Project: Citabria 7 GCBCrebuilt in the experimental category
- Thread starter Franky
- Start date
NunavutPA-12
FRIEND
67.8N,115.1W CYCO Canada
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!
Good luck with your project!
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rob
Registered User
AZ06
Apples to apples...
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.
Attachments
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
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
mvivion
FOUNDER
Bozeman,MT
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
bob turner
Registered User
SuperCub stall speed with the cruise speed of
a Piper Arrow, unbelievable
Yep. Not that an Arrow is all that fast.
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.
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.
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.
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
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
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:
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.
RedOwlAirfield
FRIEND
Nevada
( 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/ultralights/amateur_built/kits/media/AmBuiltFabAssyCklistFW.pdf
https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/kits/media/AmBuiltFabAssyCklistFW.pdf
Last edited:
mvivion
FOUNDER
Bozeman,MT
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
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
It's the same for us, we don't get any points for the fuselage, however, we can get point for adding something to the fuselage, a second door (sea plane door) floats
attachements, a cargo door, as long as you can provide proof that you made it yourself, just changing the fuselage by adding or removing some tubings, changing the shape, does not count, it have to be something new that was not on the fuselage before.
We have pretty much the same 51% score sheet, might be the same one actually.
the Owner maintenance program have his limits and that one for sure, you will not be able to sell it in the US.
If you want to have a look at the Canadian Rules , just type: Transport Canada Chapter 549 in Google, the part that talk about the 51% rule is 549.7 MATERIEL,
like i said, i did not read the US rules, but normally, we are quite closed to what you are doing south of the border.
attachements, a cargo door, as long as you can provide proof that you made it yourself, just changing the fuselage by adding or removing some tubings, changing the shape, does not count, it have to be something new that was not on the fuselage before.
We have pretty much the same 51% score sheet, might be the same one actually.
the Owner maintenance program have his limits and that one for sure, you will not be able to sell it in the US.
If you want to have a look at the Canadian Rules , just type: Transport Canada Chapter 549 in Google, the part that talk about the 51% rule is 549.7 MATERIEL,
like i said, i did not read the US rules, but normally, we are quite closed to what you are doing south of the border.
Also of interest: go to MD-RA.com, click on Construction Progress, scroll down the page until you see: SI-549-001, click on it , on this page you will see a lot
of box on the left hand side, scroll down until you find SI-459-001, there's a lot more there about the 51% rule and what you can and can't do.
of box on the left hand side, scroll down until you find SI-459-001, there's a lot more there about the 51% rule and what you can and can't do.
brown bear
Registered User
emporia ks
AC 20-27G might be a good read for those building a EAB aircraft in the U.S.
for use of type certificated salvage parts start reading on page 11
for use of type certificated salvage parts start reading on page 11
Latest developmentsI got my project approved by the MD-RA, so it's a go, i also put my hands on a Lycoming HIO-360-D1A for it, that engine is normally found on helicopters, this is an angles valves enginerated at 195 hp at a maximum of 26.5 MAP and 3200 RPM, it's airplane counterpart is an I0-360 C1C wich is rated at 200 hp, 29 MAP and 2700 RPM with 8.7 to 1 pistons, my engine have 10 to 1 pistons and will probably be in the 210 to 220 hp range at 29 MAP and 2700 RPM.Franky
mvivion
FOUNDER
Bozeman,MT
This is the one that came to mind right off in this thread. Yes, a 7GC CAN be made to perform.
Exp vs Certified: I’d talk to whomever will ultimately sign it off.
MTV
BC12D-4-85
SPONSOR
Fairbanks, AK.
^^^^Next time I'd install extended Scout tips....the droops were a heavy installation. And lighter Scout main gear. Sensenich adjustable prop with crank offset spacer if available. And a minimal interior....they came with carpeting that eats dirt and plush but heavy vinyl padded side panels.
Gary
Gary
BC12D-4-85
SPONSOR
Fairbanks, AK.
The Citabria speed came from the CS prop...135 at 2700/28"+MP. Fixed pitch not so much ( I had a 74/56 and 80/40 originally) unless the new Sensenich is set to do that, if it can. T/O comparison was noted on skis over a few winters in deep snow.
Gary
Gary
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.
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.
