Applying for a Fabric LSTC

[JVader]

Hello, just wondering if someone can point me in the right direction. I plan on recovering my tripacer over the next few years and id really like to use the HIPEC covering system by Falconar aviation out of Edmonton...The fabric system is much easier to and quicker to apply and has great looking results...No rib stitching and very limited finishing tapes but id also like to keep the plane certified.. So basically im looking for someone to manage the approval process for me to get an LSTC to use this fabric system on my plane..Any ideas???

Thanks,
Jeff

[black hole]

Don't do it !!!!

BH

[iflyforpie]

+1... don't do it. After paying the money and going through the headache of getting an LSTC... taping and rib stitching will seem like a piece of cake.

Try Stewart Systems... that is what I am using. Water borne, no bad chemicals, very durable if you do it exactly by the book, and clean up is a breeze.

[Colonel Sanders]

You could go OM but do remember what killed Steve Wittman.

He survived the incredibly risky air racing of the
1920's and 1930's only to die when his fabric peeled
off in flight, from his homebuilt, many decades later.

A tragedy.

[PilotDAR]

+1... don't do it. After paying the money and going through the headache of getting an LSTC... taping and rib stitching will seem like a piece of cake.

I know nothing of the HIPEC system, but I know a lot about issuing [LSTC's] now Serialized STCs. Processes however good or bad, which deviate markedly from industry practice (AC43.13), tend to attract a lot of scrutiny from TC during approval. That's not to say those processes might not be worthy of approval, but the process to get you there can be costly when its new technology/new thinking.

If the process manufacturer themselves have not applied for and received an STC, there may be a message there....

[JVader]

There have been LSTCs issued for Hipec before and i've seen lots of cover jobs done on amateur built and experimental planes that look great without all the extra labour and tapes...the owner of the product is getting up there in age and doesn't seem to have any desire to get an stc issued for the product...

Here's a picture off their website showing a little wing box that has been made and covered and the strength of the finish...



The website is here...good read if your bored!
http://members.shaw.ca/falconark/HIPEC/hipec.htm

I guess another question might be on how to switch from the certified category to the experimental...I plan on recovering and modifying the plane over the next few years so that should cover the 51% rule...Has anyone ever done this??

Jeff

[Colonel Sanders]

how to switch from the certified category to the experimental

This is simple in the USA - everyone does it, and
even switches back again - but TC hates it with a
passion. Not sure why.

Go owner maintenance. Can't fly into the USA,
though.

Couple of stories about experimental/exhibition
aircraft in the USA:

1) new prop comes out. No paper. Works great.
Owner changes from certified to exp/exh and puts
prop on. Factory adds prop to type certificate.
Owner visits FSDO and has aircraft moved back
to certified, which is then imported into Canada.

2) Wildman buys 4-cyl certified aerobatic airplane.
Removes engine/prop/cowling (firewall forward)
and parks in corner of hangar. Installs 6-cyl
engine/prop/cowling and flies the bejesus out
of it, as exp/exh. When he is done, he removes
6-cyl engine/prop/cowling and re-installs original
4-cyl engine/prop/cowling and has aircraft put
back into certified, because it is now IAW type
certificate. Awesome.

[JVader]

Owner maintenance is very appealing except for not being able to fly into the states...Id really hate to limit myself to just Canada and hope that one day the rules change..

Jeff

[tyndall]

So you want to get a LSTC because you don't want to do the extra work of a certified covering system, but you still plan on remaking (not rebuilding) over half your airplane in the next few years? Something doesn't sound right with that.

TC has effectively put the kibosh on converting certified to experimental. The last nail in that coffin was the OM category. Too many people were trying to circumvent the system by replacing a few ribs, some tubing, ironing on a new set of bedsheets and claiming 51%. Even a complete rebuild doesn't comply as you are just assembling premade certified parts. Technically you are just performing regular maintenance and repairs. Modifications might count, but stretching the fuselage isn't gonna give you credit for the whole fuselage. If you are stretching the fuselage AND making the wings from scratch, well, now you might have something close to 51%.

It's easier to work with TC than against them. TC already has categories for what you want. If you want to do maintenance, such as recovering, go OM, it was a rare gift from TC to the cheap and mechanically inclined. If you want to do a bunch of mods and have very few restrictions, buy or build an experimental. You could even scrap your tripacer for donor parts. No honest need for conversion. Trying to convert a certified to experimental sounds a lot like someone trying get the benefits of amateur built by doing as little as possible. TC has a good menu to choose from, but free lunch isn't on it.

Sorry if I sound harsh, but I personally know too many people who think they can do whatever they want to a certified and TC is going to bend over backwards for them, handing out LSTC's for major mods like candy.

But on the subject of Hipec, the factory Piper rib is meant to be rib stitched. Not only is the rib itself too narrow for a reliable glue joint, it's not designed for forces pulling it apart. When the upper fabric balloons up, the rib stitching pulls on the bottom of the rib. On a glue-only fastening, the top fabric pulls only on the upper channel of the rib. The forces are reversed from normal and how it was designed.

Keeping in mind that the tripacer is the fastest of Piper's ragwings, and it essentially uses the same ribs as a cub to save on production costs, how lucky do you feel that it will hold together? Ever wonder why there is no STC for a very popular aircraft that was in production for a very long time? If it is such a great system, why is it the least popular? All systems can have problems, but spending that kind of cash and relying on a one man operation who can't be bothered to obtain an STC sounds troubling. Even if the coating is just overpriced, repackaged, well, let's just say he buys his paint direct from a local manufacturer.

[PilotDAR]

Tyndall makes a number of very good points, each worthy of careful consideration. LSTC's (now serialized STC's) are an involved process, even at the applications stage. Where a feature to be approved is "novel or unusual" TC takes an extra interest. To complicate it one layer more, fabric covering is not in the mainstream of TC Engineer skill sets these days, so there will be a learning curve involved.

For some of the reasons which Tyndall correctly points out, I would take a serious look at the underlying structure of the candidate wing, and consider the dramatically changed load paths, before I undertook an sSTC approval for this.

[Old Dog Flying]

OM aircraft can fly into the USofA just like the old regs for homebuilts. We have a Stinson 108 at YNJ that goes down to KAWO for the big fly-in and he had no problem getting a letter of approval.

[PilotDAR]

OM aircraft can fly into the USofA just like the old regs for homebuilts. We have a Stinson 108 at YNJ that goes down to KAWO for the big fly-in and he had no problem getting a letter of approval.

Well that gets my attention! Would you elaborate please? I called the Rochester FISDO a month or so ago, to inquire about flying my OM into the US, and was very politely told, and I quote: "No way, no how is that plane going to get permission to enter the US". This was offered by the local FAA "go to guy" for this issue. He directed me to FAA guidance material which supports what he said, and went on to read that if a flight authority had been issued to an OM aircraft, it was to be rescinded.

If there is a trick to this, I would sure like to know about it.....

On the original subject, as I re read the title of the thread, as I understand that the change in "fabric" is actually moving away from rib stitching. This has to be considered a "change in construction method", and possibly a change in materials of construction, and that is what drives it toward being a more complex approval - structural considerations.

[fleet16b]

First off
DO NOT USE THIS FABRIC SYSTEM !!!
As someone that has done fabric work for over 30 years (have fabriced 32 aircraft so far) and has used this product, I highly recommend that you do not use it.
Its sounds great when you read about it but in reality it is not user friendly unless
you are not highly experienced in this work.
For one , you need a very clean dust free environment as the product takes a long time to dry
It gives off highly toxic fumes while using and drying
A very heavy product
Rubber like finish that is very hard to sand and very hard to repair
It is designed more for aircraft that do not require fabric tapes of any kind
applying tapes with their glue system will be difficult and very very hard to get a desired result
Very difficult if you are doinga bse colour then want to paint in stripes

I will agree that the finish is very shiny and will last a long time but again you really have to know your stuff to make it look good.

There are many many fabric products out there Stitts, Randolf , Aerothane etc aome are better than others but none have the ease of Nitrate / Butrayte Dope based products