Experimental or not?

"John D. Abrahms" wrote in message
om...

I know that all the airplanes that people build by themselves fall
into the experimental category, because they are not factory-made,
serialized products but individually built with different quality and
with different modifications.

Not really. You can restore a certified airplane from a dataplate and a
single piece of metal and build everything yourself. If you can get an IA to
sign off on it, and the FAA to agree, it doesn't have to be experimental.

I also know that GA airplanes made of
composites usually fall into the experimental class category, too.

No. Cirrus, Lancair and a few others are composites and they are certified
aircraft.

What really annoyed me is that there also are planes that are not
composite and also are factory-made in high numbers that fall into
experiemnat category, like the Aero L-39 Jet airplane.

That's because it's an ex-military airplane that was never put through
normal certification. In order to fly in private hands it has to have an
experimental airworthiness certificate.

From what I know a pilot who wants to fly a L-39 jet airplane needs
1000hrs of PIC time, and after that needs a Letter of Authorization to
be able to fly the L-39.

Correct.

What if the L-39 would not be registered as
experimental but as normal/utility/aerobatic airplane?

The manufacturer, as far as I know, has no interest in spending the oodles
of money required to achieve this. And most likely you wouldn't be able to
afford the airplane if they did.

Would this also require 1000hrs of PIC time before someone can fly with
this L-39?

It would require a type rating.

Are there any PIC hours required to be allowed to fly turbine airplanes?

To my knowledge, that is only the case on the few ex-military experimentals
being sold out there.

I also heard that it's not possible to use an experimental plane for
training (PPL, CPL, IFR, whatever).

No. A CFI can use your experimental to train you to fly it.

Juan

Used to be ex military aircraft were in the Restricted category. I
dealt with a Grumman Goose and a Lodestar years ago where that was the
case. Is that no longer true or are fighters and trainers different?

The way I remember it was the FAA came out with the hours and LOA
requirement because there were too many doctors and lawyers that had
more money than brains and got out of their Bonanza and into a P-51
and killed themselves.


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

The LOA is no longer called an LOA, but from what the FSDO told me about
the requirements, it is still a rose by another name.



Don Hammer wrote:
Used to be ex military aircraft were in the Restricted category. I
dealt with a Grumman Goose and a Lodestar years ago where that was the
case. Is that no longer true or are fighters and trainers different?

The way I remember it was the FAA came out with the hours and LOA
requirement because there were too many doctors and lawyers that had
more money than brains and got out of their Bonanza and into a P-51
and killed themselves.


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

LOA's are still around. For the ex-mil's now they have a weird
pseudo-type-rating system that shows up on your license. But that applies
only to ex-mil on that AC that's been recently updated. For my BD-5J, for
example, I was told to apply for an LOA, and that's what the FSDO will issue
me if aero-medical ever gets around to handling my special issuance renewal.

"AINut" wrote in message
...
The LOA is no longer called an LOA, but from what the FSDO told me about
the requirements, it is still a rose by another name.

Don Hammer wrote:
Used to be ex military aircraft were in the Restricted category. I
dealt with a Grumman Goose and a Lodestar years ago where that was the
case. Is that no longer true or are fighters and trainers different?

The way I remember it was the FAA came out with the hours and LOA
requirement because there were too many doctors and lawyers that had
more money than brains and got out of their Bonanza and into a P-51
and killed themselves.


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Don Hammer" wrote in message
...
Used to be ex military aircraft were in the Restricted category. I
dealt with a Grumman Goose and a Lodestar years ago where that was the
case. Is that no longer true or are fighters and trainers different?

Don't know about the Goose or Lodestar but the ex-mil fighters are covered
by an AC, can't remember the number.

The way I remember it was the FAA came out with the hours and LOA
requirement because there were too many doctors and lawyers that had
more money than brains and got out of their Bonanza and into a P-51
and killed themselves.

Still applies.

"Don Hammer" wrote in message
...
Used to be ex military aircraft were in the Restricted category. I
dealt with a Grumman Goose and a Lodestar years ago where that was the
case. Is that no longer true or are fighters and trainers different?


Flavors and trends do change over time. It did indeed, used to be the case
that most warbirds that didn't have a civilian type certificate were
certified in the "Restricted" category with the specific restrictions
determined on a case by case basis.
As I recall there were also some in the "Limited" category, with the
specific limitations also determined on a case by case basis.

At that time it was also true that the "certificate" given to an amateur
built aircraft was only valid for one year. Every year you had to have the
FAA come out and inspect the airplane to renew it. Then the FAA figured out
that they were in the business of giving free annuals for homebuilts and
instituted the present permanent "certificate" that must be inspected every
year by a certified mechanic. Note that a "repairman certificate" holder is
a "certified mechanic" whose "certification" extends only to one specific
airplane. :-)

Nowadays most of the warbirds are finding their certification easier in the
"Exhibition" category. This category generally allows some radius of
operation, of several hundred nautical miles, for "pilot proficiency
maintenance" where you can fly pretty much as you please. Trips outside of
that radius require that the FAA be "notified" prior to the trip. Generally
you can fax the FAA office a "notification." You can also send them a list
of the shows and flyins that you plan to attend once a year.

Much of this change is because of the changing view of warbirds. At one
time they were just big, expensive, impractical airplanes. Now they are
antiques and collectors items and people pay money to see them up close and
see them fly.

I can remember when you could buy a surplus fighter for a couple of thousand
bucks because nobody wanted the headaches. I just wish I had bought a few
dozen of them an stored them in the back of my hangar! :-) I did meet one
older gentleman down in Louisiana who had thirty Stearman trainers brand new
in the crate stored in the back of his hangar. He said whenever he needs a
little extra money he puts one together and sells it. Since that was back
in the sixties, I doubt that any of them are left in the hangar. He was in
his sixties then as well and may not need extra money anymore!

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 16:36:28 -0500, "Highflyer" wrote:

I can remember when you could buy a surplus fighter for a couple of thousand
bucks because nobody wanted the headaches. I just wish I had bought a few
dozen of them an stored them in the back of my hangar! :-)

Dunno, HF...I've *seen* your hangar. Sure there ain't a couple of P-40s stashed
in back? :-)

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 16:36:28 -0500, "Highflyer" wrote:

I can remember when you could buy a surplus fighter for a couple of
thousand
bucks because nobody wanted the headaches. I just wish I had bought a few
dozen of them an stored them in the back of my hangar! :-)

Dunno, HF...I've *seen* your hangar. Sure there ain't a couple of P-40s
stashed
in back? :-)

Ron Wanttaja

No P-40s Ron. However, there ARE a couple of Vultees. :-/ Back behind the
Stinson and the Pietenpol and the Cavalier and the Apache. It is getting
crowded in there. One of these days I will get ALL of them together and
flying. Then I WILL have a parking problem! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )