experimental category

[RT]

Does anybody have a maule in the experimental exhibition category? If so what are the restrictions that are placed on you?

[Lowflybye]

You need to check with Greg Miller...his "Bushwacker" is about as experimental as they come. He could probably answer any questions you may have on the topic.

[a64pilot]

You have to build, not repair, at least 51% of the aircraft. I don't know of any other way to get there. David Wright is building one now. He posts under W.A.T. , I think.

[Wirsig]

Does that mean I can buy a wrecked out plane off barnstormers, tear it down, and completely rebuild it and fall under the 51% homebuilt rule?
I thought you had to get the manufacturer to give you something in writing allowing you to do that.

[flyer]

Wirsig

I do not think the manufacturer has anything to do with it. I do not think the FAA would approve your rebuilding a certified plane and calling it an experimental and qualify for the 51% rule.

If you lived in Canada, you could turn a certified plane into an experimental plane. Since we obviously do not have the mechanical talents that the Canadians have and since we have to be more protected from ourselves, we cannot do that. The FAA is only here to help us.

Check with the EAA and with the FAA.

flyer

[a64pilot]

Check with the EAA, but I'm pretty sure repairing doesn't count. Neither does building a "frankenplane" out of several different parts from various models etc. Pretty sure you have to build 51% of the plane. Pretty sure there are checksheets available that will allow you to determine what 51% is.

[TomD]

Have a look here:

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/ai ... xperiment/

I think this is the clause that would let you modify your plane and put it experimental:

"...or does not conform to its type certificate and is in a condition for safe operation."

Greg's plane certainly no longer complies w/ the Maule type certificate and is evidently in condition for safe flight.

He also may be covered under the exhibition clause.

Cheers,

TD

[210TC]

This means that my Clip wing Swick T that I have worked on for the last 15
years will be turned down also. There are 1000's of airplanes across the
country that are JUNK now.

David Goad
----- Original Message -----
From: <Ford>
To: <david>
Cc: <Mark>; <Jerry>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 1:18 PM
Subject: Amateur-Built Aircraft Certification Requirements


>
> Dear Mr. Goad:
>
> This message is to inform you of changes to Federal Aviation
> Administration (FAA) procedures concerning certification of
> Amateur-Built Aircraft. Change 3, to FAA Order 8130.2F, Airworthiness
> Certification of Aircraft and Related Products, was released on April
> 18, 2007. The change includes clarification of certification
> requirements for amateur-built aircraft and affects your ability to
> obtain an amateur-built aircraft airworthiness certificate for your
> type-certificated Taylorcraft airplane.
>
> Section 9, paragraph 146 of Order 8130.2F, now contains a note that
> states “A rebuilt, altered, or repaired type-certificated aircraft DOES
> NOT meet the intent of § 21.191(g) and DOES NOT meet the § 21.191(g)
> requirement that the major portion of the aircraft be fabricated and
> assembled.”
>
> It has never been the intent of either the regulations or FAA policy to
> allow the conversion of a type-certificated aircraft into an
> amateur-built aircraft. The intent of the regulation and policy can be
> tracked back as early as October 1952 in which the Civil Aeronautics
> Administration (predecessor of the FAA) published Civil Aeronautics
> Manual 1, which provided an interpretation of the amateur-built aircraft
> rule. The interpretation of Civil Air Regulation, part 1.74.3,
> Certification of Amateur-Built Aircraft, stated in part “…Structural
> components of other aircraft may be used; however, it is not intended
> that this provision be used to avoid obtaining approval of major
> alterations to aircraft previously certificated in another category…”
>
> Your aircraft may, however, be eligible for an airworthiness certificate
> in the experimental category for the purpose of exhibition under 14 CFR
> § 21.191(d). Valid exhibition purposes include organized air shows,
> fly-ins, youth education events, static displays, aerobatic competition,
> movie or television productions, etc. The aircraft’s eligibility for
> that certification would have to be determined by the local
> Manufacturing Inspection District Office (MIDO).
>
> If you have any questions concerning current FAA regulations or policy,
> please feel free to contact me.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ford J Lauer III
> Manager,
> Manufacturing Inspection District Office
> San Antonio, Texas
> Phone: (210) 308-3360
>
>
>

[TomD]

Where does this leave warbirds? I note they are all, or almost all, marked experimental.

Did they not get a type certificate? Are they only for shows and movies?

Any aviation legal types out there with an interpretation?

Just curious. Fortunately for me I still have a "stock" airplane.

TD

[a64pilot]

I don't want to weigh in on this, because I think I know, but this has been a very "touchy" subject. The best thing you can do is contact the EAA, if anybody is the expert, they are.
Basically to fly around in a homebuilt aircraft in the experimental catagory, it can't be a modified, factory built aircraft. Most of the regulations you will find and try to use are not meant for the individual, they are meant to be able to allow Maule to flythe M9 to Sun-N-Fun for example. Don't misconstrue them to be for an individual. The warbirds as far as I know are "exhibition" and have been so for a long time.

[RT]

I was aware that I couldn't put the maule in the experimental amateur built category. I was wondering about the experimental exhibition category. I wanted to know how restrictive this category would be. Like you could only fly it to airshow like the warbirds ect. I know these warbirds are flying around just for fun too.

[49clipper]

Wirsig,
Just saw your post about rebuilding and making it xp. I just went thru getting my rv certificated and I ask the DAR the same question. the answer is emphatically no. I wanted to build an exp cub by using an airframe and modify it, and modify some cub wings and he said don't waste your time. They used to do it, but not any more. It strictly must be built by you from almost scratch and at least 51% by you (no kits or certified parts).
49clipper

[aero101]

I think you'll find that the rules are interpreted differently at different FSDO's across the country, but if you make enough changes from original production aircraft, do all the work yourself, and basically totally build the re-designed aircraft, it can be registered as experimental just as the bushwacker is!!! The complete build process has to be documented and a log kept and will need enough changes that it will no longer be a production aircraft. It will no longer be a maule in any way, shape, or form other then the basic platform. Being in the Experimental Exhibition class has some real disadvantages as this is a restricted category certificate and limits you very much on where and for what purpose you can fly the aircraft. It may also limit your passenger carrying abilities... Before starting a project like this, you would best communicate with an Airworthiness Inspector at the local FSDO, explain exactly what your plans are for a completed aircraft, and if he considers it to meet the 51% rule, go for it! I have seen this done several times on production aircraft, but the changes were substantial in such areas as landing gear, engine, airframe dimensions, wings, flight control surfaces such as seen on the bushwacker...

[Wirsig]

Thanks guys!
wirsig

[210TC]

I have ABSOLUTE proof that I am constructing/building/fabricating more than 51%.
With documentation backed up with pictures and blue prints.
And Mr. Lauer said "NO".
Because the original airframe started out as a certificated airframe he refuses to acknowledge the percentages PERIOD.
I think you are correct about fisdo's, the guy's I worked with in California seemed as if they came from a different world than Texas.
I have a friend in Idaho that takes all of his needs to LA, he deals with Seattle and can not get anything done.