phil, I think you should compare the build time and expense involved to get a Texas Sport in the air versus a Bearhawk. I have been around both kits and researched them and hands down there is a big difference in time and money along with what the end result is. I don't think the Cub clone designs are any more expensive than any other kit. And looking at some of them I think the quality justifies the price. You can always build from scratch cheaper but some people don't have the skills or time to build from scratch. As for the modified Clark y, there might be better more efficient airfoils but Cubs and Super Cubs and Clippers sure do fly nice. Of course compared to a Cessna 150 who can argue? :wink: :lol:
 
Steve I'll have to take your word for it on the quality (and since I've met you, I will take your word for it), since I've never had the opportunity to view either kit.

But fly better than a 150? :eek: You'll have to prove that one to me one of these days. 8)

Phil
 
Phil, I don't think the Cub Crafters kit or the Texas Sport will meet the 51% rule. I know the Texas Sport is bolt together with a little fitting having to be done to the cowl and from the information I have been privy to and seeing it at OSH the Cub Crafters kit it is the same.
 
Drew,

Freedom. Freedom to go to Ace Hardware, Freedom to go to Home Depot.

Freedom to invent, modifiy, and change. Freedom to explore and reinvent. Freedom to improve.

Someone who is going to build must understand that the project is bigger than he or she thinks. Much bigger. Can't be in a hurry. A year and a half on mine but I average only an a hour a day.


I"m building from scratch and its' been fun. The pay as you go is also attractive. A TCOW will have a completed cost of no less than 80k and more than likely 100K if you use all new components. Scratch building us the way I went and is very affordable. I should be under 50K completed.
 
Steve Pierce said:
Phil, I don't think the Cub Crafters kit or the Texas Sport will meet the 51% rule. I know the Texas Sport is bolt together with a little fitting having to be done to the cowl and from the information I have been privy to and seeing it at OSH the Cub Crafters kit it is the same.

That will be a shame Steve, I know a lot of guys up here are looking at the Texas Sport Cub pretty hard. But I imagine they'll figure out some way to meet the new standards. From what I've read the only major change is requiring builder to do 10% of the fabrication. That shouldn't take much, just leave the builder to cut and form the leading edges and boot cowling pieces. Maybe leave the tail feathers tack welded for the builder to finish too. But I honestly haven't paid that close attention since it doesn't apply to my project.

Phil
 
Drew,
Welcome back to the states!

Why Experimental? Not in any order, but my list below regarding my experience building my 2+2/PA14 from scratch.

1. I like to build
2. Not much into the red tape involved in a rebuild and all the STC's
3. Pay as I go (if scratch building like I am)
4. I didn't need $30k just to start
5. building a 2+2/PA14 if I want to buy a part I can; if not than I build it.
6. Proven design
7. much lower cost in the end
8. lots of great help here when I need it.

Yes, I know it will take me a long time to build; I have about 1000 hours over 3 1/2 years. In that time, I have the fuselage finished (less pulleys, elevators, and interior). I have my gear (no wheels yet), seats, and all the wood for my wings. Total cost so far: about $3500. I know I can't use it for hire but wasn't planning on it and I know the resale is less than a certified bird but I'm not looking to make a profit off my hobby. So is it right for me? You bet! Right for everybody? Probably not. I think we might see less experimentals in the future as the FAA clamps down on the 51% rule (including 20% fabrication according to the FAA forum at Osh). Many potential builders who only want to bolt together their plane will be out of luck but I think the big Kit builders will figure out a way to include those needs also.

Marty57
 
We just shipped our household goods this morning. We touch ground on the evening of the 18th.

I am definitely ready to start building an airplane when I get back.

Drew
 
Back
Top