Rebuilding to Experimental

[150flivver]

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?

[150flivver]

Thanks JP--that answered my questions perfectly.

[mark]

"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.
>

[Orval Fairbairn]

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_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.
> >

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.

[mark]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article <wY5hg.2201$LN1.46@trndny01>,
> "mark" > wrote:
>
>> "JP" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > The main idea seems to be to build an amateur built aircraft using
>> > MOSTLY
>> > certified aircraft components. Such a project is a kind of balancing
>> > act I
>> > suppose?
>> >
>> > In such a case, you remove the original manufacturer identification
>> > plate.
>> > The process involves other things too. Basicly you have to rename the
>> > plane.
>> >
>> > Here's some information about the matter:
>> >
>> > http://www.v8seabee.com/aircraft_usa_regulations.asp
>> >
>> > Here's the FAA (51% rule) check list.
>> >
>> > http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular
>> > .nsf/0/3209fec2139ccb3f862569af006ab9e9/$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.
>> >
>
> 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.

[cavelamb]

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

[JP]

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?
>>
>
>
>

[jmk]

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