Newbie Qs: Engines and insurance

Greetings, fellow aviation nuts

I'm an aerospace engineering student at Cal Poly Pomona here in southern
California (what other subject would I possibly have majored in?...). A
friend and I, being the ever ambitious students we are, are considering a
homebuilt project.

I've got some questions though. I've searched through the FARs and looked
elsewhere online, but I'm not finding much about engine options. The r.a.h.
FAQ notes that certified engines need to be equipped and maintained just the
same as in a certified airplane, and says that any non-certified engine is
subject to a 40 hour flight test program vs 25 hours. Beyond that, and
knowing that people do auto conversions, I'm not finding much as to what you
can and can't do. It sounds to me like you can install practically anything.
Get a big enough twisted rubber band, or enough hamsters running on exercise
wheels, and as long as it flies you're allowed to do it. Surely it can't be
that simple - what needs to be done before an engine will be allowed to fly?
What can't you do? Any stories of people designing and building their own
engines? (not that it's an option in our case of course)

One idea we were throwing around is getting an old certified engine and
overhauling it ourselves. We're both mechanically inclined, and he's done
quite a bit of work on engines, and I'm sure there are others we could
recruit on campus. It would be a great learning experience. Since neither of
us is an A&P, we couldn't sign off on it, but it should still be a good
engine. What does the FAA think about this kind of thing? Seems that by now
someone must have tried it.

On a different note, Q317 from the FAQ asks if it's possible to insure a
homebuilt. I hadn't really thought about "if," it always just seemed like a
given to me that you would do it, as for a car. Is insurance difficult to
get, or not commonly obtained for homebuilts, or what? And what kind of
ballpark are you looking at for a single engine, 2 seater, without the
million dollar liability policy? with/without a certified engine? how about
high performance? complex? There are probably still too many variables, I
realize, but some idea would be appreciated.

Sorry for the ridiculously long post. I tend to write a lot when it comes to
things I love...


Cheers, and thanks in advance!

-Tony
Student Pilot
44.9 hours

On a different note, Q317 from the FAQ asks if it's possible to insure a
homebuilt. I hadn't really thought about "if," it always just seemed like a
given to me that you would do it, as for a car.

this is off topic but was bored one night and had on some TV show where
the soup up some old car so it barely resembles the original. Got me
thinking about how car insurance agencies would handle a car outfitted
with a PDD (primary driving display) and a side stick rather than
steering wheel. I don't plan on building it but it would be the
equivalent of a Cirrus or Lancair cockpit but in car. I think it
would be pretty cool but a single avidyne would cost more than most
cars. Whatever. Just a hypothetical stupid thought that will
never happen and couldn't care less if it did happen.

Gerald

wrote:
Greetings, fellow aviation nuts
(SNIP) The r.a.h. FAQ notes that certified engines need to be equipped
and maintained just the
same as in a certified airplane, and says that any non-certified engine is
subject to a 40 hour flight test program vs 25 hours.

If I'm not mistaken, for the 25 hr regimen, its a certified engine and
PROPELLER combination. Some certified airframe somewhere has to have
been approved with that specific model of engine and prop together. I
want to say its partially a matter of "resonance" issues with certain
engine/prop assemblies at certain RPMs.

Beyond that, and
knowing that people do auto conversions, I'm not finding much as to what you
can and can't do. It sounds to me like you can install practically anything.
Get a big enough twisted rubber band, or enough hamsters running on exercise
wheels, and as long as it flies you're allowed to do it. Surely it can't be
that simple

It is. Thats what Experimental - Amatuer Built is all about.

- what needs to be done before an engine will be allowed to fly?
What can't you do? Any stories of people designing and building their own
engines? (not that it's an option in our case of course)

Why not? They sell kits of some "aircraft engines", and I have the block
assembled for our auto conversion that is based on Mazda rotary engine
parts. Its not rocket science. Its about being able to follow directions
if you are fortunate enough to have people who have blazed that trail
already.



One idea we were throwing around is getting an old certified engine and
overhauling it ourselves. We're both mechanically inclined, and he's done
quite a bit of work on engines, and I'm sure there are others we could
recruit on campus. It would be a great learning experience. Since neither of
us is an A&P, we couldn't sign off on it, but it should still be a good
engine. What does the FAA think about this kind of thing? Seems that by now
someone must have tried it.

It wouldn't be "certified" at that point, but from an Experimental -
Amatuer Built standpoint its a non issue. However, a PRUDENT (in my
mind) person would have the appropriate engine manuals on hand (from the
factory) as well as be familiar with the workmanship and techniques
depicted in AC 43.13 - 1B and -2A. No REQUIREMENT to do so, but again,
good techniques.


On a different note, Q317 from the FAQ asks if it's possible to insure a
homebuilt. I hadn't really thought about "if," it always just seemed like a
given to me that you would do it, as for a car. Is insurance difficult to
get, or not commonly obtained for homebuilts, or what? And what kind of
ballpark are you looking at for a single engine, 2 seater, without the
million dollar liability policy? with/without a certified engine? how about
high performance? complex? There are probably still too many variables, I
realize, but some idea would be appreciated.

Anything is available if you want to pay enough. I have not researched
this extensively and actually intend to "go bare" with regards to hull
insurance. Heresay I have seen indicates that 1st flights or Phase 1
(flight testing) is difficult to nearly impossible to insure. Other
postings I have seen indicate that some insurers may want to inspect the
build along the way for workmanship to validate that the hull will
actually be worth what they are insuring it for (as in
repairable/sellable). No personal firsthand proof, just data points that
may or may not be valid.


Dave

Dave S wrote:

(SNIP) The r.a.h. FAQ notes that certified engines need to be
equipped
and maintained just the
same as in a certified airplane, and says that any non-certified
engine is
subject to a 40 hour flight test program vs 25 hours.

If I'm not mistaken, for the 25 hr regimen, its a certified engine
and
PROPELLER combination. Some certified airframe somewhere has to have
been approved with that specific model of engine and prop together. I

want to say its partially a matter of "resonance" issues with certain

engine/prop assemblies at certain RPMs.

That brings up an interesting question. In the RV-6/7 arena, the
Sensenich 70CM series (fixed pitch) propellor is pretty popular. I've
looked around and it seems that they're only used on experimentals
(RVs, Thorpes, etc...), yet Sensenich claims the prop is "Type
Certified" and eligible for the 25 hr. fly off limit. I've seen a
number of RV-6s equipped with this prop and they did indeed get a 25
hr. test program when used on a certified engine. Anyone know how they
got this "type certification" if the prop isn't used on certified
airframes?

Just wondering,

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"Dave S" wrote...

It sounds to me like you can install practically anything.
Get a big enough twisted rubber band, or enough hamsters running on
exercise
wheels, and as long as it flies you're allowed to do it. Surely it can't
be
that simple

It is. Thats what Experimental - Amatuer Built is all about.

Heh, that's kind of what I thought. Or at least, that's what I wanted to
think. But even though it's labelled "experimental-amateur built," I wasn't
sure what all that entailed. I mean, a C-172 could be classified as
experimental if you make certain modifications to it that most people
wouldn't necessarily consider major or experimental. It's all semantics at
this level, I guess. What matters is how it meets all the requirements. The
replies so far have broadened my view of what you're allowed to do, which is
what I was hoping for. R.a.h. strikes again.



- what needs to be done before an engine will be allowed to fly?
What can't you do? Any stories of people designing and building their
own
engines? (not that it's an option in our case of course)

Why not? They sell kits of some "aircraft engines", and I have the block
assembled for our auto conversion that is based on Mazda rotary engine
parts. Its not rocket science. Its about being able to follow directions
if you are fortunate enough to have people who have blazed that trail
already.


I didn't realize they had kits out like that. I've seen parts, parts, and
more parts, and made the leap that you could put the write combinations
together, but didn't know they were available as you say. As for "why not" -
I was talking about machining the thing ourselves out of stock. As second
year aero engineering students with little machining experience and no
airframe construction experience, we'll leave that one till project #2....

Is insurance difficult to
get, or not commonly obtained for homebuilts, or what? And what kind of
ballpark are you looking at for a single engine, 2 seater, without the
million dollar liability policy?

Anything is available if you want to pay enough. I have not researched
this extensively and actually intend to "go bare" with regards to hull
insurance. Heresay I have seen indicates that 1st flights or Phase 1
(flight testing) is difficult to nearly impossible to insure. Other
postings I have seen indicate that some insurers may want to inspect the
build along the way for workmanship to validate that the hull will
actually be worth what they are insuring it for (as in
repairable/sellable). No personal firsthand proof, just data points that
may or may not be valid.


Unfortunately, that's part of the problem. We're college students. We can
make ends meet on a project like this (we think), but we certainly don't
have money to burn. It's definitely something we'll investigate in more
detail before buying anything beyond info packs for kits/plans. Interesting
that insurers might want to keep up with the construction, though.


-Tony

wrote:
"Dave S" wrote...

It sounds to me like you can install practically anything.
Get a big enough twisted rubber band, or enough hamsters running on

exercise

wheels, and as long as it flies you're allowed to do it. Surely it can't

be

that simple

It is. Thats what Experimental - Amatuer Built is all about.


Heh, that's kind of what I thought. Or at least, that's what I wanted to
think. But even though it's labelled "experimental-amateur built," I wasn't
sure what all that entailed. I mean, a C-172 could be classified as
experimental if you make certain modifications to it that most people
wouldn't necessarily consider major or experimental.

Key word is "Experimental - AMATUER BUILT" You can modify the heck out
of a 172 but that doesn't make it AMATUER BUILT. Not really semantics..
there are bonifide differences in the different classes of
"Experimental" and much more significant limitations in the other
classes of "experimental".

(SNIP)

Interesting
that insurers might want to keep up with the construction, though.


The impression I got was that the insurer may want to look at it at one
particular point to ensure quality of the build. If they pay you on a
claim they want some assurance that it is of a quality that they could
resell some or all of it as the result of a claim. Again, I state this
as heresay not fact.


-Tony



Good Luck,
Dave

wrote:

One idea we were throwing around is getting an old certified engine
and
overhauling it ourselves. We're both mechanically inclined, and he's
done
quite a bit of work on engines, and I'm sure there are others we
could
recruit on campus. It would be a great learning experience. Since
neither of
us is an A&P, we couldn't sign off on it, but it should still be a
good
engine. What does the FAA think about this kind of thing? Seems that
by now
someone must have tried it.


That's pretty common. That's exactly what we did for the RV-10
project. A runout O-540 was purchased and overhauled (and upgraded
from 235 to 250 hp) right there in the garage. As far as the FAA is
concerned it won't be a certified engine and will require the 40 hr.
flyoff.

Another option that worked for an old Cessna restoration is to find
an A&P that will inspect and sign off your work on the engine overhaul.
If you can swing that, you'll have a certified engine, assuming you
made no "expermental" modifications.

Either way is an excellent way to learn a lot about the powerplant
that you'll be maintaining once the plane is flying.
John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

wrote...

wrote:

One idea we were throwing around is getting an old certified engine and
overhauling it ourselves. We're both mechanically inclined, and he's
done
quite a bit of work on engines, and I'm sure there are others we could
recruit on campus. It would be a great learning experience.


That's pretty common. That's exactly what we did for the RV-10
project. A runout O-540 was purchased and overhauled (and upgraded
from 235 to 250 hp) right there in the garage. As far as the FAA is
concerned it won't be a certified engine and will require the 40 hr.
flyoff.

Another option that worked for an old Cessna restoration is to find
an A&P that will inspect and sign off your work on the engine overhaul.
If you can swing that, you'll have a certified engine, assuming you
made no "expermental" modifications.

Either way is an excellent way to learn a lot about the powerplant
that you'll be maintaining once the plane is flying.
John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)



The RV-10. Oh how I long for an RV-10....

It's good to know that this isn't an uncommon thing to do. As you say, it
would be a great way to learn about the powerplant for its operational life
and I'd personally love to do it. For some reason, I figured an A&P would
only sign off on work he did himself, or his organization or company did. It
seems like he's taking a fair amount of liability on himself otherwise.
Interesting to note.

Another question, as so often happens - where do you get runout engines, and
how do prices compare to, say, a midtime one? Is it even worth trying to
restore one pulled out of a junkyard (assuming it's not rusted through) or
should one stick to a more reputable source?


Much thanks!
-Tony

Thanks to all who replied! You really helped clear up some questions. Maybe
our project isn't as crazy as our peers think it is. That's what we get for
being too stubborn to write it off as impossible.


Thanks again, and if we get it started in the near future I'll be sure to
update.

-Tony
Student Pilot
44.9 Hours