New to this Forum - looking for some help

[ramrod25]

Greetings everyone - I'm new to this forum; the reason being that I have found no other place that wants to discuss how to make an experimental aircraft from a previously certified airplane.

By way of introduction, I currently own a 1967 Cessna 150G that I use to go see my kids and grandkids.

My real project is going to be a Stinson 108 Voyager that I acquired last year. It was built in 1946 and my Dad owned it in 1952-53. I can still remember flying in that airplane as a 3-4 year old. I finally found it in a barn in northern Arkansas - but it's not in good condition - it will need almost a complete rebuild.

The guy that owned the airplane had a magneto slip on takeoff and with the loss of power, he hung a barbwire fence. The pilot's side gear was ripped off, and a wingtip and strut were damaged.

I want to find a way to get this over into the experimental catagory for a lot of reasons. Engine choices, modern instruments, etc.

So far, no one on the Yahoo Stinson board even wants to talk about my project, or the process of how to get it into the experimental catagory. I'm hopeful, since it appears you guys are essentially doing the same thing, except with Pipers, that you can provide some guidence and advice.

Thanks
Rodney Wren

 

[Hillbilly]

Welcome to the board Rodney, I guess we'll let you slide being as you have the Stinson project but that "C" word you uttered...naughty, naughty...As to a bona fied answer to your question I'm afraid I cant be of much help, I'm a TC'd sorta guy.
But I would think the best place to start would be your local FSDO. Surely some of these guys will chime in, bear in mind it may be difficult to meet the 51% rule working with a certified, factory produced airplane.

Good Luck - Hillbilly

 

[JohnW]

Rodney; There is no argument that people have done this in the Past. I ask you to read the attached FAA Memorandum dated May 11 2007. It is currently the FAA's position that recertifying a Standard Category aircraft as an Experimental Category aircraft is outside the definition of Amateur built. They are sticking tight to the rule of Section 21.191.

This does not say unequivocally that you CANNOT start with a certified aircraft and end up with an Experimental aircraft when you are finished...what is SAYS is that you aren't going to "restore" a certificated airplane yourself (as an unlicensed aircraft mechanic) and "go Experimental with it" so you don't have to bother with "regular maintenance requirements". Even "restoring totally" a whacked out Stinson (or whatever...I'm not picking on Stinsons!) does not count towards the 51% Rule. This is what it SOUNDS LIKE you are suggesting. Along the lines of what you are describing, this Memorandum makes it pretty clear that you CANNOT do that! Again, it HAS been done in the Past, but any FAA-type that doesn't follow the PROPER GUIDELINES set forth in the applicable Amateur-built section of 14CFR from this point forward is not going to make retirement. I am hearing that several of the "Experimental ShortWings" that are around are one-by-one getting "de-certified" (that is, their Airworthiness Certificates are being REVOKED). Whether "we" like it or not, once you make an airplane "not conform to it's Type Certificate (or legally altered condition)" OR breech the requirements of "Continued Airworthiness" (refer to the "Law" as quoted on any Standard Category A/W Certificate for that definition) then the A/W Cert is VOID and what WAS "an airplane" no longer IS ONE!!! The only way to get such a conglomeration of seemingly "flyable parts" is to "go Experimental". THAT, Sir, requires complying with the requirements for the issuance of said "Experimental Certificate". Just "working on it doesn't "make it".

In a nutshell, you MUST get "on board" with whomever (at your FSDO) is authorized to issue Experimental Airworthiness Certificates and hammer out EXACTLY what you WILL have to do to meet the requirements. That said, you will HAVE TO prove ON PAPER that you have BUILT 51% of such airplane. That does NOT mean that you cannot "use parts from a certificated airplane" in your construction, but it DOES mean that "covering a wing" or "tail surfaces" does NOT qualify as "building".

All the arguments of "what qualifies" and "what does not" doesn't mean ANYTHING to anyone but the fella that writes his name on the bottom line of your new A/W certificate.[attachment=1:38sdu9lg]Std to Exp Category p0001.pdf[/attachment:38sdu9lg][attachment=0:38sdu9lg]Std to Exp Category p0002.pdf[/attachment:38sdu9lg]

 

[Wheelie Wayne]

Probably the biggest thing is proving 51% construction. Any part was was on certified plane can not be counted as part of the 51%. Even the recovering of the certified parts are not considered part of the 51%. I have heard two trains of thought regarding involving the FAA. One says to never mention the make of donor airframe or wings. It is OK to using parts that have once been on a certified aircraft but only the parts. By mentioning the certified donor it can raise a red flag. The other school of thought says to get them involved so you don't get a nasty surprise when it comes time to get an AW certificate. I guess you have to make up your mind which school of thought you want to go with. I am building an experimental Pacer that will be a combination of a Bushmaster and a WagaBond 2+2 (originally designed as a V6 STOL). With all the changes and fabrication I am doing, I as certain I will have way beyond the 51% done by myself. But I am still not going to mention the salvage fuselage that I got with no N # and no serial # but possibly could have been a PA 22 at some point in its life, it is just a salvage fuselage as far as I am concerned.

 

[Frank Green]

I have seen it done but as John stated the FAA is cracking down not only on cert. to EX aircraft but also on the "Quick Build" kits. The ones I have seen were done by DARs as even field approvals are gettting tougher to get from FSDOs. The ones I have seen have had extensive modification, experimental engines, homemade wings and total rebuild. DARs have a checklist for compliance with the 51 rule. My advice is to keep it original, find an IA to work with and it will be worth more when you are done.

 

[Steve Pierce]

Look at this thread viewtopic.php?f=17&t=83 and download AC20-139 that Homer posted. It has a checklist to help you prove you built 51% of the airplane. I used the checklist on my Clipper rebuild and came up with more than 60%. As others have posted the FAA is in the process of changing some of this but hopefully it is aimed and the companies build experimental homebuilts and not the true homebuilders.

 

[ramrod25]

Finally - some knowledge guys who know what their talking about.

I really appreciate all the help and input. I'll study the documents carefully, and make the effort to get with the FAA before I start this project.

I've had more than one person suggest to me that it would be better to leave it certified, and perhaps I'll do that - but I want to completely explore all the options before I commit to a course of action.

By the way Hillbilly - my son has a PA22-150 that we spent about 10 hours in last Friday and Saturday flying from Okla to Tenn and back. I won't mention the "C" word again - sorry about that.

I've been talking to a guy in Louisiana this week - he has a Cherokee 140 and we are kinda talking trade. Don't know if it will work out but I've always liked the Cherokees. I'm especially impressed with all the work Art Mattson has done with them. http://www.pipermods.com/ He has really derived some impressive speed out of that airframe.

If I didn't have the Stinson to rebuild, and if it hadn't been my Dad's, I would probably would get a Pacer to
play with.

Thanks again for all the info. I'll keep watching from time to time to see what's going on.
Regards
Rodney Wren

 

[Bultaco Jim]

did ya heer dat guies, he kalled us "nawligabell"!

 

[rmalone]

I think if I remember correctly, Univair has a 180 hp Lycoming STC for the Stinson. Would make it a better airplane. If it isn't Univair I am not sure but I know I have seen it before. I was looking at Stinsons at one time.

 

[Bultaco Jim]

Yes, Univair holds STC's for the Lyc 180hp for all the 108 Stinsons and 200hp for the 108-3. The 180 is fixed pitch and the 200 can be constant speed. I too was looking at Stinsons.

 

[Frankenpacer]

Finally - some knowledge guys who know what their talking about.

I really appreciate all the help and input. I'll study the documents carefully, and make the effort to get with the FAA before I start this project.


Thanks again for all the info. I'll keep watching from time to time to see what's going on.
Regards
Rodney Wren

I spoke with my "helpful" FSDO about this subject once... It was no help at all! My advice to you is that you come up with a game plan on your own. The Feds are all over the map on how to interpret the rules, and if you tip your hand to the wrong guy, you have doomed your project until he retires. Know the rules (you can't "convert" to ametuar built, BTW), and "build" your airplane following the guidance in the regulations.

My .02