Damaged Certified into Homebuilt?

[Brad Mallard]

Can you buy a wrecked plane like a Cessna 172, repair it yourself & then get
it recertified to fly under Experimental?

Brad

[Richard Lamb]

Brad Mallard wrote:
>
> Can you buy a wrecked plane like a Cessna 172, repair it yourself & then get
> it recertified to fly under Experimental?
>
> Brad

Not normally.

But if you strip off the skins, start from bare parts - and BUILD the
whole thing? Maybe. At least it has been done before.

But it's more work than you _can_ imagine...

Richard

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 14 May 2004 11:21:20 -0500, "Brad Mallard"
> wrote:

>Can you buy a wrecked plane like a Cessna 172, repair it yourself & then get
>it recertified to fly under Experimental?

Certainly! Just come up with some sort of improvement, and license it as
Experimental/Research and Development or Experimental/Market Survey.

Of course, the certification of such aircraft isn't permanent, like
Experimental/Amateur-Built is. You'd have to apply for a new airworthiness
certificate every year. And approval is *not* automatic. And there'll
probably be restrictions on where you can fly and who can fly with you.
Kind of like the test-period restrictions for an Experimental/Amateur-Built
airplane, only permanent.

If you want to get the plane into the Experimental/Amateur-Built category,
you've got a more difficult task. You need to find an FAA rep who would
believe that the project met the "51% rule"...but your odds on that are
pretty remote. I met a guy once who claimed he'd gotten a C-150 into
Ex/Am, but when I suggested I write an article on his experience, he
clammed up.

Ron Wanttaja

[Cy Galley]

NO

"Brad Mallard" > wrote in message
...
> Can you buy a wrecked plane like a Cessna 172, repair it yourself & then
get
> it recertified to fly under Experimental?
>
> Brad
>
>

[Roger Halstead]

On Fri, 14 May 2004 18:50:23 GMT, Ron Wanttaja >
wrote:

>On Fri, 14 May 2004 11:21:20 -0500, "Brad Mallard"
> wrote:
>
>>Can you buy a wrecked plane like a Cessna 172, repair it yourself & then get
>>it recertified to fly under Experimental?

In one word... No.

Even if it's totally junked and you put it back together they will
call that maintenance.

>
>Certainly! Just come up with some sort of improvement, and license it as
>Experimental/Research and Development or Experimental/Market Survey.
>
>Of course, the certification of such aircraft isn't permanent, like
>Experimental/Amateur-Built is. You'd have to apply for a new airworthiness
>certificate every year. And approval is *not* automatic. And there'll
>probably be restrictions on where you can fly and who can fly with you.
>Kind of like the test-period restrictions for an Experimental/Amateur-Built
>airplane, only permanent.
>
>If you want to get the plane into the Experimental/Amateur-Built category,
>you've got a more difficult task. You need to find an FAA rep who would
>believe that the project met the "51% rule"...but your odds on that are
>pretty remote. I met a guy once who claimed he'd gotten a C-150 into
>Ex/Am, but when I suggested I write an article on his experience, he
>clammed up.

There was a "Lake", based at HTL that was modified extensively. It
used a Chevy V-8 (highly modified), had numerous structural changes
and was licensed either as an experimental.

However the guy had like 10 or 12 years into the project.

I don't know if it's still licensed or not and I'm not sure who to
ask. I can think of a couple who might have some info on it.

As I recall the conclusion was something to the effect, it wasn't
worth the effort.

At least it's a place to start looking. It was certified, but again
"as I recall" the paperwork and the hoops he had to jump through to
satisfy the 51% rule, turned it into a major project.
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>Ron Wanttaja

[Bob]

Roger is right, there are a number of experimental categories that
could be used.

And he is right they all need to be renewed. And that is the problem.
With each renewal you need a FAA rep or FAA DAR to write the ticket.
Getting that person is the tough part. Also you need to convince them
that it is a legit R&D project (have a test plan?) or it's a legit
showplane or it's a legit sales demonstration aircraft.

Also the FAA rep or DAR could and frequently DO, write restrictions on
your ticket. AS IN, "Can not fly over populated areas, restricted to
over water flights". OR "Restricted to area marked on attached
sectional". I have seen both, yes with my own eyes. And my DAR told
me he once restricted an exp to take off and landing over the river on
an airport that bordered a river, even if the wind indicated the other
approach.

It is their call.






Roger Halstead > wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 14 May 2004 18:50:23 GMT, Ron Wanttaja >
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 14 May 2004 11:21:20 -0500, "Brad Mallard"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Can you buy a wrecked plane like a Cessna 172, repair it yourself & then get
> >>it recertified to fly under Experimental?
>
> In one word... No.
>
> Even if it's totally junked and you put it back together they will
> call that maintenance.
>
> >
> >Certainly! Just come up with some sort of improvement, and license it as
> >Experimental/Research and Development or Experimental/Market Survey.
> >
> >Of course, the certification of such aircraft isn't permanent, like
> >Experimental/Amateur-Built is. You'd have to apply for a new airworthiness
> >certificate every year. And approval is *not* automatic. And there'll
> >probably be restrictions on where you can fly and who can fly with you.
> >Kind of like the test-period restrictions for an Experimental/Amateur-Built
> >airplane, only permanent.
> >
> >If you want to get the plane into the Experimental/Amateur-Built category,
> >you've got a more difficult task. You need to find an FAA rep who would
> >believe that the project met the "51% rule"...but your odds on that are
> >pretty remote. I met a guy once who claimed he'd gotten a C-150 into
> >Ex/Am, but when I suggested I write an article on his experience, he
> >clammed up.
>
> There was a "Lake", based at HTL that was modified extensively. It
> used a Chevy V-8 (highly modified), had numerous structural changes
> and was licensed either as an experimental.
>
> However the guy had like 10 or 12 years into the project.
>
> I don't know if it's still licensed or not and I'm not sure who to
> ask. I can think of a couple who might have some info on it.
>
> As I recall the conclusion was something to the effect, it wasn't
> worth the effort.
>
> At least it's a place to start looking. It was certified, but again
> "as I recall" the paperwork and the hoops he had to jump through to
> satisfy the 51% rule, turned it into a major project.
> >
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> >Ron Wanttaja

[David O]

"Brad Mallard" > wrote:

>Can you buy a wrecked plane like a Cessna 172, repair it yourself & then get
>it recertified to fly under Experimental?
>
>Brad

The FAA Aircraft Registration database lists about four hundred Cessna
aircraft currently registered as Experimental. Of those, only the
following 14 Cessnas are registered as Experimental Amateur Built.

N-Number Model
90030 140
885DE 172G
29127 U206C
111CB 140
3763L 172G
3141B 170B
74JB 172M
188SA 188B
9RB 210F
1015V R172K
1SG 140
2182G 182A
111EX 172P
16VC 172N

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[Ben Haas]

David O > wrote in message >...
> "Brad Mallard" > wrote:
>
> >Can you buy a wrecked plane like a Cessna 172, repair it yourself & then get
> >it recertified to fly under Experimental?
> >
> >Brad
>
> The FAA Aircraft Registration database lists about four hundred Cessna
> aircraft currently registered as Experimental. Of those, only the
> following 14 Cessnas are registered as Experimental Amateur Built.
>
> N-Number Model
> 90030 140
> 885DE 172G
> 29127 U206C
> 111CB 140
> 3763L 172G
> 3141B 170B
> 74JB 172M
> 188SA 188B
> 9RB 210F
> 1015V R172K
> 1SG 140
> 2182G 182A
> 111EX 172P
> 16VC 172N
>
> David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

OK Cy and Roger, Explain these??? A curious mind wants to know..

Ben

[Cy Galley]

As I don't know these airplanes, I can't say. There is a Bellanca 14-13
that was rebuilt with a Ford engine for power that is registered as a
homebuilt. The wings were replaced with amateur built wings and this was
enough to meet the more than half rule. It really depends on the FSDO
person. There isn't any consistency. On the other hand, I could build a high
wing using Piper wings, Beech tail, turbine engine and register it as a
homebuilt Cessna 140 if I wish.

--
Cy Galley - Aeronca Aviators Club
Newsletter Editor & EAA TC
www.aeronca.org
Actively supporting Aeroncas every day
Dependable Timely Quarterly Newsletters


"Ben Haas" > wrote in message
om...
> David O > wrote in message
>...
> > "Brad Mallard" > wrote:
> >
> > >Can you buy a wrecked plane like a Cessna 172, repair it yourself &
then get
> > >it recertified to fly under Experimental?
> > >
> > >Brad
> >
> > The FAA Aircraft Registration database lists about four hundred Cessna
> > aircraft currently registered as Experimental. Of those, only the
> > following 14 Cessnas are registered as Experimental Amateur Built.
> >
> > N-Number Model
> > 90030 140
> > 885DE 172G
> > 29127 U206C
> > 111CB 140
> > 3763L 172G
> > 3141B 170B
> > 74JB 172M
> > 188SA 188B
> > 9RB 210F
> > 1015V R172K
> > 1SG 140
> > 2182G 182A
> > 111EX 172P
> > 16VC 172N
> >
> > David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com
>
> OK Cy and Roger, Explain these??? A curious mind wants to know..
>
> Ben

[David O]

(Ben Haas) wrote:

>OK Cy and Roger, Explain these??? A curious mind wants to know..
>
>Ben

Well, if Ron is still looking to do an article, the owner's names and
addresses are also in the database. I'd buy that magazine. :)

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 15 May 2004 15:48:06 -0700, (Ben Haas) wrote:

>David O > wrote in message >...
>
>> The FAA Aircraft Registration database lists about four hundred Cessna
>> aircraft currently registered as Experimental. Of those, only the
>> following 14 Cessnas are registered as Experimental Amateur Built.
>
>OK Cy and Roger, Explain these??? A curious mind wants to know..

Probably mostly errors in the database. Take N817BR, for instance. Listed
in my January 2004 database as Experimental/Amateur-Built Boeing B-17
Flying Fortress. Or like N484A, a Sea Rey licensed in the Normal category,
as are Sonerai N5102Q, Quicksilver N184DH, and Volksplane N2312B. I don't,
for the least minute, think anyone went through the certification process
on these.

The FAA Registration database has a Certification column (which indicates
how the plane was licensed) *and* an "Amateur-Built" column. Airplanes
like that B-17 are listed as "Experimental Amateur Built" in the
certification column yet have the "Amateur" flag turned off. There are 242
airplanes of this sort, from practically every manufacturer.

Things go around the other way, too. There are over 6,000 airplanes on the
January 2004 registry that have the Amateur-Built flag set, but are NOT
certified as "Experimental Amateur-Built." According to the FAA's
database, there are over 150 "Amateur-Built" Gulfstream 5s.

So: Don't rely too much on what the FAA registration database says.

But it *is* possible to get production-style airplanes certified as
Experimental Amateur-Built. I mentioned a Cessna 150 owner on a previous
posting, and realized that there is a Stinson 108-3 in the same situation
at my home field.

The owners either pulled strings with friends at the FAA or performed such
a massive rebuild that the inspector probably agreed it met the 51% rule.
Remember the guy I mentioned who had his 150 Ex/Am...he did NOT want any
publicity. He probably worked his via a buddy at the FAA. The Stinson guy
doesn't want to talk about his, either, but this plane has, at least, some
obvious external changes.

So: Is it possible? Yes.

Can a person who has no aircraft design, construction, or maintenance
expertise manage it? I'd say, no.

Ron Wanttaja

[Cy Galley]

I looked up a couple of the planes...

N-Number Model
90030 140 --- Has rotoway engine
885DE 172G --- Rotax engine. I don't believe a 172 would fly with so little
power.

Cy Galley
Safety Programs Editor
Sport Pilot

[nauga]

Ben Haas wrote:

> OK Cy and Roger, Explain these??? A curious mind wants to know..

For every hard-and-fast rule regarding homebuilts
you can find at least one exception. If the OP
is serious about this, he'd be smart to as his
question of his regional FSDO, or more specifically
ask the person who will be signing his paperwork.
I can pretty much guarantee that if you asked more
than one FSDO, maybe even more than one person in
a single FSDO, you'd get a variety of answers.

Dave 'smart shoppers' Hyde

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 16 May 2004 01:38:18 GMT, Ron Wanttaja >
wrote:

>On 15 May 2004 15:48:06 -0700, (Ben Haas) wrote:
>
>>David O > wrote in message >...
>>
>>> The FAA Aircraft Registration database lists about four hundred Cessna
>>> aircraft currently registered as Experimental. Of those, only the
>>> following 14 Cessnas are registered as Experimental Amateur Built.
>>
>>OK Cy and Roger, Explain these??? A curious mind wants to know..
>
>Probably mostly errors in the database. Take N817BR, for instance. Listed
>in my January 2004 database as Experimental/Amateur-Built Boeing B-17
>Flying Fortress. Or like N484A, a Sea Rey licensed in the Normal category,
>as are Sonerai N5102Q, Quicksilver N184DH, and Volksplane N2312B. I don't,
>for the least minute, think anyone went through the certification process
>on these.
>
>The FAA Registration database has a Certification column (which indicates
>how the plane was licensed) *and* an "Amateur-Built" column. Airplanes
>like that B-17 are listed as "Experimental Amateur Built" in the
>certification column yet have the "Amateur" flag turned off. There are 242
>airplanes of this sort, from practically every manufacturer.
>
>Things go around the other way, too. There are over 6,000 airplanes on the
>January 2004 registry that have the Amateur-Built flag set, but are NOT
>certified as "Experimental Amateur-Built." According to the FAA's
>database, there are over 150 "Amateur-Built" Gulfstream 5s.
>
>So: Don't rely too much on what the FAA registration database says.
>
>But it *is* possible to get production-style airplanes certified as
>Experimental Amateur-Built. I mentioned a Cessna 150 owner on a previous
>posting, and realized that there is a Stinson 108-3 in the same situation
>at my home field.
>
>The owners either pulled strings with friends at the FAA or performed such
>a massive rebuild that the inspector probably agreed it met the 51% rule.
>Remember the guy I mentioned who had his 150 Ex/Am...he did NOT want any
>publicity. He probably worked his via a buddy at the FAA. The Stinson guy
>doesn't want to talk about his, either, but this plane has, at least, some
>obvious external changes.
>
>So: Is it possible? Yes.
>
> Can a person who has no aircraft design, construction, or maintenance
> expertise manage it? I'd say, no.
>
>Ron Wanttaja
There is a "rebuilt" Cessna 140 here in Ontario that has been totally
remanufactured and registered as a homebuilt - but is not registered
as a Cessna and has a new serial number assigned by the current
"manufacturer". It is a Cessna in everything but name - but the owner
is allowed to do all maintenance, and use non certified parts.

The plane did NOT qualify for OM, apparently - and as an OM would not
be allowed to fly in the USA, even with a letter of permission - while
a Canadian homebuilt/amateur built can be.

[James M. Knox]

> But it *is* possible to get production-style airplanes certified as
> Experimental Amateur-Built. I mentioned a Cessna 150 owner on a
> previous posting, and realized that there is a Stinson 108-3 in the
> same situation at my home field.
>
> The owners either pulled strings with friends at the FAA or performed
> such a massive rebuild that the inspector probably agreed it met the
> 51% rule.

I had always heard that it couldn't be done. But a couple of guys I
know are rebuilding a Piper Malibu and have gotten the FSDO to agree to
their plans to certify it as Experimental - Amateur-built. They claim
that there are already three others so certified.

The trick (and I am quoting them) is that they have identified from the
Piper documents 51+% of the TASKS that must be done to build the
aircraft. And (given how bad this one was wrecked) it certainly
shouldn't be a problem to find 51%. Some of these items are in the
details, of course. For example, they will take a couple of places
where they need new skin and make it out of sheet aluminum, rather than
simply buy the parts from Piper. And they are going to make substantial
differences to the power plant and ancillary components.

As I understood it, the key is:
1) Make (rather than simply assemble out of replacement parts) as much
as possible.
2) Get the FSDO involved early, and get him/her to agree to the plan.

[Corrie]

Ron Wanttaja > wrote in message >...

> According to the FAA's database, there are over 150 "Amateur-Built"
> Gulfstream 5s.

<cheapshot>

Maybe that's the only way to get a BD-5J signed off?

</cheapshot>

[Ed Wischmeyer]

> The FAA Aircraft Registration database lists about four hundred Cessna
> aircraft currently registered as Experimental. Of those, only the
> following 14 Cessnas are registered as Experimental Amateur Built.

The FAA databases, in general, are full of errors. 14 Cessnas registered as
experimental amateur built is really not a surprise.

Don't buy any bridges based on FAA databases.

Ed "I used to research those for a living" Wischmeyer