Heli experimental

jimz

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
16
Display Name

Display name:
jimz
I have flown the R22, it is a very squerly and nervous heli. I also have flown the Rotorway and it is a better handling heli, flies better is almost like a sportscar compared to the R22. I purchase a Rotorway and am repowering it with a 300hp Boeing T50 turbine. will keep updating once it is flying. Most likely I will also buy a timed out R22 and repower it with a Boeing 502-8 a 160 hp new turbine and converting it to a experimental heli. I know it is possible, paperwork intensive though! If any of you have any experience please reply!
 
Do you plan to pursue an STC for the turbine R-22?
Absolutely not, I don't want to spend the $ or the nerves to do a supplemental certification. This is just for my own knowledge and enjoyment and to pass down the info to other people, who would also like to do it.
 
Absolutely not, I don't want to spend the $ or the nerves to do a supplemental certification. This is just for my own knowledge and enjoyment and to pass down the info to other people, who would also like to do it.
Installing a different powerplant in a certificated aircraft doesn't make it an experimental aircraft. It wouldn't meet the 50% requirement for an amateur-built aircraft.

§21.191 Experimental certificates.
Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes:

(a) Research and development. Testing new aircraft design concepts, new aircraft equipment, new aircraft installations, new aircraft operating techniques, or new uses for aircraft.

(b) Showing compliance with regulations. Conducting flight tests and other operations to show compliance with the airworthiness regulations including flights to show compliance for issuance of type and supplemental type certificates, flights to substantiate major design changes, and flights to show compliance with the function and reliability requirements of the regulations.

(c) Crew training. Training of the applicant's flight crews.

(d) Exhibition. Exhibiting the aircraft's flight capabilities, performance, or unusual characteristics at air shows, motion picture, television, and similar productions, and the maintenance of exhibition flight proficiency, including (for persons exhibiting aircraft) flying to and from such air shows and productions.

(e) Air racing. Participating in air races, including (for such participants) practicing for such air races and flying to and from racing events.

(f) Market surveys. Use of aircraft for purposes of conducting market surveys, sales demonstrations, and customer crew training only as provided in §21.195.

(g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation.

(h) Operating primary kit-built aircraft. Operating a primary category aircraft that meets the criteria of §21.24(a)(1) that was assembled by a person from a kit manufactured by the holder of a production certificate for that kit, without the supervision and quality control of the production certificate holder under §21.184(a).​
 
Installing a different powerplant in a certificated aircraft doesn't make it an experimental aircraft. It wouldn't meet the 50% requirement for an amateur-built aircraft.

§21.191 Experimental certificates.
Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes:

(a) Research and development. Testing new aircraft design concepts, new aircraft equipment, new aircraft installations, new aircraft operating techniques, or new uses for aircraft.

(b) Showing compliance with regulations. Conducting flight tests and other operations to show compliance with the airworthiness regulations including flights to show compliance for issuance of type and supplemental type certificates, flights to substantiate major design changes, and flights to show compliance with the function and reliability requirements of the regulations.

(c) Crew training. Training of the applicant's flight crews.

(d) Exhibition. Exhibiting the aircraft's flight capabilities, performance, or unusual characteristics at air shows, motion picture, television, and similar productions, and the maintenance of exhibition flight proficiency, including (for persons exhibiting aircraft) flying to and from such air shows and productions.

(e) Air racing. Participating in air races, including (for such participants) practicing for such air races and flying to and from racing events.

(f) Market surveys. Use of aircraft for purposes of conducting market surveys, sales demonstrations, and customer crew training only as provided in §21.195.

(g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation.

(h) Operating primary kit-built aircraft. Operating a primary category aircraft that meets the criteria of §21.24(a)(1) that was assembled by a person from a kit manufactured by the holder of a production certificate for that kit, without the supervision and quality control of the production certificate holder under §21.184(a).​
No, but it would probably fit nicely into at least one or two of the other Experimental categories. After all, there’s a turbine Luscombe out there.
 
If any of you have any experience please reply!
While sticking a different engine in a R22 might qualify for an Experimental AWC, it does not make it an E/AB aircraft which is what you are pursuing. Any TC'd aircraft regardless of AWC type requires an A&P to work on it.

I've seen a different type E/AB turbine rotorcraft but it had a Garrett APU powerplant instead. Just be sure you don't exceed the speed/torque ratings on the Rotorway drivetrain with your turbine. You may have to de-rate your T50. Also look at a Mosquito or Helicycle.
 
Last edited:
No, but it would probably fit nicely into at least one or two of the other Experimental categories. After all, there’s a turbine Luscombe out there.
It could be registered under the exhibition category if he is what he wants to do and he can live with the operating restrictions.
 
Absolutely not, I don't want to spend the $ or the nerves to do a supplemental certification. This is just for my own knowledge and enjoyment and to pass down the info to other people, who would also like to do it.
I will give you an example, Rotorway has been manufacturing their mainstay heli for over 50 years. there are a few shortcomings that can be corrected
Do you plan to pursue an STC for the turbine R-22?
While sticking a different engine in a R22 might qualify for an Experimental AWC, it does not make it an E/AB aircraft which is what you are pursuing. Any TC'd aircraft regardless of AWC type requires an A&P to work on it.

I've seen a different type E/AB turbine rotorcraft but it had a Garrett APU powerplant instead. Just be sure you don't exceed the speed/torque ratings on the Rotorway drivetrain with your turbine. You may have to de-rate your T50. Also look at a Mosquito or Helicycle.
No, but it would probably fit nicely into at least one or two of the other Experimental categories. After all, there’s a turbine Luscombe out there.
This is the category I am pursuing:eek:wner builder experimental only Operating amateur-built aircraft.
Operating an aircraft the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation.
 
There are several examples of owner builder aircraft. I seen a Mosquito that was done. In the Rotorway I have inspected a dozen of them, they are all manufactured by owner builders. The plaquard has to be displayed that it was amateur built by owner.. No AP mechanic has to work on it!!!!!!!! Experimental meaning is owner builder, no AP mechanic has to work on it. after building it FAA has to inspect it and issue a AIRWORTHY-ness certificate for it. Your rating has to be type rated! Helicopter means "helicopter" Warbird means or can mean: F16, L39 Albatross, TS-11 ISKRA etc,etc,etc. But you have to have a airworthiness certificate, a tail number! Experimental does not need to be serviced by a A&P mechanic since there are no books or manuals for the aircraft that is experimental. The other factor is, you have to know what you are doing on an airframe!
The reason for being a private pilot is that you can assess the airworthiness of your own aircraft and fly it around a circle, or across country, or just hover it. You cannot rent it out, or charge for sightseeing tours, it is just for ones own knowledge and enjoyment of soaring like a bird or hovering like a hummingbird!
I am also pursuing a Warbird, TS-11 aircraft, it is always experimental, no certification necessary, just a airworthiness certificate, tail-number needed. The Pilot has to have a type rating for it! There are 2 people in the USA that have instructor rating for this type of aircraft. You have to fly him in at $1000 dollars a day. If you are a good proficient pilot you should be able to ace the test in one day! My exwife has spent more on our dog before! Just think that you can take out your warbird and do Mach .8 and go to see your friends or son in PA., have lunch with them and be back in florida for dinner. Now that is what I call an experience worth doing!
 
I will give you an example, Rotorway has been manufacturing their mainstay heli for over 50 years. there are a few shortcomings that can be corrected



This is the category I am pursuing:eek:wner builder experimental only Operating amateur-built aircraft.
Operating an aircraft the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation.
One can't take a Bell 206 and make it a experimental heli by sticking new motors into it, because it is a certified aircraft! But you can take the bell 206 and change it over to have a parachute system installed on it and one can get a certificate as a "research aircraft" the problem with that is that you have to reapply every year to have it remain a research aircraft, that is to constraining!
 
Example: a Dassault falcon 10 jet is available for under 7k without engines, this cannot be made experimental by sticking engines into it. But you can build one from scratch and have it be exactly the same and since you built it you could make it a experimental! As we say, the laws are not perfect but it is a good thing not to break the laws, but work within the laws!
One last thing one can buy a rotorway helicopter that is partially built or completed for a song and a dance, some of the people just like building them but do not have the perseverance to finish them. I know I bought 2 of them, one with tail number and one in kit form never finished!
 
Last edited:
Putting a non certified engine in a R22 will not get you an experimental E/AB certificate.

You can get an Experimental/Exhibition certificate, but that will come with several limitations.
 
Why would you want to switch to an R22? The Rotorway flies so much better and the rotor hub is bulletproof. Ditching the belts and watercooled powerplant makes them an awesome Heli. Let me know how the conversion goes. I may want to do it to mine.
 
Why would you want to switch to an R22? The Rotorway flies so much better and the rotor hub is bulletproof. Ditching the belts and watercooled powerplant makes them an awesome Heli. Let me know how the conversion goes. I may want to do it to mine.

Interesting. I had an acquaintance who converted several Rotorways to turbine power. Reliability wasn't a strong point of the conversions.

I remember when he asked a buddy to climb in as ballast for some hover testing. (Bad idea to test using self loading ballast.) Fortunately, when he overloaded and broke the tail rotor drive coupling (IIRC), they were only 2' high and Mr. Toad's wild ride didn't last long or result in a catastrophe.
 
Putting a non certified engine in a R22 will not get you an experimental E/AB certificate.

You can get an Experimental/Exhibition certificate, but that will come with several limitations.
By getting a experimental certificate on a aircraft, as far as I am concerned there are no limitations, except you cannot get payed or do tours and get payed or rent it out! I was thinking only of the pleasure and the satisfaction of building it, owning it, enjoying it and helping other people with the same thing, pass on the knowledge!
 
Putting a non certified engine in a R22 will not get you an experimental E/AB certificate.

You can get an Experimental/Exhibition certificate, but that will come with several limitations.
I don't see any limitations, se above I answered it!
 
Putting a non certified engine in a R22 will not get you an experimental E/AB certificate.

You can get an Experimental/Exhibition certificate, but that will come with several limitations.
I am actually putting into the Rotorway a certified military T50 bo 12 360 HP engine that the navy used in their anti sub warfare helicopters in the 60's.
 
By getting a experimental certificate on a aircraft, as far as I am concerned there are no limitations, except you cannot get payed or do tours and get payed or rent it out! I was thinking only of the pleasure and the satisfaction of building it, owning it, enjoying it and helping other people with the same thing, pass on the knowledge!

No. Period. Full stop.

You might be able to register it as experimental exhibition or Experimental R&D. Both of those are very restrictive. You may be able to maintain it, but will be severely restricted on where you can fly it.
 
I am actually putting into the Rotorway a certified military T50 bo 12 360 HP engine that the navy used in their anti sub warfare helicopters in the 60's.

That’s not a certified engine, and it’s not on the Robinson TCDS as an option.

Plus, if run at 360hp it will stress the crap out of everything, making the helicopter a time bomb.

Even if you succeed at this ( you won’t) I doubt any DAR would issue a certificate. And I know the FAA won’t.
 
By getting a experimental certificate on a aircraft, as far as I am concerned there are no limitations, except you cannot get payed or do tours and get payed or rent it out! I was thinking only of the pleasure and the satisfaction of building it, owning it, enjoying it and helping other people with the same thing, pass on the knowledge!

Lol!

It’s obvious you are trolling.
 
It’s sort of funny that this guy with all the answers pops up not long after Max goes quiet.
 
It’s sort of funny that this guy with all the answers pops up not long after Max goes quiet.

I bet (hope?) the board has filters which preclude known bad actors from registering under a different alias.
 
Putting a non certified engine in a R22 will not get you an experimental E/AB certificate.

You can get an Experimental/Exhibition certificate, but that will come with several limitations.
Well you are right, when the R22 is TTO you need to have it completely rebuilt by a Certified shop. Or stick a Turbine in the aicraft which will completely change the dynamics of the aircraft and airframe and it qualifies as a experimental, but you better have all the paperwork right.
 
when the R22 is TTO you need to have it completely rebuilt by a Certified shop
You seem to have all the answers, except one: you don't need a certified shop to work on an R22. Any A&P/IA can maintain it per Part 43.

It will be interesting to see if a DAR/FSDO will sign off on your AWC/Operating Limitations for your Rotorway/T50 conversion.
 
It will be interesting to see if a DAR/FSDO will sign off on your AWC/Operating Limitations for your Rotorway/T50 conversion.

No need... just get the E-AB special airworthiness certificate with the standard piston engine, then rip it out and modify to your heart's delight. At most you'd have to notify the FAA that you're putting it back in phase 1 testing if the 40 hours had already been flown off with the piston engine (because it certainly qualifies as a "major modification").
 
No need... just get the E-AB special airworthiness certificate with the standard piston engine, then rip it out and modify to your heart's delight. At most you'd have to notify the FAA that you're putting it back in phase 1 testing if the 40 hours had already been flown off with the piston engine (because it certainly qualifies as a "major modification").

Which would also require new operating limitations, which the FSDO or DAR must approve. Not saying it can't be done (with the Rotorway). Changing the engine on the R22, as many have correctly stated would impose severe restrictions, is a whole different ball game. For one, it would not be permitted to carry passengers. Neither "upgrade" sounds like a good idea, IMO.
 
Which would also require new operating limitations, which the FSDO or DAR must approve. Not saying it can't be done (with the Rotorway). Changing the engine on the R22, as many have correctly stated would impose severe restrictions, is a whole different ball game. For one, it would not be permitted to carry passengers. Neither "upgrade" sounds like a good idea, IMO.
I did not think that operating limitations were subject to review by the authorities, as they can and will change throughout flyoff and other mods.
 
I did not think that operating limitations were subject to review by the authorities, as they can and will change throughout flyoff and other mods.

The Op Lims doc is provided by the FSDO/DAR, which is filled out during Phase 1 testing. You are correct that it is not approved otherwise but the replacement engine would require a new Op Lims document and Phase 1 flight testing. I'm not sure if it would need a new AW cert but the engine change would still require FSDO involvement.
 
The operating limitations don't say anything about the aircraft itself or its performance, so I don't think they'd be reissued. It used to be that "any major change invalidates the airworthiness certificate" but that's no longer the case. Nowadays you can put the aircraft back in phase 1 just by notifying the FSDO, they don't have to approve it.
 
The operating limitations don't say anything about the aircraft itself or its performance, so I don't think they'd be reissued.

They absolutely do say lots about the aircraft and it's performance, V speeds, stall speed, aerobatic abilities, etc. An engine change from one type to another is considered a major change and requires FSDO involvement.

FAR 91.319 prescribes operating limitations that are applicable to all aircraft having experimental certificates. In addition, the Administrator may prescribe other limitations as may be considered necessary. Here is an excerpt from my Op Lims from 2017:

14. After incorporating a major change as described in § 21.93, the aircraft owner is required to reestablish compliance with § 91.319(b) and notify the geographically responsible FSDO of the location of the proposed test area. The aircraft owner must obtain concurrence from the FSDO as to the suitability of the proposed test area. If the major change includes installing a different type of engine (reciprocating to turbine) or a change of a fixed-pitch from or to a controllable propeller, the aircraft owner must fill out a revised FAA Form 8130-6 to update the aircraft’s file in the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch. All operations must be conducted under day visual flight rules (VFR) conditions in a sparsely populated area in compliance with § 91.305. The aircraft must remain in flight test for a minimum of 5 hours. The FSDO may require additional time (more than 5 hours) depending on the extent of the modification. Persons nonessential to the flight must not be carried. The aircraft owner must make a detailed aircraft logbook and maintenance records entry describing the change before the test flight. Following satisfactory completion of the required number of flight hours in the flight test area, the pilot must certify in the records that the aircraft has been shown to comply with § 91.319(b). Compliance with § 91.319(b) must be recorded in the aircraft records with the following, or a similarly worded, statement: “I certify that the prescribed flight test hours have been completed and the aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and throughout all maneuvers to be executed, has no hazardous characteristics or design features, and is safe for operation. The following aircraft operating data has been demonstrated during the flight testing: speeds Vso ______, Vx ______, and Vy ______, and the weight ______, and CG location ______ at which they were obtained.” (22)
 
No need...
All depends on what your Ops Limitations state. As noted above some limitations are very specific. Most E/AB rotorcraft limitations I've seen in the last 10 years required more DAR/FSDO involvement than a phone call on major changes.
 
They absolutely do say lots about the aircraft and it's performance, V speeds, stall speed, aerobatic abilities, etc. An engine change from one type to another is considered a major change and requires FSDO involvement.

Nowhere the op limitations for any of the experimentals I've owned does it say anything about performance, speeds, etc. The op limitations say that those things are supposed to be recorded in the logbook during phase 1 testing, but the actual numbers aren't recorded in the OLs.

But you're right, it looks like a change from recip to turbine requires even more, I didn't realize it meant a new AWC application, meaning new op limitations would be issued (which would probably look just like the old ones). But I don't see anything requiring a new inspection by the FSDO or DAR, just the appropriate logbook entry at the end of the new phase 1.
 
Back
Top