Andy Asberry wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:10:18 -0400, "J.Kahn"
wrote:

Actually, I'm starting to look for a 150 to play around with and for the
kids to learn in next spring. They fly about as well as most
airplanes, with a really good useful load for that size. The 150 does a
lot of things reasonably well and are becoming dirt cheap as the big
flight schools unload them. Where else can you get a 600 lb useful
load, electrics, really powerful fowler flaps, etc all for 20k.
Everybody else hates them, but I like the '64/65 straight tails. If
you block out the front half of the airplane in a picture, it looks like
an A-26.

Apparently aileron gap seals make the ailerons much lighter and
snappier, probably the biggest complaint in handling.

John

Here is one you can play around with a lot.
http://saltlakecity.craigslist.org/rvs/440160765.html

Would all this work qualify as a homebuilt?

--Andy Asberry--
------Texas-----

Yikes too much work....

You could license it as a homebuilt if you did something like build up
the wings from parts so you could squeeze past the 51 percent rule for
the primary structure. You would have to be able to show that you were
at least equivalent to a "quick build" kit.

Here in Canada there is a category called "Owner Maintenance" where you
can buy one that is in annual but is maybe a bit rough, and license it
as OM (it has to have a current CofA to start, then you put X's on all
the data plates) then you can maintain and repair it yourself and use
uncertified parts, like a homebuilt. The number of airplanes converted
to date is limited, probably less than 100, mainly because the FAA
refuses to acknowledge the category so OM airplanes can't travel or be
sold to the US. If they treated OM the same as second owner homebuilts,
a major impediment would be removed and a LOT of older airplanes would
be converted. On an airplane that is airworthy but ratty and therefore
cheap to buy, it's still attractive even if you can't go south.

John