Results 1 to 39 of 39

Thread: Stretched PA-22 Taildragger

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    640
    Post Thanks / Like

    Stretched PA-22 Taildragger

    Recently I purchased a 1951 Barn Find PA20. Real nice shape in all aspects. I bought this to rebuild for something to do... I have always admired the producer. Many years ago I flew a stretched PA22 in Anchorage, that was not a producer...stretched fuse, and extended wings...nice plane, except for the color.
    This was a certified PA22. I always wondered how it was certified, yet not a producer...so when I ordered my FAA records on my Pacer I ordered the records to that stretched PA22. Interesting, the 337 for this mod simply had drawings and notes referring to cutting fuselage and stretching it 32”. No STC...nothing...what’s the chance of me using the same language, same drawings and such and doing the same modifications and getting it approved?
    Likes alaskadrifter liked this post

  2. #2
    CamTom12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by J5Ron View Post
    Recently I purchased a 1951 Barn Find PA20. Real nice shape in all aspects. I bought this to rebuild for something to do... I have always admired the producer. Many years ago I flew a stretched PA22 in Anchorage, that was not a producer...stretched fuse, and extended wings...nice plane, except for the color.
    This was a certified PA22. I always wondered how it was certified, yet not a producer...so when I ordered my FAA records on my Pacer I ordered the records to that stretched PA22. Interesting, the 337 for this mod simply had drawings and notes referring to cutting fuselage and stretching it 32”. No STC...nothing...what’s the chance of me using the same language, same drawings and such and doing the same modifications and getting it approved?
    There’s an STC for that called the Super Pacer. No approval currently for a PA-20, only Pacers that started life as PA-22s.

    There’s a few threads about it on the Shortwing Piper site: https://www.shortwingpipers.org/foru...er)-STC-update

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    640
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by CamTom12 View Post
    There’s an STC for that called the Super Pacer. No approval currently for a PA-20, only Pacers that started life as PA-22s.

    There’s a few threads about it on the Shortwing Piper site: https://www.shortwingpipers.org/foru...er)-STC-update
    Is the Super Pacer stretched with Cub wings? The 337 does not site any STC...

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,705
    Post Thanks / Like
    Why would you want to stay in the standard category and not take it to experimental?
    Likes cubdriver2, mike mcs repair liked this post

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    640
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by stewartb View Post
    Why would you want to stay in the standard category and not take it to experimental?
    ...I love exp...I already have my exp fat cub....this is just something to do in my free time...

  6. #6
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,468
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by J5Ron View Post
    .... the 337 for this mod simply had drawings and notes referring to cutting fuselage and stretching it 32”. No STC...nothing...what’s the chance of me using the same language, same drawings and such and doing the same modifications and getting it approved?
    Look at the front of the 337. What is in block 3 where it says "For FAA Use Only"? Since there is no approval information listed in block 8 there must be something in block 3. Also look in block 7 for the title of the person signing. Based upon your description it will take a higher authority than an IA to approve that 337 for return to service.
    N1PA
    Likes J5Ron liked this post

  7. #7
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,700
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by CamTom12 View Post
    There’s an STC for that called the Super Pacer. No approval currently for a PA-20, only Pacers that started life as PA-22s. ...
    Sounds like STC SA819SW

    http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/A14BE5AFB76F89028625794B005450A7?OpenDocument&High light=simpson

    Most people call it the Bushmaster STC.
    I've seen many "Super Pacers", (including Steve's, who's thread you linked)--
    some are stretched, some are not.
    Usually the "super" seems to refer to the powerplant.
    I would call any 180hp pacer a "super pacer", regardless of fuselage or wing length.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!
    Thanks Eddy Lewis thanked for this post
    Likes J5Ron liked this post

  8. #8

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    484
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by stewartb View Post
    Why would you want to stay in the standard category and not take it to experimental?
    It really depends on the flavor of EXPERIMENTAL you are talking about! 91.319 says you can only operate an experimental aircraft “for the purpose” for which it is certified. E-AB and E-LSA have very few restrictions. All the rest, not so much!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Likes J5Ron, skywagon8a, CamTom12, Hardtailjohn liked this post

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    640
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    Look at the front of the 337. What is in block 3 where it says "For FAA Use Only"? Since there is no approval information listed in block 8 there must be something in block 3. Also look in block 7 for the title of the person signing. Based upon your description it will take a higher authority than an IA to approve that 337 for return to service.
    Attached are the 337 drawings and such...Click image for larger version. 

Name:	5778B7D0-7F73-4D70-B183-304F36840FF4.jpg 
Views:	80 
Size:	99.4 KB 
ID:	44623Click image for larger version. 

Name:	C387BD3E-7E76-4527-9036-95666295FFE8.jpg 
Views:	78 
Size:	107.6 KB 
ID:	44624
    Have some more but was having trouble uploading them...no mention of “Bushmaster” or “Producer” anywhere in the documentation. The original work was done and signed off in 1989. The wing extension makes no mention of any STC of any source except the Hendricks Tips. I saw this plane this week while walking my dog while in for appointments. It is a beautiful plane...and looks great with the new paint. Would love to chat with the new owner sometime...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	151C4290-B451-4A90-BEDD-D652BC66DB7B.jpg 
Views:	68 
Size:	99.3 KB 
ID:	44625   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	4982C53D-5820-46BA-8276-529DA45B99D6.jpg 
Views:	66 
Size:	128.0 KB 
ID:	44626  
    Likes mike mcs repair, Southern Aero liked this post

  10. #10
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,468
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by J5Ron View Post
    Recently I purchased a 1951 Barn Find PA20. Real nice shape in all aspects. I bought this to rebuild for something to do...
    Quote Originally Posted by J5Ron View Post
    ..... Would love to chat with the new owner sometime...
    Did you buy it or are you passing on it??

    Can you post the front of that 337 so that we can see how it was signed off?? We don't need to see the names so that the guilty will remain protected, just how it was done.
    N1PA

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    640
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    Did you buy it or are you passing on it??

    Can you post the front of that 337 so that we can see how it was signed off?? We don't need to see the names so that the guilty will remain protected, just how it was done.
    I did buy the 51 Pacer...not stretched...the stretched PA 22 I only ordered to see what was done paperwork wise. I will try to post the front tomorrow if I remember...
    Likes skywagon8a, mike mcs repair liked this post

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    640
    Post Thanks / Like
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	B58D8BD6-7029-4213-A490-2EB5C97FCD14.jpg 
Views:	76 
Size:	175.8 KB 
ID:	44628Click image for larger version. 

Name:	7CA50F9E-2D19-4FC1-807B-0F5346A849F6.jpg 
Views:	90 
Size:	114.4 KB 
ID:	44629Click image for larger version. 

Name:	B46BDE5C-7F4D-4B2F-9A88-D5EC9550ADD0.jpg 
Views:	147 
Size:	97.5 KB 
ID:	44630Here you go...share plane...interesting gear...

  13. #13
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,468
    Post Thanks / Like
    J5Ron, That is a legitimate field approval for that particular PA-22 airplane. In order to use it on your airplane you will need to get another field approval applicable to your plane. This 337 can be used to support your position. Your best bet is to pay a visit to your friendly FAA person or a suitable DAR for his blessing, before you do anything to your plane.

    Make out the 337 for your plane so that the inspector signs block 3 before you start work. These people have been known to change their minds leaving you hanging. Signature first, then start work.
    Last edited by skywagon8a; 09-25-2019 at 06:44 AM.
    N1PA
    Thanks J5Ron thanked for this post
    Likes J5Ron, Southern Aero, Hardtailjohn liked this post

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    640
    Post Thanks / Like
    So with a blessing someone may build a producer/bushmaster like airplane without getting the STC...with DAR/FAA approval of course...hmmm...

    I will most likely keep it original...just educating myself some here...hate to cut on a near perfect fuselage...just got it for something to do in my free time...will keep flying my exp cub...Click image for larger version. 

Name:	21CA25B7-776C-4B3A-B82B-5B26D877B8D4.jpeg 
Views:	70 
Size:	194.2 KB 
ID:	44632
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	E2381344-E397-43EA-AA2F-7E4C754C3D76.jpeg 
Views:	56 
Size:	301.8 KB 
ID:	44631  

  15. #15
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,700
    Post Thanks / Like
    FWIW I've been waiting for about 7 months for a 337 to be field approved to put 26" GY's on my C180.
    A stone-simple mod that's been done many many many times.
    Today's FAA inspectors (here at least) just don't seem interested or even willing to do things like this any more.
    I can't imagine any of the ones around here doing a field approval for a mod like stretching a Pacer,
    esp when there's an STC for essentially the same mod.

    As far as "taking it to experimental", it's my understanding that the FAA
    really frowns
    on incorporating wings or fuselage from a production airplane
    into a homebuilt.
    And even if they didn't, they don't give any homebuilt points toward the fuselage or wings when they came off a production airplane,
    no matter how much work you have in them.
    Joe Norris can shed more light on this.

    Personally, I think the pacer is a pretty nice airplane just the way it is.
    I've got time in a couple 150hp PA22/20's & enjoyed flying them.
    Part of the fun is their responsiveness & snappy handling,
    some of which I think you'd tend to lose by extending the wings & fuselage.
    Last edited by hotrod180; 09-25-2019 at 10:01 AM.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,705
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ron,

    I had a long time customer who had a stretched pacer with extended wings but was not a Producer. I haven't seen him for probably 10 years and now I wonder if that was his plane. it would have used to based at Fire Lake in Chugiak and spent its life on floats and skis. I'm pretty sure Steve Bryant would remember that plane and probably knows of others that may exist.

    SB
    Likes jrussl liked this post

  17. #17
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,528
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    J5Ron, That is a legitimate field approval for that particular PA-22 airplane. In order to use it on your airplane you will need to get another field approval applicable to your plane. This 337 can be used to support your position. Your best bet is to pay a visit to your friendly FAA person or a suitable DAR for his blessing, before you do anything to your plane.

    Make out the 337 for your plane so that the inspector signs block 3 before you start work. These people have been known to change their minds leaving you hanging. Signature first, then start work.
    Yes, and they also can rescind a previously approved field approval as well, even though the original field approval was totally legitimate. Don't ask how I know that.

    MTV

  18. #18
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,468
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mvivion View Post
    Yes, and they also can rescind a previously approved field approval as well, even though the original field approval was totally legitimate. Don't ask how I know that.

    MTV
    Also and many people don't understand this, the FAA person is not obligated by his FAA employer to issue a field approval even though he may have the authority to do so. It is entirely a personal matter between the issuer and the person who requests the FA.
    N1PA

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,705
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post

    As far as "taking it to experimental", it's my understanding that the FAA
    really frowns
    on incorporating wings or fuselage from a production airplane
    into a homebuilt.
    And even if they didn't, they don't give any homebuilt points toward the fuselage or wings when they came off a production airplane,
    no matter how much work you have in them.
    Most of us that buy Backcountry or Javron kits receive fully welded airframes. Starting with a certificated airframe is no different. The one caution is that in a 51% kit the schedule of values for the 51% is pre-determined. If you put your own kit together you need to get the DAR to sign off on your proposed schedule of values to assure you can achieve 51%. With that in mind Backcountry also provides pre-assembled wings, too. 51% is not a problem.

  20. #20
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,528
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by stewartb View Post
    Most of us that buy Backcountry or Javron kits receive fully welded airframes. Starting with a certificated airframe is no different. The one caution is that in a 51% kit the schedule of values for the 51% is pre-determined. If you put your own kit together you need to get the DAR to sign off on your proposed schedule of values to assure you can achieve 51%. With that in mind Backcountry also provides pre-assembled wings, too. 51% is not a problem.
    Stewart,

    Read some of the previous threads on this subject, particularly the posts by Joe Norris. Experimental wings and fuselage are not viewed the same by the FAA as wings/fuselage from a certificated airplane.

    MTV

  21. #21

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    484
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mvivion View Post
    Stewart,

    Read some of the previous threads on this subject, particularly the posts by Joe Norris. Experimental wings and fuselage are not viewed the same by the FAA as wings/fuselage from a certificated airplane.

    MTV
    Likewise parts salvaged from a previously certified Experimental- Amateur Built get no credit towards the 51%.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,705
    Post Thanks / Like
    MTV, here's a quote of one of Joe's replies to me in this thread. A thread worth reading for anyone interested in E-AB builds- https://www.supercub.org/forum/showt...ntal-an-option
    Stewart,

    You can do the same thing that CubCrafters has done, all within the limitations that have been discussed in this thread. You can use a factory-built fuselage if you want. Just like the CubCrafters fuselage, those fuselage tasks will be counted toward the "kit manufacturer" points on the fabrication and assembly checklist. Same with all the rest of the components. The point is, a builder who wants to do this MUST have a willing FAA inspector or DAR to work with so that they can go over what tasks will be completed by the builder to meet the major portion requirement. This should be done BEFORE a lot of money is spent on the project, so that the builder doesn't get a nasty surprise when it comes time for the certification inspection.

    A good exercise would be to get a copy of the CubCrafters checklist (available on the FAA website) and make sure that the builder's project mirrors the tasks that were required for amateur-built certification of the CubCrafters kit. Using the CubCrafters checklist, which has been reviewed by the FAA and found to be in compliance with the major portion requirements, will get the builder where they want to be.

    What you CAN'T do is take a standard category Super Cub (or any other airplane) apart, reassemble it, and claim that you are the "builder". (Or take parts from several Super Cubs and put them together into a "new" airplane and claim to be the builder.) Many people have tried this, and some have gotten away with it, but this is what the FAA is carefully guarding against.

    Use the checklist (link provided in an earlier post in this thread) and perform enough tasks involving NEW fabrication and assembly, and you're all set. Not sure why that's causing so much of an argument here.
    DGA, with respect to my own kit experience, an E-AB builder gets no credit for pre-made kit parts either. Those are credited to the kit manufacturer.
    Last edited by stewartb; 09-25-2019 at 04:15 PM.

  23. #23

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    484
    Post Thanks / Like
    True, I’ve had guys buy a previously E-AB certified airplane where the builder pulls the data plate and turns in the AW certificate as destroyed, and try to pass it off as an airplane he built. Couldn’t issue an E-AB, but did issue E-Exhibition certificate.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  24. #24
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,528
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=stewartb;755669]MTV, here's a quote of one of Joe's replies to me in this thread. A thread worth reading for anyone interested in E-AB builds- https://www.supercub.org/forum/showt...ntal-an-option
    QUOTE
    Stewart,

    CC Isn’t using certificated parts in their EX or FX Cubs. And again, those are kits, which have been approved by the FAA as meeting E-AB rule. Try taking a certificated Pacer into E-AB these days, and see how far you get.

    MTV

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,705
    Post Thanks / Like
    As I said in the other thread, parts is parts. I could have used certified Piper parts instead of factory completed kit parts and it wouldn't have made any difference. Assembled parts aren't credited to the builder in the 51% tally, those go in the manufacturer's column. It doesn't matter who the manufacturer was.

  26. #26
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,528
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by stewartb View Post
    As I said in the other thread, parts is parts. I could have used certified Piper parts instead of factory completed kit parts and it wouldn't have made any difference. Assembled parts aren't credited to the builder in the 51% tally, those go in the manufacturer's column. It doesn't matter who the manufacturer was.
    Which is why, of course, that we see so many E-AB aircraft out there these days with certificated parts.........Right! Show us all those airplanes, Stewart, rather than just arguing your interpretation of the refs. Only thing that counts is the feds interpretation.

    MTV

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,705
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mtv,

    Earlier in the thread I made a post and you relied I should read other threads and mentioned Joe Norris. I quoted one of his replies that supported precisely what it was that I said. What is it that you're bent out of shape about?
    Likes mike mcs repair liked this post

  28. #28
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    10,499
    Post Thanks / Like

  29. #29
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,528
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by stewartb View Post
    Mtv,

    Earlier in the thread I made a post and you relied I should read other threads and mentioned Joe Norris. I quoted one of his replies that supported precisely what it was that I said. What is it that you're bent out of shape about?
    im not bent out of shape at all, Stewart. My point is simply if it’s so easy to do what you suggest, why aren’t there hundreds of E-AB airplanes out there made from certificated parts?

    MTV

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    640
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mvivion View Post
    im not bent out of shape at all, Stewart. My point is simply if it’s so easy to do what you suggest, why aren’t there hundreds of E-AB airplanes out there made from certificated parts?

    MTV
    My certification of my exp cub was pretty simple and basic. My inspector was great as well as helpful and realistic. Wanted to see builders log, builders pictures of parts and such, plans that I used to follow during the build, engine log if engine was certified...he did a walk around looking for placards, safety info, pilots operating handbook...

    pulled out a pink certification paper and filled it out...done...I did speak with and work with him some along the way.

    pacer for sale....
    Likes flyrite liked this post

  31. #31
    flyrite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Lyons,GA
    Posts
    465
    Post Thanks / Like
    Have had AW certificates issued for 2 different planes with Cessna wings . Just as the one flying with the 150 wings that has been talked bout on here. As everyone knows, How easy it is , Is TOTALLY dependent on the guy you get to do it!
    Is why most folk are have the opinion bout the FAA that they do.
    Personally believe the reason there aren’t more builds using certified parts is because of confusion surrounding it, As well as there just ain’t that many true experimenters like the Pateys as an example building now!
    Likes mike mcs repair liked this post

  32. #32
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,528
    Post Thanks / Like
    Okay, let’s go back to the original post in this thread:

    “Recently I purchased a 1951 Barn Find PA20. Real nice shape in all aspects. I bought this to rebuild for something to do... I have always admired the producer. Many years ago I flew a stretched PA22 in Anchorage, that was not a producer...stretched fuse, and extended wings...nice plane, except for the color.
    This was a certified PA22. I always wondered how it was certified, yet not a producer...so when I ordered my FAA records on my Pacer I ordered the records to that stretched PA22. Interesting, the 337 for this mod simply had drawings and notes referring to cutting fuselage and stretching it 32”. No STC...nothing...what’s the chance of me using the same language, same drawings and such and doing the same modifications and getting it approved?”

    So, he’s talking about a COMPLETE airplane, which he would like to modify.

    Then in post number four, Stewart asks why he would want to keep it in standard category, rather than take it into Experimental.

    I noted Joe Norris’ discussion on E-AB vs certificated. In that, Joe pointed out that, for example, a person could use a certified fuselage frame as basis for an E-AB build, but then he’d have to fabricate wings and etc. And, he was quite clear that you can’t just disassemble a certified airplane, then reassemble it and get it approved in the Experimental, Amateur Built Category.

    The point is, the OP has a relatively complete airplane, so he’d only be able to use a portion of that complete aircraft, IF he was even interested in taking it to Experimental-AB. That would mean disposing of a lot of valuable parts, only to have to replace them , probably with equally expensive parts.

    I certainly don’t disagree that if the OP had a bare Pacer airframe, he could use that as the basis of an E-AB build, but that’s not what the OP asked in the beginning.

    MTV
    Likes Hardtailjohn liked this post

  33. #33

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    484
    Post Thanks / Like
    Of course the next question, does he have title and registration? Of late, old airplanes with registrations that expired or were revoked years ago are considered scrapped or destroyed. I’ve been fighting since April, and the previous owner for 2 years to get registration for my Clipper. If there is no registration, all he has is parts until he can succeed in registering it!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Likes mike mcs repair, Hardtailjohn liked this post

  34. #34
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,700
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by stewartb View Post
    As I said in the other thread, parts is parts. I could have used certified Piper parts instead of factory completed kit parts and it wouldn't have made any difference. Assembled parts aren't credited to the builder in the 51% tally, those go in the manufacturer's column. It doesn't matter who the manufacturer was.
    "Parts is parts"-- you would think that, but it's not necessarily the case.
    I'd be pleasantly surprised to hear from anyone who's built an AB experimental out of a certificated fuselage,
    at least in the fairly recent past, cause I think them days are over.
    A buddy of mine was planning an extensive rebuild of his PA22/20,
    and talked with a number of people (including Joe Norris) about going experimental,
    and the consensus was that it wasn't gonna fly with the FAA.
    I hope Mr Norris chimes in here.

    Looking at the drawings in post #9,
    I wonder if those were originally Bushmaster / Producer or Javelin STOL drawings?
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  35. #35
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,700
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by J5Ron View Post
    ………..I will most likely keep it original...
    Hard to be sure from your photos, but it looks like maybe you've got a leading edge cuff -- Crosswinds STOL maybe?
    I think a stock length & wingspan 150hp Pacer with a cuffed leading edge or a Dakota Cub slotted leading edge
    would make for a pretty good performing airplane.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  36. #36
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,468
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    ..... or a Dakota Cub slotted leading edge.
    Not a bad idea. Whenever you see a Tri-Pacer or Colt taking off it always looks as though it has a load in it's pants. That's telling me that the wing is operating at a fairly high angle of attack where a Dakota Cub slot may just be a big help. Perhaps Steve Pierce will speak up as he has one on his wife's Tri-Pacer. Having flown both extensivly in the distant past, it is amazing how well they do perform.
    N1PA

  37. #37
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,700
    Post Thanks / Like
    Steve can correct me if he's wrong but I seem to recall him test flying Dakota Cub's "Super 20"?
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  38. #38
    RVBottomly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Asotin County Washington (KLWS)
    Posts
    566
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    Steve can correct me if he's wrong but I seem to recall him test flying Dakota Cub's "Super 20"?
    Here's a youtube on it:


  39. #39
    RVBottomly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Asotin County Washington (KLWS)
    Posts
    566
    Post Thanks / Like
    And another.


Similar Threads

  1. Stretched PA-20 with PA-18 Parts
    By rickbauman in forum Projects
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-22-2019, 02:47 PM
  2. Another stretched pacer build!
    By SClow303 in forum Experimental Cubs
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-08-2017, 11:08 AM
  3. Stretched tailfeathers
    By King Brown in forum Experimental Cubs
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-18-2009, 12:24 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
  •