Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: pa11 with a 0235lycon

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    4
    Post Thanks / Like

    Lightbulb pa11 with a 0235lycon

    Gentlemen,
    I am pretty new to the experimental LSA pa11 crowd. I am trying to get educated on these.....the experimental part at least. Ran across one that an estate will be selling eventually, at first it just seemed like a re-done PA-11, but then I see the experimental sticker. Have not been able to look through the logs yet to understand anything about the aircraft as of this moment. (they haven't surfaced) Are there kits to make these? (haven't been able to come up with any) or are these generally re-built up PA11's that just go the experimental route. This particular one indicates on the registration that it's a 2006 Dowrick Charles Light Sport. Goggling that gets no place. (I am just guessing that's the guy that put this bird together?????
    thanks for input.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    4
    Post Thanks / Like
    it is experiemtal

  3. #3
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    1,585
    Post Thanks / Like
    As a start with the N and Serial Number you can get records on file with the FAA: https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certifi...craft_records/

    No logs but other records that may be of use.

    Gary
    Likes JeffP liked this post

  4. #4
    PerryB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Northern Calif.
    Posts
    1,798
    Post Thanks / Like
    If it's an R&D or exhibition experimental, there are some considerable restrictions on what you can legally do with the airplane.
    And a 235 is a fair chunk of iron to hang on the nose of an 11, weight wise.
    After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says WTF !

  5. #5
    WWhunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Laporte, Minnesota and the white sandy beaches of NW Florida
    Posts
    1,436
    Post Thanks / Like
    Could be a Wag-Aero Sport Trainer, or similar. Several of these have been built and some have been very nicely done. There was a local one I looked at a few years ago that was much nicer than any factory built one I have ever seen. It was in MN and then bought by a guy in Canada, but ever imported. Last I knew it was being kept in a hangar and not being flow

    As already mentioned, the )-235 is a bit heavy for a PA-11 type. A friend has one on a factory PA-11 and regrets putting it on the plane (on floats). He told me the Cont. 90 was a much better performer on the plane.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    459
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PerryB View Post
    If it's an R&D or exhibition experimental, there are some considerable restrictions on what you can legally do with the airplane.
    And a 235 is a fair chunk of iron to hang on the nose of an 11, weight wise.
    Any Experimental purpose other than LSA and AB has significant restrictions. There are a lot of others beyond Exhibition and R&D. Exhibition, Racing, AB, and LSA are the only ones with unlimited expiration, all the others have a expiration of one year or less.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Thanks PerryB thanked for this post

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    178
    Post Thanks / Like
    not commenting on legalities for others,.. my 46 J3 has 36 gallons of gas in the wings, (no nose tank) supercub tailfeathers, and an O235C1. All legal by field approval. It's been a while since it's been in the air but it's a sweet flyer. So I don't know about your legal situation, but as far as the folks who say it won't fly well, .. I respectfully disagree. There may be better combinations and considerations, but I would say don't let the simple fact of an O235 engine lead you to another solution. It makes a J3 perform quite well and flies fine while doing so.
    Likes skywagon8a, Brandsman liked this post

  8. #8
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,287
    Post Thanks / Like
    I had a friend with a no electric 0-235 J-3 modified to a PA-11. he was a keep it light when empty person and it flew great.
    N1PA

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    225
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bump it up to 150 hp and you will like it much better. Does the PA-11 have the nice J-3 style fuselage with the inverted V looking out the cockpit, I like that so much more than the PA-18 where you look at the bottom of the V right in front of you.

    A J-3 flys perfect with an O-235, or O-320, I wonder what the person with the float plane didn't like about it?
    Last edited by supercub1999; 02-24-2019 at 08:23 AM.

  10. #10
    cubdriver2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    upstate NY
    Posts
    9,795
    Post Thanks / Like
    If you ever get to fly a really light cub you can feel the difference that a few pounds make. I'm not talking about climb abilities, I'm talking how nice it flies. I can feel the difference between my 12lb prop and my Alum prop. A little weight makes a noticable difference. Sweetest cub I ever flew was 550 lbs.

    Glenn
    Last edited by cubdriver2; 02-24-2019 at 11:44 AM.
    "Optimism is going after Moby Dick in a rowboat and taking the tartar sauce with you!"
    Thanks WWhunter thanked for this post
    Likes Brandsman liked this post

  11. #11
    WWhunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Laporte, Minnesota and the white sandy beaches of NW Florida
    Posts
    1,436
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by supercub1999 View Post
    Bump it up to 150 hp and you will like it much better. Does the PA-11 have the nice J-3 style fuselage with the inverted V looking out the cockpit, I like that so much more than the PA-18 where you look at the bottom of the V right in front of you.

    A J-3 flys perfect with an O-235, or O-320, I wonder what the person with the float plane didn't like about it?
    If you are refering to my statement, the owner who has had the plane for decades, told me the plane just didn't feel as nimble and performed more 'sluggish' than with the 90 HP. Stated that he really regretted getting talked into puting the O-235 on the plane. He had it in for total rebuild/cover and the guy doing the work talked him into it, instead of rebuilding the 90.

    I had a 7AC-CONV Champ with an O-235, so I have a little bit of experience with the heavier motor. I didn't mean to say it was a terrible choice, just that it makes the plane feel heavier. I really liked the Champ, it was a great performer, but it took a little getting use to the nose heavy feel of it. Adapt and overcome!! I sure wouldn't walk away from a good deal on a plane with one, just stating the differences.
    Likes Brandsman liked this post

  12. #12
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,625
    Post Thanks / Like
    There was a good article in Vintage magazine years ago about luscombes with engines ranging from A65 to 320. The author liked his, which had an O320, but admitted that the ones with smaller engines were nimbler & more of "a joy to fly.".
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  13. #13
    CenterHillAg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Texas Coast
    Posts
    85
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cubdriver2 View Post
    If you ever get to fly a really light cub you can feel the difference that a few pounds make. I'm not talking about climb abilities, I'm talking how nice it flies. I can feel the difference between my 12lb prop and my Alum prop. A little weight makes a noticable difference. Sweetest cub I ever flew was 550 lbs.

    Glenn
    All I’ve ever had on my J3 is a metal prop, but the 36ish pound difference between a full nose tank and half full is significant in the handling department.

    I’ll take good handling over excess hp any day of the week.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    4
    Post Thanks / Like
    the plane that is in question is registered as N491CD, shows as a Dowrick Charles Light Sport with a 0-235-C1B engine, in the picture I received it looks like a PA-11 (and is placarded expermential)..............guess I am now thinking that Dowrick Charles is the guys name that originally put this thing together or ? Anyone ever here of Dowrick Charles Light Sport?

  15. #15
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,287
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is the FAA registration record for N491CD: https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinq...umberTxt=491CD
    It shows only that the number is on hold and is not assigned. That implies the the airplane in question never had it's airworthiness certificate issued. It appears that you may have to document the entire build process and become the builder yourself.
    You mentioned that you actually saw a registration certificate? Perhaps you only saw the paper from the FAA showing a reserved N number?

    When you have the opportunity see if you can find any build records which the builder documented. Hopefully he did.

    If you decide that you want this airplane it may be wise to consult with a DAR who will help you get it certified, before you part with any funds.

    It appears also that you have leverage for a low price.
    N1PA

  16. #16

    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    59
    Post Thanks / Like
    Builders will often use their name as the model of their build for experimentals. It is pretty easy to tell a WagAero fuselage by looking at a few specific areas if you are curious if that is the kit origin.

    (this is not to say they are bad. I fly a WagAero PA-11-like clone behind an O235 Lycoming)
    Likes Chicken Hawk liked this post

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    4
    Post Thanks / Like
    appreciate the comments....OOOPS I got that number wrong it's N401CD....appreciate the comments, I will take a look at the wag aero and see if I see similarities.....this process would be much easier if the owner that knew the builder was still alive.......

  18. #18
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,287
    Post Thanks / Like
    Now you are getting somewhere: https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinq...umberTxt=401cd
    Next as Gary mentioned in post #3 contact the FAA where you can get a CD with all of the records which they have on file. The name and address of the builder (Charles Dowrick) will be there. Then you should be able to track him down.
    N1PA

  19. #19
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,625
    Post Thanks / Like
    It might be interesting to talk to the builder, but you have what you need from the registration records.
    It's an experimental / amateur built, mfr'd in 2006.
    Looks like the current registered owner acquired it 2 years ago,
    registration is current & valid thru 2020.
    IMHO everything else you need to know should be in the logbooks & other records (operating limitations, W&B, etc),
    and in the condition of the airplane itself.
    It is what it is, inspect it before you buy it like you would any other airplane.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

Similar Threads

  1. O-200 on PA11
    By JimC in forum Modifications
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-02-2015, 01:58 PM
  2. J3 to PA11
    By tophand in forum Everything Else (formerly:My Other Plane Is A....)
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-08-2012, 12:57 PM
  3. Looking to buy j3/pa11
    By AKTED in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-01-2005, 02:40 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •