PDA

View Full Version : Experimental Pacers?



AntiCub
12-15-2010, 06:31 PM
Just curious, with all the J-3, PA-12,14 and 18 kits and plans out there. Does anyone sell plans or kits for an experimental pacer clone?

Marty57
12-15-2010, 08:05 PM
Wag Aero has the Wagabond; Vagabond clone. With those plans and the Shortwing CD that could work. There is a pretty active Wag builders Yahoo group and the Wagabond seems to very popular. Me, I'm one of those PA14 clone builders floating around here.
Marty57

Bugs66
12-16-2010, 11:16 AM
Change your mind on the Patrol? I am still deciding what to build next. I thought Travel Air, but then got turned on to Ryan ST-A replica. However, now think I might build a set of Zenair floats. I'm fickle with plane stuff right now too. ;)

AntiCub
12-16-2010, 02:30 PM
No, I'm still planning to do the patrol next. But I was looking for a better cross country plane than my 150 last year and in researching the Pacers I was pretty impressed with them. They seem like a pretty darn good all round plane if you don't need super STOL performance. So I was just curious as to why I couldn't find any home built options out there for them.

Isn't the Wagabond more like a 4 place super cub than a Pacer?

Marty57
12-16-2010, 02:46 PM
The Wagabond is two seat; side by side. The Sportsman 2+2 is the 4 seat; clone of the PA14. Here's the link for info on the Wagabond. http://www.wagaero.com/wag.html
Marty57

AntiCub
12-16-2010, 02:53 PM
Thanks, I guess it was the 2+2 I was thinking of.

Phil

brown bear
12-16-2010, 06:19 PM
Phil
sounds like you need a cliped wing Bearhawk
Doug

AntiCub
12-16-2010, 07:07 PM
Doug
Why? the full length wing Bearhawk will still outrun a pacer. :)
Phil

brown bear
12-16-2010, 07:17 PM
True Phil, but cliped wing,light and a good 0320?
Doug

AntiCub
12-16-2010, 08:01 PM
Doug,
Don't think it hasn't crossed my mind. I'm sure a 160 hp clipped wing Patrol with small tires, wheel pants and good fairing work could make 150mph at altitude. But I'd rather retain the STOL abilities and be content with the 120 -130 mph cruise. If I wanted a fast cross country plane I'd build either an RV or Tailwind. I've always found Wittman's designs facinating since he got remarkable performace out of very simple aircraft. But for now I feel I need something a bit more rugged for around Alaska.

Phil

Steve Pierce
12-16-2010, 10:53 PM
Buy a Pacer and fly it. More bang for the buck than anything I know of.

AntiCub
12-16-2010, 11:16 PM
that's the same conclusion I came to last year Steve. But right now I have a plane to fly and I enjoy building and tinkering. I'm also just a little gun shy regarding antique certified aircraft right now. Why I was curious about an experimental version.

Phil

Steve Pierce
12-16-2010, 11:20 PM
There are all kinds of folks building stretched Pacers. I haven't flown one so not sure how they fly. So far my favorite was the Dakota Cub slotted winged Pacer.

Bill Rusk
12-17-2010, 08:25 AM
The shortwing Pipers are great but they are really narrow. Ya gotta like the person you are flying with because you will be sitting in their lap. That would be the advantage to the Bearhawk it is wider. Or, if you are building experimental, you could lengthen and widen too. Perhaps the Tundra Boss. Christian, I thought you were into that Travel Air Biplane. I have considered those floats as well. Keep us posted on what you end up doing. I hope to be up that way this summer but will be on straight Baumanns.

Bill

tempdoug
12-17-2010, 08:29 AM
Is this sortve a (anticub) thread?

Steve Pierce
12-17-2010, 08:30 AM
If you think a Pacer is close try a PA14. ;-)

jr.hammack
12-17-2010, 10:08 AM
when i got my exp. inspection by anc. fsdo, they told me a lot of stretched pacer builders were not going to be happy when it came time to get approval from the faa!!!! i'd make sure of certified parts being used on exp. approval before getting in too deep!!

jr.

don d
12-17-2010, 10:53 AM
My observation is that Pacers have more cabin space than a Pa-14. I have owned a 1951 Pacer, a 1960 Tri-pacer, and an experimental bushmaster . A later model Pa-22/20 is a good option because the later Pa-22 are wider, have a larger bagage area, and have individual adjusting seats. A Plain old Tri-pacer is a good airplane. Only advantage with a taildragger is with skiis.

Now a Bushmaster, with it's larger wing, lands and takes off 10mph slower.

Don

qsmx440
12-17-2010, 11:14 AM
when i got my exp. inspection by anc. fsdo, they told me a lot of stretched pacer builders were not going to be happy when it came time to get approval from the faa!!!! i'd make sure of certified parts being used on exp. approval before getting in too deep!!

jr.

Could you elaborate a little more on what they said? I contacted the FAA about using a bare SC fuse for the basis of my project and never received a "permission granted" reply. I talked to a DAR about this and he saw no problem if everything else was homemade. He said "appendix 8" was the guideline. Was the FSDO talking about those projects where a little of the cover was peeled back and some tubes welded in and then the cover was patched? I am exagerating a little but I mean those projects where the wings, tail and fuse were original, repaired/modified, then recovered and that was passed off as an experimental. I think I remember reading the rules like this " Over use of major salvage assemblies would disqualify". My take is dividing the aircraft into 3 sections (main wings, tail feathers, fuselage) you can probably get by with any one section as salvage but not two or three. I think the breezy uses cub wings but you build the rest of it and I think it's still legal. In the end it's subjective. I did find out apparently you can get an inspection and if it fails you can make changes and try again (for more bucks I'm sure). I'll have homemade wings and tail feathers and original fuse. If it fails it will just add two years to build a fuse and recover it. It's all good 8)

AntiCub
12-17-2010, 01:48 PM
Is this sortve a (anticub) thread?
Not at all, as I said originally, I'm just curious. I've got my next project started already.

Phil

Steve Pierce
12-17-2010, 01:51 PM
when i got my exp. inspection by anc. fsdo, they told me a lot of stretched pacer builders were not going to be happy when it came time to get approval from the faa!!!! i'd make sure of certified parts being used on exp. approval before getting in too deep!!

jr.
An agent of the government was in your hanger? :lol: I hope some one got a picture of that and hung it on the wall. ;-)

jr.hammack
12-17-2010, 08:17 PM
steve,
got witness's,belive it or not!!! even cooked hamburgers,good time was had by all!!

the guide lines for exp. have changed,in n.m. for xmas.,so don't have paper with me,was questioned about my wings and fuselage,was told no a/c parts from certified a/c can now be used on exp.,even if modified!! old rules encouraged use of critical parts. only piper parts in my wings were ribs,pulleys,braces,fuel tanks,finally got ok as everything else was non-piper,or fabricated. had to document that the fuselage was fabricated by build log or bill of sale from kit manufactor.


jr.

Marty57
12-17-2010, 10:40 PM
There seems to be a lot of misconception regarding using certified parts in the construction of an Amateur built Exp. Use of certified parts are ok according to the regs released this year. I have posted an excerpt from the regs below. You will see that certified parts are ok with some restrictions. Take a look below and I think you will see that not everything has to be fabricated by the builder. The short answer is that certified or salvaged parts can be used but there use or modification will not count toward the 51% rule. Using an entire fuselage might be a big problem. Having scratch built my fuselage, wings, and tail feathers I have to say that the fuselage is likely more than half my build time. That being said, the sticky part comes in when determining the percentage of the build represented by the salvaged fuselage. I would be very cautious, reading below, using an entire fuselage from a certified AC in an exp. An example was given of the Breezy. Using a Piper wing and a scratch built Breezy fuselage would work vecause of the hours needed to build the fuselage, engine mount, and tail feathers is certainly more than 51%. Take a look below and you will see that certified parts are ok as long as you understand the 51% rule and how those parts relate to that percentage.
Marty57

From the Regs:

8/31/2010 8130.2G
4-53
(1) The FAA recognizes that amateur builders cannot be expected to have fabricated
every product and article that makes up the aircraft and that some products and articles will be
acquired from commercial sources.
(2) Items such as engines, engine accessories, propellers, rotor blades, rotor hubs, tires,
wheel and brake assemblies, instruments, and standard aircraft hardware, including pulleys, bell
cranks, rod ends, bearings, bolts, rivets, hot air balloon burners, and fuel tanks, are acceptable
and may be procured on the open market. The use of these products and articles are not counted
against the amateur builder or kit manufacturer when the FAA determines whether the
amateur-built aircraft has met the major portion requirement.
b. Use of Salvaged Articles from Type-Certificated Aircraft. The use of used or
salvaged articles (for example, landing gear, horizontal stabilizer, and engine mount) from
type-certificated aircraft is permitted, as long as they are in a condition for safe operation,
however―
(1) When a project involves a major article, such as wings, fuselage, or tail assembly,
contact AIR-200 for a determination of eligibility to 14 CFR §21.191(g). AIR-200 will
coordinate with Flight Standards Service, Aircraft Maintenance Division, AFS-300 personnel to
resolve such issues.
(2) No credit will be given to the amateur builder(s) for any work on these salvaged
articles when determining whether the amateur-built aircraft has met the major portion
requirement. This would include any “rebuilding” or “restoring” activities to return these articles
to an airworthy condition.
(3) All fabrication, installation, and assembly tasks accomplished with used or salvaged
articles will be credited to the “Mfr Kit/Part/Component” column on the Amateur-Built Aircraft
Fabrication and Assembly Checklist (2009). However, assembly credit may given in those cases
where used or salvaged articles are mated to portions of the aircraft fabricated and assembled by
the amateur builder.
(4) Amateur builders should be made aware that excessive use of prefabricated or
salvaged articles when building their aircraft may render the aircraft ineligible for amateur-built
status as defined in 14 CFR § 21.191(g). The use of a significantly complete airframe or
combination of major articles such as wings and fuselage, tail plane assembly from a
type-certificated aircraft, or a compilation of aircraft, would most likely render the aircraft
ineligible for amateur-built status as defined in 14 CFR § 21.191(g).
(5) As soon as it is known that a project involves the use of a complete airframe or
combination of major articles such as wings, fuselage, or tail assembly, contact AIR-200 for
additional guidance. AIR-200 will coordinate with AFS-300 personnel to resolve such issues.

petez
12-17-2010, 11:50 PM
Later Pa-22 wider? Dont think so. We are at 4300ft msl and I would take my 20 almost anywhere most guys will go with their cub. It doesnt tow gliders very well, to fast, but the extra 200 ft of runway I might use, is more than offset with the extra speed and comfort. Pete

Indabush
12-18-2010, 12:30 AM
You could buy them dirt cheap already. Why bother building one?

qsmx440
12-18-2010, 02:45 AM
There seems to be a lot of misconception regarding using certified parts in the construction of an Amateur built Exp. Use of certified parts are ok according to the regs released this year. I have posted an excerpt from the regs below. You will see that certified parts are ok with some restrictions. Take a look below and I think you will see that not everything has to be fabricated by the builder. The short answer is that certified or salvaged parts can be used but there use or modification will not count toward the 51% rule. Using an entire fuselage might be a big problem. Having scratch built my fuselage, wings, and tail feathers I have to say that the fuselage is likely more than half my build time. That being said, the sticky part comes in when determining the percentage of the build represented by the salvaged fuselage. I would be very cautious, reading below, using an entire fuselage from a certified AC in an exp. An example was given of the Breezy. Using a Piper wing and a scratch built Breezy fuselage would work vecause of the hours needed to build the fuselage, engine mount, and tail feathers is certainly more than 51%. Take a look below and you will see that certified parts are ok as long as you understand the 51% rule and how those parts relate to that percentage.
Marty57

From the Regs:

8/31/2010 8130.2G
4-53
(1) The FAA recognizes that amateur builders cannot be expected to have fabricated
every product and article that makes up the aircraft and that some products and articles will be
acquired from commercial sources.
(2) Items such as engines, engine accessories, propellers, rotor blades, rotor hubs, tires,
wheel and brake assemblies, instruments, and standard aircraft hardware, including pulleys, bell
cranks, rod ends, bearings, bolts, rivets, hot air balloon burners, and fuel tanks, are acceptable
and may be procured on the open market. The use of these products and articles are not counted
against the amateur builder or kit manufacturer when the FAA determines whether the
amateur-built aircraft has met the major portion requirement.
b. Use of Salvaged Articles from Type-Certificated Aircraft. The use of used or
salvaged articles (for example, landing gear, horizontal stabilizer, and engine mount) from
type-certificated aircraft is permitted, as long as they are in a condition for safe operation,
however―
(1) When a project involves a major article, such as wings, fuselage, or tail assembly,
contact AIR-200 for a determination of eligibility to 14 CFR §21.191(g). AIR-200 will
coordinate with Flight Standards Service, Aircraft Maintenance Division, AFS-300 personnel to
resolve such issues.
(2) No credit will be given to the amateur builder(s) for any work on these salvaged
articles when determining whether the amateur-built aircraft has met the major portion
requirement. This would include any “rebuilding” or “restoring” activities to return these articles
to an airworthy condition.
(3) All fabrication, installation, and assembly tasks accomplished with used or salvaged
articles will be credited to the “Mfr Kit/Part/Component” column on the Amateur-Built Aircraft
Fabrication and Assembly Checklist (2009). However, assembly credit may given in those cases
where used or salvaged articles are mated to portions of the aircraft fabricated and assembled by
the amateur builder.
(4) Amateur builders should be made aware that excessive use of prefabricated or
salvaged articles when building their aircraft may render the aircraft ineligible for amateur-built
status as defined in 14 CFR § 21.191(g). The use of a significantly complete airframe or
combination of major articles such as wings and fuselage, tail plane assembly from a
type-certificated aircraft, or a compilation of aircraft, would most likely render the aircraft
ineligible for amateur-built status as defined in 14 CFR § 21.191(g).
(5) As soon as it is known that a project involves the use of a complete airframe or
combination of major articles such as wings, fuselage, or tail assembly, contact AIR-200 for
additional guidance. AIR-200 will coordinate with AFS-300 personnel to resolve such issues.


Marty note that nowhere does it prohibit the use of major salvage components. While I agree with you that for someone who does not posses a "jig" and commercial welding skills the fuselage is the biggest part of the build I don't think that is how the FAA is looking at it. In 1(b)1 above it says says to contact air200 (they are in Oklahoma) for a determination. I tried to contact twice several months ago and they acknowledged receiving my request and then never got back to me.? I attached a picture of a "kit" that showed all the pre-assembled parts including powder coated fuselage, finished wings and gear and noted I would be building much more of the aircraft than the "kit" builder would be. Refering to apendix 8 which appears at the bottom? of the above regs the fuselage accounts for 19 points of the 140 allowed (as far as I can tell) for a cub type aircraft. For you and me it mentally and actually accounts for much more in points but that is the system the FAA has chosen to rate kits and it spills over into homebuilt now apparently. By 1 b (2) above I would lose all 19 points for the fuselage section. Fine. I think in 1 b (4) above "significantly complete airframe" airframe means fuse, gear and wings like some "pacer" type projects I have seen. Note that they specifically call out "combination of major articles such as wings and fuselage" I read that one major item by itself should be accepted. In (5) they again mention "complete airframe" or combination of more than one major item. Again I talked to a dar about this and he refered me to appendix 8. Note also in some of the sentences they refer to pre-built and salvage in the same light or in other words they "equate" them. . In my case I liked the idea of jump starting with the fuse setting locations for attachments and building the tail feathers (50 points), main wings (50 points) seats, tanks, gear etc (20 points). Points are approximate as I don't have the sheet in front of me. Anyway I shall see when this is finished. If I get that far I'll publish what happens. Worst case I can build an exo-skeletin tack welded around my PA fuse and then cut-out-the-guts and have a "wide-body ;-) Marty of all the builders I have followed "you-da-man" but some of us while wanting to do most of it maybe choose just a little easier route for our first attempts. I believe the FAA understands this and is encouraging more homebuilders with the kits and such. These projects still take years and a lot of time no matter how you approach it. In between getting threads moved to R&R I spend hours a day researching (right now it's wings) the various parts of these Piper types. Start building again in the spring.

Steve Pierce
12-18-2010, 08:04 AM
Later Pa-22 wider? Dont think so. We are at 4300ft msl and I would take my 20 almost anywhere most guys will go with their cub. It doesnt tow gliders very well, to fast, but the extra 200 ft of runway I might use, is more than offset with the extra speed and comfort. Pete
The tubing width is the same dimension. The extra width is made up in the sheeet metal that forms the door frames giving a little more shoulder width.

Marty57
12-18-2010, 02:38 PM
Just to clarify why I posted the recient regs. My main point was to show that certified parts are not banned from an "Amateur Built Experimental" I guess I would contact a DAR rather than the FAA if you are going to use a major component from a certified aircraft. I can't find the post (tried to search but no luck) but a builder here recently did his first flight; PA18 Fuselage from salvage, scratch built wood wings, scratch built tail feathers. Anyway, he had no problem with the certification so it can be done. His fuselage was modified and accepted by the FAA /DAR. Could you use a Pacer fuselage? Likely but I would still contact a DAR; establish a relationship with him and follow his direction regarding use of certified parts. Sure wish this was easier to understand what the FAA really means with all this.
Marty57

Michael E. Butterfield
12-18-2010, 05:20 PM
I agree with Steve in that the Pacer is a very undervalued and capable A/C. I think the reason they're so cheap indabush, is that they have been going back to that original form for 50+ years now, and many of them are well on their way to dirt. We've quit repairing them, and now are able to offer a tubing kit from VR3 Engineering. They've been making our Super Breezy tubing kit for us and it is a first class fit as all of the tube is cut to length and has the proper notches already cut. Our first kit will be here next week, and we're going to jig it up and make a new replacement fuselage for the 22/20 that can be teamed with the wing from Dakota Cub to make a brand new plane. Our latest addition to the fleet can be seen at www.shortwingsupercub.com (http://www.shortwingsupercub.com). Merry Christmas to everyone, and good luck to us all.mb

qsmx440
12-18-2010, 11:28 PM
Ahh. I went back and re-read your post Marty and I see we were making the same point I think. I made one incorrect observation earlier in saying the FAA equates "salvage (read used/certified part)" and factory built new/certified parts like buying a set of pre built PMA'd wings from Dakota for example. With the new (never mounted on a certified aircraft) PMA'd part you only lose partial points for the factory built part. You still can count the "covering part" and mounting of the wings so in effect you "split" the points maybe 20 "commercial" and 20 "homebuilt". If you use a salvage part you lose the whole section "wings" or about 40 points of the 140 or so total. I determined that the fuselage section which totaled 19 points was one of the best to lose. "Main wings" section would be very punishing. If you used a set of original salvaged wings you would have to make damn near every screw, nut and bolt in the rest of the aircraft. Using salvaged tail feathers and main wings I think you would be at 90 points commercial and 50 points to the builder and you couldn't get that passed. The "kits" work because even though the wings, fuse, and tail feathers are pre-built for you, you can count the assembly and covering of the parts in those sections so you don't lose the whole section. I won't get the points for covering my salvage fuse even though I have to do the covering and painting etc. on it. I really got into this for a while and I think it is actually pretty clear and "appendix 8" spells it out pretty good if you remember you lose the whole major section (major section: "wings", "gear", "tail", "fuselage", etc.) on any salvage part you use. I could, if I wanted, have the fuse professionally repaired, covered and painted if I wanted because all 19 points are gone anyway. I have to believe that Jr Hammack's information was either mis understood by him or the fsdo did not understand the rules. Or I (heaven forbid, is it possible?) don't understand the rules...Shhhhh..

Marty57
12-19-2010, 02:19 AM
Yup, were on the same page here. I think the FAA is trying to prevent the assembly of aircraft from all certified parts and calling it exp. Still ok to use "some of this and some of that".
Marty57

Michael E. Butterfield
12-19-2010, 12:22 PM
We just bought kit #1 from the good folks at Dakota Cub and it's all brand new certified parts. I just last week compared prices with the Back Country guys, and see that the Dakota Cub prices are very close, in fact they're just a little lower than Back Country. It cost everyone the same for materials to make the plane, and there are no short cuts or easier ways of building so where's the difference? The ability to walk both sides of the street, so to speak, to me is a real value and worth the small amount we pay for the efforts of the persons supplying the approved parts. Our plan at YKM is to supply the Pacer in the same manner, only it can be bought as a tubing kit, and will make 51%. It is slick out there, so everyone take care and good luck to us all.mb

Steve Pierce
12-19-2010, 01:09 PM
www.shortwingsupercub.com (http://www.shortwingsupercub.com)

Mike, Is this airplane in the picture experimental or certified?

Michael E. Butterfield
12-19-2010, 05:01 PM
She's in the Experimental Home Built Category. Isn't she pretty?mb

jaypratt
12-20-2010, 10:33 AM
Mike, Why are you so disappointed?

Michael E. Butterfield
12-20-2010, 10:49 AM
Hi Jay!

Syd lives at 5,000 feet, the plane didn't have flaps, was powered by an O-320 and in the summer she was lethargic and he couldn't slow her down. He now has an O-375 with the Dakota Cub Slotted Wing, and lot's of flap. Syd is a happy guy now, as he has the plane he wanted in the first place.mb

jaypratt
12-20-2010, 11:06 AM
Mike,

Ok, I get it now. Thanks
Carol has been wanting to get a Pacer ever since she has gotten to know Pierce and his planes. We are getting another hanger next month and will not have any $$ left,, but,,, maby? we will recover and be able to look for her a plane next year.

Steve Pierce
12-20-2010, 10:00 PM
After today I have a Pacer on 29" Bushwheels I'll sell her, cheap. :-(

AntiCub
12-20-2010, 10:06 PM
That doesn't sound good Steve.....:(

MainlandCub
12-21-2010, 04:00 AM
AntiCub raised a good point that I have pondered upon myself many times. There seems to be a gap in the market here; the “Short Wing Piper” fills a niche that can never be filled by the Super Cub no matter what you do to it, just ask anyone who has had to endure an ever complaining wife that would prefer to see the countryside coming into view at the same time as you! Given the commonality of individual parts between the Super Cub and the Pacer (and it’s relatives), the current array of PA-18 clone manufacturers could easily develop a new market for their products.

With some careful thought, such a set of plans and/or kits could easily cover the whole gamut from an LSA/microlight Vagabond clone all the way through to a fire-breathing 200hp 4 seat monster with all the bells and whistles. Who knows, the development tree could even go on to masquerade as a homebuilt Maule….

Cheers,
Andrew.

d.grimm
12-21-2010, 08:31 AM
My Mini-Super Cub for my mini-wallet.

Michael E. Butterfield
12-21-2010, 11:03 AM
Hello Andrew!

We're sure that you're right on in every point you make. In fact we've pursued the short wing fuselage just for the reason that no one else has, and we have the wing from Dakota Cub. The beautiful Vagabond of d.girmm is an example of the Light Sport "Short Wing". We got to help Syd with his Short Wing Super Cub, and have fantasized about checking in with Center at flight level 190, in Tri-Pacer 59TP. The Chinese market is going to open and the plane worked really well for us when we were a smaller population... It's snowing at YKM, and we're having fun with the new snow plow. Let's all be careful out there cause it is slick...mb

AntiCub
12-21-2010, 11:51 AM
Actually, I think I found the answer on Barnstormers.com. You can get a Pacer in good condition for under $30k and a show quality one for around $40k. It would be tough to produce a kit that could be built for that.

Phil

MainlandCub
12-21-2010, 01:04 PM
Hello Andrew!

We're sure that you're right on in every point you make. In fact we've pursued the short wing fuselage just for the reason that no one else has, and we have the wing from Dakota Cub. The beautiful Vagabond of d.girmm is an example of the Light Sport "Short Wing". We got to help Syd with his Short Wing Super Cub, and have fantasized about checking in with Center at flight level 190, in Tri-Pacer 59TP. The Chinese market is going to open and the plane worked really well for us when we were a smaller population... It's snowing at YKM, and we're having fun with the new snow plow. Let's all be careful out there cause it is slick...mb

Hi Mike,

Be sure to keep us all posted! I expect a lot of others, like me, don't get around all the vendor sites to keep up with activity.

We're sweltering here, sitting typing this at 0700 in my shorts.

Cheers,
Andrew.

Marty57
12-21-2010, 04:19 PM
Andrew,
I think your right on target regarding the side-by-side issues that some of us want to address. I think Wag Aero could have a great product in that niche with the Wagabond (Vagabond clone) and the 2+2 (PA14 clone) but they don't seem interested in a larger market share. Most builders like (as I would have liked) a more up to date set of plans with a current market step-by-step manual; WA doesn't have anything in that arena that I know of. I enjoy scratch building my 2+2 but most builders have moved away from the old school method of building where the builder has to do a lot of head scratching to fill in the blanks. The Pacer set up is very appealing and could make a very nice modern kit for today's market.
Marty57

petez
12-22-2010, 09:49 PM
Why you selling the Pacer? moving on?

Steve Pierce
12-22-2010, 10:19 PM
Weak moment after I found out the second engine I installed had a bent crank. :cry:

AntiCub
12-23-2010, 02:11 AM
Weak moment after I found out the second engine I installed had a bent crank. :cry:
Ouch! I can truely understand your frustation Steve. :(

capav8
01-28-2011, 01:00 AM
I'm building the V-6 stol from a salvaged tripacer. My DAR told me to gather all info I could find about other projects before mine. I found no less than 10 documented projects that are flying and gave them to him. The DAR took them to his contact with the FAA and reported to me that his guy ( his FAA contact) saw no problem as far as the 51% rule. However be advised, I am building all new emmpenage, new gear legs and shock struts along with the engine mount. I will build my own seats as well and the fabric and PAINT counts also because it is necessary for flight. Then factor in all the other stuff that is required and the 51% becomes surpassable. At any rate I was delighted when my DAR gave me the go ahead.


Jim

dougsappllc
01-28-2011, 02:07 PM
Last issue of TAP has a 180 hp PA22/20 pacer, 60 gallons fuel, some mods $34K