Once certified, always certified?

docmirror said:
Uh - no. The orig Breezy was built up from a damaged Colt or J4 or something. They used Piper wings, tail, flight controls, Conti certified engine(the one used on the Piper). In fact, I think they even used the front and back seats from the J4, which was a single in front and a kind-of buddy bench in back. All other bits were 'substantially modified' from the original J4/Colt or whatever it was they used. It is in fact, a 'substantially modified' Piper J4/Colt, consisting of more than 51% built by the experimenter. In every case the homologation of what the OP is asking about by going from a cert TC to an EXP plane.
Click to expand...
As I said, it's a mish-mash of parts from various aircraft and other sources, not a modification of any one aircraft.
 
from: AC 20-27G

Use of Salvaged Assemblies from Type-Certificated Aircraft.
The use of
used or salvaged assemblies
(for example, landing gear, horizontal stabilizer, and
engine mount) from type-certificated aircra
ft is permitted, as long as they are in a
condition for safe operation. However—
(1)
You should contact your local FAA
MIDO or FSDO prior to using a
major assembly or subassembly, such as wings, fuselage, or tail assembly from a
type-certificated aircraft. As an amateur
builder, you should be awar
e that when building
your aircraft, the excessive use of majo
r assemblies or subassemblies from type-
certificated aircraft would most likely
render it ineligible for certification under
§ 21.191(g)
 
Ron Levy said:
As I said, it's a mish-mash of parts from various aircraft and other sources, not a modification of any one aircraft.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure its mainly only the wings. But i don't have a set of plans to reference either.
 
Ron Levy said:
As I said, it's a mish-mash of parts from various aircraft and other sources, not a modification of any one aircraft.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken. I had a set of plans from way back(since sold). The intro actually advises the builder to find a damaged early Piper(PA-12, J4, whatever). You can dance around the parts-is-parts stuff all you want, but when it left Lockhaven the plane was certificated, with the Conti engine from Alabama that was certificated. From then it was substantially modified enough to qual as the 51% AB EXP plane it is today.

There is no 'various' aircraft involved, and the parts from the Piper/Conti exist in the same design and function as when they were designated as a J4/PA-12/whatever. Those parts were never modified, including as I recall, the struts, ailerons, bellcranks, elevator, rudder, horz stab, vert stab, rudder pedals, seats, main gear, brakes, bungee springs, etc. Since the C-85 could be used in either tractor or pusher, you didn't even need to mod the engine, just put a pusher prop on and away you go!
 
Everskyward said:
None of the photo ships I flew (maybe 10?) were experimental. They all had 337s for the hole. These were big enough holes that some of the cables had to be rerouted.
Click to expand...

The couple I've come across are probably the outliers, then. :)
 
I know of a Malibu that Toyota had put in the experimental category to test a 5.7 V8 engine as a possible STC. The plane was fitted with the original engine and was sold as a certified plane.
 
The Breezy was one example of certificated parts becoming an EXP-AB. I was mistaken about all the parts coming from the Piper. I've learned the nose fork is from a C150, as the Piper never had a nosewheel. My bad.

lol
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The couple I've come across are probably the outliers, then. :)
Click to expand...
Perhaps. Here is an example of an STC.

http://www.straightflight.com/206H.html

camera_big.gif
 
docmirror said:
This is a common misconception and has been repeated in this thread. There are cases where a standard TCDS has been forsaken for a permanent EXP TC. Of course, as mentioned the hoops are long and varied, but should the 'experimenter' succeed in putting a Chebby engine and PSRU on his trusty 172 and show that more than 51% of the aircraft was 'substantially modified'(I think that's the wording), it can qualify for operations under an amateur built EXP TC.

Common - no, possible - yes.
Click to expand...
It's obviously possible if the FAA inspector is a friend, or is willing to take a bribe, is new, or is P.O.d at the FAA and wants to shake things up a bit.

I've met two people who have managed to get production-type aircraft certified as Experimental Amateur-Built. Both declined to tell me how they did it...which, to me, indicates some sort of "fix." If it were legal and aboveboard, many people would have done it by now.

Both those aircraft were well before the "EX-AB" Seabee made the cover of EAA Sport Aviation...and the FAA really clamped down on this sort of thing, afterwards.

Looking in the FAA registry, I see eight single-engined Cessnas licensed as Experimental Amateur-Built. One is listed as a 2004 Cessna 210E with a Rotax engine (N2317F). Another is a Cessna 140 with a Rotorway helicopter engine (N90030).

I knew a guy who developed a Chevy engine conversion and licensed a Cessna 172 as Experimental/Research and Development to use as a test bed. He talked with the FAA about getting it into Ex-AB instead. He offered to build wings for it from scratch, but they said they'd only buy off on it if he built the fuselage, instead....
c172.jpg


Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
I knew a guy who developed a Chevy engine conversion and licensed a Cessna 172 as Experimental/Research and Development to use as a test bed. He talked with the FAA about getting it into Ex-AB instead. He offered to build wings for it from scratch, but they said they'd only buy off on it if he built the fuselage, instead....
c172.jpg


Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

This seems to become one of those regs where what the written words say, and what the FAA enforces are two separate things. I don't know how it would be quantified, but if a builder of such an aircraft can show that his work comprised 51% or more of the work needed to build it, then he has the option of taking them to court over it.

Seems to me, that the FAAs position on this is that the builder didn't cast the pistons, or forge the rods for the engine. If they want to go back to the physics, no one mines their own Aluminum, and extrudes it into a sheet.

Fighting the FAA is a never-ending bottomless pit of waste. Where does it end? The Sonex and other E-AB kits think they are fitting into the E-AB rules. Some of the fast build kits are way more(from a physics POV) than 50% completed by the time the builder fits tab A into slot B. The engine can be pre-assembled, prop off the production line, all bolts are off the shelf, tires from a factory, plexi out of a factory.

Meh, it's a no-win. If it's a cert TC, leave it that way. If it starts out as E-Ab, leave it that way. Everything in between is a miasma.
 
wanttaja said:
I've met two people who have managed to get production-type aircraft certified as Experimental Amateur-Built. Both declined to tell me how they did it...which, to me, indicates some sort of "fix." If it were legal and aboveboard, many people would have done it by now.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Ron,
Just to argue the point and get your insight, I would think it is quite possible and legal, but not necessarily easy.

If one took a salvaged C-172 (for example) and built/installed a few new ribs, ailerons, one elevator, a new horizontal and vertical stabilizer from scratch, etc, etc and complied with the letter of the 51% law, I would think it would be possible to not uncertify the old plane, but use the parts of the old plane to make a "new" experimental.

As I understand it, the 51% rule applies to DOING 51% of the things (outside of engine, interior and avionics) that need to be done ... not doing 51% of the work. I actually believe I heard that you can no longer assemble a Breezy from purchased parts for this exact reason ... you're doing a lot of work, but you didn't BUILD 51% of the items.

Isn't this how the turboprop guys are "getting around" the rules legally. Is this how the 21 day programs work too? You build a rib, you build and a bunch of other piece-parts and they supply the heavy lifting.

I would think such an approach would work ... you are just building a Wanttaja-172, which is a new plane, using donated parts while meeting the 51% rule.

Not saying it makes sense, but would technically be doable, no?
 
there ia a bonanza that has a navajo lycoming engine and the airframe is permanent experimental with basically no restrictions. I think it sold recently which brought it up for discussion again. This airplane is famous precisely because its status is so rare.
 
N801BH said:
I don't know where the rule is applied that a certified plane has to convert back to certified after 1 year.. These guys have been running a LS-1 Chevy for years in a Cessna....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
Click to expand...

EXP-Exhibition. Supposedly the ops is tightly controlled by the FAA. Who knows if they follow the limitations in their ops spec.
 
I thought 51% was the requirement for getting a repairmans cert at the end of construction, not the definition of EAB :dunno:
 
Skylane81E said:
I thought 51% was the requirement for getting a repairmans cert at the end of construction, not the definition of EAB :dunno:
Click to expand...
2 separate things. 10 people can build an E/AB in succession and each only do a small amount of work. The requirement to get the A/W cert is that 51% is amateur built. The number of amateurs and the portion done by each is not important. The repairman's certificate can then be issued to any one of them who did any of the work, regardless of how much. But only one repairman's certificate can be issued per aircraft.
 
Skylane81E said:
I thought 51% was the requirement for getting a repairmans cert at the end of construction, not the definition of EAB :dunno:
Click to expand...

No, the 51% rule means the builder can BE the legal "manufacturer". This is the definition of "amateur-built". More than 51% complete, and the parts manufacturer is the legal "manufacturer", and they can only sell airplanes (or components) in the Experimental Exhibition Category (without a TC) or Standard Category (with TC). It's technically against the rules to hire someone to build you an EAB aircraft, even though it is known that there are some RV builders who build to sell. They are arguably skirting the rules, but get by since they are not building "for hire". You can pay Chris Panzl to build you a Staudacher, which is not a TC'd airplane, but it will be in the Exhibition category.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top