If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Rebuilding to Experimental
On the AOPA board an individual is rebuilding a Bellanca Viking and
claims that as long as he can show he rebuilt 51% of the aircraft, he can relicense it as a homebuilt experimental. Is this so? Seems like all the basket cases that I've seen rebuilt from the ground up are still certified as manufactured aircraft. Why wouldn't you see more experimental Cessnas, Pipers and such? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Rebuilding to Experimental
Thanks JP--that answered my questions perfectly. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Rebuilding to Experimental
"JP" wrote in message ... The main idea seems to be to build an amateur built aircraft using MOSTLY certified aircraft components. Such a project is a kind of balancing act I suppose? In such a case, you remove the original manufacturer identification plate. The process involves other things too. Basicly you have to rename the plane. Here's some information about the matter: http://www.v8seabee.com/aircraft_usa_regulations.asp Here's the FAA (51% rule) check list. http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/3209fec2139ccb3f862569af006ab9e9/$FILE/AC20-139.pdf JP "150flivver" wrote in roups.com... On the AOPA board an individual is rebuilding a Bellanca Viking and claims that as long as he can show he rebuilt 51% of the aircraft, he can relicense it as a homebuilt experimental. Is this so? Seems like all the basket cases that I've seen rebuilt from the ground up are still certified as manufactured aircraft. Why wouldn't you see more experimental Cessnas, Pipers and such? It also depends on what class of experimental you are seeking. A long time ago they used to have a category called something that allowed you to modify a certificated aircraft with things like different engines, prop wings ect. You could modify pretty much anyway you wanted, but you lost the standard airworthiness. That category of experimental in the US was eliminated many years ago. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Rebuilding to Experimental
In article wY5hg.2201$LN1.46@trndny01,
"mark" wrote: "JP" wrote in message ... The main idea seems to be to build an amateur built aircraft using MOSTLY certified aircraft components. Such a project is a kind of balancing act I suppose? In such a case, you remove the original manufacturer identification plate. The process involves other things too. Basicly you have to rename the plane. Here's some information about the matter: http://www.v8seabee.com/aircraft_usa_regulations.asp Here's the FAA (51% rule) check list. http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...visoryCircular .nsf/0/3209fec2139ccb3f862569af006ab9e9/$FILE/AC20-139.pdf JP "150flivver" wrote in roups.com... On the AOPA board an individual is rebuilding a Bellanca Viking and claims that as long as he can show he rebuilt 51% of the aircraft, he can relicense it as a homebuilt experimental. Is this so? Seems like all the basket cases that I've seen rebuilt from the ground up are still certified as manufactured aircraft. Why wouldn't you see more experimental Cessnas, Pipers and such? It also depends on what class of experimental you are seeking. A long time ago they used to have a category called something that allowed you to modify a certificated aircraft with things like different engines, prop wings ect. You could modify pretty much anyway you wanted, but you lost the standard airworthiness. That category of experimental in the US was eliminated many years ago. No -- it still exists -- and is called "Experimental-R&D" and carries a lot more restrictions than "Experimental-Homebuilt." Basically, it carries a set time of validity and requires either going toward a STC or restoration to the type-certificated version and carries flight area rrestrictions. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Rebuilding to Experimental
"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message news In article wY5hg.2201$LN1.46@trndny01, "mark" wrote: "JP" wrote in message ... The main idea seems to be to build an amateur built aircraft using MOSTLY certified aircraft components. Such a project is a kind of balancing act I suppose? In such a case, you remove the original manufacturer identification plate. The process involves other things too. Basicly you have to rename the plane. Here's some information about the matter: http://www.v8seabee.com/aircraft_usa_regulations.asp Here's the FAA (51% rule) check list. http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...visoryCircular .nsf/0/3209fec2139ccb3f862569af006ab9e9/$FILE/AC20-139.pdf JP "150flivver" wrote in roups.com... On the AOPA board an individual is rebuilding a Bellanca Viking and claims that as long as he can show he rebuilt 51% of the aircraft, he can relicense it as a homebuilt experimental. Is this so? Seems like all the basket cases that I've seen rebuilt from the ground up are still certified as manufactured aircraft. Why wouldn't you see more experimental Cessnas, Pipers and such? It also depends on what class of experimental you are seeking. A long time ago they used to have a category called something that allowed you to modify a certificated aircraft with things like different engines, prop wings ect. You could modify pretty much anyway you wanted, but you lost the standard airworthiness. That category of experimental in the US was eliminated many years ago. No -- it still exists -- and is called "Experimental-R&D" and carries a lot more restrictions than "Experimental-Homebuilt." Basically, it carries a set time of validity and requires either going toward a STC or restoration to the type-certificated version and carries flight area rrestrictions. Yep R&D still exists, but the time limit makes if very unattractive for many reasons. It would only be pratical if you are developing a new airplane for certification or an STC. In the old days it had no time limit. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Rebuilding to Experimental
150flivver wrote:
On the AOPA board an individual is rebuilding a Bellanca Viking and claims that as long as he can show he rebuilt 51% of the aircraft, he can relicense it as a homebuilt experimental. Is this so? Seems like all the basket cases that I've seen rebuilt from the ground up are still certified as manufactured aircraft. Why wouldn't you see more experimental Cessnas, Pipers and such? Ground up rebuild (a beauty of a pun) is easy. That's the way it's supposed to be done. Experimental Amateur Built might take a good relationship with the local FIDO. It has been done, but... Get the book from FAA (Amateru Built Handbook) and take the 51% quiz for the aircraft in question. All those parts have to be "manufactured" too, you know. Richard |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Rebuilding to Experimental
There's a site presenting some experimental projects based on certified
aircraft parts. http://www.slipstreamtechinc.com/projects.html JP "JP" wrote in ... The main idea seems to be to build an amateur built aircraft using MOSTLY certified aircraft components. Such a project is a kind of balancing act I suppose? In such a case, you remove the original manufacturer identification plate. The process involves other things too. Basically you have to rename the plane. Here's some information about the matter: http://www.v8seabee.com/aircraft_usa_regulations.asp Here's the FAA (51% rule) check list. http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/3209fec2139ccb3f862569af006ab9e9/$FILE/AC20-139.pdf JP "150flivver" wrote in roups.com... On the AOPA board an individual is rebuilding a Bellanca Viking and claims that as long as he can show he rebuilt 51% of the aircraft, he can relicense it as a homebuilt experimental. Is this so? Seems like all the basket cases that I've seen rebuilt from the ground up are still certified as manufactured aircraft. Why wouldn't you see more experimental Cessnas, Pipers and such? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Rebuilding to Experimental
cavelamb wrote: Ground up rebuild (a beauty of a pun) is easy. That's the way it's supposed to be done. Experimental Amateur Built might take a good relationship with the local FIDO. It has been done, but... Get the book from FAA (Amateru Built Handbook) and take the 51% quiz for the aircraft in question. All those parts have to be "manufactured" too, you know. There is a couple of guys around here that are (together) rebuilding a Piper Malibu and placing it in the experimental-homebuilt category. They have approval from the Florida FSDO for the work (apparently he has approved a number of other similar rebuilds, and the plane was located at the time in Florida - under water). What they did was start with Piper. They got ahold of the production process manual for the Malibu. It lists all the individual tasks that must be done to manufacture the plane. They then worked out a list of things they were going to do that covered 51% of that list. For example, they are *making* (not buying) a wing skin section from aluminum stock - they can then buy the rest of the skin sections they need. In they end they will by no means have manufactured 51% of the plane - but they WILL have designed and manufactured parts covering 51% of the tasks. jmk |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Experimental Lycoming engine clones | Ted | Home Built | 1 | April 15th 06 09:21 PM |
USA Glider Experimental Airworthiness Certificate | charlie foxtrot | Soaring | 4 | April 15th 06 05:04 AM |
Flying Club with Experimental Aircraft | Jeff | Home Built | 6 | October 5th 05 09:16 PM |
Experimental planes at air shows? | Eugene Maslov | Home Built | 4 | May 31st 05 05:09 PM |
Experimental or not? | John D. Abrahms | Home Built | 23 | April 14th 05 01:45 AM |