Experimental Champ, Chief, etc.

[MikeB]

I'm sure I'll get several opinions on this but here goes: some of us vintage guys were sitting around the hangar surrounded by our vintage aircraft and wondering if they couldn't be 'reregistered' as experimental types if the owner wasn't concerned about selling. I didn't really have the answer but looking at my L16 with the 0200 conversion and several other mods all done with either STC or 337 approval it 'sort of' fits into a 'sort of' experimental catagory and looking at my age (75+) this will probably be the last aircraft I actually own so when all is said and done selling it in parts would not be the end of the world. In fact, that's why I choose to restore vintage aircraft rather than build a RV12 or the like as if the job goes south I can always part the plane out rather than have $70,000_80,000 tied up in a project that I may not be able to finish.
Thoughts???
Mike

[Richard Murray]

MikeB

Funny you should bring up this subject. I had a chap suggest to me to repair a damaged 7AC I am struggling to register with the FAA as an Experimental. He claims there are more people interested in buying an Experimental and as the builder you would be able to do your own condition inspections. I've always heard that certified parts are not acceptable to assemble as an Experimental, however, if the FAA is willing to determine that my certified parts are not an aircraft then I should be able to arrange them in a manner and form acceptable for licensing as an Experimental. No STC needed.

[Paul Agaliotis]

Mike,
The FAA isn't going to let you change the catagory unless it has been extensively modified. And even then it's open to the ASI's judgement. There is really no reason to take it out of Standard Catagory other than the maintenence and license equirements.
Canada has some form of owner maintained catagory that has some sucess, which the EAA has proposed for 2 decades and would be a big mistake. The FAA created all of these, they now need to regulate them, not sluff it off to some mis-guided type club.
Paul

[MikeB]

Thanks for chiming in Paul. Kind of what I thought but the conversation came up when we were discussing how difficult it is or soon will be to find IA's that actually know old tube and fabric aircraft. It may not be a problem in your neck of the woods but it's getting that way here. Most are older and more inclined to let the owner do the work while they play with the paperwork. I doubt tube and fabric is even taught in A & P school any more.

Having said that I've done owner assisted annuals for over 30 years so it's not new to me but I agree that making a certified aircraft 'experimental' would a difficult if not impossible process.

Mike

[kyleb]

Mike,
The FAA isn't going to let you change the catagory unless it has been extensively modified.
Paul

Generally correct. But there are exceptions.

I was at a fly-in two weeks ago and saw an "Experimental" pre-war Chief. I couldn't find a single thing about it that wasn't stock, including the 75 year old, beat up nosebowl.

[Paul Agaliotis]

Kyle,
I'm sure there exceptions to the rule. It could have been in a flight test mode for the modifications, who knows. Now it would not be an Aeronca, most of the time they list it as an "Anybody 65CA" as Expermental, or, Aeronca/Anybody 65CA.
I can't go out and buy every piece from ACA for a Citabria and register it as an ACA 7ECA. It would become an Agaliotis 7ECA Sn.1. That prevents people from building Standard Catagory airplanes witout a Production Certificate. Even the TC holder can't build planes without a Production Certificate.
If there aren't enough trained people to work on these Vintage planes, it's the FAA that needs to address this safety issue. Not try to find somebody else to blame. I tried to become a DAR for specific Vintage aircraft and the FAA directed me to the EAA. After a few months of inaction and wild goose chases I figured it just isn't worth the trouble at this time.
Paul

[kyleb]

Kyle,
I'm sure there exceptions to the rule. It could have been in a flight test mode for the modifications, who knows. Now it would not be an Aeronca, most of the time they list it as an "Anybody 65CA" as Expermental, or, Aeronca/Anybody 65CA.

<snip>

Paul

The data plate on the pre-war Chief listed "John Smith" or some other individual's name as the manufacturer. As I wrote, there are exceptions. Obviously, that fellow found a friendly soul with the appropriate credentials to issue an experimental A/B cert to an airplane that appeared to be a factory aircraft.

[Paul Agaliotis]

Kyle,
That, in a nutshell, is the problem with the FAA. The just refuse to make some kind of standards, each FSDO does their own thing. With as many times as we have installed bigger engines, hydraulic brakes and radio equipment there should be some standerd installation method approved by the FAA.
Paul

[MikeB]

Too bad they're not written like the Buzz Wagner STC for the Champs and Chiefs. That one leaves a lot open to 'interpretation'. I like the part in his STC "or anything else that will work" (or some words to that effect). The only thing I would like to do is try a different prop setup rather than the 69/50 (Cessna 150) although it works reasonably well and runs up just short of red line. Someone 'in the know' seemed to think a 74/43 would be a good match.

Mike

[Paul Agaliotis]

Mike,
I think the stuff Buzz wrote is one of the best out there. He didn't try to tell you what you had to install, there is a little room to let the installer decide.
Paul

[MikeB]

Paul,
Agreed . I like the one from the 0200 installation for the 7AC (SA-372) that states " Basic electrical system installation may be used as on the Chief STC SA57RM" which leads one to believe it's possible to install a starter and generator system using the criteria for the Chief STC. Of course the battery location is a different setup but........! My IA said to "go ahead" but I went the 337 route using the 7EC installation. I also have an approved 337 for installing the B & C alternator (12 amp) but have been holding off for now until 'my ship comes in'.

Having said that, not being able to make common sense changes (generally) on certified aircraft is what drives folks like me into the homebuilt field. I'd love to build a RV 12 but the $75-80,000 investment in capital is too rich for my blood. Some of the others (less expensive) are short on utility or maybe even downright dangerous so I keep pecking away at what I can handle. I think a Rotex 912 engine is around $20,000 right now. But then my motto has always been "If God intended man to fly he would have given us more money".

Mike

[Paul Agaliotis]

Mike,
Who would know more about the installation than the installer, Buzz did a great job in this area. I just don't get the idea that the FAA hasn't come up with some kind of standards for all of the modifications we make to these Aeroncas. Generally they are the same mods over and over again. And each time done in a different way depending on the FSDO or ASI used.
I let people know that,"if man was meant to fly, his bones would be as hollow as his head."
Paul

[MikeB]

Paul,
When you think about it there aren't too many short comings on our little Aeroncas. My understanding is they took all the 'shortcomings' (back seat single pilot and poor visibility for example)) on the Piper Cub and designed the changes into the Aeronca Champ. I can't speak for the so called shortcomings as I never flew a Cub but I can't think of too many improvements I'd make on a Champ. Maybe a bit better braking system although the cables are fine in most cases (and they don't make you want to tip up on the nose). I do like the 0200 with the starter and increased power. I'm sure those with the Super 85's feel the same way. Maybe a bigger dash would be nice but the list isn't very long.

On another note: I've found the restoration process of my 11CC Chief a bit more challenging mostly because I've had my head in a dark place on occasion. Seems like new surprises spring up almost daily but I'm hoping to get it flying by next summer. Planning on hanging the engine the first part of next week.

Mike