Dismantle-rebuild a certified aircraft

"Stuart Fields" wrote in message
...

"vaughn" wrote in message
news

"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

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

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..."

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?