I learned of this combination recently but need more information about it. I am told someone in the Pacific northwest fabricated these but I should be able to handle the fabrication needs myself. Can anyone provide me with useful information?
Need info: C172 Wing + Tube/Fabric Fuse
- Thread starter RVC
- Start date
Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:
TFF
Well-Known Member
The FAA discourages this type of use of certified parts now for homebuilts. It will be hard to get it legal today. 40 years ago, they allowed things like this. You are not going to find instructions; you pretty much need to already know what to do to do it. Except for the shape of the wing, it’s pretty much a Bearhawk in metal wing, tube fuselage.
In the mid- 1990's, I worked on a design of a 48" wide steel tube fuselage, 4 place using the C-175 wings ( long range fuel tanks standard) and straight tail C-172, 175 (same) tail surfaces. Powered by a Lyc- 0-360, taildragger. Sliding rear door on the right side of the rear seats as on a Dodge Mini-Van. Front doors flip up like sea-plane or jump doors. All seats fold down to make a bed.
I bought a 1958 Cessna fuselage from a salvage yard that had the left side of the main LG box damaged and wing struts, etc, for the dimensions and wing and tail angles.
About ready to start construction on the fuselage and the article about Bob Barrows Bearhawk came out in the Oct issue of Sport Aviation. Ordered Bearhawk plans.
I bought a 1958 Cessna fuselage from a salvage yard that had the left side of the main LG box damaged and wing struts, etc, for the dimensions and wing and tail angles.
About ready to start construction on the fuselage and the article about Bob Barrows Bearhawk came out in the Oct issue of Sport Aviation. Ordered Bearhawk plans.
Last edited:
Had to burn a few cobwebs (well, a lot of cobwebs) but here you go:
Badlands Traveler
And another
TFF,
The way he gets around the, uh, issue, is to use the FAA's check list. By using only the wings, and building everything else, you can hit the 51% required. It helps to have a knowledgeable FSDO, of course.
Charlie
Badlands Traveler
And another
TFF,
The way he gets around the, uh, issue, is to use the FAA's check list. By using only the wings, and building everything else, you can hit the 51% required. It helps to have a knowledgeable FSDO, of course.
Charlie
TFF
Well-Known Member
I never said never. That’s why I wrote how I wrote it. I know of at least two certified airplanes that are homebuilts. They are certified airplanes. Illegal but in the system. No one questioning. Running through the checklist is the first thing to do. Don’t discount Experimental exhibition; which I suspect these may get be being professionally built.
Agree that exhibition is a viable category, with a knowledgeable FSDO. But I'm pretty sure that both the Badlands Travelers I linked are Homebuilt category; I remember the builder saying that he had to build everything else in the airframes except the wings for his FSDO to accept them. He's built them with 150/152 wings, and with 172 wings.
Pops - Yeah, the Bearhawk is both on my mind and an excellent aircraft. I'm just concerned this is likely to be the most costly aircraft to build and equip.
Yup, Charlie opens his encyclopedic mind and others benefit from his knowledge. While the Badlands Traveler is a great idea I suspect you must be in touch with the salvage market, have very good timing to obtain a sound used wing set or, know someone. I downloaded the FAA Checklist, at least I think I have the correct one. It seems this is best described as the initial form in a series of them to get an aircraft constructed in this manner approved for flight. I'm going to pursue this information to make sure I know it well and help ensure my success with this approach if I implement it.
With the primary choices I am considering I would even need to perform work to the wings so despite the additional need for certified parts I would be installing them, etc. so this may help my case.
Rick
Yup, Charlie opens his encyclopedic mind and others benefit from his knowledge. While the Badlands Traveler is a great idea I suspect you must be in touch with the salvage market, have very good timing to obtain a sound used wing set or, know someone. I downloaded the FAA Checklist, at least I think I have the correct one. It seems this is best described as the initial form in a series of them to get an aircraft constructed in this manner approved for flight. I'm going to pursue this information to make sure I know it well and help ensure my success with this approach if I implement it.
With the primary choices I am considering I would even need to perform work to the wings so despite the additional need for certified parts I would be installing them, etc. so this may help my case.
Rick
The lowest cost Bearhawk to build would be the Bearhawk LSA. The airframe would have less cost, but the biggest saving would be the much smaller engine. Its designed for the Cont C-85-0-200 . For the lowest cost you would have to buy the plans and scratch build. Maybe use a Corvair engine.
Next least costly Bearhawk would be the 2 place side by side Bearhawk Companion, lower cost than the 4 place Bearhawk because the use of a Lyc-320 engine instead of the more costly Lyc- 360.
If you use certified 'assemblies', you get no credit, even if you were to totally dismantle and rebuild them. That's a 'repair' in the eyes of the FAA. In the case of the Badlands Traveler, all the task checkboxes for the wings go to 'not you', so he needed enough boxes in his column for the rest of the airframe to get to 51%.
Is 'encyclopedic' some sort of mental disability? If so, I qualify.
Is 'encyclopedic' some sort of mental disability? If so, I qualify.
My apologies...when I use the term 'Bearhawk' I am always referring to the 4-place aircraft. I've been around since Bob began this effort and have one of Russ Erb's CD's. I wish they still had discussion forum for these. The other two aircraft I'm considering are derivatives of Pacer/Tri-Pacer. These are the Javelin STOL and the Bushmaster. The Bushmaster is the experimental version of the certified Super Pacer STC. The Javelin was often called the Blanton V-6 STOL after the designer and the use of the Ford V-6. No, I'd never use that engine. Both are great short field aircraft capable of takeoff under 200'. The Bushmaster wears 37' wings and the Blanton 33' so it features a better role rate.
I add that it may also be true the Bearhawk is the better plane because it's a newer design. The new 4-place Model B is quite atractive in view if the Riblett airfoil.
So much for my idea on the wings...
Rick
I add that it may also be true the Bearhawk is the better plane because it's a newer design. The new 4-place Model B is quite atractive in view if the Riblett airfoil.
So much for my idea on the wings...
Rick
Last edited:
Scottiniowa
Active Member
RVC said < I wish they still had discussion forum for these > concerning the bearhawks,
They still do have these
They still do have these
In my design using the C-172 wings and tails, my back up plan was to use the Cessna wings for patterns and make all new parts and build the wings. I happen to have plans for the wing jigs used by Cessna for the C-172-182 wings.
I had a damaged set of 1965 C-172 wings with broken main spars.
I had a damaged set of 1965 C-172 wings with broken main spars.
I contacted my local EAA chapter to see if they know anyone at the local FSDO or a DAR that I could discuss these issues with.
I know complete drawings are available for the PA-18 by purchasing the Northland CD or Christian Sturm's experimental SuperCub website. The Short Wing Piper Club (SWPC) also sells a CD of Pacer drawings. I think these references are adequate to allow a potential builder to fabricate any part you desire to spend the time on. Perhaps, these might allow you to purchase and repair a salvaged airframe and fabricate the factory parts and still get credit to obtain the certification. Presumably, feasible but a lot of time/work in fabrication.
I found someone willing to sell me a Tri-Pacer airframe w/rudder for less than $1k. He was looking into the Bushmaster and had the convenience of an experienced builder living on his airport and recent discussions with his FSDO and DAR. Both FAA officials told him he could use the airframe but not the wings. Odd... The Badland's Traveler tells us you can use the wings if you fabricate all else.
The Riblett GA30613.5 is a great experimental airfoil but I suspect it's a little costly; not out line for what it is though.
I know complete drawings are available for the PA-18 by purchasing the Northland CD or Christian Sturm's experimental SuperCub website. The Short Wing Piper Club (SWPC) also sells a CD of Pacer drawings. I think these references are adequate to allow a potential builder to fabricate any part you desire to spend the time on. Perhaps, these might allow you to purchase and repair a salvaged airframe and fabricate the factory parts and still get credit to obtain the certification. Presumably, feasible but a lot of time/work in fabrication.
I found someone willing to sell me a Tri-Pacer airframe w/rudder for less than $1k. He was looking into the Bushmaster and had the convenience of an experienced builder living on his airport and recent discussions with his FSDO and DAR. Both FAA officials told him he could use the airframe but not the wings. Odd... The Badland's Traveler tells us you can use the wings if you fabricate all else.
The Riblett GA30613.5 is a great experimental airfoil but I suspect it's a little costly; not out line for what it is though.
My understanding is this:
Read through the FAA's homebuilt checklist. You have to get 51% of the task checkboxes for the finished a/c to be licensed as a homebuilt. The Traveler builder chose to use factory wings, and to build everything else to reach his 51%. edit: Should have added, using an existing fuselage and building everything else should get you to the same point in the checkbox count.
The checklist instructions are quite clear. You get zero credit for factory components, even if you 'rebuild' them; that's considered a repair of the previously existing structure.
The path for using more of a preexisting a/c would be the Experimental Exhibition category.
Read through the FAA's homebuilt checklist. You have to get 51% of the task checkboxes for the finished a/c to be licensed as a homebuilt. The Traveler builder chose to use factory wings, and to build everything else to reach his 51%. edit: Should have added, using an existing fuselage and building everything else should get you to the same point in the checkbox count.
The checklist instructions are quite clear. You get zero credit for factory components, even if you 'rebuild' them; that's considered a repair of the previously existing structure.
The path for using more of a preexisting a/c would be the Experimental Exhibition category.
Understood. I suspected using the certified fuselage and fabricating ribs, etc. (as much as possible of the certified wing design) might also work but I have no idea if my thoughts are correct. This would be similar in scope to building the Bearhawk; not a project for the faint of heart.
I contacted my local EAA chapter to see if they know anyone in the local fsdo or perhaps a DAR I could have preliminary discussions with. It is quite contradictory that the Badland's Traveler uses the certified wing and fabricates all other components whereas the person I attempted to buy the Pacer airframe from was told by his local FAA officials use of the wing is prohibited. He did not add that the wing could not be used in conjunction with stretching the certified fuselage he has. Knowledge really is the only legitimate form of power.
At the moment I think my best low-cost options are a C172/C180 wing or, the Pacer USA-35B wing for their high cruise speeds in combination with a scratch built airframe. I like what I see in the Wag-A-Bond airframe but I do not yet know if it is structurally sound enough to extend it to the Bushmaster/Blanton length. I'm trying to determine this now. I've learned of a few examples of 'Super Wag-A-Bond Traveler' aircraft that might be built with an O-320 because badging shows '150' most likely for the engine hp rating. The few I've learned of also had flaps and the Vagabond/Wag-A-Bond lack flaps. These have a few unexpected features here that I need to understood.
I contacted my local EAA chapter to see if they know anyone in the local fsdo or perhaps a DAR I could have preliminary discussions with. It is quite contradictory that the Badland's Traveler uses the certified wing and fabricates all other components whereas the person I attempted to buy the Pacer airframe from was told by his local FAA officials use of the wing is prohibited. He did not add that the wing could not be used in conjunction with stretching the certified fuselage he has. Knowledge really is the only legitimate form of power.
At the moment I think my best low-cost options are a C172/C180 wing or, the Pacer USA-35B wing for their high cruise speeds in combination with a scratch built airframe. I like what I see in the Wag-A-Bond airframe but I do not yet know if it is structurally sound enough to extend it to the Bushmaster/Blanton length. I'm trying to determine this now. I've learned of a few examples of 'Super Wag-A-Bond Traveler' aircraft that might be built with an O-320 because badging shows '150' most likely for the engine hp rating. The few I've learned of also had flaps and the Vagabond/Wag-A-Bond lack flaps. These have a few unexpected features here that I need to understood.
