Just quoting the man. Are you are implying that the document has no legal weight?
Printable View
Just quoting the man. Are you are implying that the document has no legal weight?
Actually, it’s not the AC that is in question, it is Order 8130.2J. While ACs have no real weight and are only advisory, Orders are Policy that FAA Inspectors are supposed to adhere to, and Designees have to follow or risk having their designation rescinded.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Again, the the 8130.2J DOES allow you to use parts of another aircraft, you just don't get credit for that PORTION. ...... It is how you choose to interpret it. If the inspector were to ask, did you build the front fuselage portion? No..... Did you build the rear portion? Yes. ............. OK, I can only give you partial credit for that ............... This would be reasonable. Or you can BUY a fuselage a fuselage from any of the manufacturers, and that's OK ........ Its just not a lot of "stretched Pacers" to choose from. If it was worth it I would take it to court but it's not to me so I now build my own fuselages COMPLETELY using the original Piper prints for reference. The up side is I get rid of a lot of tri gear structure and weight not needed.
The "rules" need to be addressed. I don't believe the stretched Pacer or the Breezy types of airplanes were the targets but they sure got caught in the fallout.
From the 8130.2J .........................
f.
Type-Certificated Aircraft. Altering, repairing, or rebuilding type-certificated aircraft constitutes maintenance of a type-certificated aircraft under part 43, not fabrication and assembly of amateur-built aircraft. This policy has been in effect since 1952 under section 1.74-3 of the Civil Aeronautics Manual (CAM) 1, which specifically states, “structural components of other aircraft may be used [for amateur-built aircraft]; however, it is not intended that this provision be used to avoid obtaining approval of major alterations to aircraft previously certificated in another category.”
manufacturer. The builder may receive credit for tasks completed with this assistance as long as the assistance did not exceed demonstration of how to perform the task.
(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.
(5)
Aircraft Previously Certificated by a Foreign CAA.
15-1
Southern aero, to your comments that I did not read the 51% rule I have multiple times. I am currently building a stretched pacer with many other changes. Using the form I end up over 70% owner produced. I would not start a project unless I did all the research necessary and was confident it would pass as experimental.
KSG, your earlier comment seemed to imply inspectors/builders were not following the "rules"? Did I read that wrong? If you have a FSDO or DAR that will agree with how you checked off your boxes on the checklist, that's great. That's what I was saying earlier........... find someone you can work with. Around here DARs wont touch it and what feds are sympathetic ............ I know several ............wont go out on that limb......... which is my issue. Why does one region take the stance that you can't build a stretch Pacer as Ex AB and another will accept it? I asked multiple DARs years ago when the AC20-27 came out to work with me to monitor and ensure what I was doing to build the "stretch" would fulfill the 51% ruling as written. I was told that I was basically building a "static" display or exp exhibition only since I was going to use a front section from a TP. So rather than fight it I sold off the TP parts, bought an already experimental salvage and am using it to build the stretch. Since then I have developed my own fuselage that has the same lines as the stretched Pacer but build entirely from scratch using the TP prints as a reference with quite a few refinements. Ha, I was even told by one DAR I couldn't even do that! Obviously not true but shows the attitude of some around this area.
I have not run into anyone with such a negative attitude or lack of following the 51% rule thankfully. Fsdo has been positive, just follow the rules. Sucks that you had such a hard time.
I don't know if most people building a Bushmaster would choose to install SC gear. The Bmaster planes have you converting the original T Pacer gear to conventional, they look strong and it would be less expensive. Since my plane had the Univair conversion I kept the Pacer gear, it is cleaner. Experimental would be wide open, SC gear is a good choice but expensive.
SC, time to get that plane out of your garage and in the air.
Getting close! Finishing baffles tonight as I type. Cutting a new panel tomorrow morning. I have slacked on posting a lot lately but have been putting 10-12 hours a day into it. The little things take time and some days it seems like I get a ton done and others I wonder what I did all day long! I am hoping to have the engine compartment all finished this week along with the panel then start to finish the wiring. If all goes good this week I want to be hanging the wings next week.
Sent from my iPhone using ShortWingPipers.Org mobile app
I have read all the comments with interest on what can and cannot be used in a exp. amateur built. I have no dog in the hunt but I will say that I know of several "homebuilts" that were approved for an EAB certificate by DAR's that were basically colts and tri pacers with the Piper data tag missing. All subjective of course. This is less common now that in the past from my view. I have a friend looking at an EAB "Wagabond" right now that is a colt with the panel yokes removed and some vagabond style torque tubes added for the flight controls and pacer gear. That is it, its Piper other than that. I don't think these EAB certificates can fall into a builders lap as easy as they used to. I also know of an EAB Cessna 140(local to me) that other than a vanity N number and no Cessna data plate looks just like it came from wichita in the 40's. That one is mystery for sure.