I know there are restrictions to flying a Canadian registered, owner maintained, certified aircraft in the U.S., what restrictions would there be to an Experimental from Canada that does not fit the U.S. 51% rule? Using a certified fuselage will not apply to the 51% rule in the U.S. in most cases so I just wonder about restrictions crossing the border.
Marty57
N367PS
Psalm 36:7 "High and low among men find refuge in the shadow of His wing"
www.marty2plus2.com
Xtra fuel for a O-360 and especially floats....I only flew an 8GCBC on wheels and skis. It had the 70 gallon fuel cells in the wings, and at that time mid-70's there was no L<>R selector just ON-OFF. I like the L<>R option. Unless kept coordinated it would drain the right wing first. Then a heavy left foot was required to get the left to drain. Also there were a check valves in each wing (I think between tanks but don't recall) that would not always flow properly. Gas cap gaskets needed to seal at all temps (they shrunk in the cold) so we put fuel valve lube on them.
Anyhow after all that I'd ask around about maybe a belly tank for fuel versus extra in the wing. That would keep the option for only 35 gallons for short trips or a loaded belly which would keep the lateral CG closer to the fuselage centerline. The wings get heavy when all the fuel is out there.
Gary
Last edited by BC12D-4-85; 12-12-2020 at 02:11 PM. Reason: Edit for single fuel vent
You have to meet the 51% requirement rules, if you dont, you will not be able to fly it period, that is why i will do a lot of mods on my project, and this need to be addressed before building anything with a DAR.
Now, just think about the kits wich are sold with a fully welded fuselage or pretty much complete if they're made out of composites materiels, you still have to meet the 51% rules, so a fuselage in itself, is not half of the plane.
As for crossing the borders, i dont think it should be a problem, Customs do not know how you've build your airplane, in my case, it will not be called a Citabria, i have to call it something else, we dont carry a list of the components used in building ours airplanes once the project is completed and we've been approved to fly.
Franky
stewartb liked this post
Another reason for going experimental, we can come up with a better fuel design.
An extra fuel tank? i'll keep that in mind.
Franky
Franky,
The issue isn't using a welded fuselage in your project; it's if it is from a certified aircraft or not. Assembling an EAB from welded parts is done all the time; Javron being one of the best examples. The difference is a Javron fuselage never was a certified aircraft part; the Citabria fuselage is a certified part. Doing mods to a certified fuselage does not move the fuselage into the EAB category. As an example, if I use Super Cub ailerons on my 2+2, the work done covering and painting the ailerons will not contribute to the 51% rule. I can buy non certified parts, assemble an exact clone of a Super Cub aileron, and that assembly, covering, and painting now counts toward the 51% rule. Regardless of how we perceive that logic; we have to work within those confines. Same holds true for a wing built from non certified parts vs PMA'd parts. Just replacing the wood spar with aluminum spars might be ok but best to determine that before committing to that wing. Mods to the fuel system will not move the fuselage from a certified part to an EAB eligible part for the FAA 51% rule. I understand your intent and desire to have an EAB Citabria so you can do what you choose as far as mods but, the FAA will not make it that easy for you. You really should sit down with a DAR and go over your plans with the 51% checklist in hand before starting so as to avoid having an aircraft that is either non-certifiable or very restricted in its use. Check with the EAA; there is lots of literature on the very subject you are attempting. One of the reasons the FAA and the EAA developed the 51% rule and the checklist was to stop the process of moving certified aircraft to EAB; something that was done for a while years back. I'm not being critical of your idea or desire; just that convincing yourself that you have built your own aircraft and convincing a DAR and FAA may be two completely different things.
Marty57
N367PS
Psalm 36:7 "High and low among men find refuge in the shadow of His wing"
www.marty2plus2.com
Javron, Backcountry, Piper, Citabria. An Exp builder doesn't get a fabrication point for any but can get an assembly point for all. And 1 point is all that's at stake. There's a lot more to the 51% than the airframe.
But how does he know if the fuselage was certified if he bought it as a project?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It doesn't matter!
Probably doesn't happen as much as it used too but DAR inspections can be subjective. May not be right but I know of a couple of certified airplanes that morphed into EAB's in the mid 90's. I have been present when the DAR showed up to inspect an EAB scratch built biplane and sat down at the provided table with all the necessary documents lined up and barely looked at the airplane. He did look at all the paperwork thoroughly though. Whats important to one is not to another. We will never have a level playing field, what works for one is rejected for another. In EAB airplanes everybody has to find what works for them but I recommend starting out with getting acquainted with the DAR you plan on hiring to bless your EAB. AC 20-27G is lengthy and detailed, enjoy the quiet time to read it all. I believe the OP said he was going to build in Canada and they play by different rules. Sounds like a cool project Franky, post lots of pictures when you get going. That Super Champ in NZ looks like a Cub eater.
Stewart's right, you don't get any points for the fuselage regardless if it's previously certified or not unless you (the builder) built the whole fuselage yourself. If you're accepting that you are not building your own fuselage it can still be a 51% amateur built experimental aircraft but you have to just do other things like assemble the wings, covering, rigging, ect. Lots of points on the checklist that are not related to the fuselage structure.
Guessing here, but I doubt Marty 57 has gone through the 51% checklist or airworthiness inspection yet. What guys think before and after that process is usually different. I blame the internet.
Marty
I know and i understand exactly what you mean, the main point is that i'm not dealing with the FAA, i'm dealing with TCA (Tansport Canada) and EAA Canada.
Go on Google and type: Transport Canada Recreational Aviation, scroll down the page to General Information and click on "STD 549-Amateur-Built Aircraft and read
section 549.5, it's talking about parts from a certified source, a one place it's written that a welded assembly can be used, a tubing airframe is definitely a welded assembly.
Now, in order to be able to used an airframe as the base for the construction of an experimental aircraft, the donor aircraft need to be de-certified with Transport Canada, it then become a bunch of parts, it is not anymore an airplane, that is the first step, then you need to meet an MD-RA (the equivalent of a DAR in Canada)
and describe to him your project, he will go with you through the whole 51 % list to see if you will meet the requirements, at this point, you are not any worse than an aircraft kit wich come with a pre-assembled fuselage and even a pre-assembled set of wings, a Cub kit from BBI Aviation (Nick Smith) or a Zenair 701 kit are good samples, the 51% rules need to be met, that is the most important thing.
From a Transport Canada standpoint, it does not make a difference if the fuselage come from a kits company or from an existing aircraft, they actually like it, it is an improved safety factor, they know that the fuselage is sound and will not failed, does this go again the idea of promoting aviation? Absolutely not.
You guys with the US EAA should start to pressure the FAA regarding this issue, they are definitely not promoting aviation by rejecting that idea, and i can not understand the reasoning behind it, i can not see ONE negative reason in accepting the use of an existing airframe for building an amateur aircraft, there is definitely an improved safety factor by doing it, it does not hurt anybody.
We've talked to the Chief MD-RA for the province of Quebec about this project and as long as i can meet the 51% requirements, it can be done, i i've done one mistake about it, it's to have called it a Citabria project, it is not, i'm not allowed to use the name Citabria anymore, i'm thinking about calling it an X-Scout.
Just a little update here, i bought a set of aluminium spars, they were made locally by a guy name Claude Guilbault, a former CL 215 and 515 (Canadair fire bomber) he pass away a few years ago, they are the same as the Piper Super Cub but the spar cap is much thicker, they are supposed to be good for
3500 lbs but i will limit myself to 2500 lbs.
Retirement is coming next April, i will start the project around September 2022, i have a Jeep project to finish before and i want to fix a few things on my garage before beginning the plane.
I will definitely go for a 36 1/2 foots wingspan, move the ailerons outboard to the max and increase the flaps area to the max as well, VG are in the plan too, i will look at a cuff similar to the Horton stol kit made for the 180 and 185, i should be closed to SuperCub capability with that, while retaining a little
bit of the top speed of a Citabria/Scout.
With the inflation rate going on at the moment, i'm very tempted to order an avionic package (Dynon or Garmin EFIS) ASAP before the prices go up, i'm an ATPL helicopter pilot flying an Agusta 139 helicopter and i'm used to EFIS, i will get rid of the old gauges and the vacuum pump and save a bit of weight.
Franky
A couple points here. I’m a DAR and deal with this all the time. If a part was previously installed a a certified airplane (doesn’t matter what type of certificate, Standard or Experimental), any work performed on that component is considered Maintenance, not assembly or fabrication and can’t be counted towards the “major portion”. Now, using PMA parts, if they were never used in a previously certified airplane, installing additional stuff, modifying, or finishing can be counted (but not the fabrication or assembly of that PMA item). An example, you buy a used PA-18 fuselage. You now replace longerons, install controls, cover it and paint it. None of that work can be counted. On the other hand, you buy a PMA fuselage. You can’t count any of the fabrication and assembly of the fuselage, but the installation of systems, modifications, and finishing can all be counted.
The way you count your work is with this checklist https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/...syCklistFW.pdf
Now, for crossing the boarder, every US Experimental certificate states that the aircraft does not meet the requirements of ICAO Annex 8, and that the pilot is required to obtain permission from the Foreign CAA before entering their airspace. I suspect all Canadian experimental and owner maintenance certificates have a similar limitation, so they would need to contact FAA for authorization prior to entering US airspace. I don’t believe clearance from ATC qualifies for this. I’m pretty sure you need to contact Flight Standards or International Flight Standards to get this authorization, but not 100% sure.
Flying Amateur-Built aircraft from the US into Canada. or vice-versa, is a simple paperwork exercise. But if you have a Sport Pilot license (US) or a Recreational Permit (Canada), then you're out of luck no matter what you're flying.
Can the Citabria fuselage take the weight and stress the Cub fuselage can? For some reason I thought the design was the weak point and the reason for the low weights.
dgapilot
You are right with yours comments, the 51% rule apply, no matter what but it can be done and it's been done before.
NunavutPa is also right with is statement, i'm ok, i have a Canadian commercial fixed wings license, a
Canadian ATPL commercial license, US commercial fixed wings and commercial helicopter licenses and a UAE ATPL helicopter license..
md11freighter, i share your concern about the Citabria airframe, the tail section in particular, the landing gear also, theses are points where i will do some modifications, i've read somewhere that the Citabria airframe is heavier than the cub one, the cabin section is quite strong, the steel tubes are supposedly thicker than the cub one.
Franky
Hi guysOriginally Posted by Franky
Retirement did come on, however, i'm still flying helicopters commercially once in a while.
The project is starting, i've bought a small milling and a lathe, i've put my hands on a set of amphib floats, they were built by Claude Guilbault, a former
CL 215 and 415 fire bomber for the Quebec Government, Claude also was an active aircrafts builder, unfortunely, he died many years ago, the floats are not completed, i will need to come up with a gears system for it, all the attachments, spreaders bars, ect.
I've also put my hand on a new set of super cub wings spars, designed and produced by C.Guilbault, the spar web is 0.090 thick as compare to 0.080 for
the S Cub, the spar cap is also much beefier than the standard S Cub, there are supposed to be good for 3500 lbs but i will limit myself to 2500 lbs on my projected wings, i've scratched my head a lot on how to improve the 4412 Citabria wing for at least be able to do what a Super Cub can do and i finaly made up my mind on building a Bearhawk Patrol wing, i've bought a set of Patrol plans before Christmas and made my master rib a few weeks ago.
So, this where i am for now, it will be a Citabria fuselage with a few mods with a , i 36 fts Bearhawk Patrol wings, i hope to be able to be in the Bigs Boys SC Club with the final project.
Stay in touch, i will keep you updated with the developments.
Franky
Update
Hi guys, here's a few photos of the stuff i bought, i also bought a set of plans for the Bearhawk Patrol, not sure if i will build the wings at 33 or 36 feets of wingspan,
i need to have an engineer to look over all that, the Guilbault spars are overkilled but i need the expert to tell me if i can used them.
Oups! It didn't work for the photos, no ideas why.
I had a set of Aeronef floats on my PA-12 for a few years. They were straights, not amphibs. They performed well but I eventually got tired of pumping them and went with Clamars, which are fibreglass.
Good luck with your project!
Franky,
Those floats will give you a very hard ride on any water surface other than fairly smooth. The inverted W shape of the bottoms will trap the waves producing high loads on the floats and the airframe. Back during the late 1970s a fellow (Howard Harley) in Florida manufactured and certified some fiberglass floats which he called Fiberfloat. They had an inverted V shaped bottom. They did well in smooth water but pounded so hard in rough water he had to attach shock absorbers to the cross struts to absorb the loads. Even then, he managed to tear apart an airframe from the stresses. He sold a few sets before going out of the float business.
Since you have them, leave them being straight floats rather than throwing more money at them. Use caution in rough water.
NX1PA
The Clamar sell for about $55,000 theses days, i bought theses for 5k, they are new, never been used, i just have the floats, no riggin, i will need to spend
another $7 or $8000 to finish them, i will have a real good look at the sealing job before putting them in the water, being amphibious, they will not be in the water
for a long period of time, that will help a lot, can't afford 55k for a set of floats.
Yes skywagon8a, i know that, thinking about making a kind composite shoes that will take care of that, or simply make a new bottom, on the other hand, they will probably to get on the step faster, can't win everywhere.
Apples to apples...Hi everyone
I just joined this fantastic group, i'm buyin a 1976 Citabria 7 GCBC wich is all apart from my good friend Buzz Cola, the new kid on the bloc below.
I'm planning to rebuilt it in the experimental category, so i will have to modify it enough to fit it in that category, the bird have the wood spars, so this will be the first thing to go, i will rebuilt the wings with a set of spars from Nick Smith (BBI Aviation), the new wings will give me a wing span of 36' 6",
i will increase the flaps lenth and move the ailerons outboard to fit the new wings, thinking about vg's as well, maybe go with the Super Cub ribs to make it a Super Cub wings, it even crossed my mind to put the S Cub ribs on the inboard section of the wing and keep the Citabria ones ont the outboard section but for the moment, it's just an idea, i need to investigate that more seriously.
I also want to get rid of the steel landing gears and come up with a suspension type gears, with shocks hidden in the belly, i've got a few mores ideas but
for the moment, theses are the main modifications that i want to do, i want a good bush plane and be able to go where a Cub will go.
Comments are welcome.
Franky
You didn't say you wanted a stock '7 to land where a cub does. You said you wanted an exp 7 to do it. And near as I can tell, if you can make the exp part come together, then there is no reason your exp 7 shouldn't best a stock '18.
Few stock '12's hold a candle to a stock 18, but there are plenty of exp 12's that make an ass out of a stock 18.
Don't listen to the nay sayers that aren't listening to your proposal. It won't be cheap, it won't be easy, but it can be done, and if you already have the bones, and enjoy the fab process, I say get on with it...
Take care, Rob
Oh, and not a 7, but not as unleashed as an exp either, and yet here it sits with an extraordinarily talented cub guy in a good exp cub;
Just do it.
Thank's Rob
I dont want to build something for Valdez and try to beat Steve Henry, what i want to build, is a solid bushplane wich will be most of the time on floats, me and my wife love fishing, it will not be that expensive, what i have to start with, is a Citabria 7GCBC with a 1000 hrs TT that have been taking apart by my best buddy for replacing the wooden spars and putting new fabric on it, he end up buying a Smith Supercub kit and the Citabria end up on the shelves, i bought it for a song, initially my plan was to rebuild it as an experimental with a SuperCub wing profile, and enough modifications to be compliant with the 51% rules, so far, i have the Citabria (in pieces) a set of 2400 lbs floats, a set of beef up SuperCub wings Spars and about $18000 Cad of avionics ( Dynon Skyview, Garmin Radio, AV30 TailBeacon), a set of Bearhawk Bravo plan, for a total of $56400 CAD, i think i can make the whole project for less than 100 k, i was a machinist before i became a pilot and at we speak now, i have 18,600 hrs of flying time in both fixed wings and helicopters, i'm a garage guy, i enjoy building things and i did build and rebuild many things in my life.
I've changed my plans for the wings when i've heard about the Bearhawk Bravo, awesome performances, SuperCub stall speed with the cruise speed of
a Piper Arrow, unbelievable.
The guy i bought the Citabria from is on SuperCub.org under Member Project in Progress (New kid on the block, Buzz Cola) with his Smith Cub project, wich is at the
paint stage now, one of his son is an aeronautical engineer for the Canadian Forces in Ottawa.
Franky
What Pete was talking about with the hard ride on the Fiber Floats is spot on. The manufacturer of the Fiber Floats installed a suspension (shock absorbers) system in the aft vertical struts. In rough water, those bottomed out, and folded the longerons on more than one airplane.
The floats performed well on smooth water. I flew with a gent in his, mounted on a Maule, and another in a PA-12. I was impressed with takeoff performance, but.....
MTV
SuperCub stall speed with the cruise speed of
a Piper Arrow, unbelievable
Yep. Not that an Arrow is all that fast.
Actually ANY work done on a major assembly from a prior certified aircraft is Part 43 Maintenance and can not be counted. That includes modification and assembly of components. So if using a fuselage frame from a prior certified aircraft all the work that it takes to complete the Fuselage (control system installation of electrical system, seats, cover . . . for the final aircraft does not count.
All true for the above but you still can find enough stuff to comply with the 51% rules, a new wings+news flaps+news ailerons is a lot of points, new doors, new cowling, new floors, new landinggear, new electrical system, new seats, ect, new fabric, new paint, no problems if you really want it.
What your saying doesn't matter for transport Canada. It will likely never be importable to the US though. I wish we could go through the desertification process here, never happen though, too many kit manufacturers to fight it.
Any pics of where your project is at?
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?
There must be way to use an a fuselage from a certified aircraft in the US, the best exemple that come to my mind is Mike Patey , that is exactly what i did with
his Draco, it was base on a Wilga PZL 104, wich was certified aircraft in the US, the first Wilga model was not but the 104 was, he bought a second Wilga after
he wrecked Draco and he is planning to build a second Draco on it.
I never read the US rules about the 51%, I'm a Canadian, normally the rules are pretty much the same between the 2 country, it is clear that can not rebuild a certified
aircraft the way it was and try to register it in the experimental category, that is the reason for the 51% rules, if you comply with it, it should be ok, if Mike Patey
did it, it is because there's a way to do it, maybe the problem is the way that somes FAA guys interprete the rules, i've seen that kind of stuff happening a lot in Canada
in the past, one office would say no in Montreal and it was perfectly ok with the TC office, the rules are better written today and it's clear that we can use an existing airframe or parts of, as long as we comply with the 51 % rules.
Franky, In the US the 51% rule applies to the Experimental Amateur-built category. There are many other Experimental categories in which an airplane can be certified which have certain other limitations. Draco very likely may have been approved in one of those other categories?
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/12227/what-are-the-regulatory-categories-of-aircraft-defined-by-the-faa
The experimental certificate is for special cases.
This is the list of Experimental certificates:
Research and development
Showing compliance with regulations
Crew training
Exhibition
Air racing
Market surveys
Operating amateur-built aircraft
Operating primary kit-built aircraft
Operating light-sport aircraft
Last edited by skywagon8a; 05-25-2023 at 02:26 PM.
NX1PA
Franky, we can use a certificated airframe. We can't count builder points for building it. It’s no different than using a Back Country or Javron airframe that’s factory built. Part of buying a 51% kit is they provide a points sheet with their part already marked. The airframe was one of the lines not available for me to score a point or half point.
( Under the heading "The Joy of Compulsive Pedantry"...)
Not exactly. At the time the 51% rule came about a lot of folks had started having other folks do the work on their airplane - and then registering it as an experimental that they had built. There were known cases reported of people not ever even touching the danged thing and claiming they were the builder. It was also the dawn of "builder assist" programs. So in order to more clearly define the regulatory aim (education and experimentation) , the 51 % rule was begun.
Not especially germane to the discussion, but when pedantry seizes you it often won't let go. I apologize to all.
But you can still use parts from certificated aircraft. Just not more than 51 % of the final product.
More clarification… not less than 51% of the builder points using the builder score sheet and formula provided by the FAA.
https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/...syCklistFW.pdf
Last edited by stewartb; 05-25-2023 at 03:57 PM.
RedOwlAirfield thanked for this post
I guess I'm still confused. If you're Canadian, and the aircraft will be licensed in Canada, why don't you put the plane in the Canadian "Owner Maintenance" category? Maybe that category doesn't allow major changes to the airframe, but it permits installation of bigger engines, and other mods.
Is there a reason you're not going with that category? In any case, I'd get a copy of the Canadian rules on Experimental Homebuilt, or whatever they call it. I'd bet it's not EXACTLY like the US version, and, I'd sure want to fill all the squares.
MTV
Posting Permissions
Thanks: 
Likes: 
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks