8KCAB airframe plans

[Bell206]

There are no aerobatic limitations other than "The aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and throughout all the maneuvers to be executed" You document those maneuvers during Phase 1 testing.

So if I understand this now, the Op Limits master listing in the 2009 edition of Order 8130.2 contained the following for E/AB aircraft:
(15) This aircraft is prohibited from aerobatic flight, that is, an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in the aircraft’s attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration not necessary for normal flight.

(16) This aircraft may conduct aerobatic flight in accordance with the provisions of § 91.303. Aerobatics must not be attempted until sufficient flight experience has been gained to establish that the aircraft is satisfactorily controllable and in compliance with § 91.319(b). The aircraft may only conduct those aerobatic flight maneuvers that have been satisfactorily accomplished during flight testing and recorded in the aircraft logbook and maintenance records by use of the following, or a similarly worded, statement: “I certify that the following aerobatic maneuvers have been test flown and that the aircraft is controllable throughout the maneuvers’ normal range of speeds, and is safe for operation. The flight-tested aerobatic maneuvers are _________, _________, __________, and __________.”

So if that 8130.2 version is no longer valid, as I could not find similar verbiage in the current version of 8130.2, this could possibly mean the owner could return to Phase 1 testing and have new Op Limits approved and perform aerobatic flight maneuvers? He currently has item 15 above listed on his Op Limits.

FYI: I don't follow the E/AB world closely but try and assist when I can. And without putting you on the spot, in your experience, could this be an option for the owner to pursue and contact a DAR?

 

[kyleb]

So if that 8130.2 version is no longer valid, as I could not find similar verbiage in the current version of 8130.2, this could possibly mean the owner could return to Phase 1 testing and have new Op Limits approved and perform aerobatic flight maneuvers? He currently has item 15 above listed on his Op Limits.

FYI: I don't follow the E/AB world closely but try and assist when I can. And without putting you on the spot, in your experience, could this be an option for the owner to pursue and contact a DAR?

I don't know. I know that you can return the aircraft to Phase 1 following major modifications (say a prop change). I do not know if you can extend the aircraft's usage (i.e. aerobatic restrictions) beyond what the builder specified in Phase 1, but I suspect you can. As a builder, I know I'd be very uncomfortable if the next guy who owned "my" airplane returned it to Phase 1 and added outside loops (for instance) to the aerobatic maneuvers listed for the aircraft.

 

[Dana]

So if that 8130.2 version is no longer valid, as I could not find similar verbiage in the current version of 8130.2, this could possibly mean the owner could return to Phase 1 testing and have new Op Limits approved and perform aerobatic flight maneuvers? He currently has item 15 above listed on his Op Limits.

FYI: I don't follow the E/AB world closely but try and assist when I can. And without putting you on the spot, in your experience, could this be an option for the owner to pursue and contact a DAR?

Correct; you can put the plane back in phase 1, do any aerobatics you want, log them, then they will be allowed. You don't need a DAR; you just apply to the MIDO to ammend your airworthiness certificate with new operating limitations and, if required, a new test area. Then you notify the FAA that you're putting it back in phase 1, fly the test flights, log the successful completion of phase 1, and you're good to go.

I'm in the process of doing this right now with my E-AB. I did it a few years ago with another E-AB I owned.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

If the design is patented can I legally build it, considering that they are still building the aircraft?

As far as I know patents do not prevent you from building an exact duplicate of something. They only prevent you from building an exact duplicate and selling it.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

I’ve decided my “perfect” aircraft: CAN operate from grass but doesn’t have to be a STOL plane. Can do gentleman’s acro. I’d like to learn and practice basics but don’t have an interest in doing a bunch of negative G stuff. CAN do a weekend trip with two people who pack judiciously. Not looking for a touring plane but I’d like to be able to take it to the lake for a weekend so I’d like 172-ish Cruise speeds anyway.

Boom

Boom

And boom.

Also boom.

 

[LoLPilot]

First of all, what a wealth of information in this thread. Thank you all so much - I am humbled.

Boom

Boom

And boom.

Also boom.

The Vans RV4 and RV8 are both on my short list. The only thing is if I ever try to do off airport stuff I worry about the low wing. A Decathlon would not be an off airport star, but if you wanted to fit bigger tires to it I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t land it somewhere out in the plains or the desert given enough room for a landing and takeoff roll. Maybe RV’s can do that too and I’m just ignorant.

There’s also a bit of silk scarf romance with high wing, strutted taildraggers. It’s an inefficient design but for me it’s like biplanes. I know that they’re not great airplanes by modern standards but just seeing one makes m smile.

 

[Grum.Man]

First of all, what a wealth of information in this thread. Thank you all so much - I am humbled.



The Vans RV4 and RV8 are both on my short list. The only thing is if I ever try to do off airport stuff I worry about the low wing. A Decathlon would not be an off airport star, but if you wanted to fit bigger tires to it I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t land it somewhere out in the plains or the desert given enough room for a landing and takeoff roll. Maybe RV’s can do that too and I’m just ignorant.

There’s also a bit of silk scarf romance with high wing, strutted taildraggers. It’s an inefficient design but for me it’s like biplanes. I know that they’re not great airplanes by modern standards but just seeing one makes m smile.

There are a few guys who have fitted larger tires to their RV, but yes you still have to watch the low wing. The RV will likely takeoff and land shorter than an 8KCAB. The RV wing is pretty short so you wouldn't need a lot of width to land.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The Vans RV4 and RV8 are both on my short list. The only thing is if I ever try to do off airport stuff I worry about the low wing. A Decathlon would not be an off airport star, but if you wanted to fit bigger tires to it I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t land it somewhere out in the plains or the desert given enough room for a landing and takeoff roll. Maybe RV’s can do that too and I’m just ignorant.

There’s also a bit of silk scarf romance with high wing, strutted taildraggers. It’s an inefficient design but for me it’s like biplanes. I know that they’re not great airplanes by modern standards but just seeing one makes m smile.

You’d have to land someplace pretty gnarly for 600x6 tires and a low wing to be a problem.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

First of all, what a wealth of information in this thread. Thank you all so much - I am humbled.



The Vans RV4 and RV8 are both on my short list. The only thing is if I ever try to do off airport stuff I worry about the low wing. A Decathlon would not be an off airport star, but if you wanted to fit bigger tires to it I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t land it somewhere out in the plains or the desert given enough room for a landing and takeoff roll. Maybe RV’s can do that too and I’m just ignorant.

There’s also a bit of silk scarf romance with high wing, strutted taildraggers. It’s an inefficient design but for me it’s like biplanes. I know that they’re not great airplanes by modern standards but just seeing one makes m smile.

Just landing in grass or similar terrain, any of the RVs will do fine. If a bush plane or bush plane capabilities are what you're after, there are many kits that will do that. The Kitfox's and their ilk come to mind. But I don't think they'll do you any favors in a speed race against a 172. The Rans stuff might do a bit better in terms of speed but I don't know if you're supposed to get dirty side up in them. Might be alright, I just don't know the type that well.

I would contend that there are very places you shouldn't take an RV that you should take a stock Decathlon. Put big fat bush tires on it and that changes things but it will also take the fight right out of your cruise numbers which puts you back in Kitfox territory.

 

[Stan Cooper]

CH750 STOL? High wing, tough trike gear for back country. 90 knots cruise. Great airplane if you can get past the form follows function utilitarian aesthetics.

http://www.zenithair.com/stolch750/index.html