Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Share ideas on building aircraft.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

Spandau
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:05 am

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by Spandau »

From the COPA guide:

"Owners of O-M aircraft are required to comply with CAR 571.12 and report major repairs and modifications to the aircraft to Transport Canada. Where the change involves the engine, the owner has to report to TC and have the flight authority re-issued. The information on the Special C of A specifies the engine and must correspond with the aircraft."

I would think that hanging an engine on an airplane that's radically different from what's on the Type Certificate would definitely be seen as more of an experimental application than a maintenance one, and you'll likely have a very tough time of selling them on that. I got approval to use a prop that wasn't on my Type Certificate but it was a very minor thing (a very similar model was) and the prop was approved on a similar airplane with the very same engine.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
x-wind
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 10:23 pm
Location: Around

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by x-wind »

Good point, I've been thinking about this. In the grande scheme of the airplane I would not call a Rotax radically different from a Continental O-200 (which is approved on the Luscombe). I've called TC certification & maintenance (who are forwarding my question to the appropriate person) to pose the question today: "I'm going to convert or already have converted a Luscombe into the O-M category. I would like to change the engine & propeller to a similar horsepower but unapproved configuration. What will be the process to have my Special Certificate of Airworthiness reissued?"

To comply with CARS 571.12 you've to fill out a seemingly short & simple form found here: http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/images/ca-cars/repair.gif

I'm curious if a simple description of the work accomplished, for an unapproved engine type change, in this form will suffice towards getting the SCofA reissued in the O-M category. Will advise as to the response I get back from TC.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Spandau
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:05 am

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by Spandau »

Keep us apprised of how you make out - and I'm sure COPA would be interested as well. Maybe "radically different" was too strong a term, but I was thinking "radical" as opposed to say swapping an O-200 for a C90, or a C85 for an A65. If the original engine type was exceedingly rare or famously temperamental (like an Aeronca E113 two-cylinder time bomb, for example) you could make a very strong case for the engine change. But best of luck. Luscombes are wonderful little airplanes. My experience with O-M aircraft is that generally they are maintained and restored to a higher standard than Standard category aircraft.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
x-wind
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 10:23 pm
Location: Around

Re: Aerovee in a Luscombe 8a

Post by x-wind »

I spoke with two airworthiness representatives in the Prairie Region. They fundamentally told me the same thing. They believe the regulations give transport Canada power to with-hold the reissue of the SCofA if "acceptable data" requirement isn't met for a the "major modification or major repair." They both admit this will be a subjective process. One of the two reps. said I should follow up with the Transport Canada's 'carriage' (sp) process to get an answer from authority in Ottawa because my points against this process were valid.


My points against the two representatives arguments for the "approval" of "a major modification or major repair":

1) CARs 571.06 specifically says major "modifications & major repairs" are exempt for O-M classification. The way the regulation is ACTUALLY written has "repairs & modifications" requiring "acceptable data" for O-M. But not "major repairs or major modifications." Sure this seems counter intuitive at first thought but it is what it written & they need to change the regulation if they want "acceptable data" as a requirement for "major modifications or major repairs" for the O-M category.

2) My point argued in (1) is addressed indirectly here:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/p ... e-6011.htm
This document is interesting & I was told the author may be my judge on the other end of the 'carriage' process. Anywho, the document says, in reference to "acceptable data" that "...This technical data does not need to be approved by Transport Canada." which neither of the two airworthiness representatives we're able to acknowledge.

I'll get back to you when I write to Transport through this 'carriage' system & then again with there response, apparently they've to answer within 20 days.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Homebuilders”