Registering a Warbird with the FAA (Experimental Operating Limitations)

[[email protected]]

It looks like I'm about to become the owner of a warbird which will
require setting up Experimental Operating Limitations with the FAA. I'm
planning on calling the FAA and the EAA on Monday, but is there anyone
out there who has gone through this before?

I have a copy of the letter the current owner has on file and I'm
assuming I need to develop a similar letter with my local FSDO, with a
map of my 300nm operating radius, along with the listing of planned
exhibition events.

I know what the final results of getting these operating limitations
set up looks like because I have the current ones. However, I'm a
little unclear on the process of how to get these set up in the first
place and on file officially.

Any insight would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Eric

[john smith]

I thought warbirds operated in the "LIMITED" category, not
"EXPERIMENTAL"?

> It looks like I'm about to become the owner of a warbird which will
> require setting up Experimental Operating Limitations with the FAA. I'm
> planning on calling the FAA and the EAA on Monday, but is there anyone
> out there who has gone through this before?

[[email protected]]

I know that many Warbirds (including this one) are under the
Experimental category as "Racing and Exhibition" aircraft. FAA order
8130.27 spells out the limitations for 4 groups of aircraft that
encompass just about any type of warbird that I can think of (except
ones that are certified as standard category planes).

What I'm still not entirely clear on is how I get the letter from the
FAA that is based on 8130.27, spelling out the limitations. I'm
assuming this is much easier on a plane that has already been operated
in the US by 2 prior owners (the flight test requirements should be
already met I assume).

I'm still reading through all of the documentation I can find, but if
someone has gone through this recently and can spell out the steps they
took to ensure that they were legal, I'd appreciate it. I'll be calling
the local FSDO on Monday morning but I'd like to have some idea what
I'm talking to them about.

Thanks,
Eric

[[email protected]]

I know that many Warbirds (including this one) are under the
Experimental category as "Racing and Exhibition" aircraft. FAA order
8130.27 spells out the limitations for 4 groups of aircraft that
encompass just about any type of warbird that I can think of (except
ones that are certified as standard category planes).

What I'm still not entirely clear on is how I get the letter from the
FAA that is based on 8130.27, spelling out the limitations. I'm
assuming this is much easier on a plane that has already been operated
in the US by 2 prior owners (the flight test requirements should be
already met I assume).

I'm still reading through all of the documentation I can find, but if
someone has gone through this recently and can spell out the steps they
took to ensure that they were legal, I'd appreciate it. I'll be calling
the local FSDO on Monday morning but I'd like to have some idea what
I'm talking to them about.

Thanks,
Eric

[Juan Jimenez]

You should only have to apply for a change to the operating limitations if
the old ones specify an airport from which you have to operate. If that's
the case, all you should have to do is contact your local FSDO and request
amended operating limitations to reflect new base airport, radius and
whatever aspects apply locally. I am assuming that you already meet the
requirements to fly the a/c, which vary quite a bit depending on the
aircraft.

The categories are I through IV and they apply to all experimental
exhibition aircraft, not just warbirds. Category IV is the most restrictive.

Juan

> wrote in message
ps.com...
> It looks like I'm about to become the owner of a warbird which will
> require setting up Experimental Operating Limitations with the FAA. I'm
> planning on calling the FAA and the EAA on Monday, but is there anyone
> out there who has gone through this before?
>
> I have a copy of the letter the current owner has on file and I'm
> assuming I need to develop a similar letter with my local FSDO, with a
> map of my 300nm operating radius, along with the listing of planned
> exhibition events.
>
> I know what the final results of getting these operating limitations
> set up looks like because I have the current ones. However, I'm a
> little unclear on the process of how to get these set up in the first
> place and on file officially.
>
> Any insight would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Eric
>

[Bret Ludwig]

Juan Jimenez wrote:
> You should only have to apply for a change to the operating limitations if
> the old ones specify an airport from which you have to operate. If that's
> the case, all you should have to do is contact your local FSDO and request
> amended operating limitations to reflect new base airport, radius and
> whatever aspects apply locally. I am assuming that you already meet the
> requirements to fly the a/c, which vary quite a bit depending on the
> aircraft.
>
> The categories are I through IV and they apply to all experimental
> exhibition aircraft, not just warbirds. Category IV is the most restrictive.

Not all warbirds are Experimental Exhibition either. I take it you are
buying a vodka rocket?

[[email protected]]

Actually its a Pilatus P-3, Lycoming piston engined trainer. It is the
Swiss equivalent of a T-34, but it was never certified in the US, hence
the Experimental Exhibition categorization. Its built a lot heavier
that a T-34 and they all have a lot less total time than the T-34s do
(they all seem to be between 3000 and 4000 hours TT vs. 10,000 hours on
a lot of theT-34s).

This is the great-grandfather of the current USAF T-6A Texan II. It
evolved from the P-3 to the PC-7 with the addition of the PT-6 engine
and some airframe mods, then to the PC-9 with ejection seats and a
larger turbine, and then to the T-6A with even more power &
modifications for the USAF.

Eric

[Juan Jimenez]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>> You should only have to apply for a change to the operating limitations
>> if
>> the old ones specify an airport from which you have to operate. If that's
>> the case, all you should have to do is contact your local FSDO and
>> request
>> amended operating limitations to reflect new base airport, radius and
>> whatever aspects apply locally. I am assuming that you already meet the
>> requirements to fly the a/c, which vary quite a bit depending on the
>> aircraft.
>>
>> The categories are I through IV and they apply to all experimental
>> exhibition aircraft, not just warbirds. Category IV is the most
>> restrictive.
>
> Not all warbirds are Experimental Exhibition either. I take it you are
> buying a vodka rocket?

I suppose that needs to be pointed out, of course. Few people know, for
example, that some P-51's operate under standard airworthiness certificates,
for example. :)

I'm not buying anything, I'm trying to get my BD-5J's airworthiness
certificate issued. FAA is not exactly very cooperative, and there are no
DAR's here. I'm getting it sorted out, plane's been ready for the final
condition inspection for weeks now, but lack of a place where I can take it
to get it inspected, and lack of cooperation from the weather, keeps putting
things off. :(

[Juan Jimenez]

I've seen this one, nice aircraft. There's 19 of those in the US registry,
shouldn't be a problem getting the operating limitations amended. The key to
this is always developing a good working relationship with the local FSDO.
Makes things run much smoother. Just go talk to them and ask (call first and
make an appointment). Emphasize you have not yet bought the aircraft, but
want to do your homework first and ask for their advice. You'll find that,
with some exceptions, the vast majority of the FSDO people want to help out
and will give you all the info you need.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Actually its a Pilatus P-3, Lycoming piston engined trainer. It is the
> Swiss equivalent of a T-34, but it was never certified in the US, hence
> the Experimental Exhibition categorization. Its built a lot heavier
> that a T-34 and they all have a lot less total time than the T-34s do
> (they all seem to be between 3000 and 4000 hours TT vs. 10,000 hours on
> a lot of theT-34s).
>
> This is the great-grandfather of the current USAF T-6A Texan II. It
> evolved from the P-3 to the PC-7 with the addition of the PT-6 engine
> and some airframe mods, then to the PC-9 with ejection seats and a
> larger turbine, and then to the T-6A with even more power &
> modifications for the USAF.
>
> Eric
>

[[email protected]]

Thanks for all the help. I'll be talking to the FSDO tomorrow morning
so it sounds like ammending the operating limitations shouldn't be an
issue.

Eric

[john smith]

> I'm not buying anything, I'm trying to get my BD-5J's airworthiness
> certificate issued. FAA is not exactly very cooperative, and there are no
> DAR's here. I'm getting it sorted out, plane's been ready for the final
> condition inspection for weeks now, but lack of a place where I can take it
> to get it inspected, and lack of cooperation from the weather, keeps putting
> things off. :(

Juan, you're in PR!
The only federal agency you need to avoid when you fly is Customs and
Border Patrol! :-))
The end of hurricane season is only another month and a half away.

[Bret Ludwig]

Juan Jimenez wrote:
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message


> I suppose that needs to be pointed out, of course. Few people know, for
> example, that some P-51's operate under standard airworthiness certificates,
> for example. :)
>
> I'm not buying anything, I'm trying to get my BD-5J's airworthiness
> certificate issued. FAA is not exactly very cooperative, and there are no
> DAR's here. I'm getting it sorted out, plane's been ready for the final
> condition inspection for weeks now, but lack of a place where I can take it
> to get it inspected, and lack of cooperation from the weather, keeps putting
> things off.

Yes, thanks to Cavalier. It's a shame that all the beautiful work they
did has been obliterated so every old guy with a big wallet and a small
you-know-what can have a fake "authentic" wartime Mustang. I always
hoped SOMEONE would preserve a full-tilt Cavalier Mustang in all its
JFK/MM era glory.

Is a -5J treated differently than a recip or turboprop (evidently,
there are...)5? Forgive my ignorance, I've been out of school a long
time.

[[email protected]]

Unlikey it will happen tomorrow - it's a Federal Holiday (Columbus
Day).

David Johnson

[Montblack]

wrote)
> Unlikey it will happen tomorrow - it's a Federal Holiday (Columbus Day).


Yippie!! No rush hour traffic. <g>


Montblack

[George Patterson]

Montblack wrote:

>> Unlikey it will happen tomorrow - it's a Federal Holiday (Columbus Day).
>
> Yippie!! No rush hour traffic. <g>

Most companies in this area will be open. A lot of people of Italian descent
will take a vacation day, however, so traffic *will* be reduced.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article . com>,
" > wrote:

> Actually its a Pilatus P-3, Lycoming piston engined trainer. It is the
> Swiss equivalent of a T-34, but it was never certified in the US, hence
> the Experimental Exhibition categorization. Its built a lot heavier
> that a T-34 and they all have a lot less total time than the T-34s do
> (they all seem to be between 3000 and 4000 hours TT vs. 10,000 hours on
> a lot of theT-34s).
>
> This is the great-grandfather of the current USAF T-6A Texan II. It
> evolved from the P-3 to the PC-7 with the addition of the PT-6 engine
> and some airframe mods, then to the PC-9 with ejection seats and a
> larger turbine, and then to the T-6A with even more power &
> modifications for the USAF.
>
> Eric


I had the misfortune of seeing a friend (and his son-in-law) die in one.
We were in a flight of five (P-3 leading) when he suddenly got oil all
over his windshield. The engine had thrown a rod. Two of his wingmen
stayed with him to help guide him to a safe emergency landing, but he
hit an oak tree, which cartwheeled him into the ground. Remarkably, the
fuselage stayed intact, but neither occupant survived.

I had flown with him previously -- the plane is very heavy and needs all
the power it can get, but the controls are light and well-balanced.

The GO 435 and GO-480 Lycomings need someone who knows them well to work
on them and take some care in flying them.

[Montblack]

("George Patterson" wrote)
> Most companies in this area will be open. A lot of people of Italian
> descent will take a vacation day, however, so traffic *will* be reduced.


Federal, State, County, Metro, City, and School District employees not
going to work - poof! No more rush hour traffic.

We have a banker in this house who is going to work on Monday. Going to work
at 75 mph :-)


Montblack

[Juan Jimenez]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>> I'm not buying anything, I'm trying to get my BD-5J's airworthiness
>> certificate issued. FAA is not exactly very cooperative, and there are no
>> DAR's here. I'm getting it sorted out, plane's been ready for the final
>> condition inspection for weeks now, but lack of a place where I can take
>> it
>> to get it inspected, and lack of cooperation from the weather, keeps
>> putting
>> things off. :(
>
> Juan, you're in PR!
> The only federal agency you need to avoid when you fly is Customs and
> Border Patrol! :-))
> The end of hurricane season is only another month and a half away.

You have no idea what it's like not being able to hire someone local who
owns a brain to do the airworthiness inspection. I wish I had the money to
bring a DAR from the mainland. Save myself a ton of grief.

[Juan Jimenez]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Is a -5J treated differently than a recip or turboprop (evidently,
> there are...)5? Forgive my ignorance, I've been out of school a long
> time.

In this case it is because it was started in Australia, more than 51% was
done there, the builder is a well known CASA technical advisor but he never
kept logs or pics. Hence, the FAA does not want to consider giving me
amateur-built, even though that is the way it was registered in Australia
(VH-JRQ). So I'm stuck in Exp/Exhibition, and category IV, to boot, the
catch-all category. It wouldn't be so bad except that I picked the one place
in the US where I should not have done this.

[Juan Jimenez]

I'm sorry to hear that. :(

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
>
> I had the misfortune of seeing a friend (and his son-in-law) die in one.
> We were in a flight of five (P-3 leading) when he suddenly got oil all
> over his windshield. The engine had thrown a rod. Two of his wingmen
> stayed with him to help guide him to a safe emergency landing, but he
> hit an oak tree, which cartwheeled him into the ground. Remarkably, the
> fuselage stayed intact, but neither occupant survived.
>
> I had flown with him previously -- the plane is very heavy and needs all
> the power it can get, but the controls are light and well-balanced.
>
> The GO 435 and GO-480 Lycomings need someone who knows them well to work
> on them and take some care in flying them.

[Juan Jimenez]

I'm sorry to hear that. :(

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
>
> I had the misfortune of seeing a friend (and his son-in-law) die in one.
> We were in a flight of five (P-3 leading) when he suddenly got oil all
> over his windshield. The engine had thrown a rod. Two of his wingmen
> stayed with him to help guide him to a safe emergency landing, but he
> hit an oak tree, which cartwheeled him into the ground. Remarkably, the
> fuselage stayed intact, but neither occupant survived.
>
> I had flown with him previously -- the plane is very heavy and needs all
> the power it can get, but the controls are light and well-balanced.
>
> The GO 435 and GO-480 Lycomings need someone who knows them well to work
> on them and take some care in flying them.

[[email protected]]

I had heard about that unfortunate accident with the P-3 that threw a
rod. That was a bad situation all around, I'm sure it was awful to
watch in person.

There is an FBO locally that has been doing maintenance on another P-3
for several years, and I plan on having the heavy maintenance done in
NC by the shop that works on probably half of the P-3s based in the US.
Its true that there aren't that many places that either know what the
plane is or who have worked on that engine/prop combination.

The good side about the plane being heavy is that the airframe is built
like a tank, of course the bad side is that the glide performance is
very poor (much different than the Grob 103 glider I used to fly).

Eric