Dismantle-rebuild a certified aircraft

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.

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!

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.

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

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

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

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

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?

"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

"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.