Anyone know why the LAA will not allow homebuilt Nippers anymore? G-INFO shows 9 current Nippers with PFA build numbers but on the old forum apparently the LAA had said that they would only allow resorations of existing aircraft.
New Fuselage frames have been offered by Nipper Kits & Components ltd so how is it different to any other plans built/ partial kit?
Homebuilt Tipsy Nipper
Moderators: John Dean, Moderator
I'm not sure the LAA ever really did allow home-built Nippers. My Nipper has a PFA build number but in reality is nothing more than the amalgamation of two damaged factory-built aircraft into one. I suspect the other eight you have found may have a similar history. Quite why the new aircraft did not take on the identity of one of the donor aircraft I do not know.
Though originally built to a now obsolete BCAR design code, the Nipper would not comply with CS-VLA or any other modern design standard. My guess is that you could apply for type approval for a 'new' Nipper but there would have to be substantial revisions to the design to get it through the modern approval process. The cost of the modifications, and the cost of approval would be prohibitive.
If you want to build one, 'restoration' is the way forward. In essence all you need is the logbooks and enough mangled bits to convince your LAA inspector that you are restoring an existing aircraft.
One only has to look at the number of restored Warbirds and suchlike that have been built on the basis of a set of log books, a data-plate and a few rusty bits to see the attraction of this process.
Though originally built to a now obsolete BCAR design code, the Nipper would not comply with CS-VLA or any other modern design standard. My guess is that you could apply for type approval for a 'new' Nipper but there would have to be substantial revisions to the design to get it through the modern approval process. The cost of the modifications, and the cost of approval would be prohibitive.
If you want to build one, 'restoration' is the way forward. In essence all you need is the logbooks and enough mangled bits to convince your LAA inspector that you are restoring an existing aircraft.
One only has to look at the number of restored Warbirds and suchlike that have been built on the basis of a set of log books, a data-plate and a few rusty bits to see the attraction of this process.
PB & Rod, thanks for the info.
I checked and fuselage frames are obtainable from N K & C and the rest can be built from drawings, but from what you say it would not be possible to register it unless it was used in a rebuild.
I'm sort of intrigued though why many designs going back earlier than the Nipper can be built, eg a Luton Minor, whilst you suggest that an equally proven design like the Nipper cannot. Is that because it was never assessed as a home-built? Or is it that the frame being the core of the project is only available commercially?
Sorry if I sound a bit ignorant about this. I'm just interested in understanding why, if you are correct (and I have no reason to dispute your info), such a good piece of design seems sidelined.
Colin
I checked and fuselage frames are obtainable from N K & C and the rest can be built from drawings, but from what you say it would not be possible to register it unless it was used in a rebuild.
I'm sort of intrigued though why many designs going back earlier than the Nipper can be built, eg a Luton Minor, whilst you suggest that an equally proven design like the Nipper cannot. Is that because it was never assessed as a home-built? Or is it that the frame being the core of the project is only available commercially?
Sorry if I sound a bit ignorant about this. I'm just interested in understanding why, if you are correct (and I have no reason to dispute your info), such a good piece of design seems sidelined.
Colin
You will have to ask the LLA Engineering for a definitive answer, but I would guess you are correct in that the Nipper has never been approved as a home-built whilst numerous other single seaters (VP1, Luton, Turbulent etc.) have.
You are indeed correct about the excellence of the design of the Nipper. I have had mine for seven years, 300 hour and one complete rebuild and the more I fly and work on the aircraft, the more I realise just how elegant the design is.
Sadly, to get through CS-VLA or some other modern design code, quite a few of the things that make it so delightful - the beautifully light control forces for example - would have to change.
I very much doubt if it would be a viable exercise except perhaps as a labour of love.
You are indeed correct about the excellence of the design of the Nipper. I have had mine for seven years, 300 hour and one complete rebuild and the more I fly and work on the aircraft, the more I realise just how elegant the design is.
Sadly, to get through CS-VLA or some other modern design code, quite a few of the things that make it so delightful - the beautifully light control forces for example - would have to change.
I very much doubt if it would be a viable exercise except perhaps as a labour of love.
-
macconnacher
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:26 am
- Location: Northampton
Interesting!
Laurie Shaw on the EC was building a Nipper from scratch, I thought. But I never saw his fuselage other than complete. I have also never seen the complete set of drawings so there is a possibility that the fuselage drawing was not made available; thus it might be that you can homebuild the Nipper as far as the drawings that are available with some parts having to be purchased. This is a similar situation with the Jodel D19 where the undercariage is only available from SAB - note it has not been built in the UK.
We have always treated the Nipper as plans built for Rally judging with the factory builts being given "plans built" status - perhaps they should have been designated kit built?
Why this is the case with this relatively old design is down to either the designer or more likely the situation existing at the time of the Nipper Heyday. Back then the only form of construction used was "all wood" and PFA Engineering/CAA possibly did not believe amateurs could make welded steel tube constuctions.
I remember that the building of the first Tailwind and Pitts Special was a battle on the welding front since only approved CAA welders could be used and that it was expected that the whole structure would have to be placed in an annealing oven as was Auster practice - if my memory serves me right. By using 4130 instead of T45 a case was made that welding could be done without special treatment since that was standard practice in the USA and Andrew Perkins was not going to be told he could not do it by PFA who he privatley dubbed the 'Prevent You Flying Association'. Andrew just went and got a CAA welding licence so he met the barriers place in his way.
When it was shown it could be done PFA allowed the form of construction either by the builder tack welding the structure and then getting a certified welder to complete it or the builder doing a simplified CAA test.
Curtis Pitts recounted the story that he once found an amateur built Pitts Special that was flying successfully when only tack welded!
PFA also got clearance for certified welders who mainly had certification through their employers and thus could not weld outside their employment to be accepted by the CAA to be able to work on PFA aircraft.
Eventually a scheme was brought in whereby a PFA member could take just the relevant CAA tests and be a certified welder for a certain fixed period and then be able to continue to carry out welding for his own project only, after the period of validity of the certification had expired.
Thus we have gained our freedoms by being doggedly determined even when told it was not possible and thus knowing the history it is quite likely that the Nipper was considered a part built homebuilt due to areas of the design being outside ordinary members competance.
Having said all that there is a remarkable similarity between the wing of the Nipper and that of the Corby Starlet so as a project why not build a low wing all wood Nipper called the Corby Starlet. See my Spec sheets on the LAA Engineering section of the main web site.
Laurie Shaw on the EC was building a Nipper from scratch, I thought. But I never saw his fuselage other than complete. I have also never seen the complete set of drawings so there is a possibility that the fuselage drawing was not made available; thus it might be that you can homebuild the Nipper as far as the drawings that are available with some parts having to be purchased. This is a similar situation with the Jodel D19 where the undercariage is only available from SAB - note it has not been built in the UK.
We have always treated the Nipper as plans built for Rally judging with the factory builts being given "plans built" status - perhaps they should have been designated kit built?
Why this is the case with this relatively old design is down to either the designer or more likely the situation existing at the time of the Nipper Heyday. Back then the only form of construction used was "all wood" and PFA Engineering/CAA possibly did not believe amateurs could make welded steel tube constuctions.
I remember that the building of the first Tailwind and Pitts Special was a battle on the welding front since only approved CAA welders could be used and that it was expected that the whole structure would have to be placed in an annealing oven as was Auster practice - if my memory serves me right. By using 4130 instead of T45 a case was made that welding could be done without special treatment since that was standard practice in the USA and Andrew Perkins was not going to be told he could not do it by PFA who he privatley dubbed the 'Prevent You Flying Association'. Andrew just went and got a CAA welding licence so he met the barriers place in his way.
When it was shown it could be done PFA allowed the form of construction either by the builder tack welding the structure and then getting a certified welder to complete it or the builder doing a simplified CAA test.
Curtis Pitts recounted the story that he once found an amateur built Pitts Special that was flying successfully when only tack welded!
PFA also got clearance for certified welders who mainly had certification through their employers and thus could not weld outside their employment to be accepted by the CAA to be able to work on PFA aircraft.
Eventually a scheme was brought in whereby a PFA member could take just the relevant CAA tests and be a certified welder for a certain fixed period and then be able to continue to carry out welding for his own project only, after the period of validity of the certification had expired.
Thus we have gained our freedoms by being doggedly determined even when told it was not possible and thus knowing the history it is quite likely that the Nipper was considered a part built homebuilt due to areas of the design being outside ordinary members competance.
Having said all that there is a remarkable similarity between the wing of the Nipper and that of the Corby Starlet so as a project why not build a low wing all wood Nipper called the Corby Starlet. See my Spec sheets on the LAA Engineering section of the main web site.
Stuart Macconnacher
002353
002353
I think that the only way a Nipper could be built would be to buy the fuselage frame and drawings from Nipper Kits and Components. However it would be crucial for anyone contemplating it to talk to LAA Engineering first and get the approvals issues clarified before committing money to
it.
regards
it.
regards
Last edited by ColinC on Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
018841
Colin Cheese
Colin Cheese
I can confirm that the 'complete' set of plans for a Nipper I have here is complete except for the fuselage drawings.....
From my understanding, the solution suggested by Colin C above is currently not permitted by the LAA. The Tipsy Nipper does however feature on the LAA "Type for Homebuilt List - Approved". There is no TAD which might be telling...
I'll e-mail engineering and ask.
From my understanding, the solution suggested by Colin C above is currently not permitted by the LAA. The Tipsy Nipper does however feature on the LAA "Type for Homebuilt List - Approved". There is no TAD which might be telling...
I'll e-mail engineering and ask.
Many thanks for all the input since I asked the original question. I have spoken with both Nipper Kits and Components and PFA engineering and BOTH say the Nipper CAN be homebuilt.
HOWEVER, the person at PFA engineering wanted Francis to confirm that this was still correct!!! So it seems that Engineering are just as unclear as we all are!! I've not managed to make contact with FD, despite leaving my number etc, but will try again next week!!
I expect the full Nipper situation to become clear in a few months time with luck!!
NB: I understand the Starlet would need to be re-stressed from 6.7G to 9G ultimate to stand a chance of an Aerobatic approval - any volunteers???
HOWEVER, the person at PFA engineering wanted Francis to confirm that this was still correct!!! So it seems that Engineering are just as unclear as we all are!! I've not managed to make contact with FD, despite leaving my number etc, but will try again next week!!
I expect the full Nipper situation to become clear in a few months time with luck!!
NB: I understand the Starlet would need to be re-stressed from 6.7G to 9G ultimate to stand a chance of an Aerobatic approval - any volunteers???
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
This is quite an intriguing thread, I can't think of any reason why LAA would not allow the Nipper to be plans built, though I know that fuselage drawings are not part of the plans package and you are expected to buy a pre-made fuselage. I am going to Turweston today so I will ask Francis what the actual situation is and report back on Monday.
Brian, it was probably a busy day, but did you manage to learn anything?Brian Hope wrote:This is quite an intriguing thread, I can't think of any reason why LAA would not allow the Nipper to be plans built, though I know that fuselage drawings are not part of the plans package and you are expected to buy a pre-made fuselage. I am going to Turweston today so I will ask Francis what the actual situation is and report back on Monday.
018841
Colin Cheese
Colin Cheese