• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Experimental Cub project without data plate

Lampies

Registered User
Porterville
I recently found a Super Cub project that a guy is busy with and want to sell. I'm quite interested in the project but the only problem with it is the fact that the data plate has gone missing throughout the years. The aircraft is an original Piper L21. It doesn't have a engine nor prop. As I have it, the current owner also bought it without these.
Now, the question is, since its going to be registered as a experimental(if it can be registered), is it possible to register the aircraft as a Piper L21(Warbird/Ex-Military category), without a data plate and S/N recognition or can it only be registered, as the current owner suggest, as a "Super Cub Replica" and get a new S/N for her?
For me, value wise in the future, is it better to own a Experimental genuine Super Cub rather than a Cub replica although it is a genuine Super Cub.
Can this be done, and if so, how can I manage to get a new Piper Data plate with S/N?

Kind regards
Lampies
 
I recently found a Super Cub project that a guy is busy with and want to sell. I'm quite interested in the project but the only problem with it is the fact that the data plate has gone missing throughout the years. The aircraft is an original Piper L21. It doesn't have a engine nor prop. As I have it, the current owner also bought it without these.
Now, the question is, since its going to be registered as a experimental(if it can be registered), is it possible to register the aircraft as a Piper L21(Warbird/Ex-Military category), without a data plate and S/N recognition or can it only be registered, as the current owner suggest, as a "Super Cub Replica" and get a new S/N for her?
For me, value wise in the future, is it better to own a Experimental genuine Super Cub rather than a Cub replica although it is a genuine Super Cub.
Can this be done, and if so, how can I manage to get a new Piper Data plate with S/N?

Kind regards
Lampies

In short....,you're up a creek without a paddle.

No you can not register it as an amateur built experimental since you have no builders log with photos showing you did 51% of the work. The other experimental categories have a lot of limitations (unless you're the type to lie and cheat). (thou shall not bear false witness - God)

Getting Piper to issue a new data tag..... good luck with that.

Best bet is to part it out and buy an experimental kit if that is the way you want to go.

Take care,

Crash
 
You need to research the title. Do you know what the N number is and/or the serial number? If so you can start here:
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/serial_inquiry.aspx
Then you will know who the most recent registered owner is. Once you have his name you will need a bill of sale showing a direct ownership chain from him to you. If he gave a bill of sale to the fellow who has the plane now, you will need a bill of sale from the current owner to you. Then submit all of the bills of sale to the FAA. Also get a copy of the aircraft records on a CD from the FAA. Then all you will need is a data plate. It has been said that some folks acquire a blank from a source like this: https://www.wagaero.com/data-placards-replica-data-placard-kit-for-piper.html :wink: Needless to say, mums the word.
Then you will be all set.

As Crash says, experimental is a no-go unless you thoroughly understand all of the limitations of the various categories of "Experimental". There are several and "Experimental Amateur Built" is not one of them in your case.
 
Now, the question is, since its going to be registered as a experimental(if it can be registered), is it possible to register the aircraft as a Piper L21(Warbird/Ex-Military category), without a data plate and S/N recognition or can it only be registered, as the current owner suggest, as a "Super Cub Replica" and get a new S/N for her?

You have two separate issues to deal with - registration and certification. First, you don't "register" an aircraft as experimental. You register it as an aircraft. You may, or may not, "certificate" the aircraft in an experimental category. But in order to get to the certification stage you must first get through the registration stage.

So, do you know who the last registered owner was? If so, do you have a signed bill of sale from that person (or their estate)? If not, you have some work to do just to get to the point where you could even consider which category to certificate the aircraft in. If you can't, or don't want to, track down the last registered owner and get a signed bill of sale from that entity, your game is over at that point unless you want to lie to the FAA about the origin of the aircraft.

Even if you do get the thing registered, you would still be falsifying the airworthiness application if you claim that the aircraft is amateur-built, since you didn't build it, and no other amateur built it. Piper built it, and they did not build it solely for their own education and recreation. But even if amateur builders DID build it, if you don't have construction records to prove your claim that they did (commonly called the "builder's log") you still can't certificate the aircraft as amateur-built because you don't meet the certification requirements. Game over again.

As others have already posted, you've basically got a bunch of parts. They could be used to repair another already-registered and certificated Super Cub, but they can't be used to construct a new airplane (unless you have some good reason to certificate the aircraft in one of the other very restrictive experimental categories). My guess that the chances of getting a replacement data plate from Piper is somewhere between slim and none, so that's probably not a viable option. And even if you were able to get a replacement data plate you've still got to deal with the registration issue before you can get a new airworthiness certificate for the airplane.

So, as others have stated, you're pretty much out of luck except for parting it out.
 
As was suggested, if you know the N-number or serial number you can research it. You would not be the first guy to buy a pile of parts passed off as a project and then find the N-number and serial number belong to another flying aircraft. Or it may have been deregistered at some point(somebody tried to hide it in a divorce, it was wrecked and written off by an insurance company, a previous owner tried to hide it from a States tax department) so now you get to convince the FAA that it really is still an airplane--or not. jrh
 
I would consider Joe as the "go to " guy here. .............. and he might could elaborate on this......One thing that hasn't been mentioned is to go with the Experimental/Exhibition option if you really want to build this particular airplane. Its how most all the Military and other experimentals that do not make the EAB ruling get to fly. They are much more restricted but they "make it work" ........... I see them flying every day around here. Other avenue of escape might be to buy another project or totaled out SC that your parts would work with and use your salvaged parts to resurrect the damaged one. As long as you have the original data plate and airworthiness cert. of the damaged SC and document your repairs/cannibalized parts, you would be perfectly legal. I know this is frowned upon by some but as long as you keep everything above board you can keep another SC alive and on the registry. One of the best airplanes we have here is a "totaled" Decathlon we bought as salvage from insurance sale. Tube and rag airplanes are easy (relatively) to keep going using raw materials, salvaged parts and the 43.13! You just have to decide ........... is it worth it?
 
I wonder if that is "our" totalled Decathlon? A microburst came through and pushed a hangar through a nice 150 Decathlon. It looked rebuildable, and was insured for $75 grand. Both wings and the tailfeathers were crunched, but new metal spar wings at the time were only $22 grand.
 
Nowhere that I read did the OP say what state of disassembly or disrepair this "project" was in. There are legitimate E-AB Cubs flying that started with parts from certificated airplanes.
 
I wonder if that is "our" totalled Decathlon? A microburst came through and pushed a hangar through a nice 150 Decathlon. It looked rebuildable, and was insured for $75 grand. Both wings and the tailfeathers were crunched, but new metal spar wings at the time were only $22 grand.

Nope, not that one. Ours was a hurricane Katrina Decathlon victim that was "over insured" and owner insisted it be totaled by insurance co. Plus would rather have the wood spars! ;-)
 
Nowhere that I read did the OP say what state of disassembly or disrepair this "project" was in. There are legitimate E-AB Cubs flying that started with parts from certificated airplanes.

Oh I understand........... and agree that's the way it SHOULD be and there are realistic inspectors that will sign off on these builds..... just find one you can work with before building. The Feds started looking at it a lot differently in the past few years, especially here in the southeast. I was told by multiple FAA and DARs in this area that if I were to build my airplane with a part or parts from a previously certificated aircraft, factory built or experimental. that it would render my project "static display only". They are taking the AC 20-27G totally out of context......... IMHO. They told me they were briefed on and are specifically targeting the "stretched Pacer" and the Breezy. The stretch being the one I got caught up in. Totally unreasonable. You get a hell of a lot more "recreational and educational" experience from "stretching" say a damaged Pacer fuselage into what you desire than to go "buy" a fuselage already welded up from a supplier and build from it........... but they say this is OK. They are trying to get builders to go the "kit" route rather than building from scratch....... less work for them I guess and they don't have to use the "checklist" for the 51% ruling.

I wouldn't have any heartburn with ANY airframe resurrected from the dead ........... from whatever parts source as long as someone doesn't try to pass it off as the genuine article at a later date. With what I have gathered, Experimental/Exhibition is where this type of build can be registered......... and without much trouble if you can work the system.
 
I too have woodspars in the Super Dec. only drawback is the darn AD - takes me all afternoon. A friend has metal spars in a 150 C/S, and her airplane is faster than mine and has a better roll rate. Both have spades in the same spot, behind the lift strut.

Newnan, huh? I landed there when it was little more than a gas pump. Had a good friend in Zebulon. Used to land at his place a lot.
 
I would consider Joe as the "go to " guy here.

Thank you, kind sir. I appreciate your support.

.............. and he might could elaborate on this......One thing that hasn't been mentioned is to go with the Experimental/Exhibition option if you really want to build this particular airplane. Its how most all the Military and other experimentals that do not make the EAB ruling get to fly. They are much more restricted but they "make it work" ...........

Experimental-exhibition is not guaranteed. The guidance says that you are supposed to have a legitimate reason to "exhibit" the aircraft. There is no "official list" of reasons to exhibit an aircraft, so it is up to the local FAA office to decide if the application is proper or not. They are not REQUIRED to issue an airworthiness certificate just because an application is made for one. They are getting a lot fussier on issuing certificates unless the purpose of the application fits the guidance found in FAA Order 8130.2H.
 
There are legitimate E-AB Cubs flying that started with parts from certificated airplanes.

That is certainly true, but the current FAA guidance, found in FAA Order 8130.2H, has some specific language regarding the use of components that were salvaged from previously-certificated aircraft. This is especially true of parts salvaged from type-certificated aircraft (but actually would apply to parts salvaged from previously-certificated amateur-built aircraft as well). According to current guidance, repairs and modifications to previously-certificated components do NOT count toward the builder's "major portion", even if those repairs or modifications are extensive. For example, the majority of FAA inspectors I've spoken with would NOT consider the stretching of a Pacer fuselage to count toward the major portion, even though the resulting fuselage is different than what the builder started with. They certainly will not count any of the rebuilding of a Super Cub to it's more-or-less standard configuration toward the builder's major portion.

Yes, this type of thing used to be quite common, but you can thank a bunch of people who tried (and sometimes succeeded) in re-certificating an aircraft as amateur-built so that they could do their own maintenance or outmaneuver an AD for having the FAA clamp down on this. Order 8130.2G and now 2H have really made the language clear that this is not to be allowed. We can argue all we want about whether this is right or wrong, good or bad, but that doesn't matter. The guidance in the order is what we have to deal with, and the current guidance says no.

So you go forward at your own peril. Yes, you may be able to find an inspector that will let it pass, but it ain't guaranteed and it ain't likely. Forewarned is forearmed.
 
If it doesn't have a data plate it can't be a legit Cub, right? Ask the FAA. If it isn't a Cub.... it isn't a Cub. Why would anyone allow them to play both sides of the line? If it's a certificated part, they must certify it. If they refuse, it isn't a certified part.
 
Hi Joe.........

I know we have discussed this stretched Pacer issue before............. My first one isn't a problem as its already EAB, Number 2 isn't either. I drew up my own prints derived from Piper's prints on the Short Wing CDs with the 24 inch "stretching" but besides the 2 foot extension am making it 2" wider in the cabin area. Taking out structure that isn't needed like in the bungee/gear area and changing parts of the truss/diagonals for doors. Has most all the same attach points as in the Pacer. I wont have a problem with the 51% rule on this one!! .................... just gotta do that friggin' checklist!
 
Back
Top