• 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!

Super Cub project

Bearhawk Builder

Bearhawk Builder

FRIEND
In the woods
I recently picked up a nice project from my friend who imported 3 Super Cubs from the Netherlands. He is flying one, restoring one and I got the other. It's a 1952 18A according to the data tag but the fuselage has been modified at some point. It went on it's back a few years ago and needs straightening but it's real clean and a nice start. I'll be looking for a set of wings at some point so I'll put that out there if anyone has a set of round tip stock wings it the north east. I'm looking for a simple, light 160 build with the usual upgrades and will be tapping into the brain trust here quite a bit, so thanks in advance for your help.
Here's a good first question, what gear is this? Gear legs are different from most I've seen. Also what ski attachment does this look like?
Thanks all, Dave
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0349.jpg
    IMG_0349.jpg
    113.2 KB · Views: 988
  • IMG_0351.jpg
    IMG_0351.jpg
    91.9 KB · Views: 916
  • IMG_0356.JPG
    IMG_0356.JPG
    213.1 KB · Views: 799
  • IMG_0364.JPG
    IMG_0364.JPG
    251 KB · Views: 870
  • IMG_0365.JPG
    IMG_0365.JPG
    234.3 KB · Views: 611
Last edited by a moderator:
i would recommend deleting the pictures...

does that fuselage not being an A model reflected in the logs?

no wings?

and you hope to get it imported and certified here??
 
I was going to recommend getting Dakota cub wings but after seeing mikes post you might have other issues.
 
I think what is at issue is a COA. A friend just imported an airplane and had to prove it could fly.
 
The paperwork is in order, thanks. Didn't know that about not all A models not having flat top decks, I assumed they did. What about those gear legs?
 
Good airplane to cert experimental. Bracket for homemade skis? Quite narrow. Similar to Federal/Wipare, but Daniel Starr may know.
 
Dave, I have just what you need for the airframe. Shoot me an email. I also have a nice big liquid cooled 250 miller.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Just to help clarify the "A" model. The following is the first paragraph of each of the two type certificates for the PA-18. Notice that both of them have the "A" model approved for the 1952 model year production.

This is the Normal Category airplane:
The New Piper Aircraft, Inc transferred TC 1A2 to Piper Aircraft, Inc on August 7, 2006.
I. - Model PA-19 (Army L-18C), 2 PCLM (Normal and Utility Categories), Approved April 1, 1949; Model PA-18, 2 PCLM(Normal and Utility Categories), Approved November 18, 1949; Model PA-18 "125" (Army L-21A -- See NOTE 4), 2 PCLM(Normal and Utility Categories), Approved September 1, 1950; PA-18A, 2 PCLM (Normal and Utility Categories),Approved September 21, 1951; Model PA-18 "135" (Army L-21B -- See NOTE 5), 2 PCLM (Normal and Utility Categories),Approved April 25, 1952; Model PA-18A "135", 2 PCLM (Normal and Utility Categories), Approved April 25, 1952; ModelPA-18 "105" (Special), 2 PCLM (Normal and Utility Categories), Approved November 24, 1952.

This is the Restricted category agricultural model:
The New Piper Aircraft, Inc transferred TC AR-7 to Piper Aircraft, Inc on August 7,2006.
I - Model PA-18A, 1 PCLM (Restricted Category Only), Approved February 5, 1952; Model PA-18A "135", 1 PCLM (Restricted Category Only), Approved June 17, 1952.
 
skywagon8a said:
It would not have the flat top fuselage unless it was an AR-7 airplane. You don't have an ag fuselage.
Click to expand...

Sorry but can't agree on this one.... I have one sitting in my shop that is definitely a flat top Ag model and the data plate says IA2.
I also have a second one built in 1960 and it is also 1A2
Neither have ever had the AG equipment installed. I have been blessed in owned several "A" model cubs.

All "A" model cubs were constructed so that they could accept all of the "Aerial application equipment". (That is what the A indicates) This did not mean that they had to. They all had the flat top with the metal hatch installed over the baggage area and no headliner.

If they left the factory with the seat installed they were shown under 1A2 and in standard category.

If the aircraft left the factory with the AG equipment installed it was most likely shown as being built under AR-7. It could still be equipped for passenger usage but would have to have the standard or dual category AWC issued.

Many were licensed in "dual category". (Typically issued later after being converted to the opposite configuration) Standard for having the rear seat in place and all AG equipment removed and Restricted for vice verse.

I have seen several "A" model cubs that have been modified to look like standard cubs. They put a stringer down the center of the back but always looked strange; or if wrecked they would replace the top deck with a standard type.

I have seen some complete fuselage replacements with a standard design as evidently nothing else was available. The data plate still says 18A. (This is a practice that could create a very large can of worms for someone during a "conformity" inspection. )

The fuselage in the photo is lacking all of the AG model parts from the upper longerons up. The photos are too fuzzy to see good detail.

It does have the added intermediate 3/8 inch tubing in all of the bays that originally came with the AG units but a few of the later cubs had these added along with metal bellies in the late 70s.
All of the replacement fuselages available now have these tubes added and they make for a much stronger frame.
I would guess this is a standard fuselage from a later (post 1976) vintage.
For what its worth; If it was a used fuselage, you might find an original serial number on a plate welded on under the instrument panel on the right side.

The comments about having issues getting a COA or even registered in the US are spot on. I think you are out of luck....
Your best bet may be to try and use it on an experimental. You'll have more fun anyway!

Best of Luck to Ya!
 
cubpilot2 said:
Sorry but can't agree on this one.... I have one sitting in my shop that is definitely a flat top Ag model and the data plate says IA2.
I also have a second one built in 1960 and it is also 1A2
Neither have ever had the AG equipment installed. I have been blessed in owned several "A" model cubs.

All "A" model cubs were constructed so that they could accept all of the "Aerial application equipment". (That is what the A indicates) This did not mean that they had to. They all had the flat top with the metal hatch installed over the baggage area and no headliner.

The comments about having issues getting a COA or even registered in the US are spot on. I think you are out of luck....
Your best bet may be to try and use it on an experimental.
Click to expand...
Well I guess that neither one of us had better use the word "all" in this discussion. There was a brand new "A" model delivered to my field directly from Lockhaven. There was absolutely nothing about it that was any different from a standard PA=18. It did not have a flat deck. When I looked at the data plate and saw the "A" I was surprised, because I had been under the impression that what you have described was correct. I know that there was not supposed to be any ag equipment installed or included since I was the person who speced it out when it was ordered.

Bearhawk said in post #6 that the paperwork is in order and that the person who he bought it from has one of the three imports flying. I see no reason to certify it in other than Normal category.
 
attachment.php


Be sure to check this step for internal corrosion. It is possible for it to rust from the inside of both tubes with the first indication being when it breaks off with you standing on it. At the very least there should be a finger reinforcement to the gear leg tube.
 
Well, this has been an education for me, maybe an expensive one? To be clear I have what I believe are good records and paperwork to have this re registered in the US once it's a complete aircraft again. That is what the FAA requires to apply for a registration since the aircraft is damaged. Others have done this and my friend who I bought the project from is in the same boat with his project. The one he is flying was never damaged and thus not de-registered. The plane has logs back to the Netherlands, Poland and Norway, it was damaged in the Netherlands in 2013 and sold to my American friend and imported back to the US. I have bills of sale to the last registered owner, former Airworthiness Certs, De-registration form, and data tag is intact and original showing the serial number back to 1952. I certainly cannot be the first one to rebuild a damaged Cub and have it re registered, or am I naive. I know there are lots of opinions on these issues based on your former experience and i welcome them all but there must be a clear path for this type of thing. I'm not really interested in going experimental with this one.
 
Bearhawk Builder said:
De-registration form,
Click to expand...
Opinion, I think that this form may be the key based on the other discussions on this subject. What does this form say. Was it stated that it was destroyed? If "yes" it might be wise to not apply for the registration until it is ready for the Airworthiness inspection by either the FAA or a DAR. If "no" then just register it as any other import is done. You can always call your friendly FAA inspector in PWM and have an off the record discussion. I've found that most of the FAA types in New England can be talked with safely. You will not need the registration until you are ready to paint the number on the plane but you will need it before the airworthiness inspection.
 
The question of the Export Certificate of Airworthiness (CofA) is often asked when importing an airplane from overseas. Fortunately, an Export CofA is not required when importing a US built certified airplane into the US because we have to show conformity to the Type Certificate Data Sheet. When a US registered airplane is exported from the US, the Airworthiness Certificate is revoked and when a US built airplane is imported to the US (or re-imported in this case) the FAA or DAR will inspect the airplane and paperwork before issuing the new Airworthiness Certificate after it is shown to conform with the Type Certificate Data Sheet.


So Bearhawk, in your situation if you can show ownership and have a valid data plate and show de-registration from the foreign country, the FAA has all it requires to register and issue an Airworthiness after you have completed the required inspections.


I've gone the route before. I imported a foreign registered Super Cub from Netherlands. After completing a 100 hour inspection, had a ferry permit issued to fly the airplane to the DAR's local airport, passed the DAR's inspection and flew home with my FAA Airworthiness Certificate. The bonus is the DAR inspection counted as an annual inspection, good for one year of flying.


On a side note... What I have found most difficult is importing a foreign manufactured airplane that is US certificated in the Standard Category. The Export CofA must be in completely in order and all the requirements of US certification must be meet before the Airworthiness is issued. A word to the wise, expect major headaches if you are importing a foreign built aircraft from a country that is not the country of manufacture (i.e. a German built glider from Belgium). This has often proved to be complicated and expensive.


I believe this to be true from my experience, but trying to understand the FAA....well you know.
 
skywagon8a said:
Well I guess that neither one of us had better use the word "all" in this discussion. There was a brand new "A" model delivered to my field directly from Lockhaven. There was absolutely nothing about it that was any different from a standard PA=18. It did not have a flat deck. When I looked at the data plate and saw the "A" I was surprised, because I had been under the impression that what you have described was correct. I know that there was not supposed to be any ag equipment installed or included since I was the person who speced it out when it was ordered.

Ok I will try to repent from using the word "all" and perhaps even "never" in this subject again. You have just proven that there is always exceptions to every situation or understanding.

After reading of your firsthand experience I tried to study the old parts manual to get a feel for what the factory was doing and it just doesn't show up for me.
If the factory felt that it was appropriate to send out an airframe with an A model designation on the data plate which is actuality a "standard" design then their must be some sort of written guidance to allow it. (unless someone simply screwed up on the data plate)

I could envision the factory (altho not known for) building a custom cub for someone that perhaps wanted a few of the 18A goodies, such as a metal belly or extra tubing, and wanted the clean lines of the standard version and a head liner but yours evidently had nothing special.

They are in essence converting from one model type to another; similar to common conversions of engines from one model designation to another. The difference being that we have service bulletins to guide through the process. When done we mark the data plates to show changes. I don't see any motivation for Piper doing this.

If Piper had such data it would be very helpful for anyone wanting to "convert" an 18A to standard with a fuselage swap; otherwise you may need to go through the "field approval route" which actually shouldn't be a big deal.

If the fuselage in question is one like what you experienced and the serial number of the structure matches up then he should be good to go. Otherwise there should be something in the records showing an authorized change. He may have this.

I think that 90 % of the time this would not be questioned unless he goes for a type conformity inspection for the airworthiness; and gets someone that is familiar with cubs and particularly the 18A. If that happens then it could become stressful and expensive.
Click to expand...
 
cubpilot2, I don't wish to segway from Bearhawk Builder's original posting however this may or may not be of help. I just reviewed 1A2 and it agrees with your original point of view along with what I had also thought until the new airplane showed up at my field. It specifically says that the "A" model has hopper provisions built in. I also have done some work on an AR7 airplane which had a conventional non "A" top deck. I'm not so certain of that plane's previous history. So the "A" mystery continues.
 
I have seen several A models with aftermarket upper stringer added. I had a A model cub that was wrecked and Rocky Mountain Airframe converted it to a standard fuselage. I wouldn't even get a field approval anymore. Just reference the Piper drawing and 43.13 for the welding.
20161123_141125.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 20161123_141125.jpg
    20161123_141125.jpg
    79.8 KB · Views: 422
An update on this project, I've been picking away at it as time allows between work and flying and everything else. The fuselage was put in Dan's jig at Super Cubs North in Maine and the tubing discrepancies straightened out per standard fuselage layout. Added the X brace, reverse dog leg, seat belt mounts, boxed tail and lift handles. Fuselage is epoxy primed and painted with urethane enamel (Stewarts). New parts so far - Airframes 3" extended heavy duty gear, new tail feathers, Atlee under seat battery, fuse mounted lower seat belt mounts, CC extended baggage, baggage door and metal headliner, Left/Right/Both fuel valve mod. 31" Bushwheels and Baby Bushwheel tailwheel. Small part glass beaded, primed and painted over the winter and some are going back in for the last time. New 6 ply Baltic birch floorboards with epoxy finish. New pulleys and cables in progress. Interior panels are roughed out. I've been working on the upper baggage area, built an upper door to mimic the CC baggage door. 160 hp O320 overhauled by Pine Mountain Aviation in Connecticut. Slow but careful progress.IMG_0012.jpgIMG_0019.jpgIMG_0068.jpgIMG_0071.jpgIMG_0072.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0012.jpg
    IMG_0012.jpg
    881.4 KB · Views: 689
  • IMG_0019.jpg
    IMG_0019.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 581
  • IMG_0068.jpg
    IMG_0068.jpg
    1.7 MB · Views: 723
  • IMG_0071.jpg
    IMG_0071.jpg
    924 KB · Views: 611
  • IMG_0072.jpg
    IMG_0072.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 1,276
Very nice work!! But if you are going to put in a baggage door why not make it big enough to get something in the back? Same thing with upper baggage great door placement just make it follow upper former. No right or wrong just something to think about.
DENNY
 
Thanks for the input Denny. I have a Univair fuel valve 491-947K replacement valve. I thought I could modify this valve for the CC headerless system for L/R/B/Off but if I'm reading the STC right it calls out modification of the original valve only, part number 11383-03. I was sure I read somewhere here that the Univair valve could be modified??
 
Bearhawk Builder said:
Thanks for the input Denny. I have a Univair fuel valve 491-947K replacement valve. I thought I could modify this valve for the CC headerless system for L/R/B/Off but if I'm reading the STC right it calls out modification of the original valve only, part number 11383-03. I was sure I read somewhere here that the Univair valve could be modified??
Click to expand...

The Univair valve has O rings around each port, so if you drill the hole through, you are going to have leakage. The Piper valve fits in a tapered bore, and relies on the taper for sealing.

Just buy a Dakota Cub Valve and knob (very nice) - easier to install than the Cub Crafters valve because the stop is built in.

Aerodon
 
unnamed.jpgI've got a set of Pacific Scientific rotary belts that I'd like to rebuild and use. Aviation Safety Products will re - web the belts, add some length to accommodate the floor mount tabs and issue an 8130. I want to add an inertia reel to the front set but they won't do that with paperwork since there is no inertia reel there now. Any ideas?
 

Attachments

  • unnamed.jpg
    unnamed.jpg
    11 KB · Views: 5,253
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dave
Super Cub project for $19k (covered)
Replies
0
Views
2K
dave
dave
Alberta Cubber
Pacer wings for a super cub.
Replies
17
Views
8K
Alberta Cubber
Alberta Cubber
A
Need a project transported from N.Y to Mississippi
Replies
2
Views
2K
Scouter
Scouter
A
What is a crashed Super Cub worth ?
2
Replies
35
Views
22K
bdmorford
B
Darrel Starr
Project Super Cub on eBay
Replies
7
Views
3K
mike mcs repair
mike mcs repair
Back
Top