Dismantle-rebuild a certified aircraft

[Fonz]

G'Day all.
Just a quick query for all, both in the US and Australia.
If I was to take a proven aircraft, say a C172, totally dismantle it,
including EVERY rivet and bolt, replace anything corroded (ie:sheetmetal
etc) and any hardware/bolts/cables, and rebuildcorrosionproof it, put in a
certified or auto engine, Photograph the entire process to prove you didn't
cheat, could it be certified as an experimental?
My intertepretation for Australia is that is allowable, and as it is a
proven aircraft, you have all the numbers to prove specs from the original
manufacturer. The only thing that would prevent a simple sign-off after
hour would be if you used an auto engine, and I know there are some
successful Cessnas out there with auto conversions in other countries. If
you fill in the paperwork to prove % as per CASA regs you'd be in without a
problem.
For the airframe you can obtain many engine-free fuselages in the states and
basically have a zero-hour remanufactured aircraft for a small % of the cost
of what Cessna/Beechcraft/Piper are charging.
Any thoughts/opinions/evidence/flaming (please minimise this bit).
References would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Rob.
Melbourne Australia.

[cavelamb[_2_]]

Fonz wrote:
> G'Day all.
> Just a quick query for all, both in the US and Australia.
> If I was to take a proven aircraft, say a C172, totally dismantle it,
> including EVERY rivet and bolt, replace anything corroded (ie:sheetmetal
> etc) and any hardware/bolts/cables, and rebuildcorrosionproof it, put in a
> certified or auto engine, Photograph the entire process to prove you didn't
> cheat, could it be certified as an experimental?
> My intertepretation for Australia is that is allowable, and as it is a
> proven aircraft, you have all the numbers to prove specs from the original
> manufacturer. The only thing that would prevent a simple sign-off after
> hour would be if you used an auto engine, and I know there are some
> successful Cessnas out there with auto conversions in other countries. If
> you fill in the paperwork to prove % as per CASA regs you'd be in without a
> problem.
> For the airframe you can obtain many engine-free fuselages in the states and
> basically have a zero-hour remanufactured aircraft for a small % of the cost
> of what Cessna/Beechcraft/Piper are charging.
> Any thoughts/opinions/evidence/flaming (please minimise this bit).
> References would be appreciated.
> Thanks in advance.
> Rob.
> Melbourne Australia.
>
>


Perhaps you are refering to the Blanton conversion?

Can't answer for the FAA on that one, but I can guarantee that in the US an
STC for the engine change would be a lot easier and cheaper!

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:44:04 +1100, "Fonz" > wrote:

>G'Day all.
>Just a quick query for all, both in the US and Australia.
>If I was to take a proven aircraft, say a C172, totally dismantle it,
>including EVERY rivet and bolt, replace anything corroded (ie:sheetmetal
>etc) and any hardware/bolts/cables, and rebuildcorrosionproof it, put in a
>certified or auto engine, Photograph the entire process to prove you didn't
>cheat, could it be certified as an experimental?
>My intertepretation for Australia is that is allowable, and as it is a
>proven aircraft, you have all the numbers to prove specs from the original
>manufacturer. The only thing that would prevent a simple sign-off after
>hour would be if you used an auto engine, and I know there are some
>successful Cessnas out there with auto conversions in other countries. If
>you fill in the paperwork to prove % as per CASA regs you'd be in without a
>problem.
>For the airframe you can obtain many engine-free fuselages in the states and
>basically have a zero-hour remanufactured aircraft for a small % of the cost
>of what Cessna/Beechcraft/Piper are charging.
>Any thoughts/opinions/evidence/flaming (please minimise this bit).
>References would be appreciated.
>Thanks in advance.
>Rob.
>Melbourne Australia.
>
WAS legal in Canada - no longer.
You could MAKE all the parts to DUPLICATE the original, but you cannot
rebuild the original.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 23, 5:21*am, wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:44:04 +1100, "Fonz" > wrote:
> >G'Day all.
> >Just a quick query for all, both in the US and Australia.
> >If I was to take a proven aircraft, say a C172, totally dismantle it,
> >including EVERY rivet and bolt, replace anything corroded (ie:sheetmetal
> >etc) and any hardware/bolts/cables, and rebuildcorrosionproof it, put in a
> >certified or auto engine, Photograph the entire process to prove you didn't
> >cheat, could it be certified as an experimental?
> >My intertepretation for Australia is that is allowable, and as it is a
> >proven aircraft, you have all the numbers to prove specs from the original
> >manufacturer. *The only thing that would prevent a simple sign-off after
> >hour would be if you used an auto engine, and I know there are some
> >successful Cessnas out there with auto conversions in other countries. *If
> >you fill in the paperwork to prove % as per CASA regs you'd be in without a
> >problem.
> >For the airframe you can obtain many engine-free fuselages in the states and
> >basically have a zero-hour remanufactured aircraft for a small % of the cost
> >of what Cessna/Beechcraft/Piper are charging.
> >Any thoughts/opinions/evidence/flaming (please minimise this bit).
> >References would be appreciated.
> >Thanks in advance.
> >Rob.
> >Melbourne Australia.
>
> WAS legal in Canada - no longer.
> You could MAKE all the parts to DUPLICATE the original, but you cannot
> rebuild the original.

With that much work REassembling an airframe and engine, why not have
an A&P follow and
document your work and hours and get YOUR own A&P ........
Reggie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 23, 10:40 am, wrote:

> With that much work REassembling an airframe and engine, why not have
> an A&P follow and
> document your work and hours and get YOUR own A&P ........
> Reggie

Not that easy in Australia. The US probably has one of the
easiest-to-get licenses; the Australian system, like our Canadian, is
based on the British system. Our Canadian requirements include an 1800-
hour formal course of study (some of which can be applied to the
apprenticeship time, the course is an approved course), 70% of the
applicable ATA tasks performed, an apprenticeship that will run
anywhere from two to four years, depending on the level of the formal
training course take, and four exams (airframe, engine, general and
regulations). The whole thing will take four years at least, no matter
what. Australia will be similar. Mine took me six years. The result is
an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer's license, with the inspection
privileges of the A&P-IA.
And the stickler: a homebuilt project doesn't count. A homebuilt
is an airplane when it comes to registering it, getting a C of A,
flying it and insuring it, but not if you want it to count for
apprenticeship time. Strange.


Dan

[Stuart Fields]

> wrote in message
...
> On Jan 23, 10:40 am, wrote:
>
>> With that much work REassembling an airframe and engine, why not have
>> an A&P follow and
>> document your work and hours and get YOUR own A&P ........
>> Reggie
>
> Not that easy in Australia. The US probably has one of the
> easiest-to-get licenses; the Australian system, like our Canadian, is
> based on the British system. Our Canadian requirements include an 1800-
> hour formal course of study (some of which can be applied to the
> apprenticeship time, the course is an approved course), 70% of the
> applicable ATA tasks performed, an apprenticeship that will run
> anywhere from two to four years, depending on the level of the formal
> training course take, and four exams (airframe, engine, general and
> regulations). The whole thing will take four years at least, no matter
> what. Australia will be similar. Mine took me six years. The result is
> an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer's license, with the inspection
> privileges of the A&P-IA.
> And the stickler: a homebuilt project doesn't count. A homebuilt
> is an airplane when it comes to registering it, getting a C of A,
> flying it and insuring it, but not if you want it to count for
> apprenticeship time. Strange.
>
>
> Dan
A friend bought an amateur built helicopter that was complete with the
exception of the builders tag and airworthiness. He disassembled it to the
point beyond a quick build kit, re-painted it and checked off the 51% form
and he did more than 51%. FAA found that he had used an airframe that had
been previously used and had some flight time on it and refused to license
it as experimental homebuilt and insisted on making it exhibition only.
There is a wide variation on what is accepted by the various FAA and DARs
when issuing airworthiness certs.

Stu

[Fonz]

I find that amazing.
If you totally disassembled the aircraft, cleaned all parts/fittings etc
back to bare aluminium, recoated with zinc-chromate or whatever,
photographed it as evidence, it is basically a kit. It wouldn't even be a
quickbuild, and would come in at over 75% or higher. I can't see how anyone
could challenge it, as the aircraft is constructed by the builder from
parts, for his own education or enjoyment, to a proven design.
Even in Australia, CASA seem to have a mind of their own, making their own
rules, and not being challenged. I believe things are generally OK so far
as the SAAA basically monitor everything. As part of my previous occupation
I was involved in the legal system (I'm not a defence lawyer by the way, but
rather the other side of the fence), and I believe it would be a very short
hearing in the lower court, but winning that battle doesn't mean you'll win
the war. I think I'm starting to answer my own original question here.
Is there anyone from the SAAA technical side of the fence that would like to
share an opinion? Any annon reply would also be taken in good faith.
Thanks in advance,
Rob.
Melbourne Australia.
----------------------
"Stuart Fields" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Jan 23, 10:40 am, wrote:
>>
>>> With that much work REassembling an airframe and engine, why not have
>>> an A&P follow and
>>> document your work and hours and get YOUR own A&P ........
>>> Reggie
>>
>> Not that easy in Australia. The US probably has one of the
>> easiest-to-get licenses; the Australian system, like our Canadian, is
>> based on the British system. Our Canadian requirements include an 1800-
>> hour formal course of study (some of which can be applied to the
>> apprenticeship time, the course is an approved course), 70% of the
>> applicable ATA tasks performed, an apprenticeship that will run
>> anywhere from two to four years, depending on the level of the formal
>> training course take, and four exams (airframe, engine, general and
>> regulations). The whole thing will take four years at least, no matter
>> what. Australia will be similar. Mine took me six years. The result is
>> an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer's license, with the inspection
>> privileges of the A&P-IA.
>> And the stickler: a homebuilt project doesn't count. A homebuilt
>> is an airplane when it comes to registering it, getting a C of A,
>> flying it and insuring it, but not if you want it to count for
>> apprenticeship time. Strange.
>>
>>
>> Dan
> A friend bought an amateur built helicopter that was complete with the
> exception of the builders tag and airworthiness. He disassembled it to
> the point beyond a quick build kit, re-painted it and checked off the 51%
> form and he did more than 51%. FAA found that he had used an airframe
> that had been previously used and had some flight time on it and refused
> to license it as experimental homebuilt and insisted on making it
> exhibition only. There is a wide variation on what is accepted by the
> various FAA and DARs when issuing airworthiness certs.
>
> Stu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[cavelamb[_2_]]

Fonz wrote:
> I find that amazing.
> If you totally disassembled the aircraft, cleaned all parts/fittings etc
> back to bare aluminium, recoated with zinc-chromate or whatever,
> photographed it as evidence, it is basically a kit. It wouldn't even be a
> quickbuild, and would come in at over 75% or higher. I can't see how anyone
> could challenge it, as the aircraft is constructed by the builder from
> parts, for his own education or enjoyment, to a proven design.
> Even in Australia, CASA seem to have a mind of their own, making their own
> rules, and not being challenged. I believe things are generally OK so far
> as the SAAA basically monitor everything. As part of my previous occupation
> I was involved in the legal system (I'm not a defence lawyer by the way, but
> rather the other side of the fence), and I believe it would be a very short
> hearing in the lower court, but winning that battle doesn't mean you'll win
> the war. I think I'm starting to answer my own original question here.
> Is there anyone from the SAAA technical side of the fence that would like to
> share an opinion? Any annon reply would also be taken in good faith.
> Thanks in advance,
> Rob.
> Melbourne Australia.


Well, as someone else pointed out, at least in America, you might have trouble
with this approach - because you didn't MAKE those parts. They were made by
a manufacturer who was not making KIT parts, but certified aircraft.

YMMV in other countries?

[vaughn]

"Fonz" > wrote in message
...
>As part of my previous occupation I was involved in the legal system

Then you understand that it is not us who you have to convince. "All"
you have to do is convince the bureaucracy.

Vaughn

[Stuart Fields]

"vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Fonz" > wrote in message
> ...
>>As part of my previous occupation I was involved in the legal system
>
> Then you understand that it is not us who you have to convince. "All"
> you have to do is convince the bureaucracy.
>
> Vaughn

There was one example where two guys in essence re-designed the SeaBee
amphib and manufactured new pieces as well as incorporated an automotive
engine and they got the Experimental Amateur Built registration. This
really involved some 5,000 hrs of work and a lot of analysis and design
time. The resulting aircraft looks quite like the original SeaBee though. I
think that they took an old design and really made a new ship with much
improved performance.

[vaughn]

"Stuart Fields" > wrote in message
...
>
> "vaughn" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Fonz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>As part of my previous occupation I was involved in the legal system
>>
>> Then you understand that it is not us who you have to convince. "All"
>> you have to do is convince the bureaucracy.
>>
>> Vaughn
>
> There was one example where two guys in essence re-designed the SeaBee
> amphib and manufactured new pieces as well as incorporated an automotive
> engine and they got the Experimental Amateur Built registration. This
> really involved some 5,000 hrs of work and a lot of analysis and design
> time. The resulting aircraft looks quite like the original SeaBee though.
> I think that they took an old design and really made a new ship with much
> improved performance.

I also know someone who took a hulk of a certified plane, stripped it,
stretched it, changed the gear, installed a V6 auto engine, &
did-who-knows-what other modifications that clearly made it an entirely
different airplane, and then was able to register it as amateur built. But
that is not the same thing as rebuilding a certified airframe (however
complete the teardown, however thorough the rebuild) and calling it a
homebuilt.

Vaughn

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:44:04 +1100, "Fonz" > wrote:

>G'Day all.
>Just a quick query for all, both in the US and Australia.
>If I was to take a proven aircraft, say a C172, totally dismantle it,
>including EVERY rivet and bolt, replace anything corroded (ie:sheetmetal
>etc) and any hardware/bolts/cables, and rebuildcorrosionproof it, put in a
>certified or auto engine, Photograph the entire process to prove you didn't
>cheat, could it be certified as an experimental?
>My intertepretation for Australia is that is allowable, and as it is a
>proven aircraft, you have all the numbers to prove specs from the original
>manufacturer. The only thing that would prevent a simple sign-off after
>hour would be if you used an auto engine, and I know there are some
>successful Cessnas out there with auto conversions in other countries. If
>you fill in the paperwork to prove % as per CASA regs you'd be in without a
>problem.
>For the airframe you can obtain many engine-free fuselages in the states and
>basically have a zero-hour remanufactured aircraft for a small % of the cost
>of what Cessna/Beechcraft/Piper are charging.
>Any thoughts/opinions/evidence/flaming (please minimise this bit).
>References would be appreciated.
>Thanks in advance.
>Rob.
>Melbourne Australia.
>

Fonzie
dont torture yourself. In CASA you are dealing with the most assinine
form of government ever created.

a certified aeroplane remains a certified aeroplane in their eyes.
CASA are not logical or sensible when it comes to the regulations.
....in my experience they have developed the regulatory environment
into some sort of religion devoid of any sense, with the overriding
factor being avoidance of liability.
CASA wont even introduce the canadian system of private owner
maintenance into australia, despite it being introduced in canada on
an objective safety case.

if you want safe and proven build an RV under experimental. (it will
be as competent as your building of it) as the builder you will be
free to maintain it.

if you want something cheaper follow the old CASA test pilot's example
and build an Rans S7. (an S6 courier would be my choice)

if you want sense then follow the other 8,000 pilots and join the RAA
and then buy/build one of the better ultralights.
by my accounting 8,000 of Australia's 12,700 or so pilots have joined
the RAA to get free of the wank act that CASA subjects the rest of us
private owners to.


I know of one cessna that was totally dismantled to bits by the
amateur owner, corrosion removed and then fully reassembled.
all amateur work.
it remained certified with just a LAME annual signoff to get it back
in the air. so part of what you outlined is possible.

as a caveat I no longer have anything to do with the SAAA.
their failure to support or go for private owner maintenance must rank
as one of the failures of the century. as a result I doubt their
membership is any more than 3 digits compared to the RAA.

just remember in all your dreamings about cobbling together bits to
make a hybrid aircraft that underpinning aviation are some hard
physical realities that operate irrespective of your understanding of
them. get it wrong and they can kill you real quick.
(most of the fun is knowing that you're getting it right.)

Stealth Pilot

[Dana M. Hague[_2_]]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:25:10 -0800, "Stuart Fields" >
wrote:

>There was one example where two guys in essence re-designed the SeaBee
>amphib and manufactured new pieces as well as incorporated an automotive
>engine and they got the Experimental Amateur Built registration...

Also look at all the Piper Cub clones in kit form.

At one time in the US, a lot of people were building "homebuilts" by
building a fuselage and using wings from a commercial aircraft (the
Breezy comes to mind). I'm pretty sure the FAA doesn't allow this any
more.

In the end, it comes down to the local FSDO or DAR... and what seems
"logical" to us may well not seem that way to a government bureaucrat.

-Dana
--
"You sure it's broken? Let me make sure..."

[Fonz]

> Well, as someone else pointed out, at least in America, you might have
> trouble
> with this approach - because you didn't MAKE those parts. They were made
> by
> a manufacturer who was not making KIT parts, but certified aircraft.


***I can't see where the trouble would be regarding the "- because you
didn't MAKE those parts"
as if you would tear down the entire aircraft and just have a pile of
pre-punched sheets of aluminium, is the same a a kit supplied by a kit
manufacturer. It is identical. In the kit or quickbuild -I didn't make
those parts either.
Rob.







"cavelamb" > wrote in message
m...
> Fonz wrote:
>> I find that amazing.
>> If you totally disassembled the aircraft, cleaned all parts/fittings etc
>> back to bare aluminium, recoated with zinc-chromate or whatever,
>> photographed it as evidence, it is basically a kit. It wouldn't even be
>> a quickbuild, and would come in at over 75% or higher. I can't see how
>> anyone could challenge it, as the aircraft is constructed by the builder
>> from parts, for his own education or enjoyment, to a proven design.
>> Even in Australia, CASA seem to have a mind of their own, making their
>> own rules, and not being challenged. I believe things are generally OK
>> so far as the SAAA basically monitor everything. As part of my previous
>> occupation I was involved in the legal system (I'm not a defence lawyer
>> by the way, but rather the other side of the fence), and I believe it
>> would be a very short hearing in the lower court, but winning that battle
>> doesn't mean you'll win the war. I think I'm starting to answer my own
>> original question here.
>> Is there anyone from the SAAA technical side of the fence that would like
>> to share an opinion? Any annon reply would also be taken in good faith.
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Rob.
>> Melbourne Australia.
>
>
> Well, as someone else pointed out, at least in America, you might have
> trouble
> with this approach - because you didn't MAKE those parts. They were made
> by
> a manufacturer who was not making KIT parts, but certified aircraft.
>
> YMMV in other countries?