• 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!

Piper fuselage, is Experimental an option?

My primary interest is E-AB. I appreciate that two DARs have provided information in this thread and hope guys recognize their contribution. Regarding the FX program?


Kudos to Cubcrafters for what they’re accomplishing. Great airplanes that aren’t limited by conventional FAA regulations. Experimental Cubs are the cream that’s floated to the top of the type.

Stewart,

You can do the same thing that CubCrafters has done, all within the limitations that have been discussed in this thread. You can use a factory-built fuselage if you want. Just like the CubCrafters fuselage, those fuselage tasks will be counted toward the "kit manufacturer" points on the fabrication and assembly checklist. Same with all the rest of the components. The point is, a builder who wants to do this MUST have a willing FAA inspector or DAR to work with so that they can go over what tasks will be completed by the builder to meet the major portion requirement. This should be done BEFORE a lot of money is spent on the project, so that the builder doesn't get a nasty surprise when it comes time for the certification inspection.

A good exercise would be to get a copy of the CubCrafters checklist (available on the FAA website) and make sure that the builder's project mirrors the tasks that were required for amateur-built certification of the CubCrafters kit. Using the CubCrafters checklist, which has been reviewed by the FAA and found to be in compliance with the major portion requirements, will get the builder where they want to be.

What you CAN'T do is take a standard category Super Cub (or any other airplane) apart, reassemble it, and claim that you are the "builder". (Or take parts from several Super Cubs and put them together into a "new" airplane and claim to be the builder.) Many people have tried this, and some have gotten away with it, but this is what the FAA is carefully guarding against.

Use the checklist (link provided in an earlier post in this thread) and perform enough tasks involving NEW fabrication and assembly, and you're all set. Not sure why that's causing so much of an argument here.
 
"this is what the FAA is carefully guarding against"
Someone needs to carefully guard against coffee shooting out my nose onto my computer when reading things like this.
 
Thanks, Joe, I became familiar with the requirements and options a couple of years ago when I jumped into E-AB. Since then I've heard more old rhetoric about what can't be done than I'd have expected. My reference to the FX program illustrates what IS possible using the E-AB rules.

The idea that a kit plane airframe is more of a contribution to an ameteur build than a Piper airframe is flawed but isn't worth my energy to worry about. In many cases to use certificated parts would be a step backwards compared to what kits offer. Some guys want repliCubs, some want to push Cub evolution. In either case I believe the future of Cubs lies in the E-AB category.
 
The idea that a kit plane airframe is more of a contribution to an ameteur build than a Piper airframe is flawed but isn't worth my energy to worry about.

I think you missed my point somehow. A Piper-built fuselage counts exactly the same as a CubCrafter-built fuselage. There is no penalty for using one or the other. They both count as all the fuselage tasks in the "kit manufacturer" column on the fabrication and assembly checklist. Who the "kit manufacturer" is doesn't make any difference.
 
(Or take parts from several Super Cubs and put them together into a "new" airplane and claim to be the builder.)

I was responding to this. Apparently not very clearly. But why be clear when the rules make little sense in that regard? Parts is parts.
 
What do you disagree with Stewart? I am simply saying the type clubs don't want the Classic and Antique airplanes getting turned into experimentals. This dates way back. I agree that we need less regulation to update these older airplanes. This was starting to happen about 10 years ago with the Vintage DER program that later fell apart.

Steve, what do you mean the Vintage DER program fell apart, there are 4 of us out there!

Of course DARs with function code 51 can do Field Approvals now also.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
....Or take parts from several Super Cubs and put them together into a "new" airplane and claim to be the builder.) Many people have tried this, and some have gotten away with it, but this is what the FAA is carefully guarding against.....

I don't see why this should be considered wrong.
One guy buys a Javron fuselage, another buys a used piper fuselage-- what's the difference?
Why is one OK & the other not?
Before you say it's the same, that neither builder gets build points for the fuselage,
as I understand it FAA is actively discouraging use of piper fuselages.
Friend of mine wanted to build an AB-E based on a Pacer fuselage he had, but was told that the FAA would never sign off on it.
That came from a knowledgeable source, although not an FAA inspector or a DAR.
 
I was responding to this. Apparently not very clearly. But why be clear when the rules make little sense in that regard? Parts is parts.

Ok, I see. My comment about taking parts from several Super Cubs was referring to using a complete fuselage from one airplane, complete wings from another airplane. Maybe a complete tail from yet other airplanes. A person who does this, and does no new fabrication, cannot claim to be the "builder" of a "new" airplane. (That is, an airplane with a different manufacturer name and different serial number than ANY of the pre-existing planes.) This is exactly what the FAA is trying to guard against. Just assembling major components of previously-certificated aircraft (whether standard category or some special airworthiness category) is not what amateur building is intended for.

Now, you CAN do what I just described and certificate the resulting aircraft in a different experimental purpose, most likely experimental exhibition. Nothing wrong with that at all, and it has been done many times. But you are NOT supposed to claim to be the "builder" of an aircraft that is simply assembled from pre-certificated major components. This would actually be true even for major components of an aircraft that was previously certificated as an amateur-built. You can't be the "builder" of any component that has already been certificated by another "builder", whether that previous builder be a factory or an individual.

Is it getting clearer, or muddier??
 
Steve, what do you mean the Vintage DER program fell apart, there are 4 of us out there!

Of course DARs with function code 51 can do Field Approvals now also.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Last I talked to the ACO about the program they were nixing it and hoping to revamp. Seems the ACO engineers inundated Clyde Smith with Part 23 regulation questions that had nothing to do with a Vintage DAR/DER. I need to look into it again. We use to have type club meeting with the FAA Small Aircraft Directorate at Oshkosh for many years but this all fell apart after the sequester several years ago. This is some Vintage division of EAA should get back involved in in my opinion.
 
When I did my application several years ago, the NY ACO had no idea how to process it. I kept at it, and eventually got it through. I’ve had a request to get additional functions in for about 6 months so far. They work SLOW!

You might do better trying to get a DAR through the FSDO. Function code 51 lets you do Field Approvals, so it gives the same basic authority, depending on what limitations they apply. My FC 51 allows Field Approvals on Part 23, 25, 27, and 29 (and predecessor regulations) along with gliders, balloons, and gyroplanes. Of course the limitation is only within the FSDO, where as the vintage DER has no geographic limitation.

FAA is rolling out a new Designee Management System soon, and that changes all the FSDO DAR functions. We’ll see how that works out!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
..... A person who does this, and does no new fabrication, cannot claim to be the "builder" of a "new" airplane. (That is, an airplane with a different manufacturer name and different serial number than ANY of the pre-existing planes.) This is exactly what the FAA is trying to guard against. Just assembling major components of previously-certificated aircraft (whether standard category or some special airworthiness category) is not what amateur building is intended for.....

That said, I've always wondered why / how FAA can condone "builder assistance" by kit manufacturers, in particular GlasStar's "2 weeks to taxi" program.
The "builder" comes to the factory, spends 2 weeks pooping around, then after factory employees build most of the airplane he flies off in it.
Actually, that (and "hired guns" who build kitplanes for people-- lots of them doing RV's) is probably safer & better than having someone who can barely tell one end of a screwdriver from the other try to build an airplane.
What I don't agree with is the FAA issuing a repairman certificate to the assisted-builder for the resulting airplane.
 
That said, I've always wondered why / how FAA can condone "builder assistance" by kit manufacturers, in particular GlasStar's "2 weeks to taxi" program.
The "builder" comes to the factory, spends 2 weeks pooping around, then after factory employees build most of the airplane he flies off in it.
Actually, that (and "hired guns" who build kitplanes for people-- lots of them doing RV's) is probably safer & better than having someone who can barely tell one end of a screwdriver from the other try to build an airplane.
What I don't agree with is the FAA issuing a repairman certificate to the assisted-builder for the resulting airplane.

Ever read FAAForm 8130-12? “Whoever in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the government of the United States knowingly and willingly falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact . . . Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years . . .”

So, the guys that build (or pay to have built) an airplane and don’t comply with the “major portion” requirement could be facing some quality time as a guest of the federal government. Not something I would be willing to do for a “homebuilt”. Use the checklist, if it comes out OK you can certify as Experimental Amateur Built. If it shows less than 51%, then certify as Experimental Exhibition. Pretty simple, follow the rules.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
That said, I've always wondered why / how FAA can condone "builder assistance" by kit manufacturers, in particular GlasStar's "2 weeks to taxi" program.
The "builder" comes to the factory, spends 2 weeks pooping around, then after factory employees build most of the airplane he flies off in it.
Actually, that (and "hired guns" who build kitplanes for people-- lots of them doing RV's) is probably safer & better than having someone who can barely tell one end of a screwdriver from the other try to build an airplane.
What I don't agree with is the FAA issuing a repairman certificate to the assisted-builder for the resulting airplane.

There was a good article in the last STOL magazine about the program at Cub Crafters and how the builder meets all the requirements. They have to perform the tasks.
 
What is interesting is that the CubCrafters FX doesn’t show on the FAA accepted kit list. The EX does.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
What is interesting is that the CubCrafters FX doesn’t show on the FAA accepted kit list. The EX does.

It takes a while for the list to be updated, so stay tuned. If the FX has been evaluated, it will ultimately show up on the list.
 
For all of us die-hard "Thus saith the FAA fans" will someone please explain why anyone would hire someone to do interpretations for the FAA....say for a charter outfit....? The last person I knew in this position was retired from the FAA and wrote letters back to FSDO to explain and interpret FARs....There are a lot of interpretations flying today had it not been for some folks using common sense before and during the build process IMHO....

Vern
 
Back
Top