Wei Hang, the Chinese entrepreneur who commissioned the restoration of a Windecker Eagle, plans to set up a production line for the aircraft in China.
When he purchased two of only eight Windecker Eagles ever produced, Hang also bought the production rights and the type certificate for the design. China will honor the type certificate, he reported.
The plan is to produce refined copies of the Eagle for the burgeoning General Aviation movement in China. They will be used for the full range of GA activities.
He reports he is now working on building manufacturing facilities in Chengdu and Tongliao for the production of the Windecker aircraft.
Meanwhile, 98G, the Windecker Eagle being restored in Mooresville, North Carolina, is rapidly approaching an active runway. Sporting a long list of upgrades, the restoration will be test flown by Flight Test DER Len Fox under the Experimental Exhibition category in America before it is dismantled and shipped to China where it will be used for marketing.
“China will honor the type certificate, he reported.”. Although US and China do have a bilateral agreement on certification. To gain a VTC (Type Certificate Verification), a standard category airplane will be needed for CAAC to examine and test fly. Further more, there are other requirements by CAAC to gain VTC. Without getting a VTC, this aircraft will not be able to legally sell in China if the owner intention is more than his personal usage. To manufacturing in China, one needs to go through a Production Certification (PC) process either via CAAC or via FAA-CAAC arrangement. Realistically I don’t see this happening in real for at least another 5 years (VTC generally takes 2 years if US side is ready, longer if not. PC takes about 3 years) if the owner is starting from scratch in China. Currently there are at least 5 programs who have VTC and readily available facilities waiting for FAA-CAAC arrangement on PC, some of them have been working on it for 3 years.
Here in the US, the FAA likes to see a PC in the first year, during this time, the FAA must inspect each production airplane. This is the case for many TC holders that start production, or a production facility is moved from one governing body to another, state to state, or US to another country.
A PC or production certificate is a quality program that the TC holder must show compliance with. A PC shouldn’t take 3 years, but who knows how long other countries take.
However, it is common to begin production in the US and deliver airplanes before the issuance of the PC, how else can they evaluate your inspection process unless you start doing something? You cant. Because the FAA does not have the manpower to do this, they expect the TC holder to be able to do this in a year or less.
I am hopeful, that in time, the CAAC can expedite some of these programs, otherwise, new technology will be late to market. Here in the US, the FAA understands that. Newly developed small aircraft technology can easily soar into the 100’s of millions of dollars. Industry cant wait for 3 years to get that into production in today’s market, its not new technology when it is delayed 3 years for production.
The 3 years estimation is based on current CAAC-FAA PC extension program situation in reality. Its not CAAC’s doing, but coordination between two countries aviation administrations. In your case, I think one has to be more concerned about VTC actually. From my experience dealing with CAAC, its VTC’s data sheet has to match FAA’s TC’s data sheet. The aircraft they examine and test fly will also have to match TC’s data sheet. Since your current model does not match TC data sheet and is in experimental category, there is no way CAAC will issue VTC on this. Without VTC, one can’t even sell a Part 23 aircraft legally in China, let alone manufacturing it.
You cant validate an experimental airplane in any country, we know this. We have a second aircraft. This airplane will be part of a private collection, used for research then retired. As the current only flying example of this model, it is a valuable part of American aviation history.
This forum is for press releases to show aviation activity, not necessarily certification issues. We would happily discuss aircraft certification with you, you can contact us at [email protected].
Thank you very much for your comments.
I have no personal interest in this. I only commented due to the title “Windecker Eagles to be manufactured in China” and content related to “China will honor the type certificate” as we have seen other examples caught in the process. For sure, its part of US aviation history, and its a great to see it fly again.
I manage the Windecker restoration project. You guys are partly correct, to update the aircraft to the level you have read about would be extremely cost prohibitive to keep in standard category, so experimental exhibition category made the most economic sense. Especially for just the one aircraft.
There are probably 100 deviations from its original type design, most of them minor (new PMA 2 speed fuel pump), some major (IO-550, Garmin Glass, 3 blade Hartzell prop). This aircraft was never equipped with shoulder harnesses, and we wanted those too. So again, most of the mods were out of necessity, and improving safety.
There were other reasons for these deviations, of which over half was simply due to some components being obsolete and no longer available. For instance, the old McCauley prop, fuel sending units, fuel boost pump, hydraulic pump, most of the instrumentation, etc, were all obsolete, not working, not servicable, or otherwise not airworthy. To properly upgrade these items meant an STC for field approval. Both are difficult to obtain these days. 25 years ago, I could have gone to my FSDO, discussed the field approval with a maintenance inspector, and possibly obtained a one time field approval for something like a fuel pump. Those days are long gone, in some cases, for good reason.
None of the upgrades or modifications are viewed as trivial, in some cases, the help of DER’s was necessary. So even though we did not pursue STC’s or field approvals, we approached the project as though we were.
The man the owns the project and company, Mr. Hang Wei, asked that this Eagle 1 be restored and modernized as much as made sense. To keep it in standard category, it would have to be restored in accordance with its Type Design, old steam gauges. We would have had to turn our heads to the level of safety that some of the newly developed products provide us.
The story behind the Windecker is far more fascinating than the airplane itself. The worlds first Part 23 certified aircraft and the worlds first composite aircraft. Since the FAA was unfamiliar with composite construction, they forced the Windecker team to design to Utility Category limits (+4.4g), while only granting standard category rating (+3.8g) to the Eagle 1. During testing, the plane was tested to ultimate loads, and at a little over 7g, a trailing edge bond joint failed, however, it still held up when the loads were brought back down to limit loads. Quite impressive actually, even by todays standards.
It has been a lot of fun learning about yet another relatively unknown aviation pioneer, Dr. Leo Windecker. Because of his ingenuity and passion for aviation 50 years ago, I have a job today, so thank you Dr. Windecker. He sort of “paid it forward” if you will. He dedicated his life to the furtherance of G.A., unknown to him, 50 years later, a dozen mechanics and a few DER’s would be able to share the same passion he had and see some of his world as he saw it in the mid 60’s.
So, I am thankful for Dr. Windecker and his contributions to G.A 45 years ago. and equally thankful to our current owner, Mr. Hang Wei and his contributions today. So thank you Mr. Hang for your contributions to GA today. I don’t see either of these events as a “nail in the GA coffin” rather, I see it as an attempt to preserve GA.
Thank you very much sir for your update, I had the pleasure of meeting the designer and flying his aircraft many years ago, he was a great person and his aircraft was equally as impressive.
The fact that its only salvation has been to move to a market like China reflects the overall downward trend in aviation in this country, thus my comment about another nail in the GA coffin, I stand by my comment, between the FAA and the Alphabet groups, wanting to ensure that their own ox is not gored, I feel that GA in this country is in an ever tightening graveyard spiral, from which the ability to recover has long since passed.
John,
I agree with your comments, and I think we are stating the same thing. Just some different view points.
I think GA as we knew it, i.e. its glory, is gone. But historically speaking, so are a lot of things. I dont think GA will go away, but it will change drastically from what you and I once knew. For the people that are just getting into flying, this industry, however it may appear to them, is their norm. Their perception is their own reality.
So there are many ways to look at this. For one, we see the influx of foreign money as some sort of “sign” and rightfully so. Its a sign that though our own people don’t see the value in investing in GA, someone else does. If I let my imagination run wild, I can think of dozens of plausible doomsday scenarios. GA needs a shot in the arm, money, to develop new technology. Where will it come from? We cant get it here, so we have to look abroad. Look at some of the new airplanes, electric, solar, alternative fuels, you name it. To survive, we have to keep developing new technology.
So, if I wanted to develop a new, cool electronic gadget, I think I could raise the money. However, tell the investors I want to develop a new, cool, safer small airplane, and the domestic investors wont call you back.
When I learned to fly (1985), it was about $2000. At the time, a fraction of my household income. Today, the costs to learn to fly have tripled, and my income has not even doubled. So even more of a threat to GA today is the decline of the pilot population. Fix this, and we will have another generation or two of those that share the passion of aviation. The greatest GA aircraft is worthless without pilots and owners. Sadly, we have done this to ourselves, if this is not true, tell me who we are to blame? I can only hold alphabet groups accountable for so much.
I wonder why it has to fly under the Experimental-Exhibition Category if it is type certificated? One reason might be that they are making some changes that are not approved by our Gestapo FAA?
I would guess as well that the cert. status is as stated because,”Sporting a long list of upgrades”, it no longer meets it’s type certificate. If the airplane is being exported,as it is, why go to the trouble of getting field approvals or one time S.T.C.s for it. Field approvals are simple but if the mod is outside a short list then a STC is needed. A one time S.T.C. can be very expensive as engineering input is required at whatever price the engineer wants to charge.
A few guesses –
As Greg W pointed out, this Windecker Eagle is being prepped for a new life in the burgeoning market far away in China. It’s likely going to stay there, and won’t need U. S. certification.
GA owners are keeping planes that are 30, 40, 50 and more years old these days. The FAA may want to ensure that planes won’t malfunction next year or 50 years from now.
When bureaucrats at FAA see comments like “Gestapo FAA” and the hostile attitude that goes along with it, they might not see members of the GA community as friends they can work with. The FAA played ball with LSA certification standards – and granted Icon a weight waiver for its A5 – when forward-looking elements of GA were willing to cooperate in setting new standards. Maybe we could try some of the same.
One thing for sure, hostility toward FAA isn’t getting us where we want to go
I have friends who work for the FAA and many of them think the same way about the bureaucracy. I am not talking about individuals, I’m talking about the giant bureaucracy that is so hard to get stuff done through. Three years ago or so, EAA & AOPA petitioned the FAA to raise the Sport Aircraft limit to 1500 lbs. and 180 H.P. All they and the Transportation did was sit on it until it was necessary to get Congress into the act and still nothing has been done. Okay, so they made an exception for the A5, why not go ahead and raise it to 1500 lbs. for everyone. Also, note that the Windecker Eagle is a type certificated airplane and my question was that unless they are making FAA unapproved changes to it, why does it have to be flown as an experimental and Greg W answered that question.
Not so sure that this is a waste. An unrestored, neglected plane sitting in the U. S. where there’s no real interest in it, would be a waste.
The restored plane is going where the potential market and the capital for manufacturing are.
Unless the U. S. GA community gets off its butt and does what it takes to revive interest in flying in this country, the real action in GA in the future will be in China and developing countries. Smart manufacturers are looking to that market.
What a waste, this nice flying classic, lost to us. Another nail in the GA coffin.
(see above)