How do I legallly install winglets on a standard airworthiness certificate?

[Scott Alexander[_2_]]

A friend in my club built a pair of winglets for his Standard Cirrus.
His glider is expirmental, mine is not. The total cost for him was
just a hundred dollars for supplies, and some free guidance from a
local IA/AP. The finished product looks fantastic! The mold came
from an American Spirit, which I believe is a copy of the Ventus. And
the result is that his handling has improved quite a bit. He did do
some adjustments on the toe-out angle to fine tune it which
supposively helped.

I would like to do the same thing with mine using the exact same
molds. My Cirrus is a standard airworthiness certificate. If I were
to do the factory winglet or the Maughmer winglet, the cost is between
3,000-5,000 when it's all said and done. So that being said, this
option, looks very appealing.

Has anyone in this group dealt with the same sort of deal? I would be
willing to change my standard airworthiness certificate over to an
expiremental if that is the best solution. Any guidance is much
appreciated.

Thanks,
Scott

PS Happy Thanksgiving.

[Scott[_7_]]

On 11-20-2010 16:39, Scott Alexander wrote:
> A friend in my club built a pair of winglets for his Standard Cirrus.
> His glider is expirmental, mine is not. The total cost for him was
> just a hundred dollars for supplies, and some free guidance from a
> local IA/AP. The finished product looks fantastic! The mold came
> from an American Spirit, which I believe is a copy of the Ventus. And
> the result is that his handling has improved quite a bit. He did do
> some adjustments on the toe-out angle to fine tune it which
> supposively helped.
>
> I would like to do the same thing with mine using the exact same
> molds. My Cirrus is a standard airworthiness certificate. If I were
> to do the factory winglet or the Maughmer winglet, the cost is between
> 3,000-5,000 when it's all said and done. So that being said, this
> option, looks very appealing.
>
> Has anyone in this group dealt with the same sort of deal? I would be
> willing to change my standard airworthiness certificate over to an
> expiremental if that is the best solution. Any guidance is much
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Scott
>
> PS Happy Thanksgiving.

Here in the USA, it doesn't appear possible to go from certified to
experimental (amateur built). You can possibly get it into special
experimental (R&D perhaps), but you will be limited on what types of
flights you may use it for.

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/sp_awcert/experiment/

more info...

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=73d7d8ea72a19dbea586b406e547d307&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.9&idno=14#14:1.0.1.3.9.8.11.14

[Darryl Ramm]

On Nov 20, 8:39*am, Scott Alexander >
wrote:
> A friend in my club built a pair of winglets for his Standard Cirrus.
> His glider is expirmental, mine is not. *The total cost for him was
> just a hundred dollars for supplies, and some free guidance from a
> local IA/AP. *The finished product looks fantastic! *The mold came
> from an American Spirit, which I believe is a copy of the Ventus. *And
> the result is that his handling has improved quite a bit. *He did do
> some adjustments on the toe-out angle to fine tune it which
> supposively helped.
>
> I would like to do the same thing with mine using the exact same
> molds. *My Cirrus is a standard airworthiness certificate. *If I were
> to do the factory winglet or the Maughmer winglet, the cost is between
> 3,000-5,000 when it's all said and done. *So that being said, this
> option, looks very appealing.
>
> Has anyone in this group dealt with the same sort of deal? *I would be
> willing to change my standard airworthiness certificate over to an
> expiremental if that is the best solution. *Any guidance is much
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Scott
>
> PS Happy Thanksgiving.

None of these winglets appear to have STCs so the installation in a
type certificated glider will be via 337/field approval (I doubt
you'll find an A&P who would claim adding a winglet is a "minor
alteration" although there could be corner cases...). Since likely you
need an A&P/IA to file a 337 and work with your local FSDO that is
where I'd start. OTOH if you can get a pair of winglets for $3k out
the door, all approved properly, then I'd take that route.

Darryl

[JJ Sinclair]

On Nov 20, 11:13*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Nov 20, 8:39*am, Scott Alexander >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > A friend in my club built a pair of winglets for his Standard Cirrus.
> > His glider is expirmental, mine is not. *The total cost for him was
> > just a hundred dollars for supplies, and some free guidance from a
> > local IA/AP. *The finished product looks fantastic! *The mold came
> > from an American Spirit, which I believe is a copy of the Ventus. *And
> > the result is that his handling has improved quite a bit. *He did do
> > some adjustments on the toe-out angle to fine tune it which
> > supposively helped.
>
> > I would like to do the same thing with mine using the exact same
> > molds. *My Cirrus is a standard airworthiness certificate. *If I were
> > to do the factory winglet or the Maughmer winglet, the cost is between
> > 3,000-5,000 when it's all said and done. *So that being said, this
> > option, looks very appealing.
>
> > Has anyone in this group dealt with the same sort of deal? *I would be
> > willing to change my standard airworthiness certificate over to an
> > expiremental if that is the best solution. *Any guidance is much
> > appreciated.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Scott
>
> > PS Happy Thanksgiving.
>
> None of these winglets appear to have STCs so the installation in a
> type certificated glider will be via 337/field approval (I doubt
> you'll find an A&P who would claim adding a winglet is a "minor
> alteration" although there could be corner cases...). Since likely you
> need an A&P/IA to file a 337 and work with your local FSDO that is
> where I'd start. OTOH if you can get a pair of winglets for $3k out
> the door, all approved *properly, then I'd take that route.
>
> Darryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Scott,
Check with your FSDO on going from standard to experimental
(exhibition & racing). I have done this twice. They will sak why and
the reason is to add winglets that aren't available from the factory
on your model sailplane.
JJ

[lanebush]

Scott,

The 337 form can be sent in before the work begins. This allows for
approval/disapproval before a saw is taken to the airplane. I imagine
you will have to hire a DER (designated engineering representative) to
do an engineering analysis to accompany the 337. Harold Kasola is
very easy to work with and has Kasola Engineering in Albany, GA. A
call to him would be worth the effort. Having just certified a club
glider in experimental (last week), I can tell you it took a few days
and a trip to the FSDO.

[Scott[_7_]]

On 11-21-2010 13:49, lanebush wrote:
> Scott,
>
> The 337 form can be sent in before the work begins. This allows for
> approval/disapproval before a saw is taken to the airplane. I imagine
> you will have to hire a DER (designated engineering representative) to
> do an engineering analysis to accompany the 337. Harold Kasola is
> very easy to work with and has Kasola Engineering in Albany, GA. A
> call to him would be worth the effort. Having just certified a club
> glider in experimental (last week), I can tell you it took a few days
> and a trip to the FSDO.

Cool! I would have thought a 337 would allow the glider to remain in
the standard airworthiness class, if approved. On powered aircraft, I
don't recall a 337 as changing them to experimental...and I would think
it would be preferable to keep the glider in the standard class or it
would have some sort of flight restrictions, wouldn't it?

Scott

[sisu1a]

> I don't recall a 337 as changing them to experimental...

337 has nothing to do with EXP/Std reg changeover. It is the number of
the form that stands for "major repair or alteration" and is typically
accompanied by a new weight and balance when major repairs
(reattaching a tailboom for instance) or alterations (like winglets),
although may not be necessarily in every case.

My SZD59 is EXP reg, but I still went the 337 route when I modded my
stock mechanical brakes to a hydraulic Cleveland setup. Didn't need
the w&b for this job, since the part total was within 1.5lbs of the
old setup and that is all predominantly on CofG, but I didn't trust my
old one and wanted to put some weight in the tail, so a fresh w&b was
useful to me to determine how much...

And why exactly do you want to keep the std reg? Do you use it in a
commercial capacity? (obviously not since it has 1 seat...) Exp rating
allows you a lot more leeway with *legally getting your ship/cockpit
dialed in etc. Work that falls somewhere between changing a tire and
needing a 337 still needs to be signed off by an A&P, but a 337 needs
an A&I and is much more involved. Std means anything beyond changing a
tire/simple maintenance level work has to be farmed out to an A&P,
regardless of your skills.

-Paul

[Scott[_7_]]

On 11-21-2010 16:42, sisu1a wrote:
> > I don't recall a 337 as changing them to experimental...
>
> 337 has nothing to do with EXP/Std reg changeover. It is the number of
> the form that stands for "major repair or alteration" and is typically
> accompanied by a new weight and balance when major repairs
> (reattaching a tailboom for instance) or alterations (like winglets),
> although may not be necessarily in every case.
>
> My SZD59 is EXP reg, but I still went the 337 route when I modded my
> stock mechanical brakes to a hydraulic Cleveland setup. Didn't need
> the w&b for this job, since the part total was within 1.5lbs of the
> old setup and that is all predominantly on CofG, but I didn't trust my
> old one and wanted to put some weight in the tail, so a fresh w&b was
> useful to me to determine how much...
>
> And why exactly do you want to keep the std reg? Do you use it in a
> commercial capacity? (obviously not since it has 1 seat...) Exp rating
> allows you a lot more leeway with *legally getting your ship/cockpit
> dialed in etc. Work that falls somewhere between changing a tire and
> needing a 337 still needs to be signed off by an A&P, but a 337 needs
> an A&I and is much more involved. Std means anything beyond changing a
> tire/simple maintenance level work has to be farmed out to an A&P,
> regardless of your skills.
>
> -Paul

Actually, I am not the one who started the thread about going into the
experimental category. The reason "I" would stay in the standard
category is to avoid any restrictions that may come with the
experimental category, such as for exhibition only, etc. I'm pretty
sure going to experimental would place various restrictions on the
flying of the aircraft. Also, going to an experimental certificate
won't eliminate the need for A&P inspections/sign offs. As far as I
know, only people with repairman certificates can sign off work on an
experimental "AMATEUR BUILT" aircraft and then only if they built a
majority of the aircraft. Just putting winglets on a certified bird
would not be a basis to get a repairman's certificate...

[Dan[_6_]]

On Nov 21, 10:12*am, Scott > wrote:
> On 11-21-2010 16:42, sisu1a wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > * > *I don't recall a 337 as changing them to experimental...
>
> > 337 has nothing to do with EXP/Std reg changeover. It is the number of
> > the form that stands for "major repair or alteration" and is typically
> > accompanied by a new weight and balance when major repairs
> > (reattaching a tailboom for instance) or alterations (like winglets),
> > although may not be necessarily in every case.
>
> > My SZD59 is EXP reg, but I still went the 337 route when I modded my
> > stock mechanical brakes to a hydraulic Cleveland setup. Didn't need
> > the w&b for this job, since the part total was within 1.5lbs of the
> > old setup and that is all predominantly on CofG, but I didn't trust my
> > old one and wanted to put some weight in the tail, so a fresh w&b was
> > useful to me to determine how much...
>
> > And why exactly do you want to keep the std reg? Do you use it in a
> > commercial capacity? (obviously not since it has 1 seat...) Exp rating
> > allows you a lot more leeway with *legally getting your ship/cockpit
> > dialed in etc. Work that falls somewhere between changing a tire and
> > needing a 337 still needs to be signed off by an A&P, but a 337 needs
> > an A&I and is much more involved. Std means anything beyond changing a
> > tire/simple maintenance level work has to be farmed out to an A&P,
> > regardless of your skills.
>
> > -Paul
>
> Actually, I am not the one who started the thread about going into the
> experimental category. *The reason "I" would stay in the standard
> category is to avoid any restrictions that may come with the
> experimental category, such as for exhibition only, etc. *I'm pretty
> sure going to experimental would place various restrictions on the
> flying of the aircraft. *Also, going to an experimental certificate
> won't eliminate the need for A&P inspections/sign offs. *As far as I
> know, only people with repairman certificates can sign off work on an
> experimental "AMATEUR BUILT" aircraft and then only if they built a
> majority of the aircraft. *Just putting winglets on a certified bird
> would not be a basis to get a repairman's certificate...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Scott,
Any A&P can annual an Experimental or Experimental Exhibition
aircraft.
This is a lot easier formany people.

Dan
WO

[Brad[_2_]]

On Nov 20, 8:39*am, Scott Alexander >
wrote:
> A friend in my club built a pair of winglets for his Standard Cirrus.
> His glider is expirmental, mine is not. *The total cost for him was
> just a hundred dollars for supplies, and some free guidance from a
> local IA/AP. *The finished product looks fantastic! *The mold came
> from an American Spirit, which I believe is a copy of the Ventus. *And
> the result is that his handling has improved quite a bit. *He did do
> some adjustments on the toe-out angle to fine tune it which
> supposively helped.
>
> I would like to do the same thing with mine using the exact same
> molds. *My Cirrus is a standard airworthiness certificate. *If I were
> to do the factory winglet or the Maughmer winglet, the cost is between
> 3,000-5,000 when it's all said and done. *So that being said, this
> option, looks very appealing.
>
> Has anyone in this group dealt with the same sort of deal? *I would be
> willing to change my standard airworthiness certificate over to an
> expiremental if that is the best solution. *Any guidance is much
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Scott
>
> PS Happy Thanksgiving.

Hi,

I'm curious, what kind of testing did your friend do to determine the
tow angle needed tweaking?

thanks,
Brad

[JJ Sinclair]

On Nov 21, 5:49*am, lanebush > wrote:
> Scott,
>
> The 337 form can be sent in before the work begins. *This allows for
> approval/disapproval before a saw is taken to the airplane. *I imagine
> you will have to hire a DER (designated engineering representative) to
> do an engineering analysis to accompany the 337. *Harold Kasola is
> very easy to work with and has Kasola Engineering in Albany, GA. *A
> call to him would be worth the effort. *Having just certified a club
> glider in experimental (last week), I can tell you it took a few days
> and a trip to the FSDO.

No inspector is going to sign a 337 before the work is done and DAR/
DER's aren't cheap. I paid $750.00 for an airworthiness-for-export and
the guy wasn't here more than 30 minutes.
JJ

[Guy Byars[_2_]]

> And why exactly do you want to keep the std reg?

Some insurance policies take a very dim view of EXPERIMENTAL
aircraft. I recall one policy that would actually cover me if flying
an aircraft with a STD airworthiness certificate, but not when flying
an aircraft with an EXPERIMENTAL airworthiness certificate. This
might be an issue for some.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Nov 22, 8:21*am, Guy Byars > wrote:
> > And why exactly do you want to keep the std reg?
>
> Some insurance policies take a very dim view of EXPERIMENTAL
> aircraft. *I recall one policy that would actually cover me if flying
> an aircraft with a STD airworthiness certificate, but not when flying
> an aircraft with an EXPERIMENTAL airworthiness certificate. *This
> might be an issue for some.

absolutely positively not the case for the SSA Group plan through
Costello. Also if the group plan won't work for you the EAA has a
fine group insurance plan as well.

[sisu1a]

>I'm pretty sure going to experimental would place various restrictions on the flying of the aircraft. Â*

I really like to fiddle my own panel/Oâ‚‚/cockpit as I see fit, without
paying someone $100+ an hour to do it for me, usually not to my liking
(no mechanic cares as much about my glider as I do ;) I also like
being able to do other repair work on it myself, of course following
the FAR guidelines on work/inspection/signoffs. There are no
*practical restrictions on your flight regime in an EXP glider though.
Besides not being able to use it commercially (renting it out, not an
issue for your Cirrus ) and a little extra paperwork, the only
limitation I can think of would be including the term 'experimental'
in your identification stream when announcing yourself to ATC if you
ever need to.

I had an EXP glider I thought I wanted to be Std when I first got it.
After looking at what the actual differences are (not the perceived
ones...), I realized I don't want a Std reg glider for myself anyhow.
Seeing you are up for making your own winglets, to me it's strange you
would lean towards Std since it keeps your obviously skilled hands
tied behind your back...

-Paul

[Andy[_1_]]

On Nov 22, 8:07*am, Tony > wrote:
> On Nov 22, 8:21*am, Guy Byars > wrote:
>
> > > And why exactly do you want to keep the std reg?
>
> > Some insurance policies take a very dim view of EXPERIMENTAL
> > aircraft. *I recall one policy that would actually cover me if flying
> > an aircraft with a STD airworthiness certificate, but not when flying
> > an aircraft with an EXPERIMENTAL airworthiness certificate. *This
> > might be an issue for some.
>
> absolutely positively not the case for the SSA Group plan through
> Costello. *Also if the group plan won't work for you the EAA has a
> fine group insurance plan as well.

The insurance issue for experimental relates to Life insurance not to
the aircraft hull and liability insurance.

Andy

[Frank Whiteley]

On Nov 22, 8:07*am, Tony > wrote:
> On Nov 22, 8:21*am, Guy Byars > wrote:
>
> > > And why exactly do you want to keep the std reg?
>
> > Some insurance policies take a very dim view of EXPERIMENTAL
> > aircraft. *I recall one policy that would actually cover me if flying
> > an aircraft with a STD airworthiness certificate, but not when flying
> > an aircraft with an EXPERIMENTAL airworthiness certificate. *This
> > might be an issue for some.
>
> absolutely positively not the case for the SSA Group plan through
> Costello. *Also if the group plan won't work for you the EAA has a
> fine group insurance plan as well.

I think he was talking of life insurance underwriters. Some will not
cover you, others want a rider if you fly personally, perhaps another
if you fly experimental. Some are not so restrictive. NY Life was
one several years ago. No idea of the current status. AOPA has
programs for pilots.

Frank Whiteley

[vaughn[_3_]]

"Frank Whiteley" > wrote in message
...
>I think he was talking of life insurance underwriters. Some will not
>cover you, others want a rider if you fly personally, perhaps another
>if you fly experimental. Some are not so restrictive. NY Life was
>one several years ago. No idea of the current status. AOPA has
>programs for pilots.

As do these folks: http://www.piclife.com/ Two years ago I priced several
companies, including AOPA. PICLife (they are actually just an agency, like
Costello) came in with the best price. Your results may vary. Life insurance
is a significant investment, get multiple quotes!

Vaughn

[Scott[_7_]]

On 11-22-2010 13:36, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> On Nov 21, 5:49 am, > wrote:
>> Scott,
>>
>> The 337 form can be sent in before the work begins. This allows for
>> approval/disapproval before a saw is taken to the airplane. I imagine
>> you will have to hire a DER (designated engineering representative) to
>> do an engineering analysis to accompany the 337. Harold Kasola is
>> very easy to work with and has Kasola Engineering in Albany, GA. A
>> call to him would be worth the effort. Having just certified a club
>> glider in experimental (last week), I can tell you it took a few days
>> and a trip to the FSDO.
>
> No inspector is going to sign a 337 before the work is done and DAR/
> DER's aren't cheap. I paid $750.00 for an airworthiness-for-export and
> the guy wasn't here more than 30 minutes.
> JJ

And I'm still having a hard time wrapping myself around the notion that
the FAA would be happy to change an aircraft airworthiness certificate
from standard to experimental for such a "small" change to the aircraft
and then turn over maintenance to the owner and just have an A&P sign
off a condition inspection yearly. Plus, I still think 337s are not
used to place an aircraft into the experimental category. For example,
a 337 (or STC) would be needed (I believe) to recover the wings on a
Cessna 140 that was originally covered with Grade A cotton when built
and certified and you recovered them with Stits.

[JJ Sinclair]

On Nov 22, 3:16*pm, Scott > wrote:
> On 11-22-2010 13:36, JJ Sinclair wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 5:49 am, > *wrote:
> >> Scott,
>
> >> The 337 form can be sent in before the work begins. *This allows for
> >> approval/disapproval before a saw is taken to the airplane. *I imagine
> >> you will have to hire a DER (designated engineering representative) to
> >> do an engineering analysis to accompany the 337. *Harold Kasola is
> >> very easy to work with and has Kasola Engineering in Albany, GA. *A
> >> call to him would be worth the effort. *Having just certified a club
> >> glider in experimental (last week), I can tell you it took a few days
> >> and a trip to the FSDO.
>
> > No inspector is going to sign a 337 before the work is done and DAR/
> > DER's aren't cheap. I paid $750.00 for an airworthiness-for-export and
> > the guy wasn't here more than 30 minutes.
> > JJ
>
> And I'm still having a hard time wrapping myself around the notion that
> the FAA would be happy to change an aircraft airworthiness certificate
> from standard to experimental for such a "small" change to the aircraft
> and then turn over maintenance to the owner and just have an A&P sign
> off a condition inspection yearly. *Plus, I still think 337s are not
> used to place an aircraft into the experimental category. *For example,
> a 337 (or STC) would be needed (I believe) to recover the wings on a
> Cessna 140 that was originally covered with Grade A cotton when built
> and certified and you recovered them with Stits.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Scott,
In order to modify a ship in standard category you need a 337 and your
inspector will need an approved method usually an STC. There is no
approved method for adding winglets to your Cirrus and an DAR or EAD
or FAA engineering will still need approved data.
The other way to add winglets to your Cirrus is to go down to your
FSDO and tell them you would like to add winglets, but the factory
doesn't provide this option. Request they change your registration to
experimental. Once your in experimental category, the winglets may be
added with a log book entry from an A&P. I recommend you have the work
done at a certified repair shop because improperly installed winglets
can change the flight characteristics and lead to big
trouble................I remember a guy that added his own home brew
winglets and the ship was the better part of uncontrollable! The only
way he was able to maintain control was to keep the speed above 80. He
was forced to land doing 80 also.
Hope this helps,
JJ

[Scott[_7_]]

On 11-23-2010 15:10, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> On Nov 22, 3:16 pm, > wrote:
>> On 11-22-2010 13:36, JJ Sinclair wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 21, 5:49 am, > wrote:
>>>> Scott,
>>
>>>> The 337 form can be sent in before the work begins. This allows for
>>>> approval/disapproval before a saw is taken to the airplane. I imagine
>>>> you will have to hire a DER (designated engineering representative) to
>>>> do an engineering analysis to accompany the 337. Harold Kasola is
>>>> very easy to work with and has Kasola Engineering in Albany, GA. A
>>>> call to him would be worth the effort. Having just certified a club
>>>> glider in experimental (last week), I can tell you it took a few days
>>>> and a trip to the FSDO.
>>
>>> No inspector is going to sign a 337 before the work is done and DAR/
>>> DER's aren't cheap. I paid $750.00 for an airworthiness-for-export and
>>> the guy wasn't here more than 30 minutes.
>>> JJ
>>
>> And I'm still having a hard time wrapping myself around the notion that
>> the FAA would be happy to change an aircraft airworthiness certificate
>> from standard to experimental for such a "small" change to the aircraft
>> and then turn over maintenance to the owner and just have an A&P sign
>> off a condition inspection yearly. Plus, I still think 337s are not
>> used to place an aircraft into the experimental category. For example,
>> a 337 (or STC) would be needed (I believe) to recover the wings on a
>> Cessna 140 that was originally covered with Grade A cotton when built
>> and certified and you recovered them with Stits.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Scott,
> In order to modify a ship in standard category you need a 337 and your
> inspector will need an approved method usually an STC. There is no
> approved method for adding winglets to your Cirrus and an DAR or EAD
> or FAA engineering will still need approved data.
> The other way to add winglets to your Cirrus is to go down to your
> FSDO and tell them you would like to add winglets, but the factory
> doesn't provide this option. Request they change your registration to
> experimental. Once your in experimental category, the winglets may be
> added with a log book entry from an A&P. I recommend you have the work
> done at a certified repair shop because improperly installed winglets
> can change the flight characteristics and lead to big
> trouble................I remember a guy that added his own home brew
> winglets and the ship was the better part of uncontrollable! The only
> way he was able to maintain control was to keep the speed above 80. He
> was forced to land doing 80 also.
> Hope this helps,
> JJ

OK...I am not the original poster...at present I do not own a
sailplane...just a powered expermental airplane. I didn't realize it
was apparently fairly easy (???) to ask the FAA to change from a
standard to experimental airworthiness certificate. Maybe I will see if
I can get our Cessna 140 into the experimental class so I can do more
owner maint/mods :)

[kirk.stant]

> OK...I am not the original poster...at present I do not own a
> sailplane...just a powered expermental airplane. *I didn't realize it
> was apparently fairly easy (???) to ask the FAA to change from a
> standard to experimental airworthiness certificate. *Maybe I will see if
> I can get our Cessna 140 into the experimental class so I can do more owner maint/mods

Scott, you are apparently confusing Experimental Homebuilt (where the
original builder can maintain "his" plane) with Experimental Racing
and Exhibition, which is the catagory many gliders are registered in.

No way you can change your 140 to Ex-homebuilt, but you could probably
change it to EX-Racing and Exhibition.

I'll leave it to smarter people than I to explain the difference.

Kirk
66

[Johan Nykvist]

At 16:39 20 November 2010, Scott Alexander wrote:
>A friend in my club built a pair of winglets for his Standard Cirrus.
>His glider is expirmental, mine is not. The total cost for him was
>just a hundred dollars for supplies, and some free guidance from a
>local IA/AP. The finished product looks fantastic! The mold came
>from an American Spirit, which I believe is a copy of the Ventus. And
>the result is that his handling has improved quite a bit. He did do
>some adjustments on the toe-out angle to fine tune it which
>supposively helped.
>
>I would like to do the same thing with mine using the exact same
>molds. My Cirrus is a standard airworthiness certificate. If I were
>to do the factory winglet or the Maughmer winglet, the cost is between
>3,000-5,000 when it's all said and done. So that being said, this
>option, looks very appealing.
>
>Has anyone in this group dealt with the same sort of deal? I would be
>willing to change my standard airworthiness certificate over to an
>expiremental if that is the best solution. Any guidance is much
>appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>Scott
>
>PS Happy Thanksgiving.
>

If it was me, Id go with the factory, or atlest the STC. Remember,
the value of the glider will probably rise as much as invested.
Maby im wrong, but maby the valu will be lower than now when
in experimental alternative. How would u think if you was a
intrested buyer of that glider?

Im sure youre friends winglets improved handeling. But Im also
sure factory or Maughmer performes even better!! Its just much
more engineering and testing behind it!!
It might be cheaper in the end, when you want to sell for upgrading to a
Discus2!! =)


Just a thouhgt.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Nov 24, 1:20*pm, Johan Nykvist > wrote:
> At 16:39 20 November 2010, Scott Alexander wrote:
>
>
>
> >A friend in my club built a pair of winglets for his Standard Cirrus.
> >His glider is expirmental, mine is not. *The total cost for him was
> >just a hundred dollars for supplies, and some free guidance from a
> >local IA/AP. *The finished product looks fantastic! *The mold came
> >from an American Spirit, which I believe is a copy of the Ventus. *And
> >the result is that his handling has improved quite a bit. *He did do
> >some adjustments on the toe-out angle to fine tune it which
> >supposively helped.
>
> >I would like to do the same thing with mine using the exact same
> >molds. *My Cirrus is a standard airworthiness certificate. *If I were
> >to do the factory winglet or the Maughmer winglet, the cost is between
> >3,000-5,000 when it's all said and done. *So that being said, this
> >option, looks very appealing.
>
> >Has anyone in this group dealt with the same sort of deal? *I would be
> >willing to change my standard airworthiness certificate over to an
> >expiremental if that is the best solution. *Any guidance is much
> >appreciated.
>
> >Thanks,
> >Scott
>
> >PS Happy Thanksgiving.
>
> If it was me, Id go with the factory, or atlest the STC. *Remember,
> the value of the glider will probably rise as much as invested.
> Maby im wrong, but maby the valu will be lower than now when
> in experimental alternative. *How would u think if you was a
> intrested buyer of that glider?
>
> Im sure youre friends winglets improved handeling. But Im also
> sure factory or Maughmer performes even better!! *Its just much
> more engineering and testing behind it!! *
> It might be cheaper in the end, when you want to sell for upgrading to a
> Discus2!! =)
>
> Just a thouhgt.

There are no STCs. So the aftermarket winglets on certified gliders
must be being done via a 337.

Darryl