What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Rebuild or use for parts ???

Pilot135pd

Well Known Member
I have an opportunity to buy a taildragger RV that I was told had a hangar door close on it. It crushed the tail feathers and damaged part of the fuse but everything forward is fine. What would be :

1- Easier
2- Better (safety wise)
3- Correct way to legally do it

It was a registered flying plane so I'm trying to decide if I should buy the entire empennage kit from Van's and try to repair the fuse to keep the AW certificate with the damage history

OR

Use the wings, landing gear, engine, and other parts from this plane as a donor and buy a new fuse (if it can't safely be repaired) and since I'm buying a new empennage kit anyway, use the new serial number I get with it and just make a new plane?

What do you experienced builders and DARs out there recommend?

*I purposely didn't mention what model RV because it's not for sale yet. I've tried to buy 2 other RVs offered for sale here in the last month and something happens that I'm late to the party and miss out on it. I'm afraid that if I make too much noise about this one, someone might recognize it and I might lose the early bird opportunity. :(
 
From a safety perspective, if the main longerons aren't bent then the rest is a matter of how much work you want to put into it. If they are bent, you could probably replace them but I personally don't think it would be worth it. This is coming from someone who is replacing three skins aft of the main spar on his RV-10 project due to a lift failure. It's a lot of extra work, but building a whole new fuselage would also be a lot of work.

As far as the legal, I'd like to hear Mel weigh in but I think you'd have to have an A&P or the original builder sign off if you go the repair route. I'm not sure what the deal is if you register a new homebuilt using borrowed parts.
 
From a safety perspective, if the main longerons aren't bent then the rest is a matter of how much work you want to put into it. If they are bent, you could probably replace them but I personally don't think it would be worth it. This is coming from someone who is replacing three skins aft of the main spar on his RV-10 project due to a lift failure. It's a lot of extra work, but building a whole new fuselage would also be a lot of work.

As far as the legal, I'd like to hear Mel weigh in but I think you'd have to have an A&P or the original builder sign off if you go the repair route. I'm not sure what the deal is if you register a new homebuilt using borrowed parts.

Thanks. Yes I have an IA available and a really good multiple RV builder A&P that would help me (or in reality I'll help them, LOL). I basically want it to learn a little more and don't want to start from scratch. I already have my RV8 to fly so time wise I'm in no hurry.
 
The only certification requirement for anything ever done to an experimental aircraft is for the required yearly condition inspection.

If this repair work could be completed before the next condition inspection was due, it would be perfectly legal to have paid the 15 year old kid next door to do it and then just go fly it (I didn't say it was a good idea though)

Just about anything can be repaired. There is even approved procedures for splicing longerons.

Doing even a major repair is still way less work than completely building an RV.

The key point is whether it can be purchased with an active Certificate of Airworthiness. If that has been surrendered (happens often with the idea of reduced liability) it makes the airplane worth nothing more than the value of the major parts. You can not newly certify an RV as an amateur built aircraft if it is built with parts of a previously certified airplane. At least not unless you do it under the radar and lie.

If it was an RV-4 or 6, that would be very difficult to do anyway, because each centersection bulkhead and pair of spars is a mated set. Fitting wings to a different fuselage could be done but it would take a major effort to do.
 
The only certification requirement for anything ever done to an experimental aircraft is for the required yearly condition inspection.

If this repair work could be completed before the next condition inspection was due, it would be perfectly legal to have paid the 15 year old kid next door to do it and then just go fly it (I didn't say it was a good idea though)

Just about anything can be repaired. There is even approved procedures for splicing longerons.

Doing even a major repair is still way less work than completely building an RV.

The key point is whether it can be purchased with an active Certificate of Airworthiness. If that has been surrendered (happens often with the idea of reduced liability) it makes the airplane worth nothing more than the value of the major parts. You can not newly certify an RV as an amateur built aircraft if it is built with parts of a previously certified airplane. At least not unless you do it under the radar and lie.

If it was an RV-4 or 6, that would be very difficult to do anyway, because each centersection bulkhead and pair of spars is a mated set. Fitting wings to a different fuselage could be done but it would take a major effort to do.

Thanks !! It still has a currently registered certificate so at least that's a relief if needed.

So your comment still brings up a doubt. I understand it couldn't be registered as an "RV" but a person can't buy a wing from one model experimental and a fuse from another model and a tail from yet another model experimental airplane and put them together aerodynamically correctly (I'm not an mechanic or engineer, just thinking about the regulations) and register it as a "Frankenstein Special 7" experimental plane? How did they do it before kits were offered?
 
So your comment still brings up a doubt. I understand it couldn't be registered as an "RV" but a person can't buy a wing from one model experimental and a fuse from another model and a tail from yet another model experimental airplane and put them together aerodynamically correctly (I'm not an mechanic or engineer, just thinking about the regulations) and register it as a "Frankenstein Special 7" experimental plane? How did they do it before kits were offered?

I believe Scott said you cannot register as an amateur built aircraft if you rebuilt a deregistered airplane. You could call it pretty much whatever you want--though the FAA may object if you try to register as a Boeing 767-200 or something like that.

There's also nothing that says you have to use a kit, or use parts that "go together". If you wanted, you could try to put wings from airplane A on a fuselage from airplane B and a tail from airplane C. It's almost certainly not a good idea, but there's nothing against that legally. What matters is who built those components, at least if you want to fall into the amateur-built category.

The trick with registering in E-AB is the 51% requirement (at least 51% of the work, generally as listed in the FAA's checklist, must be amateur-built). Suppose you bought this project and it's been deregistered. If all you do is fit a new empennage and restore the fuselage, you won't meet the 51%.

There's not actually a specific prohibition against using salvaged parts/components/assemblies, regardless of where they came from. The only catch is you can't claim credit for building them. From Order 8130.2J, 15-4 D(4):
(4) When Builders Use Articles from Other Aircraft. The use of used or salvaged articles, including military surplus articles, from other aircraft is permitted if they are in a condition for safe operation; however, all fabrication, installation, and assembly tasks accomplished with used or salvaged articles will be credited to the “Mfr Kit/Part/Component” column on the Amateur-Built Aircraft Fabrication and Assembly Checklist. No credit will be given toward the major-portion requirement for work on these salvaged articles. This includes any “rebuilding” or “restoring” activities to return these articles to an airworthy condition. Assembly credit may be given in those cases where used or salvaged articles are assembled with portions of the aircraft fabricated and assembled by the builder.


There are other options available for a salvaged aircraft (such as experimental exhibition) but those all come with their own unique headaches. It's far better, as noted above, to get something that still has a valid certificate.

I do sort of wonder what the FAA's stance would be on a salvaged homebuilt where all of the original builder's logs were available...
 
My Hatz Biplane is a Piper Pacer fuselage with Hatz wings, it was built as an experimental.

I bought it completed and flying, and I understand the person who built it did that quite often, used cannibalized parts to build aircraft.

What if someone bought parts of an RV from various unfinished projects, they were all hand built but not have full documentation. If the person doing the final assembly attests that it was build by non-professionals wouldn't that suffice?
 
My Hatz Biplane is a Piper Pacer fuselage with Hatz wings, it was built as an experimental.

I bought it completed and flying, and I understand the person who built it did that quite often, used cannibalized parts to build aircraft.

What if someone bought parts of an RV from various unfinished projects, they were all hand built but not have full documentation. If the person doing the final assembly attests that it was build by non-professionals wouldn't that suffice?

The rule is that it must be 51% built by amateurs. No requirements that all of the 51% is done by one amateur that is registered as the builder. The tid bit Scott mentioned about re-using previously AB certified parts is new to me and had never heard of it before, so have no insight.

Larry
 
A long time ago, Ken Scott (IIRC) of Van's had an errant car (a Chevy Impaler, IIRC) ram the empennage/aft fuse on his RV-6.

He spliced the bent longerons, built a new tail, and fabricated replacement skin segments.

So it can be done.
 
The rule is that it must be 51% built by amateurs. No requirements that all of the 51% is done by one amateur that is registered as the builder. The tid bit Scott mentioned about re-using previously AB certified parts is new to me and had never heard of it before, so have no insight.

Larry

Exactly what I thought. That's why I don't understand this comment:

...You can not newly certify an RV as an amateur built aircraft if it is built with parts of a previously certified airplane. At least not unless you do it under the radar and lie....

What's the difference between parts built by amateurs salvaged from a "previously registered" plane and parts built by amateurs bought here on VAF to complete my plane? None have serial numbers but why would a builder have to do it "under the radar and lie" ? On a Standard category plane where all parts have to be accounted for where they came from, sure, but I've never heard that for experimentals until you mentioned it now.
 
Last edited:
Vic and MEL are the gurus (Mel is the "Texas FAA Whisperer" whom I've personally confirmed knows more than the local FSDO regarding Experimental aircraft) so your opinions are super valuable.

Anyone have a some Order or Regulation where it says this CAN'T be registered as E-AB? Not talking about the Repairman certificate part but the E-AB registration part?

What about the one week wonder RV12 (N2018) built by 1000 people in Oshkosh or the other planes built at Oshkosh as E-AB? What about the plane that's built by 2 friends with the help of all of his neighbors? Of course only 1 person for each plane can get the repairman certificate but he didn't build 51% of it, yet more than 51% was built by amateurs.

Isn't that the same as taking parts from other experimental airplanes (all those parts were also built by amateurs) like we do here all the time or when we buy kits sections from others who have decided to not continue their builds, and one person ends up putting everything together and registering it as E-AB?




Here are some links for anyone who hasn't heard of this:

https://youtu.be/v1FKOgSzJPc

https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=2018

https://www.eaa.org/airventure/eaa-...osh/07-22-2018-help-build-a-plane-in-one-week
 
Last edited:
Exactly what I thought. That's why I don't understand this comment:



What's the difference between parts built by amateurs salvaged from a "previously registered" plane and parts built by amateurs bought here on VAF to complete my plane? None have serial numbers but why would a builder have to do it "under the radar and lie" ? On a Standard category plane where all parts have to be accounted for where they came from, sure, but I've never heard that for experimentals until you mentioned it now.

Again, I don't know anythig about this rule. However, I wouldn't be surprised to find the FAA views a salvage part from a plane with an A/W cert, as very different from a newly constructed part, regardless of the ownership chain on that part. A new part is a new part, regardless of how many people touched or owned it.

Hopefully Scott or Mel will elaborate on this rule.


Larry
 
What's the difference between parts built by amateurs salvaged from a "previously registered" plane and parts built by amateurs bought here on VAF to complete my plane?None have serial numbers but why would a builder have to do it "under the radar and lie" ? On a Standard category plane where all parts have to be accounted for where they came from, sure, but I've never heard that for experimentals until you mentioned it now.


The difference is that, with the partially-complete kit, you (should) have documentation from the previous builder/owner substantiating that those parts were amateur-built, such as a build log. If you just use some salvaged airplane, chances are you don't have that documentation, and therefore the FAA requires you to assume that it was commercially-supplied/professionally-built. See again, the section I quoted from Order 8130.2J (which is basically the FAA's "policies and procedures for issuing airworthiness certificates", including E-AB).


Anyone have a some Order or Regulation where it says this CAN'T be registered as E-AB? Not talking about the Repairman certificate part but the E-AB registration part?
Yet again, see Order 8130.2J, page 15-2. If you want to register as E-AB, you have to provide documentation substantiating the claim you make that the aircraft was amateur-built. The burden is on you to show that at least 51% is amateur-built; it's not on the FAA to prove that it wasn't.

What about the one week wonder RV12 (N2018) built by 1000 people in Oshkosh or the other planes built at Oshkosh as E-AB? What about the plane that's built by 2 friends with the help of all of his neighbors? Of course only 1 person for each plane can get the repairman certificate but he didn't build 51% of it, yet more than 51% was built by amateurs.
Bolded is the key point. At least 51% must be built by amateurs; it doesn't matter how many (or how few, so long as the number is at least 1).

Isn't that the same as taking parts from other experimental airplanes (all those parts were also built by amateurs) like we do here all the time or when we buy kits sections from others who have decided to not continue their builds, and one person ends up putting everything together and registering it as E-AB?
No; see above. You still need documentation from those partial kits/projects to show they were amateur-built.
 
The difference is that, with the partially-complete kit, you (should) have documentation from the previous builder/owner substantiating that those parts were amateur-built, such as a build log....

...Yet again, see Order 8130.2J, page 15-2. If you want to register as E-AB, you have to provide documentation substantiating the claim you make that the aircraft was amateur-built. The burden is on you to show that at least 51% is amateur-built; it's not on the FAA to prove that it wasn't.

...You still need documentation from those partial kits/projects to show they were amateur-built.

This all sounds reasonable. So if we buy parts here on VAF or anywhere, we need to request copies of build logs or at least a certification from those builders that they built them, and STILL the FAA might not accept them, so when we buy parts we're gambling. I guess that's a good way of protecting and keeping manufacturers in business.
 
This all sounds reasonable. So if we buy parts here on VAF or anywhere, we need to request copies of build logs or at least a certification from those builders that they built them, and STILL the FAA might not accept them, so when we buy parts we're gambling. I guess that's a good way of protecting and keeping manufacturers in business.

I'd imagine the vast majority of DARs are pretty reasonable. If you have some semblance of documentation and keep a receipt, and the parts look new, I don't see anyone giving you grief over it. People buy projects secondhand all the time and don't have problems. I know a DAR who built his RV that way. It's how I started my project, buying a completed empennage off someone else and ordering the wing kit.

But if you have shiny new wings attached to a fuselage with years' worth of dirt packed in the crevices, oil on the belly, paint worn on the floor by the rudder pedals, worn brake pads, and bug splatters on the canopy... well, good luck convincing the DAR that it's new. Or good luck convincing him that you built the entire airframe of your one-off design when the wings and tail look just like those off a C-150 and have Cessna part numbers on them.


The unknown would come in if you salvaged a deregistered E-AB, replaced/repaired the damaged parts, had all the original build logs plus your own work documented to the point you could prove 51%, and then tried to re-register. That would be an interesting test case.
 
Or good luck convincing him that you built the entire airframe of your one-off design when the wings and tail look just like those off a C-150 and have Cessna part numbers on them.

I think that's where the confusion could be coming from. I'm not talking about Cessna parts. When Scott said "previously certified" I hope he meant partos off a plane previously certified in the experimental category because the experimental had a A/C certificate, and that's what I've been talking about.

The unknown would come in if you salvaged a deregistered E-AB, replaced/repaired the damaged parts, had all the original build logs plus your own work documented to the point you could prove 51%, and then tried to re-register. That would be an interesting test case.

That's more like what I was thinking. Buy a damaged de-registered experimental amateur built plane, in essence and as per Scott that would be a lot of parts at that point, and buy what I need to build a complete plane, put it all together and build what I can't buy (making it aerodynamically safe and sound) and register the whole heep as E-AB.
 
Last edited:
The short answer is...........

Well, there is no short answer. I guess the short answer might be a BIG maybe.

What you are proposing can be done, but it is not a one trip inspection like most A/W inspections. I have done this, but it takes considerable research and documentation. The biggest example is an aircraft that the FSDO and another well respected DAR had denied. That's where a lot of the research comes in. Why was it denied? Have the reasons for denial been corrected? My FAA supervisor was one who had denied it. I discussed the issues with him and he told, "I respect your knowledge and research. If you find that the aircraft meets all the requirements, then I'm behind you all the way." It took a lot of work but after about 3 weeks, we worked through all the discrepancies and got it sign off.

IOW, if you plan to do something like this, start working with your inspector early and find out exactly what he/she wants.
 
Well, there is no short answer. I guess the short answer might be a BIG maybe.

What you are proposing can be done, but it is not a one trip inspection like most A/W inspections. I have done this, but it takes considerable research and documentation. The biggest example is an aircraft that the FSDO and another well respected DAR had denied. That's where a lot of the research comes in. Why was it denied? Have the reasons for denial been corrected? My FAA supervisor was one who had denied it. I discussed the issues with him and he told, "I respect your knowledge and research. If you find that the aircraft meets all the requirements, then I'm behind you all the way." It took a lot of work but after about 3 weeks, we worked through all the discrepancies and got it sign off.

IOW, if you plan to do something like this, start working with your inspector early and find out exactly what he/she wants.

I like positive "half glass full" kind of people !! Thanks Mel.
 
I kind of hate to jump in here after Mel has weighed in....but let’s go way back to the OP’s statement that “the damaged aircraft still has a valid airworthiness certificate”. In that case, you could legally take it to a commercial repair shop and have them rebuild it - or you could have the 15 year old kid next door do the repairs, and as long as the airplane is “in a condition for safe operation” the next time it gets a condition inspection sign off, it is good to go.

It is my understanding that once it has an AWC, the 51% rule no longer applies - you could theoretically have repair parts from a variety of sources - including a shop - go back into the airplane, and that’s fine.

I was musing the other day over someone looking for a “turnkey interior”, and a comment that you had to meet the 51% rule. Let’s say you built an absolute bare-bones airplane - airframe, engine, prop, and a blank instrument panel. Just exactly enough to get it an AWC from a reputable DAR who knows the exact edge of the rules. You then take it to a commercial shop and have a custom panel, interior, paint job and all the trimming added to make it the perfect, most luxurious airplane ever - and you didn’t do any of the time-consuming finishing work....that should still meet the letter of the law.

Anyway - if the OP’s statement that it still has an AWC is valid, then buy it for a good price and attach whatever parts are necessary to the data plate and airworthiness certificate to make it “in a condition for safe operation”.....

Mel - where is the flaw in my logic?

Paul
 
Absolutely no flaw in your "theoretical". Even before the A/W inspection, you can have the instruments, avionics, engine, prop, upholstery, done professionally. These items do not count against the 51% rule.

The neat thing about these items is, if you do them, you get credit, but if you don't do them it doesn't count against you.
 
....but let’s go way back to the OP’s statement that “the damaged aircraft still has a valid airworthiness certificate”. In that case, you could legally take it to a commercial repair shop and have them rebuild it... once it has an AWC, the 51% rule no longer applies - you could theoretically have repair parts from a variety of sources - including a shop - go back into the airplane, and that’s fine.

Yes, that's correct and maybe even the easiest way.

Anyway - if the OP’s statement that it still has an AWC is valid, then buy it for a good price and attach whatever parts are necessary to the data plate and airworthiness certificate to make it “in a condition for safe operation”.....

THAT'S EXACTLY what many have done for ages, we all know it.


But still my question was the other way around: use all the good parts still left of the damaged airplane and buy some other new parts to build a NEW plane and throw away the old airworthiness certificate and get a new inspection and AW certificate. When Scott from Van's said that to do that I'd need to do it "under the radar and lie" in order to get a new airworthiness inspection as an E-AB, then I wanted more info because it just doesn't sound reasonable in an experimental aircraft scenario.
 
Absolutely no flaw in your "theoretical". Even before the A/W inspection, you can have the instruments, avionics, engine, prop, upholstery, done professionally. These items do not count against the 51% rule.

The neat thing about these items is, if you do them, you get credit, but if you don't do them it doesn't count against you.

This makes more sense. So the 51% rule kind of just means the factory who supplies the kit can't build more than 49% and has to leave the rest (51%) to be built by someone else and as long as anyone else builds the 51% (no matter if someone is paying them or they're doing it for free) then it can be registered as E-AB?

When you say " if you do them, you get credit, but if you don't do them it doesn't count against you" does that mean if someone else does them I still need to build and additional 51% or that it counts as part of that 51% that the factory can't do? Or were you talking specifically about the instruments, avionics, engine, prop, and upholstery only?
 
Last edited:
This makes more sense. So the 51% rule kind of just means the factory who supplies the kit can't build more than 49% and has to leave the rest (51%) to be built by someone else and as long as anyone else builds the 51% (no matter if someone is paying them or they're doing it for free) then it can be registered as E-AB?

When you say " if you do them, you get credit, but if you don't do them it doesn't count against you" does that mean if someone else does them I still need to build and additional 51% or that it counts as part of that 51% that the factory can't do? Or were you talking specifically about the instruments, avionics, engine, prop, and upholstery only?

To be eligible for an amateur-built certificate, the “major portion” (at least 51 percent) of the tasks needed to make the aircraft airworthy must be completed by amateurs “solely for their own education or recreation.” So you may hire someone to finish the wings on your kit if you still have 51 percent or more of the tasks remaining to be completed by amateurs solely for their own education or recreation.
 
To be eligible for an amateur-built certificate, the “major portion” (at least 51 percent) of the tasks needed to make the aircraft airworthy must be completed by amateurs “solely for their own education or recreation.” So you may hire someone to finish the wings on your kit if you still have 51 percent or more of the tasks remaining to be completed by amateurs solely for their own education or recreation.

Now I'm confused again. So that would mean that when someone else did the instruments, avionics, engine, prop, upholstery then it would make your part of the 51% even harder because there's less things to do. Then it would actually count AGAINST you.

I love threads like this where eventually when the fog clears I'll learn so much more than the original doubt I had. I just hope the fog clears soon.
 
Now I'm confused again. So that would mean that when someone else did the instruments, avionics, engine, prop, upholstery then it would make your part of the 51% even harder because there's less things to do. Then it would actually count AGAINST you.

Not really, because if you do those tasks, you get credit for doing them. But if you don't do them, you do not lose credit.

FAA Order 8130.2 and AC 20-27 allow unlimited use of commercial assistance on non-checklist items such as painting; installation of interior upholstery or avionics; fabrication of engines, propellers, wheels and brake assemblies; and standard aircraft hardware as listed in paragraph 8b(2) without triggering a requirement to use the new policy/checklist.

This link is a great FAQ page, by EAA.
 
This makes more sense. So the 51% rule kind of just means the factory who supplies the kit can't build more than 49% and has to leave the rest (51%) to be built by someone else and as long as anyone else builds the 51% (no matter if someone is paying them or they're doing it for free) then it can be registered as E-AB?

When you say " if you do them, you get credit, but if you don't do them it doesn't count against you" does that mean if someone else does them I still need to build and additional 51% or that it counts as part of that 51% that the factory can't do? Or were you talking specifically about the instruments, avionics, engine, prop, and upholstery only?

You're confusing the issue. The major portion of the aircraft MUST be built by amateurs, period.

Instruments, avionics, engine, prop, wheels, upholstery, and a few other items are exempt from that requirement.

What the kit manufacturer does means nothing except that if they do more than 49%, the kit is not eligible because at that point, amateurs could not possibly do 51%. If the kit manufacturer can show proof that they do 49% or less, they may apply for the FAA "approved kit list". Being on the list only shows that there is 51% or more available to the amateur builder. That's why with a quick build kit one must be very careful about hiring assistance.
 
You're confusing the issue. The major portion of the aircraft MUST be built by amateurs, period.

Instruments, avionics, engine, prop, wheels, upholstery are exempt from that requirement.

What the kit manufacturer does means nothing except that if they do more than 49%, the kit is not eligible because at that point, amateurs could not possibly do 51%. If the kit manufacturer can show proof that they do 49% or less, they may apply for the FAA "approved kit list". Being on the list only shows that there is 51% or more available to the amateur builder. That's why with a quick build kit one must be very careful about hiring assistance.

That clears that part up, thanks again ! BTW you're not planning on retiring any time soon are you? We wouldn't want to lose your expertise around North and East Texas.
 
Not really, because if you do those tasks, you get credit for doing them. But if you don't do them, you do not lose credit.

FAA Order 8130.2 and AC 20-27 allow unlimited use of commercial assistance on non-checklist items such as painting; installation of interior upholstery or avionics; fabrication of engines, propellers, wheels and brake assemblies; and standard aircraft hardware as listed in paragraph 8b(2) without triggering a requirement to use the new policy/checklist.

This link is a great FAQ page, by EAA.

Thank you, I'll go read that page right now.
 
I kind of hate to jump in here after Mel has weighed in....but let’s go way back to the OP’s statement that “the damaged aircraft still has a valid airworthiness certificate”. In that case, you could legally take it to a commercial repair shop and have them rebuild it - or you could have the 15 year old kid next door do the repairs, and as long as the airplane is “in a condition for safe operation” the next time it gets a condition inspection sign off, it is good to go.

It is my understanding that once it has an AWC, the 51% rule no longer applies - you could theoretically have repair parts from a variety of sources - including a shop - go back into the airplane, and that’s fine.

I was musing the other day over someone looking for a “turnkey interior”, and a comment that you had to meet the 51% rule. Let’s say you built an absolute bare-bones airplane - airframe, engine, prop, and a blank instrument panel. Just exactly enough to get it an AWC from a reputable DAR who knows the exact edge of the rules. You then take it to a commercial shop and have a custom panel, interior, paint job and all the trimming added to make it the perfect, most luxurious airplane ever - and you didn’t do any of the time-consuming finishing work....that should still meet the letter of the law.

Anyway - if the OP’s statement that it still has an AWC is valid, then buy it for a good price and attach whatever parts are necessary to the data plate and airworthiness certificate to make it “in a condition for safe operation”.....

Mel - where is the flaw in my logic?

Paul


Exactly

In his first post (the one I originally responded to) the OP made no mention of whether the airplane still had a valid C of A, so my response was largely in the context of the issues related to getting the airplane back to flight status if that were not the case.

With it still having one, getting it flying again is easy (at least meeting the regulatory requirements. The repairs..... that depends).
 
Exactly

In his first post (the one I originally responded to) the OP made no mention of whether the airplane still had a valid C of A, so my response was largely in the context of the issues related to getting the airplane back to flight status if that were not the case.

With it still having one, getting it flying again is easy (at least meeting the regulatory requirements. The repairs..... that depends).

I did mention in my original post that it had a A/W certificate. I said it was registered and I either was going to keep the A/W certificate with the damage history or make a new plane with new A/W certificate and hence no damage history, when I said :

"It was a registered flying plane so I'm trying to decide if I should buy the entire empennage kit from Van's and try to repair the fuse to keep the AW certificate with the damage history
OR
Use the wings, landing gear, engine, and other parts from this plane as a donor and buy a new fuse (if it can't safely be repaired) and since I'm buying a new empennage kit anyway, use the new serial number I get with it and just make a new plane?
 
Last edited:
I did mention in my original post that it had a A/W certificate. I said it was registered and I either was going to keep the A/W certificate with the damage history or make a new plane with new A/W certificate and hence no damage history, when I said :

"It was a registered flying plane so I'm trying to decide if I should buy the entire empennage kit from Van's and try to repair the fuse to keep the AW certificate with the damage history
OR
Use the wings, landing gear, engine, and other parts from this plane as a donor and buy a new fuse (if it can't safely be repaired) and since I'm buying a new empennage kit anyway, use the new serial number I get with it and just make a new plane?

My mistake..... I guess I read right past that. Which is why my post said "if" it can be bought with a valid C of A.
 
Just my opinion but it seams to me you would be in a better position, leagal wise if you rebuilt the ac and accept the fact it has damage history. Using the wings would not give you 51%. Unless you go under the radar. Then a sharp dar should catch that you don’t have a paper trail for the wings. Your option then would be to buy and build a new set of wings, to get it certified. Unless you have the build logs specially for the old wings, and it would take the resets as well. If any of them stated thay were part of a/c serial number xyz the jig is up.
 
Just my opinion but it seams to me you would be in a better position, leagal wise if you rebuilt the ac and accept the fact it has damage history. Using the wings would not give you 51%. Unless you go under the radar. Then a sharp dar should catch that you don’t have a paper trail for the wings. Your option then would be to buy and build a new set of wings, to get it certified. Unless you have the build logs specially for the old wings, and it would take the resets as well. If any of them stated thay were part of a/c serial number xyz the jig is up.

Isn’t the point that the 51% rule is no longer a factor? The aircraft has been completed; it has an airworthiness certicate. The only thing to do here is to repair it to make it airworthy again. Ok that may mean a whole new fuselage, if that’s what’s needed to repair this registered, completed, aeroplane. Am I missing something fundamental?
 
People are going a long way to making this complicated when it isn't.

If he rebuilds it under the same registration it had before, he can use whatever parts he wants to and the 51% rule doesn't apply.

If he rebuilds it as a brand new airplane under a new registration and inspection, the 51% rule applies. So he has to show that amateurs built 51% of it. He'll need the build logs from the original build showing construction of all the parts he's not rebuilding.

Given the first option is available, I can't see why anyone would try the second option.
 
Back
Top