Buying an incomplete project

[JAX]

This is my first trip into the homebuilt world. I'm probably going to
buy a 90% complete project, and want to know if there will be any
paperwork hassles I'll have to jump through to get it registered.

I realize I won't have the repair authorization as I did not build 51%
of the plane, but what should I look for as far as documentation from
the current owner and what will the FAA expect to see from me?

I have AC 20-27F, but during a very quick glance-through I didn't
notice any specific mentions. Any help appreciated!

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

JAX wrote:

> This is my first trip into the homebuilt world. I'm probably going to
> buy a 90% complete project, and want to know if there will be any
> paperwork hassles I'll have to jump through to get it registered.



Get a tall stack of detail photos for documentation.


> I realize I won't have the repair authorization as I did not build 51%
> of the plane, but what should I look for as far as documentation from
> the current owner and what will the FAA expect to see from me?

Apply for the repairman's certificate when it comes time to
do all the paperwork. The so-called 51% rule does not apply there.

> I have AC 20-27F, but during a very quick glance-through I didn't
> notice any specific mentions. Any help appreciated!

Study it in detail.

Have fun!

Richard

[jerry wass]

cavelamb himself wrote:
> JAX wrote:
>
>> This is my first trip into the homebuilt world. I'm probably going to
>> buy a 90% complete project, and want to know if there will be any
>> paperwork hassles I'll have to jump through to get it registered.
>
>
>
> Get a tall stack of detail photos for documentation.
>
>
>> I realize I won't have the repair authorization as I did not build 51%
>> of the plane, but what should I look for as far as documentation from
>> the current owner and what will the FAA expect to see from me?
>
> Apply for the repairman's certificate when it comes time to
> do all the paperwork. The so-called 51% rule does not apply there.
>
>> I have AC 20-27F, but during a very quick glance-through I didn't
>> notice any specific mentions. Any help appreciated!
>
> Study it in detail.
>
> Have fun!
>
> Richard
>
>You will have to convince the examiner/DAR/whatever--that the First builder did it under

"experimental" rules
Get all the documentation you can get from the first builder that
you can--photos showing him working on it, notarized statement would be
helpful--maybe even his telephone # if that stays available.. Jerry

>
>

[Charles Vincent]

JAX wrote:
> This is my first trip into the homebuilt world. I'm probably going to
> buy a 90% complete project, and want to know if there will be any
> paperwork hassles I'll have to jump through to get it registered.
>
> I realize I won't have the repair authorization as I did not build 51%
> of the plane, but what should I look for as far as documentation from
> the current owner and what will the FAA expect to see from me?
>
> I have AC 20-27F, but during a very quick glance-through I didn't
> notice any specific mentions. Any help appreciated!

If the project you get is 90% done, there will in all likely hood still
be 51% left for you to do. Both technically and in reality. Study the
checklists carefully.

Charles

[Kyle Boatright]

"JAX" > wrote in message
...
> This is my first trip into the homebuilt world. I'm probably going to
> buy a 90% complete project, and want to know if there will be any
> paperwork hassles I'll have to jump through to get it registered.
>
> I realize I won't have the repair authorization as I did not build 51%
> of the plane, but what should I look for as far as documentation from
> the current owner and what will the FAA expect to see from me?
>
> I have AC 20-27F, but during a very quick glance-through I didn't
> notice any specific mentions. Any help appreciated!

Any of the builders who worked on the aircraft can get the repairman's
certificate. The key is that you need to be able to demonstrate that 51% of
the airplane was amateur built.

KB

[Bill Daniels]

"Charles Vincent" > wrote in message
...
> JAX wrote:
>> This is my first trip into the homebuilt world. I'm probably going to
>> buy a 90% complete project, and want to know if there will be any
>> paperwork hassles I'll have to jump through to get it registered.
>>
>> I realize I won't have the repair authorization as I did not build 51%
>> of the plane, but what should I look for as far as documentation from
>> the current owner and what will the FAA expect to see from me?
>>
>> I have AC 20-27F, but during a very quick glance-through I didn't
>> notice any specific mentions. Any help appreciated!
>
> If the project you get is 90% done, there will in all likely hood still be
> 51% left for you to do. Both technically and in reality. Study the
> checklists carefully.
>
> Charles

So true. 90% of the work is usuually the last 10% of the project.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 17:04:29 -0500, "Kyle Boatright" >
wrote:

>
> "JAX" > wrote in message
> ...
> > This is my first trip into the homebuilt world. I'm probably going to
> > buy a 90% complete project, and want to know if there will be any
> > paperwork hassles I'll have to jump through to get it registered.
> >
> > I realize I won't have the repair authorization as I did not build 51%
> > of the plane, but what should I look for as far as documentation from
> > the current owner and what will the FAA expect to see from me?
> >
> > I have AC 20-27F, but during a very quick glance-through I didn't
> > notice any specific mentions. Any help appreciated!
>
> Any of the builders who worked on the aircraft can get the repairman's
> certificate. The key is that you need to be able to demonstrate that 51% of
> the airplane was amateur built.

Technically only the "majority" builder is supposed to get the certificate, but
unless the project is practically turnkey, the OP shouldn't have a problem.
I've known a couple of folks who have received the certificate on projects that
were practically structurally complete when they bought them. The systems work
is probably much more important....

Ron Wanttaja

[JAX]

Greta stuff guys, thanks! Keep it coming, the advice is much
appreciated...


On Jan 5, 6:07 pm, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 17:04:29 -0500, "Kyle Boatright" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "JAX" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > This is my first trip into the homebuilt world. I'm probably going to
> > > buy a 90% complete project, and want to know if there will be any
> > > paperwork hassles I'll have to jump through to get it registered.
>
> > > I realize I won't have the repair authorization as I did not build 51%
> > > of the plane, but what should I look for as far as documentation from
> > > the current owner and what will the FAA expect to see from me?
>
> > > I have AC 20-27F, but during a very quick glance-through I didn't
> > > notice any specific mentions. Any help appreciated!
>
> > Any of the builders who worked on the aircraft can get the repairman's
> > certificate. The key is that you need to be able to demonstrate that 51% of
> > the airplane was amateur built.
>
> Technically only the "majority" builder is supposed to get the certificate, but
> unless the project is practically turnkey, the OP shouldn't have a problem.
> I've known a couple of folks who have received the certificate on projects that
> were practically structurally complete when they bought them. The systems work
> is probably much more important....
>
> Ron Wanttaja

[Dave S]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
The key is that you need to be able to demonstrate that
> 51% of the airplane was amateur built.
>
> KB

Last I read it was 51% of the TASKS of building the plane.

ergo.. if a plane has 100 ribs in the wing, if you build ONE rib, you
have accomplished the task of building wing ribs and do not have to
build all 100 of them.. or 51 of them...

thats where the quickbuilds tread the line..



Interesting to note that the nonprimary builder can get the repairmans
cert. I knew that only one person COULD have it, but presumed it was the
one who did the majority of the building.

Dave

[[email protected]]

>. *The systems work
> is probably much more important....
>
> Ron Wanttaja- Hide quoted text -

Judging by the preponderance of fuel starvation problems in
experimentals in the NTSB database that sounds absolutely right.

It seems like fuel delivery problems account for half of all
experimental accidents and off airport landings.

The other half seems like pilot error in one form or another (which is
par for the flying course).

In the designs I've looked at, not a single structural failure occured
that wasn't pilot caused, and there was only one of those and the
pilot was high on mary jane.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 6, 5:54*pm, Dave S > wrote:
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
> * The key is that you need to be able to demonstrate that
>
> > 51% of the airplane was amateur built.
>
> > KB
>
> Last I read it was 51% of the TASKS of building the plane.
>
> ergo.. if a plane has 100 ribs in the wing, if you build ONE rib, you
> have accomplished the task of building wing ribs and do not have to
> build all 100 of them.. or 51 of them...
>
> thats where the quickbuilds tread the line..
>
> Interesting to note that the nonprimary builder can get the repairmans
> cert. I knew that only one person COULD have it, but presumed it was the
> one who did the majority of the building.
>
> Dave

I thought that cert could be gotten extra ONLY for experimental light
sport aircraft -- and only with about $5000 - $6000 worth of training
(in an FAA certified program).

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Jan 6, 7:45*pm, wrote:

> I thought that cert could be gotten extra ONLY for experimental light
> sport aircraft -- and only with about $5000 - $6000 worth of training
> (in an FAA certified program).

That's not true. The first registrant of an amateur-built experimental
may apply for (and will probably receive) a repairmans certificate
applying only to that aircraft. The only real privilege it confers is
that of conducting the annual condition inspection. See the rah FAQs
for cites.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Dave S]

>
> I thought that cert could be gotten extra ONLY for experimental light
> sport aircraft -- and only with about $5000 - $6000 worth of training
> (in an FAA certified program).

If I remember correctly...

The repairmans certificate for an Light Sport Aircraft and the
repairmans certificate for an Experimental-Amateur Built Aircraft (NOT
in the light sport category) are two separate items with differing
requirements.

Dave

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:49:44 -0600, Dave S > wrote:

>
> >
> > I thought that cert could be gotten extra ONLY for experimental light
> > sport aircraft -- and only with about $5000 - $6000 worth of training
> > (in an FAA certified program).
>
> If I remember correctly...
>
> The repairmans certificate for an Light Sport Aircraft and the
> repairmans certificate for an Experimental-Amateur Built Aircraft (NOT
> in the light sport category) are two separate items with differing
> requirements.

That is correct. The Repairman Certificate for an Experimental Amateur-Built
aircraft is appliable to only a single airframe.

There are two Repairman Certificates for Light Sport. The Light Sport -
Inspection certificate is the equivalent of the Amateur-Built Repairman
Certificate, with the exception being that the LS-I certificate is applicable to
any Experimental Light Sport aircraft in the same category, providing the holder
*owns* the aircraft.

In other words, with an LS-I RC in the airplane category, I can buy any ELSA
(Experimental LSA) in that category, and perform all maintenance and
inspections. If I buy a SLSA (e.g., ready-to-fly LSA), I can convert it to ELSA
and then, again perform all maintenance and inspections. However, the aircraft
cannot be used for hire with an ELSA certification. I can later sell that
airplane, buy another, and again perform all maintenance and inspections as long
as it is certified as Experimental Light Sport.

The other LSA Repairman Certificate is the Light Sport - Maintenance (LS-M).
This is the equivalent of an A&P for aircraft certified as Light Sport.

Neither the LS-I nor LS-M have any applicability outside aircraft *certified* as
light sport. My Fly Baby, for instance, qualifies as a Light Sport aircraft
(thus I can fly it as a Sport Pilot) but since it is certified as Experimental
Amateur-Built, neither an LS-I nor an LS-M would allow me to perform the yearly
condition inspection.

It's interesting to note that an A&P with an AI is required to perform the
annual inspection on a Cessna 152, but a Cessna 162 Skycatcher will only require
an LS-I (assuming you transfer it to ELSA).

Ron Wanttaja

[[email protected]]

On Jan 6, 11:34*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Jan 6, 7:45*pm, wrote:
>
> > I thought that cert could be gotten extra ONLY for experimental light
> > sport aircraft -- and only with about $5000 - $6000 worth of training
> > (in an FAA certified program).
>
> That's not true. The first registrant of an amateur-built experimental
> may apply for (and will probably receive) a repairmans certificate
> applying only to that aircraft. The only real privilege it confers is
> that of conducting the annual condition inspection. See the rah FAQs
> for cites.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

Yes. But you can ONLY be a repairman for that ONE aircraft. With the E-
LSA training, you can be a repairman for ALL aircraft of that type.

[[email protected]]

Lucky for you, completing the last 10% of the plane will require
the other 90% of the time, so not to worry!

I belive that having the repairman certificate will also enable you to
sit
for the A&P written; it will serve to meet the experience requirement.
Rumor only. Bill Hale

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Marc J. Zeitlin" > wrote

> I just took the written test(s) for the A&P exam - in order to get signed
> off for taking the tests (FAA form 8610-2), you need to present the FAA
> with some evidence of A&P work - either schools, a letter from another
> A&P, or military or civilian experience.
>
> I used my 5500 hours of homebuilt aircraft building, 700 hours of working
> on the aircraft after they were finished and 2.5 years working as an
> engineer at Scaled Composites, as well as a letter from one of Scaled's
> senior A&P's for the experience.

So helping build a spacecraft helps also, OR

Do you get an A&P and a (S)paceship & (R)ocket engines? ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> Do you get an A&P and a (S)paceship & (R)ocket engines? ;-)
>
> I wish such a thing existed :-).

Really, I would not be surprised if something on that line will come to be,
if/when passenger space operations become a more common thing.

After all, how could you (or others that have space experience) going to be
able to take your skills to another company? You ought to have a
certification to be able to show a prospective employer.

Any new announcements recently out, or forthcoming from Scaled? I have to
admit that I have not followed the happenings recently.

If (like in the past) there is nothing you can say yet, I understand.

On another line, are there any other companies out there, that have a
realistic chance of getting into space? If there are, I don't know of any.

I just thought of something else to ask. Is there any chance that dedicated
employees at scaled can get a free of reduced ride into space, once your new
program gets in the air.

It would be hell, to me, to be putting others into space, and not be able to
go myself. At the expected prices, it is still in the realm of the
independently wealthy, though.

Keep on keeping on, with your projects at Scaled, and good luck, keep up the
good work!
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 22:22:25 -0500, "Morgans" > wrote:

>
> >> Do you get an A&P and a (S)paceship & (R)ocket engines? ;-)
> >
> > I wish such a thing existed :-).
>
> Really, I would not be surprised if something on that line will come to be,
> if/when passenger space operations become a more common thing.
>
> After all, how could you (or others that have space experience) going to be
> able to take your skills to another company? You ought to have a
> certification to be able to show a prospective employer.

Actually some of this exists right now, with certification in certain skills.
But it's mostly a carryover from the aviation days.

Spacecraft mechanic certification will probably more fragmented. Most major
components are returned to the manufacturer for rework if a problem is found.
Stuff fixed on the pad has a QA army monitoring every tweak of the wrench. There
are few trivial maintenance operations in ground-space or space-ground
operations; I don't think you'll ever see stand-alone Space A&Ps.

For space to SPACE operations, it well may happen. Thrust levels are low in
comparison. Wear a space suit, and the only real danger is if the engines
cannot be turned off....

> On another line, are there any other companies out there, that have a
> realistic chance of getting into space? If there are, I don't know of any.

I really suspect it's riding on the economic viability of Virgin Galactic. The
space companies are like the outfits that take you to the top of Mount Everest;
as long as there are people willing to pay a lot of bucks for a thrill, they'll
stay in business. They basically have the same client base, so there'll
probably be a lot of customers, initially.

The big question is what happens after the first failure that turns a cabin full
of millionaires to ashes. One can figure that the operating company will
quickly be gone, and it makes sense that Branson, Rutan, Bezos, etc. have done
all they can to personally isolate themselves, personally. But it might cause
problems starting another company.

Whether such an accident affects the business as a whole remains to be seen.
The problem is, the technology has no application beyond barnstorming. NASA
hasn't launched a manned suborbital rocket since 1961, and Russia never even
bothered with developing the capacity (Gagarin orbited). So if you don't have
passengers, there's little else to do with the hardware.

Ron Wanttaja

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Marc J. Zeitlin" > wrote

> If there were, could I tell you? :-).

I won't tell anyone; promise! (wink-wink)

> All I can say is, look for
> something later this month, but not from Scaled.

Hmm, the intriegue grows! Thanks for the heads up!

> There are many that are attempting. There are some that are
> realistic, and some that are not. We, of course, believe that we are
> years ahead of them, but what else would I say?

Of course you are years ahead, but would you expect anything else? <g>

> We sure hope so. Someone's got to be the meat-puppets in the back
> during the test flights before they send up paying passengers. But
> there are, of course, no guarantees, or even indications. We just
> have to wait and see how the testing goes.
>
Good luck with convincing those who could say yes!
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Marc J. Zeitlin" > wrote

> Not everyone agrees with that perspective (although it's clearly the
> big moneymaker, at least to start). Personally, I'm on the fence about
> it.

OK, I'm interested.

What do you think possible applications would be, besides the obvious
tourism aspect?
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:28:20 -0800, "Marc J. Zeitlin"
> wrote:

> Morgans wrote:
>
> > What do you think possible applications would be, besides the
> > obvious tourism aspect?
>
> 1) Sub-orbital experimentation. $1.2M/flight (or less), with the
> ability to carry people, is not substantially different in price from
> sounding rockets to carry sub-orbital experiments without people.

Then again, by NOT carrying an astronaut, the experimenters can carry 200+ more
pounds of payload. If I were funding the R&D for a company or university, I
would scrutinize very carefully any request for funds that claimed that it would
be necessary for the researcher to go into space with the hardware...it's too
obviously a junket. And can you imagine lawsuits if a university pays for trip
where the researcher gets fried?

> 2) Orbital astronaut training

Just another term for "Space Tourism," I'm afraid, unless NASA or the Russian
and Chinese Space Agencies start hiring off the street. Any private company
that develops an orbital capability will probably find it more effective to
train their people in orbit on their own equipment.

Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:23:18 -0800, "Marc J. Zeitlin"
> wrote:

> > Just another term for "Space Tourism," I'm afraid, unless NASA or
> > the Russian and Chinese Space Agencies start hiring off the street.
> >
> Certainly a reasonable viewpoint. Like I said, I'm on the fence about
> these other uses - some folks think they're viable, some think they're
> nonsense, and who knows what someone will think up in the future...
> Remember, no one was ever going to want to go more than 25 mph :-).

After all, the hot air balloon has been around over 300 years, and look how far
they've advanced.... ahh, well, maybe there's a better example....

The big money, as ever, is in boosting stuff to orbit. Hopefully Rutan will be
able to work something out. And you'll be right there to see it, you lucky
devil! :-)

Ron Wanttaja