Originally Posted by
rwanttaja
Unless you know the failure mode of the EAA biplane, you don't know if just replacing the wings will provide an advantage. Maybe it's not the wings that fail first...maybe it's the cabane struts, the interplane struts, the flying-wire attachment points, lower wing attachment points on the fuselage, etc. Or even the engine mount, horizontal stabilizer bracing, etc.
You said earlier that the EAA Biplane is "rated for +/-9 G"... is there any sort of supporting documentation? Test data? Years ago, a friend took over marketing of a fairly common homebuilt aircraft. He found the previous marketing chief had claimed the design was aerobatic and had published all sorts of graphs...but there was NO data to back it up. My friend suspects the previous guy made it all up to sell more airplanes.
A better question might by *why* your airplane is placarded against aerobatics if it supposedly was "rated" for 9Gs. At one point in the past, the FAA did seem to be just including "no aerobatics" as a blanket prohibition, unless the builder asked for it not to be included.
Finally, doesn't hurt to ask, but the EAA Biplane fleet is so small (71 aircraft) that you're unlikely to find one with a specific hybrid modification. AND to ask for proof of a specific degree of stress testing.....
Ron Wanttaja