Maintenance/ownership costs of a Vans RV vs. a certified Skyhawk/Cherokee/AA5

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

CAM 1.74, part 91, AC 20-27

f. Type-Certificated Aircraft. Altering, repairing, or rebuilding type-certificated aircraft constitutes maintenance of a type-certificated aircraft under part 43, not fabrication and assembly of amateur-built aircraft. This policy has been in effect since 1952 under section 1.74-3 of the Civil Aeronautics Manual (CAM) 1, which specifically states, “structural components of other aircraft may be used [for amateur-built aircraft]; however, it is not intended that this provision be used to avoid obtaining approval of major alterations to aircraft previously certificated in another category.”

e. Converting a Type-Certificated Aircraft to an Amateur-Built Aircraft. The practice of performing alterations, repairs, and rebuilding of previously type-certificated aircraft for the purpose of obtaining an experimental amateur-built airworthiness certificate is not authorized under § 21.191(g). Such maintenance actions properly fall under 14 CFR part 43, Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding, and Alteration.

 

[Bell206]

CAM 1.74, part 91, AC 20-27

f. Type-Certificated Aircraft. Altering, repairing, or rebuilding type-certificated aircraft constitutes maintenance of a type-certificated aircraft under part 43, not fabrication and assembly of amateur-built aircraft. This policy has been in effect since 1952 under section 1.74-3 of the Civil Aeronautics Manual (CAM) 1, which specifically states, “structural components of other aircraft may be used [for amateur-built aircraft]; however, it is not intended that this provision be used to avoid obtaining approval of major alterations to aircraft previously certificated in another category.”

e. Converting a Type-Certificated Aircraft to an Amateur-Built Aircraft. The practice of performing alterations, repairs, and rebuilding of previously type-certificated aircraft for the purpose of obtaining an experimental amateur-built airworthiness certificate is not authorized under § 21.191(g). Such maintenance actions properly fall under 14 CFR part 43, Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding, and Alteration.

Except those references apply only to amateur-built aircraft, which you have emphatically stated was not the aircraft category you pursued for the Corsair project. So, again, what specific FAA policies shutdown your project?

 

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

....detailed to neasea in prior post how this policy will be used/referenced in determing if any cert to exp kit will be allowed . again, this is a first so new policy required. .. you will likely have a long expensive fight and faa policy execs that have made it clear they don't want anything that will make old aircraft flying regardless if cheaper. quieter, cleaner and non leaded.... even if we end up eventually getting ability to convert, we expect faa will continue to do what they have been last 5 years and the corruption would just continue without the resources to buy their attention or fight city hall with expensive lawyers. it's not a factor of certification, G1 paper was issued and doable ....its a faa policy issue made at the top and they have made it clear to us, and others trying to do same. they will just ignore you, take YEARS to respond to mandatory correspondances, and not even the administrator cares, then send inspectors out for surspy program inspections.

you seem to keep asking the same question of me RE this, and as I said read the articles on website for more info. If you think this is not an issue, I will be happy sell you a complete c172 or c182 FWF kit and you accept risk of getting an exp AWC. Even if you are DAR with exhibition authority you would likely trigger a policy inquiry from your oversight office and since no guidence exist such as 8130.2 would have to argue your case kicked up to the same stuff shirt lawyers we've been dealing with. your best option would be build your own kit and have valid reasons for conversions in above order opposed to installing a pre made kit. you are more than welcome to try, but you would likely be stuck with a paper weight airplane.

too bad, as it's a great kit and has proven itself as best option to reduce cost and emissions....we've had several train and do their checkrides in it from PP, COM and CFI, with about a 6O% op cost savings amplified by far lower maintenance and parts costs. I think others would have followed our lead and likely engineered other options in engine solutions, including hybrid conversion kits, if we got STC.... likely a factor in FAA lack of interest.

we continue to get request for more info on the project and for videos.... we need to find a pilot with YouTube skills to fly it around and answer such questions as well as tech questions for our website and YT channel....

 

[Jjackh01]

Except those references apply only to amateur-built aircraft, which you have emphatically stated was not the aircraft category you pursued for the Corsair project. So, again, what specific FAA policies shutdown your project?

Bureaucracy doesn't need policy.

 

[Bell206]

it's not a factor of certification, G1 paper was issued and doable ....its a faa policy issue made at the top and they have made it clear to us, and others trying to do same.

Yet, for example, the FAA approved and issued a type certificate for the Delta Hawk 180 in 2023 and is still allowing them to pursue their STC for installation in a 172. So how is Delta succeeding at the same STC process, that your V8 project failed at, if the FAA is so “corrupt” and “anti-rec GA” as you state?

Same with selling un-approved parts/kits. Lycoming, TCM, Superior, Viking, Fly Corvair, Garmin, etc. all sell un-approved items without any “policy” issues with the FAA. And some people even install those un-approved parts/kits on certified aircraft with no issue from the FAA. So why doesn’t the same FAA “policy” preventing you from selling your FWF V8 kit, not stop Lycoming from selling their un-approved Thunderbolt engine line to the general public?

Bureaucracy doesn't need policy.

They may not think they need it, but it sure is fun to watch them squirm when bureaucrats forget to properly follow that policy.