New Aircraft or Restoration

Discussion in 'Rules and Regulations / Flight Safety / Better Pil' started by toweym, Mar 20, 2007.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Mar 20, 2007 #1

    toweym

    toweym

    toweym

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    A few months ago I purchased a pile of parts to a Cassutt. The owner had no records just stacks of pictures, boxes of parts, etc. Speaking with the FAA you cannot build an experimental from parts since the reg. states the parts must be certified i.e. you can build a Piper from parts but not a homebuilt. That said, so long as I was willing to claim to have built everything, or had it done by someone else, I could apply to be the builder of a new airplane despite the fact the aircraft had already been flown. Now the guy I originally bought the parts from found the original data plate, the one thing the FAA stated I would need to make claim to the original aircraft. Adding to the fun the current registered owner, not the individual I purchased the parts from, deceased some time ago. I only have a bill of sale for 'Cassutt Aircraft Parts' with no reference to the particular plane on the data plate and the guy I bought them from doesn't want me to use the plate but just thought I would like to have it. (I think he's scared of liability)

    The way I see it is I could go ahead with the 'new build', the pros being able to do my own annuals and having a complete set of logs. Of course the cons are having to pay a DAR and go through the pain of satisfying him. If I go the restoration route the pros would be no DAR (good friends with an IA) but the cons are incomplete logbooks and not able to do the annuals. Any other thoughts? Just looking for the path of least resistance -- not trying to hide anything.
     
  2. Mar 23, 2007 #2

    windair

    windair

    windair

    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Fleetwood, PA
    This is how it has been explained to me. If you use parts from an already built and registered aircraft you are going to have to make a case to the FAA that you meet the 51% rule. For the application for registration you have to either select "Plan built" or "Kit built." If you select kit built you will need a bill of sale from the kit manufacturer. For plan built a bill of sale is not required.

    Many times a builder will remove the data plate from a homebuilt aircraft that they are selling because they believe that it negates them from any liability. Per the EAA this does nothing to protect them as the builder and is basically renders the aircraft useless and worthless. There is no legal way to re-register the aircraft.

    I believe it is possible in some cases to take a basket case or wrecked aircraft , rebuild and legitimately meet the 51% rule, but it will be tough to prove it to the FAA. :ponder:


    Regards,
    Nick
     
  3. Apr 17, 2007 #3

    toweym

    toweym

    toweym

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now I'm reading through AC 20-27F and it specifically speaks to using "Major components (for example, wings,fuselage, and empennage) from type-certificated or experimental aircraft"

    What gives? It even states later on that if the parts were amateur built they still count for the 51% rule. So can't I build this airplane as new even though it is effectively a restoration?
     
  4. Apr 21, 2007 #4

    macosxuser

    macosxuser

    macosxuser

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0

    It shouldn't be THAT hard to prove. They just have to see that you worked a little on 51% of the parts that will make up the airplane.
     
  5. Nov 12, 2007 #5

    Mad Man Mike

    Mad Man Mike

    Mad Man Mike

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Buckeye AZ
    Im bumping this up as it interests me.

    I acquired a 1939 Aeronca Chief fuselage--This is a BARE fuselage no rudder ,horizontal stab,wood formers but is does include the Oleo Strut landing gear. My goal was to use this as abase to build an Experimental copy of the chief --new wings with Aluminum ribs and spars, totally new empanage copied after the post war Chiefs. I also have a relatively full set of plans for a post war chief so fabricating these will not be a major issue --just a lot of time.
    I was advised that I could not do this by several people --however after reading this it seems it may be possible-- While the fuselage frame is a major component -it in no way constitutes more than 51% of the aircraft. im looking for opinions as to the feasability of attempting this project. It seems doable to me and is within the intent of the Experimental regs. Any Comments --or suggestions--

    I have previously built a Hipps Reliant and several gyrocopters--
     
  6. Nov 12, 2007 #6

    PTAirco

    PTAirco

    PTAirco

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,501
    Likes Received:
    1,013
    Location:
    Corona CA
    There are many airplanes that use readily available components from certified aircraft and as long as you do more than 51 % I don't see the problem. Look at Breezys, Kingfishers and Volmer amphibians. I'm sure there are others. And if all else fails go to the same FAA guy who signed off that horrible Helio from a while ago ("Helio from Hell", Sport aviation)...
     
  7. Nov 12, 2007 #7

    JMillar

    JMillar

    JMillar

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Antigonish, NS, Canada
    Not quite on topic, but I was wondering if someone could give me guidance on the ins and outs of the Owner-Maintenance category in Canada. I always end up with a headache when I go through the CARs. As I understand it, *certain* type-certified aircraft can be "downgraded" to OM, but I think they might have to be in a certain condition to do it?

    Kind of like a certified craft becoming AB, but they have a separate name for it

    Oh, and if somebody is smart enough to figure out that one, they can probably tell me offhand what the story with buying an amateur-built here is... there's no builder-only restriction on the annual and maintainance here, right, just has to be the current owner?
     
  8. Dec 14, 2007 #8

    Gemini

    Gemini

    Gemini

    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Escondido, Ca.
    Hi,

    New kid here. Some may recall that I joined this group writing that I was a helper to a friend fix a damaged KR II. Now following this thread I'm confused how he will have to deal with a repaired aircraft that has already been registered & flown. I know almost nothing & he knows less.

    Advice?
     
  9. Dec 14, 2007 #9

    toweym

    toweym

    toweym

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    The DAR I'm working with is making this relatively easy. If it is obvious the airplane is amateur built he will sign it off. Reading through the handbook he made the observation that there really isn't any restrictions to making a plane from parts and he feels well within his rights sign off on it. In his view the 51% rule applies to certified parts and that if an amateur, or a group of them, build the components of an airplane then they satisfy the requirement.
     

Share This Page

Group Builder
arrow_white