I was shocked to see a Schweitzer 2-33 glider with a homebuilt airworthiness
certificate. The glider was assembled with parts from two or more gliders
and recovered with new fabric. There are a few strange but trivial
modifications to the original design but it is still a 2-33. It's very hard
for me to see that the rebuilders did 51% of the work. Yet it has a
homebuilt experimental airworthiness certificate.

This is the equivalent of putting Piper PA-20 tailwheel gear under a PA-22
Tri-Pacer, recovering it, and calling it a homebuilt. I always thought the
FAA considered this sort of thing an abuse of the homebuilding regulations
and would deny the certificate.

Bill Daniels

"Jerry Wass" wrote in message
...
Looks like they found a congenial FIZDOO.!

"James M. Knox" wrote:

"Robert Bates" wrote in
. net:

How is the 51% rule line drawn? Let's say for example I want a
homebuilt Comanche with my own choice of engine and I locate a set of
plans as well as the wings and tail feathers from a factory Comanche.
If I build the fuselage from the plans and recycle the wings and tail,
is it an amateur built experimental or a rebuilt factory aircraft?

It had always been my understanding that a certificated aircraft,
rebuilt, was still a certificated aircraft. A complete "restoration"
project, where you started with little more than a data plate, still
regenerated the original plane.

However, there are a couple of guys here in Austin that are (re)building
their own Piper Malibu amateur-built experimental. The starting point
is a pretty badly wrecked Malibu. They have a factory list of
directions, which includes all the different tasks in building the plane
originally. They intend to do 51% or more of those tasks in the
rebuilding (for instance, instead of buying a new wing skin, they will
make their own).

They are also going to hang a Walters turboprop engine on the thing.

In the end, although they may not have done 51% of the construction,
they will have done more than 51% of the tasks - all that the new rules
require. They have FSDO approval for what they plan to do (subject, of
course, to the usual final inspection, etc.). Should be an interesting
project.

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------