"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.