Who is the guy that talks about "taking it experimental"?
I hope he realizes that it will NOT be "experimental" like a homebuilt. If you change a certified aircraft to experimental, its usefulness is completely gone. You cannot use it for anything except that activity that you changed for, such as development or display,etc and you're severely limited to the distance you may fly from a designated airport. If it wasn't for that, everyone would change over to avoid the hassle of conforming to the factory specs, such as the subject wings.
plastic props? adjustable props?
Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher
going exerimental
When one wants to certify an installation or obtain an STC one can quite easily "go experimental" to test that installation or system then return to normal category. This happens regularly with avionics installations on certified a/c and it lasts for a few days. With the right guidance from the FSDO/ACO/MIDO it can be a simple task if your ducks are in a row and the Feds feel like they are sufficiently involved. I would never cut metal or spend money before I had a game plan in place with the Feds.
btw, I've been at this stuff for awhile. Believe it or don't...
btw, I've been at this stuff for awhile. Believe it or don't...
-
Dave Clark
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 6:25 pm
I've looked through my Avemco policy and nowhere can I find a reference to the airplane airworthiness certificate or that it even has to be in annual. I do find a question on the application if it is annual. I'm thinking insurance might not be a big issue because the experimental airwortiness cert makes it legal but one would want to check into it. BTW I think the Avemco insurance coverage is valid even if you let the annual or your medical or BFR lapse by accident .
When the 182 was made into a 181 I needed to go to an experimental certificate to legally flight test the airplane with the FAA for an STC covering the addition of cowl flaps to the 1956 model 182. Back in 1991 in the Seattle FSDO IF you knew the right guy you could get things done. I think I had the standard airwortiness cert back in less than a week. Not sure I would want to try that now seeing as I would need to get three private professionals involved at a cost (DAR, DER, and the DOR(?) that they say you now should use to soordinate the other two). YIKES!
When the 182 was made into a 181 I needed to go to an experimental certificate to legally flight test the airplane with the FAA for an STC covering the addition of cowl flaps to the 1956 model 182. Back in 1991 in the Seattle FSDO IF you knew the right guy you could get things done. I think I had the standard airwortiness cert back in less than a week. Not sure I would want to try that now seeing as I would need to get three private professionals involved at a cost (DAR, DER, and the DOR(?) that they say you now should use to soordinate the other two). YIKES!
Dave
N92CP ("Clark's Plane")
1953 C-180
N92CP ("Clark's Plane")
1953 C-180
Jon, if an Aeromatic prop with metal or composite blades can be produced for $4000, I'll go for one in an heartbeat! Can't see holding the O-300 to only 115 bhp or so on takeoff when it could churn out 145 with the two speed prop! Just can't stomach hanging a $30K O-360 kit on a $34K airplane. I'll bookmark the Aeromatic site...but keep us posted Jon!
John, 2734C in Summit Point, WV
-
zero.one.victor
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:11 am
I looked the Tarver website over. I'd be more interested in the Beech-Roby type controllable pitch propeller than the Aeromatic,if it is indeed manually controlled (not electric).
I read somewhere about the Aeromatic having the bad habit of changing pitch when it shouldn't--like when you're trying to take off in a high-density-altitude situation. It is an automatic variable pitch propeller,with a bob-weight arrangement,and evidently must be adjusted for your home-base altitude for proper operation. When you go to Denver or wherever it can cause problems.
Another thing I noticed is that the 170 TCDS sez the Aeromatic is an approved propeller,but that it requires the C-145-2H engine with the dampered crankshaft. I wonder why,the Aeromatic is not hydraulic in any way,right?
The old Stinson L-5 Sentinel had some sort of controllable &/or 2-speed propeller hung on it's Lycoming O-435,didn't it? Anybody know anything about that one?
Seems like a manually-controlled 2-speed prop would be perfect for us. I don't know if the Beech-Roby type is 2 speed or infinitely variable. The 170 TCDS shows a MacCauley 2-position controllable prop,but I guess it's extinct. I have read about a similar 2-speed Sensenich ,it must be a goner too.
Eric
I read somewhere about the Aeromatic having the bad habit of changing pitch when it shouldn't--like when you're trying to take off in a high-density-altitude situation. It is an automatic variable pitch propeller,with a bob-weight arrangement,and evidently must be adjusted for your home-base altitude for proper operation. When you go to Denver or wherever it can cause problems.
Another thing I noticed is that the 170 TCDS sez the Aeromatic is an approved propeller,but that it requires the C-145-2H engine with the dampered crankshaft. I wonder why,the Aeromatic is not hydraulic in any way,right?
The old Stinson L-5 Sentinel had some sort of controllable &/or 2-speed propeller hung on it's Lycoming O-435,didn't it? Anybody know anything about that one?
Seems like a manually-controlled 2-speed prop would be perfect for us. I don't know if the Beech-Roby type is 2 speed or infinitely variable. The 170 TCDS shows a MacCauley 2-position controllable prop,but I guess it's extinct. I have read about a similar 2-speed Sensenich ,it must be a goner too.
Eric
-
pauldpilot
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 6:06 am
plastic props
I mentioned a week ago about the possiblity of going into the Primary catagory. It seemed like the best of both worlds. You get to do the maintenance, and possibly tinker around with different mods. and still not have all the restictions of going experimental. I have not had the time to research that idea any further.
I'm not sure if going primary if the pilot is the repairman for the aircraft, like i believe it is with experimental. If in the primary catagory it still requires an annuall inspection by the IA, the possibility to get creative is gone.
I'm not sure if going primary if the pilot is the repairman for the aircraft, like i believe it is with experimental. If in the primary catagory it still requires an annuall inspection by the IA, the possibility to get creative is gone.
pauldpilot