Warning on Swick T

[astjp2]

Re: Warning on Swick T

Well as soon as you opened your mouth told the FAA that the airframe was originally a Taylorcraft, you just created a $20,000.00+ hanger queen that you will probably never get any certification for except the exibition. As soon as you modified that airframe, it became YOUR product! Thats no lie, just fact! Since you have modified it, and tried to certify it as amaturer built, and then denied , it can never be put back into a certified normal category. There are lots of guys out there that have tried and failed from airframes to engines to accessories. Seen it happen more than once. Tim

[Acroeric]

Re: Warning on Swick T

Saying that you built it using structural components of a taylorcraft is not dishonest- it is what you did.

I have been very careful to take lots of build photos of all my welding and fabrication work to make sure this is not an issue with mine.

I'll be happy to look over you application if you'd like- I am not suggesting you be dishonest- I am simply saying that you need to be aware of the terminology you use-


A Swick is so much modified that the FAA deemed it worthy of 51% a long time ago. Having built a few of these I can say that a Swick is as much amateur built as any RV kits out there.

[210turbo]

Re: Warning on Swick T

They will not approve the Swick.
I have formers for the tanks,ribs and other parts NO DEAL. Most do not go to the extent I have to make parts and the FAA could care less. The 51% rule does not apply any longer according to Ford Lauer III. Remember, I am in Texas and as the local FAA guys have stated to me "THIS IS TEXAS". They make there own rules down here.

[tim]

Re: Warning on Swick T

ya and so can you build it fly it and !@#$!!@#$!!@#$!!@#$! em they cant stop you from flying

[VictorBravo]

Re: Warning on Swick T

They will not approve the Swick.
I have formers for the tanks,ribs and other parts NO DEAL. Most do not go to the extent I have to make parts and the FAA could care less. The 51% rule does not apply any longer according to Ford Lauer III. Remember, I am in Texas and as the local FAA guys have stated to me "THIS IS TEXAS". They make there own rules down here.

Tell them that the law office you are contacting is not in Texas, it is in Washington, where they make the rules for the whole country, and ask them if they have an alternate retirement plan if you have your lawyer lobby in Washington to get them shit-canned for not following the FEDERAL Aviation Regulations.

Like I said already, the EAA has people who deal with Ok City and Washington FAA all day long.

Actually I am about to give you the best possible piece of advice I think you could get, and then I will keep quiet... Tell the guy that you 100% understand this is Texas, and apologize for not understanding it the first time. Then tell him you are exercising your right to have him put the phrase... "This is Texas and we make our own FAR's here" in writing on FAA letterhead with his signature. Tell him the reason you need this is that the FAA in Ok City and DC don't understand about Texas and you want to straighten THEM lout.

[Jim Herpst]

Re: Warning on Swick T

210 Turbo. I buy projects. Please PM me if interested in selling.
Thank you.

Jim

[crispy critter]

Re: Warning on Swick T

Call the EAA,explain your problem and ask them to help you fix it. The Swick T will meet the 51% rule without lying. You have made more parts for it then you would make if building any other quick build kit on the market. You can get around this honestly if you go through the proper channels. I too would like to tell your Texas inspector where to stick his head to inspect next but the last thing you want to do is piss him off. Go to the EAA and ask for help,they can help you get it done legally,honestly,and correctly.

[Chet Peek]

Re: Warning on Swick T

I'm not sure this remark will help, but I licensed my Curtis Jenny "Experimental Exhibition" and it was no big deal. I had only one restriction. I could not tow banners over populated areas. (Yes, that story is true.)

Chet Peek

[flyguy]

Re: Warning on Swick T

From his own quote: “…Structural components of other aircraft may be used;..."
So it is a matter of interpretation, are you using parts, or are you modifying a certified aircraft?
Obviously you disagree with his interpretation, so you have to take it to a higher court.

That office is taking the most conservative interpretation and the only fix is to get someone above them to point out the error of their ways. They will not change their minds easily now that they have taken a stand, so you will really have to work to bring changes from above down on them. Use all the resources mentioned above and look hard for some of your own. You will need them all.
Good Luck,
Darryl

I thought long and hard before adding this. If you are using a Taylorcraft fuselage, wing spars, ailerons, struts, (modified or not), tail feather, and landing gear, and I was in their position, I would say no to homebuilt too. Experimental of some kind, yes, but homebuilt is really beating up on the intent of the classification. Sorry about that, but I understand their point.
Personally I think it is really amazing, fantastic, and incredible that a someone can built up most anything and fly it as experimental, even with any and all the restrictions.
OK, everyone jump on me now.

[crispy critter]

Re: Warning on Swick T

I thought long and hard before adding this. If you are using a Taylorcraft fuselage, wing spars, ailerons, struts, (modified or not), tail feather, and landing gear, and I was in their position, I would say no to homebuilt too. Experimental of some kind, yes, but homebuilt is really beating up on the intent of the classification. Sorry about that, but I understand their point.
Personally I think it is really amazing, fantastic, and incredible that a someone can built up most anything and fly it as experimental, even with any and all the restrictions.
OK, everyone jump on me now.[/QUOTE]


I don't think anyone should jump onto you for that because what you said is true but somewhat mistaken....
You can't use taylorcraft spars because the angle on the strut fittings are all wrong,the compression strut locations are different,the rib locations are moved,and depending on how you mount your ailerons and what type of control set up you use then they are also mounted differently.
The struts have to be either built from scratch or cut,shortened,and the ends welded back up so either way you are constructing new struts.
The ailerons are generally built up from scratch on the Swick because the hinge pionts are changed a little bit and most poeple at spades or servo tabs.The aileron tip is squared off also and the entire wingtips are made up from scratch or from a mold(if your luck enough to find a mold).
The fuslage requires that you at least cut out the original horizonal stab and replace it at a higher angle of attack. The wing strut attach fitting on the lower longeron has to be modified. The control wheels are thrown out and a stick assemble must be built from scratch weather it be for one or two sticks(unless you copy it from the Auster). Most people do away with the aileron cables and go with a rod and bellcrank set up which requires more wing spar and aileron mods.
The landing gear is also almost always rebuilt by replacing the old taper axles with straight axles so cleveland or some type of disc brakes can be used.

Other then these little things listed above the airplane is the same as a good ole stock BC12D....well unless you decide to install an 0200 or lycoming power like some......most.....everybody does. On top of these things the FAA has already in the past listed the swick as meeting the 51% rule. I do understand the Texans point but I also understand they have the right to read it both ways and they choose the way that makes it hard on the little people. The best thing to do from here if you want to get it approved under amuture built is to gather all the data you can on those that have been approved before,get the help of the EAA, politly submit it all to your local office and beg them to reconsider. If they won't ,then you can go over thier heads and see it you can get someone else to approve it for you. The simplest thing to do would be stay with experimental and live with it. Either way,the EAA really should be involved...they can really help if you ask them to.

[jawinn]

Re: Warning on Swick T

Exactly why I was asking a lot of questions before I started cutting into my '41. Not worth risking it to me. Did I mention....she's still for sale!

[210turbo]

Re: Warning on Swick T

I have over 20 emails to the HEAD of mido in Washington, last year they flew in someone from Washington State to investigate because they knew about the good-ole boy system. However, someone higher up is closing the door on investigations in Texas. Local criminal activity is in the hands of Washington and it is clearly covered up. Somehow Texas can in fact do as it pleases.
If any of you have contacts ANYWHERE please forward the email I posted.
I fully intend on exposing what has happened here.
I was told by this same office, along with Washington that if I constructed/built 51% it is a Experimental Amateur build aircraft NO MATTER WHERE the other parts came from.
My theory is: The FAA is like fema, out of control. These guy's do as they darn well please. Just like a unsupervised child. And Yes, I to know people in goverment that have integrity but they are afraid to speak up for fear of retaliation.

[Bojambles]

Re: Warning on Swick T

They will not approve the Swick.
I have formers for the tanks,ribs and other parts NO DEAL. Most do not go to the extent I have to make parts and the FAA could care less. The 51% rule does not apply any longer according to Ford Lauer III. Remember, I am in Texas and as the local FAA guys have stated to me "THIS IS TEXAS". They make there own rules down here.

My first question regarding this issue, is what (ie how long and good or bad) is your relationship with your PMI (Principal Maintenance Inspector..the fed).

Did you simply call the local FAA Office and tell them you needed a fed to come out and approve your aircraft.

I too am in Texas (North) and I enjoy a pretty good relationship with my PMI, if an issue like this came up with me, together we would create a work around.

I do not think the issue would even come up though, because we have talked about me building up a Clipper-T with Swicks plans as soon as I have enough material and time.

[VictorBravo]

Re: Warning on Swick T

I forgot to mention one thing. You are being made a victim of an official "backlash". This is totally valid as well.

Years of "builder assist centers", and custom builders basically handing people a turn-key Lancair 4, and kit companies having un-related "associates" who offer completed subassemblies as a way around the 51% rule... have finally come home to roost.

The FAA is 100% justified in being upset that their 51% rule has been treated like a joke for the last decade of fast glass "homebuilts" that are being bought as ready to fly planes by wealthy people who don't know which end of the screwdriver to pick up. EAA's Paul Poberezny has been warning EAA members about this backlash, and reminding everyone how fortunate we are to have the ability to build a homebuilt.

The shame of it all is that some cowboy FAA type in Texas is taking this all out on you and a Swick clipwing, which is not nearly the problem area. They should be causing the Glasair 3 and Lancair 4 companies and builder assist centers lost sleep, not Swick builders.

This is unfortunately a question of timing. The FAA has a legitimate concern but is painting you with the same brush as the professional builder types. This is why the EAA government affairs people might be able to help. Someone at EAA can possibly call the FAA and say "one of your guys in Texas is trying to do his job and enforce the 51% rule, but he latched on to some guy with a Swick which is barking up the wrong tree."