I love cessnas

[nickduncs84]

Slight thread drift here, but something that you lot probably have some thoughts on. I saw an old piper pacer (actually a converted tri pacer, I think they call them PA20/22's) last week and thought it had a certain charm to it. The owner had given it a complete refurb including new fabric and an 0320 up front. After doing some research, I have learned that with the bigger engines and a few other relatively simple mods, they have similar STOL characteristics to a Cub, but can carry 4 people a little faster.

 

Anyone have any experiences with these old birds? And how does it work with a restored yet certified plane? Is the maintenance going to be a nightmare? Are simple things like adding an EFIS going to be a pain in the arse? And at the risk of someone shooting me for stupidity, is it possible to register a certified VH plane as VH experimental in the same way you would switch a 24 to a 19 rego??

 

 

[David Isaac]

I don't think 'omni vision' was a step forward, a step back in efficiency. Laurie

I agree, because they also widened the body at the same time, it is a bit like comparing the C180 and 182. The C180 definitely flys nicer than the C182 (180 is a lot more 'tricky' in the landing). The C180 has a narrower body and only two dunlops in the breeze. The C180 has to be more stream line.

Landomatic has to be a clever name for tricycle under cart, because all you had in those days were tail draggers and compared to a Cessna tail dragger the tricycle was quite a bit like an automatic landing. Things aren't much different today the way you see some pilots land Cessnas, it is almost like they expect them to land 'automatically' from some of the tragic techniques I have observed. LOL

 

 

[David Isaac]

Can't answer all your questions Nick.

 

Maintenance can be an issue with aging aircraft with some more than others. All aluminium has the difficulty of getting inside the wing to check spar corrosion. Fabric is easy to cut out the fabric and repatch to check for tube frame corrosion and wooden spar examination. It depends a lot on maintenance from previous owners.

 

I own a 1951 Auster, they are cheap to acquire and like any rag and tube corrosion of the tube frame needs to be watched and repaired. I was fortunate in that mine was completely restored in 1998, including frame corrosion treatment and a new skin so technically she is only 16 years old, but is now in need of substantial maintenance including a cable replacement (required at 15 years). The Auster was designed by the same guy who designed the Cub (CG Taylor), but the Auster has a different wing and is capable of 20 mph higher cruise speeds than the Cub. Austers are possibly the lowest cost aircraft you can buy, a good one can be as cheap as $35K, but you can blow a lot of money if you have to recover and paint one and rebuild the Gypsy.

 

Anything you add to an aircraft will effect W & B, and the aircraft should be re weighed. Technically you can add electronics, but AFAIK there is a TSO requirement for most of the equipment you add to VH aircraft. Some one else can offer better advice on that ... Now back to Cessnas ...

 

 

[jordy]

This was my C-150A Texas Tail Dragger - I bought it as a tricycle, bought a conversion kit and over several years did a major overhaul on airframe turning it into a baby 180. At the same time it was given a new(er) 0200 engine, bigger wheels and brakes and several other tidy ups. I sold it to a bloke who picked it up from me at Port Augusta S.A. and took it to W.A. to fly on a cattle station. I wonder how it looks now? Registration VH-DIA. Laurie[ATTACH=full]28925[/ATTACH]

 

 

[IanR]

Slight thread drift here, but something that you lot probably have some thoughts on. I saw an old piper pacer (actually a converted tri pacer, I think they call them PA20/22's) last week and thought it had a certain charm to it. The owner had given it a complete refurb including new fabric and an 0320 up front. After doing some research, I have learned that with the bigger engines and a few other relatively simple mods, they have similar STOL characteristics to a Cub, but can carry 4 people a little faster.Anyone have any experiences with these old birds? And how does it work with a restored yet certified plane? Is the maintenance going to be a nightmare? Are simple things like adding an EFIS going to be a pain in the ****? And at the risk of someone shooting me for stupidity, is it possible to register a certified VH plane as VH experimental in the same way you would switch a 24 to a 19 rego??

I looked at the Pacers when I bought mine. They are pretty basic and should be no worse on maint than other R&T types. There were issues to check re corrosion around the doors particularly. The converted PA22 have to be checked thoroughly as if not done properly are a pig on the ground. Main reason I didn't end up buying one was the lack of headroom as I am quite tall.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

And at the risk of someone shooting me for stupidity, is it possible to register a certified VH plane as VH experimental in the same way you would switch a 24 to a 19 rego??

For the 427 th (approximately) time, see http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/021/021c10.pdf

And you do NOT register a VH aeroplane as anything but a VH aeroplane. RAA does not have certificates of airworthiness, so it uses the registration to denote the airworthiness status. CASA does not do this; VH-XYZ remains VH-XYZ whether it is operating on a standard CoA, a Special CoA or an experimental certificate.

 

 

[Hongie]

For the 427 th (approximately) time, see http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/021/021c10.pdfAnd you do NOT register a VH aeroplane as anything but a VH aeroplane. RAA does not have certificates of airworthiness, so it uses the registration to denote the airworthiness status. CASA does not do this; VH-XYZ remains VH-XYZ whether it is operating on a standard CoA, a Special CoA or an experimental certificate.

Not really what he's asking is it? He said nothing about registering it as RAA... he made a comparison to RAA...

 

And even if he had have asked that, a simple answer would suffice, without the attitude.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Hongie, Dafydd is probably a cranky ol bugga in his field of expertise just as I am in mine, but I think he did make the comparison that Nick was seeking.

 

 

[nickduncs84]

All good fellas. I actually appreciate the banter. I have all day at work to be polite.

 

Thanks for the info Dafydd. I'm a little clearer on it now. Still very much a rookie and appreciate you taking the time to share your wisdom in this forum...even if you are a grumpy bugga!

 

 

[Keenaviator]

This one looks to have been converted without re-arcing the undercarriage. The gear legs need a bend near the top and reduction in the bend at the bottom - then it sits up like a 180. Laurie

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Well yes, I suppose I am a cranky bugger - especially when I've repeatedly provided that link on this website. It would be good if there were an index to subjects explained somewhere on the website, so people can find these answers, instead of having to ask the same questions again and again.

 

When you read that CASA advisory circular - and I hope a fair few RAA members will also read it - what you will see is that there are a number of purposes for which an experimental certificate can be issued. Let us suppose you have a Cessna with a standard C of A, and you want to modify it. Since it's NOT an RAA aircraft, CAR 42U normally applies, and the mod. must be done in a CASA approved workshop, in accordance with approved data. If it's a new minor mod., you would go to a CASR Part 21M Approved Person (used to be a CAR 35 engineer), and organise with him to supply an approved Engineering Order. If the approval process requires flight testing, you would apply for an Experimental Certificate for the purposes of showing compliance. If it needs some development, you would apply (on the same EC) for a Research & Development permission also. ECs for these purposes are normally limited to 12 months duration.

 

Whilst the aircraft is flying for these purposes, its normal COA is deemed to be suspended. When the testing process is completed, the Engineering Order approved, and the job signed off by the LAME, the experimental certificates expire and the original COA is then back in force.

 

The procedure is also used for a major mod, but in that case the process has to be done as a Supplemental Type Certificate, which brings CASA into the act from the beginning, and normally requires a Certification Plan - see CASR part 21 subpart D. This procedure is also used for the certification flight testing of new aircraft types.

 

You cannot get an "amateur built" EC for a factory-built aircraft, because it will not satisfy the 51% rule. So no, you cannot simply convert a factory-built aircraft to an experimental aircraft in order to sidestep the normal requirements for approval of a modification.

 

As you will see, there are some ten purposes for which an EC may be granted, and nine of them are identical with the FAA Experimental purposes. I suggest you study the Advisory Circular, and then ask me if you still have a question.

 

 

[nickduncs84]

Bravo! That's exactly what I was after.

 

In all seriousness, for someone like me who is really more interested in the flying than the technicalities, the problem is knowing what to look for and where to look for it. It's a bit like hiring a lawyer. I know that in theory I could study all of the regulations, but even if I did have the time to do that, I'm pretty sure most of it would go over my head. Sometimes, the only real way to find out is to ask. So thanks for your help!

 

 

[poteroo]

This one looks to have been converted without re-arcing the undercarriage. The gear legs need a bend near the top and reduction in the bend at the bottom - then it sits up like a 180. Laurie

Can be done by re-tempering the gear leg. In any case, the Texas Taildragger conversions usually didn't have enough 'deck angle' to enable you to make the aircraft stall during a 3 pointer. The result was an ugly arrival at too high a speed and some fun keeping the little Cessna straight. Have also heard this is the case with the Tri-pacer converted to a PA-20 Pacer. There was a fairly high accident rate with these Texas TD models. This was due to the main gear legs being a bit short, and the habit of converters to fit a Scott 3200 tailwheel - which raised the rear fuselage much higher than the original Maule tailwheel used in the early conversions. Bolen conversions added a couple inches of straight on the main gear which sat the aircraft up higher at the front. The problem then was that the 100HP was struggling to accelerate the airframe because it was at such a high angle of attack. So, the next step was to fit a 150HP Lycoming. This was how RWM ended up - and it did many thousands of mustering hours in WA. One of the consequences of the extra HP was that the tailplane copped a beating on the ground and in flight - requiring closer inspections and some strengthening mods, (unsure of what these were). For the money, the best taildragger conversions were the straight tailed 1956-59 C172 and 175 models with a 180HP Lycoming fitted. But nothing can compete with a good C170, which in turn can't match the mighty C180/185 for sheer performance. I can remember being able to feed my C180 in 1978, (avgas @ 24cpl), but at $2.35!!! No way.

 

happy days,