The goal is a scratch-built ~2200 lb 4-place GVW aircraft. Do specific airframes stand out in this weight class? After this question we next have to ask about modifications the airframe needs to be better.

The plans built options I know of currently on the market are the Sportsman 2+2 and the Christavia Mk4. Additionally, I think I could pursue a Bushmaster or the Blanton STOL but these two options cannot be duplicated design intent resulting from the FAA's position that use of certified aircraft parts is quite specific. We could then say these two options would need a Frankenplane approach. I also like what Clint Busenitz is doing but would want a larger airframe.

I am aiming at use of 31's and floats.

Don’t discount the “stretched pacer” concept. There were several airframes of that design built from scratch in Alaska and elsewhere. A friend bought one…bare frame, and built an EAB plane from it.
MTV

I didn't. The Bushmaster is the experimental version of the Super Pacer STC. The Super Pacer STC is currently owned by James Smith. The Blanton STOL is also an example but was originally marketed as the Javelin V6 STOL w/the Ford V6 as the power plant. Leave the Ford V6 out of the plan and you have a good airframe.

Neither of these can be built as they were originally because the FAA has changed the use of certified aircraft parts for experimental builds. AC 20-27G is the the reference for this.

RVC wrote:I didn't. The Bushmaster is the experimental version of the Super Pacer STC. The Super Pacer STC is currently owned by James Smith. The Blanton STOL is also an example but was originally marketed as the Javelin V6 STOL w/the Ford V6 as the power plant. Leave the Ford V6 out of the plan and you have a good airframe.

Neither of these can be built as they were originally because the FAA has changed the use of certified aircraft parts for experimental builds. AC 20-27G is the the reference for this.

I understand. What I posted was……there have been similar “stretched Pacer” airframes created from scratch. Therefore NO USE of certified parts.

The FAA does NOT say you can’t use “home made” parts that mimic certified in an EAB, only that they must be manufactured by the builder. Look at the Cyclone kit…..basically a direct copy of the Cessna 185, but NO certified parts.

A few years ago, I heard there were two of these home built “Pacer type” frames in Alaska. One of those could be a good foundation, if you can document their origin.

MTV

RVC wrote:I didn't. The Bushmaster is the experimental version of the Super Pacer STC. The Super Pacer STC is currently owned by James Smith. The Blanton STOL is also an example but was originally marketed as the Javelin V6 STOL w/the Ford V6 as the power plant. Leave the Ford V6 out of the plan and you have a good airframe.

Neither of these can be built as they were originally because the FAA has changed the use of certified aircraft parts for experimental builds. AC 20-27G is the the reference for this.

When did the FAA change this rule? I k ow of qt least 2 companies rhat still build stretched pacer frames, one experimental and one either certified or experimental, depending on how you'd like it.

When you say scratch built are you implying you are going to weld up the fuselage yourself or just using a experimental fuselage as a base for the project? DENNY

DENNY wrote:When you say scratch built are you implying you are going to weld up the fuselage yourself or just using a experimental fuselage as a base for the project? DENNY

What I was talking about was two airframes that were built from scratch, to stretched Pacer dimensions. I used to know the guy who welded up four or five of these. I know one of them is flying now as EAB.

BUT, you MAY be able to get away with a stretch Pacer frame. I'd go to EAA web site, and study up. I THINK you can still do so, but if youre worried about it, there may be scratch built stuff out there.

MTV

mtv wrote:

DENNY wrote:When you say scratch built are you implying you are going to weld up the fuselage yourself or just using a experimental fuselage as a base for the project? DENNY

What I was talking about was two airframes that were built from scratch, to stretched Pacer dimensions. I used to know the guy who welded up four or five of these. I know one of them is flying now as EAB.

BUT, you MAY be able to get away with a stretch Pacer frame. I'd go to EAA web site, and study up. I THINK you can still do so, but if youre worried about it, there may be scratch built stuff out there.

MTV

Yakima aero stretches pacer frames for their Bushmasters. As does Nick Smith. Both are amateur built, but Yakima can do it as a certified if you prefer.

My question is for RVC. Do you plan to weld the fuselage yourself or buy a experimental one already welded up? DENNY

Denny - Either option is viable. I know someone that did all the conversion work themselves and he used his complete aircraft but I do not know how long ago he performed these modifications. If I can find a good fuse, rudder and some other parts near me for a reasonable price I would consider this option. The used market can be both fickle and move fast so I'm not real optimistic about finding parts like these because I live in the rust belt. Replacing and splicing a lot of tube could be more time consuming and challenging work than one expects.

I do not have a complete understanding of how the FAA endorses these issues. The people I know that have recently discussed with their FSDO or DAR were told they will allow home builder's to stretch the fuse but you cannot use the wings to extend them.

The other conversations I have held with people indicate you can work with a certified wing, like Clint Busenitz does with this Badland's Traveler, and fabricate everything else - fuse, rudder, stab, elevator, etc. to meet the 51% rule. I suppose it may also be possible to repair a salvage fuse and fabricate all the components of a certified wing if you had all the drawings and wanted to go about completing the project in this manner. the GA 30613.5 Riblett Airfoil is a real nice experimental airfoil.

The individual that owns the STC for the 'Super Pacer' is James Smith. Others came across this information in a less ethical manner.

I'm completely flexible as to how I approach this. The thought I had regarding the plans built aircraft was to build their airframe's and stretch them if necessary. I do not think the Sportsmann 2+2 is quite a long as the stretched Pacer but I could also work from the Wag-a-Bond plans and stretch it to achieve the same goal if one becomes available.

First I would like to say I learned to fly in a Pacer and think they are a great bang for the buck plane and the Producer/Bushmaster type conversions are very nice planes. Now if I was to build ground up I would most likely not use a Pacer or a 2+2 for the fuselage. They are not wide planes (I think the 2+2 is narrower than the Pacer) My wife and I fit but I am not that big and she is small. I think you have better options for a fuselage. Look at the Airframes four place fuselage and and improvements made by Kirt Ellis. The only downside to that fuselage is getting into the front seat and Kirt has modified the door to make it easy especially with a good sliding front seat and yokes instead of sticks. Throw on a set of Javron wings and you will have a great plane. If you want to go faster look at the Bearhawk (wide and fast). Basically a Maul knockoff with Maul performance. When building experimental aircraft getting repair parts is very important especially in todays world. Sticking with a piper wing makes getting parts a lot easier. Go sit in a few planes with someone else and see how you fit. The difference in a narrow and wide body 182 is not that much but it is very noticeable while flying. If you do fit in a pacer and can rebuild a fuselage once again extended Javron wings with Ailerons to the tips, stock or PSTOL flaps would be the ticket. If you want to weld up entire fuselage go to that company that has CNC tube packages and see what they have. No right or wrong just things to consider. DENNY

Denny,& others,

Yes. One of the largest difficulties w/2200 lb. GVW aircraft is they are not known for being true 4-lace aircraft. There is no question I would choose the Bearhawk Model B if I knew I could afford it. A Maule or Stinson 108 project would also work but I do not think the 108 has a strong reputation in the off-field stuff...I have not seen much through the years..I thought people here might have an idea what reinforcements or, design changes, a given airframe might need to ensure it is both robust and remains light. Scrath building a 4-place Bearhawk is a monstrous project so I have to weigh this example very carefully.

I do not know Kirk Ellis but I will certainly look into him as you suggested. I accidentally stumbled onto someone from Airframes Alaska interviewing a guy that built a 4-place super cub over the weekend but I did not have time to watch the entire review of the aircraft so I do not know if i could find it again. I have been focusing on the stretched Pacer builds and the FAA issues associated with projects like these.

I think the cnc firm your are referring to is v3 engineering in Canada. I know them but it's costly - too costly for me. I would think I could widen a fuselage myself either by measuring a basket case as a reference simply increasing the width of a plans built design. Additionally, I suppose you could implement subtly curves in the tubing before welding in the rear seat area to add width in this way.

Sometimes it is also true that you do all the analytical work I am trying to do and you wait...then funds to buy a kit drop in your lap and the 'time to fly' shrinks dramatically.

I have lot's or reading and thinking to do.

Rick

If you do go with a stretched pacer, put cabane V on the bottom so you can eliminate the bar inside. Then you can put nice sliding seat like Cessna has. The flat floor also makes it much much nicer to work inside the plane.

This link should have a lot of 4 place stuff .https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoVRpk ... CwQ/videos In todays world I can get a very good flying working cub for less than a experimental with the same mods. DENNY

This is the checklist provided by the FAA to be used to determine points to see how much you get credit for building. Notice the wording in the box toward the top on the right.
John

RVC wrote: The goal is a scratch-built ~2200 lb 4-place GVW aircraft. Do specific airframes stand out in this weight class? After this question we next have to ask about modifications the airframe needs to be better. ....

I have to be an asshole & ask.....
is this going to be about the experience of building your own airplane,
or is the goal to actually have an airplane to fly?
Just in the last couple days, two different guys with projects that have been documented here over the years
have posted about either selling their projects, or thinking about selling their projects.
Apparently as they had become such long term deals with little to no hope of ever being completed.
I think their experience mirrors that of a lot of people who've taken on similar projects.

If the goal is to have a flyable airplane,
you might want to just buy one that is already flying.
Or one that is already at least partially completed.
Something to think about anyways.

hotrod180 wrote:

RVC wrote: The goal is a scratch-built ~2200 lb 4-place GVW aircraft. Do specific airframes stand out in this weight class? After this question we next have to ask about modifications the airframe needs to be better. ....

I have to be an asshole & ask.....
is this going to be about the experience of building your own airplane,
or is the goal to actually have an airplane to fly?
Just in the last couple days, two different guys with projects that have been documented here over the years
have posted about either selling their projects, or thinking about selling their projects.
Apparently as they had become such long term deals with little to no hope of ever being completed.
I think their experience mirrors that of a lot of people who've taken on similar projects.

If the goal is to have a flyable airplane,
you might want to just buy one that is already flying.
Or one that is already at least partially completed.
Something to think about anyways.

Pretty much this. Even a quick build from a good kitplane manufacturer is a huge time-suck. Get one with limited or no support and unless you’re a very experienced builder it’s a nightmare.

If your going with a scratch built then it seems like the Bearhawk is the obvious route. Plans are like $400 and with a few hundred bucks worth of 4130 you’ll have a good start with plenty to do. Plan on a scratch build taking 10 years.

The Christavia and 2+2 seem so be enjoyed by those that have them but they don’t seem to compare well against the BH. I try not to be biased but being a BH builder and owner I probably am.

If I wasn’t so busy with other things I’d start on a Bearhawk 5 build but it would likely end up with Cessna 185 or 206 wings.

Maybe talk Zane into selling his BH project.

hotrod180 wrote:

RVC wrote: The goal is a scratch-built ~2200 lb 4-place GVW aircraft. Do specific airframes stand out in this weight class? After this question we next have to ask about modifications the airframe needs to be better. ....

I have to be an asshole & ask.....
is this going to be about the experience of building your own airplane,
or is the goal to actually have an airplane to fly?
Just in the last couple days, two different guys with projects that have been documented here over the years
have posted about either selling their projects, or thinking about selling their projects.
Apparently as they had become such long term deals with little to no hope of ever being completed.
I think their experience mirrors that of a lot of people who've taken on similar projects.

If the goal is to have a flyable airplane,
you might want to just buy one that is already flying.
Or one that is already at least partially completed.

Something to think about anyways.

^^^