Project: Citabria 7 GCBCrebuilt in the experimental category

[skywagon8a]

Improvements don't happen by magic, you have to do something for it, i'm building a set of Bearhawk Patrol wings for my bird, that should put me in Super Cub territory
for stol performance and way ahead in top speed, my best buddy is finishing building a Smith Cub, my goal is to beat him everywhere, i bought the Citabria from him.

Why are you opting for less wingspan than the Citabria or PA-18?

 

[dgapilot]

Where in regulation does it say that? The builder worksheet used to calculate 51% doesn’t exclude subsequent work. Why would a Piper airframe be treated different from a Javron or Back Country airframe?

From FAA Order 8130.2J Paragraph 15-2 F. Type-Certificated Aircraft. Altering, repairing, or rebuilding type-certificated aircraft constitutes maintenance of a type-certificated aircraft under part 43, not fabrication and assembly of amateur-built aircraft. This policy has been in effect since 1952 under section 1.74-3 of the Civil Aeronautics Manual (CAM) 1, which specifically states, “structural components of other aircraft may be used [for amateur-built aircraft]; however, it is not intended that this provision be used to avoid obtaining approval of major alterations to aircraft previously certificated in another category.”

 

[Franky]

I don't

The Bearhawk wings have the same 180 square feets area than the Super cub, it is shorter at 33 fts but the wing chord is 66 inches, my wings will be at 35 feets, so

i will have 192 square feets of wing, an extra foot of flap per side than the stock Bearhawk.

Franky

 

[Franky]

In response to dgapilot

You can use the airframe of a certified aircraft, the important thing is the 51% rule, the best sample of that is '' Draco '' which was built from a PZL 104 Wilga by
Mike Patey in the US, the PZL 104 have been certified in the US.

Franky

 

[skywagon8a]

In response to dgapilot

You can use the airframe of a certified aircraft, the important thing is the 51% rule, the best sample of that is '' Draco '' which was built from a PZL 104 Wilga by
Mike Patey in the US, the PZL 104 have been certified in the US.

Franky

Draco was approved as "Experimental Exhibition" which is different from "Experimental Amateur built". The 51% rule is not applicable in his case, only for EAB.

 

[Franky]

I just checked it online and you are right about Draco, it had an Exhibition certificate, however, a structural component of another aircraft can be use for
for an Amateur-built Aircraft and a tubing fuselage definitely fit the description of a structural component, we don't have a problem with that in Canada but
it seem to be a big debate in the US.

Franky

 

[mvivion]

I just checked it online and you are right about Draco, it had an Exhibition certificate, however, a structural component of another aircraft can be use for
for an Amateur-built Aircraft and a tubing fuselage definitely fit the description of a structural component, we don't have a problem with that in Canada but
it seem to be a big debate in the US.

Franky

It's not a debate according to the FAA......you can USE it, you just don't get credit toward the 51 %.

And, there are folks doing Experimental Exhibition, and flying them like a normal category airplane. I suspect enough of that happens, the FAA will start ratcheting down on that as well.

MTV

 

[Franky]

Well!

If Trump make it at the next election, tell him to clean the swamp at the FAA:smile: