You don't see one of these for sale often

Rotor&Wing said:
OK, just curious, I was going to look it up and see what the AWC said it was.
Click to expand...

In case you are curious the aircraft was last inspected and declared unairworthy by my PMI. and he saw no problems with the paper work on the aircraft. it was the damage which is still in lidication, so Im not at liberty.
 
Tom-D said:
In case you are curious the aircraft was last inspected and declared unairworthy by my PMI. and he saw no problems with the paper work on the aircraft. it was the damage which is still in lidication, so Im not at liberty.
Click to expand...

I don't care about any of that, since there are no UC-3B's on record I was curious as to what it was classified under. :dunno:
 
The 11th one built is currently registered in the State of Washington - in Bellingham. How far is that from Oak Harbor?

Well, it's actually listed as being not all that "current" because of an Undeliverable Triennial Report - there's an "Undel Tri" notation on the registration report.

It's N940Y, STOL UC-1 Twin Bee serial number 011 according to the FAA registration database. Maybe he was wrong about the serial number too.

Once again, you can see for yourself at...

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=940Y
 
Henning said:
He may be making a distinction between 'float plane' and 'sea plane'. Flying the BE-18 with Jojo is a lot of fun.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that is the case, but I'm sure he will change his story. :rolleyes:


Tom-D said:
Show me a flight school teaching MES in a twin seaplane..

years ago, you needed the rating to get the job, now you get the training by the company. or learn in your own aircraft.

the only Airlines that operate twin seaplanes are operating twin Otters on floats. mostly up north. as for the rest of the world I have no clue.
Click to expand...
 
150Mike said:
Somehow, I think that it's much more likely that someone made a mistake filling out the airworthiness certificate than they did filing and approving the whole type certificate. Look it up on the FAA's online Regulatory and Guidance Library for yourself. If you search for "UC-3B" nothing at all comes up - literally "No Documents Found" - but if you search for "UC-1" it takes you to TC no. A6EA - on which the only model listed is the "UC-1".

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...1d9adbbe6685c38525673e0059a495/$FILE/a6ea.pdf

Also, if you do a FAA registration search by Make/Model for Mfg. = STOL and model = "UC-3B" once again the results are "no records found" but if you search for "STOL" and "UC-1" then 13 records come up.

Maybe you ought to have a discussion with your local FSDO and/or the regional ACO. That CoA may not be valid.

And BTW, they made 23 of them - serials 001 through 024, skipping no. 013. Well, actually, the first several had serials that reflected their former identities as models RC-3. There was UC1-R158, which indicates that it was converted from RC-3 s/n 158. There was UC2-R1041, indicating that it was converted from RC-3 s/n 1041. There was also UC3-R362 (from RC-3 s/n 362) and N9501U was registered as s/n UC006. (The 4th and 5th ones built were lost so long ago that I couldn't find any old registration records for them.)

The rest are in the FAA database as just serial numbers 008 through 024. (Actually s/n 024 is no longer on the FAA registry. It was N77GT but it went to Switzerland to the guy who also owns HB-LSK, s/n 018, presumably to use as a parts airplane.)

The 12th one built, that is serial number 012 according to the FAA database, is N123BR. It is registerd to the Rojean Corp of Santa Ana, CA and it is listed there as a 1972 model UC-1 (s/n 012). See for yourself:

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=123BR
Click to expand...

They issued 24 N numbers of which only 13 were built, and it does require 2 Republic aircraft to build one because it requires a large piece of keel to splice in to lengthen the hull, and the wing parts to lengthen the wing.

I have had extensive conversations on the subject with the owner of the type certificate on how to repair a twin bee landed on the keel. and where to get parts.

The owner has now given up trying to repair the aircraft due to the lack of value in the aircraft in this market, because it now needs 2 engines 2 props, a keel, and extensive metal repairs due to corrosion.
the value and mission of the aircraft simply isn't there.
 
150Mike said:
The 11th one built is currently registered in the State of Washington - in Bellingham. How far is that from Oak Harbor?

Well, it's actually listed as being not all that "current" because of an Undeliverable Triennial Report - there's an "Undel Tri" notation on the registration report.

It's N940Y, STOL UC-1 Twin Bee serial number 011 according to the FAA registration database. Maybe he was wrong about the serial number too.

Once again, you can see for yourself at...

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=940Y
Click to expand...

that may be true, because the N number is right.

As far as who owns the aircraft now, I don't know, but I do know where it is located. I walked away when the owner at that time decided to not repair it. The entire package of blue prints, who, when, and where, it was built are all in the aircraft. along with my estimate to repair.
 
Last edited:
150Mike said:
It's N940Y, STOL UC-1 Twin Bee serial number 011 according to the FAA registration database.
Click to expand...

I know the airworthiness certificate at the time of the accident said UC-3B because the FAA accident investigator made comments on it. If it was wrong at that time I wouldn't know.

If it has been changed or up dated since then so be it.
 
Tom-D said:
In case you are curious the aircraft was last inspected and declared unairworthy by my PMI. and he saw no problems with the paper work on the aircraft. it was the damage which is still in lidication, so Im not at liberty.
Click to expand...
notice the date on that? I had annulled the aircraft prior to the accident, That statement was to note the paper was correct prior to the accident. not after.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top