The International Cessna^® 170 Association

If anyone could possibly come up with a way to change the registry of a "certified" airplane to "experimental" that would allow it to be operated in the manner of a homebuilt, he could be a world hero to guys like me. There is just NO way it can be accomplished. You can get it redsignited to "experimental" for "exhibition" or "development", etc., but you can't operate and use it like you can a homebuilt. You have to get permissiom from the FUZZ to do anyrthing or go anywhere with it.
Just think! No more ADs, 337s , or annuals. Wouldn't that be nice? Get your parts at NAPA.
Seems to me that they came up with some kind of a scheme up in Canada that allowed a certified airplane to be "Decertified" in order to be able to do your own maintenance or something, but the airplane would have to undergo a "recertification" inspection, by a licensed engineer or somesuch, if the airplane was sold or changed owners.

Hmmm... People build their own J3 Cubs all the time, and license them as experimental. You're allowed to use the original Piper drawings, as far as I know. The experimental J3s can be exact duplicates of the certified aircraft, and there's no restriction on how many actual J3 parts you can use in the construction.

If you can do it with a J3, why not a 170?

John, you could use Cessna blue prints and build your own experimental 170 as well. How many Piper or Cessna parts you use is not directly considered as long as you can convince the FAA that you built 51% of the aircraft.

So, I can weld up a fuselage that looks incredibly like a piper cub, grab a set of Piper wings,tanks, seats, panel, motor mount from various sources...assemble the whole thing in my garage and get an airworthy cert as Experimental a Ross01.

How is that different from building a fuselage from spare 170 bulkheads and skins, using a set of 175 wings, a cut up Seneca motor mount, IO-360 motor, make my own panel and grab seats out of a 206....and calling it an Experimental Ross01.

I'm not interested in converting a Certified airplane to Experimental. Build an Experimental airplane from a bunch of parts that happened to have been on a certified airplane at one time or another.

It would be just as much work a building an RV or any other homebuilt (which is nothing to sneeze at) but, it seems possible.

This should be split into another topic.

If you can convince the FUZZ that you built 51% of that Cub, I guess you're clear to go.

blueldr wrote:If you can convince the FUZZ that you built 51% of that Cub, I guess you're clear to go.

One difference is that a Cub can be built from wood, metal and fabric stock without tooling, and it's very clear that the builder did 51% or more of the work to build the airplane. That might be harder to prove if you used all Cessna parts to build a 170 and all you did was rivet it together.

I don't think it has to be any clearer that a person built 51% of a tube and fabric plane or a metal plane. There are lots of metal planes built with the same skill as that required to built a Cessna look alike. It is just that those folks who build all metal airplanes don't duplicate the appearance of a Cessna while there are lots of folks who want to duplicate a Piper Cub or something folks think looks like a Piper Cub.

AC-20-27G is guidance for building Experimental and explains the 51% rule.

They talk about using salvaged assemblies and allows it. However you can not 'take credit' for the assembly towards your 51% of the plane. That sounds the same as buying a 'quick build' kit from Vans or even buying bulkheads and stringers already formed. You'd have to completely disassemble the components to their bare metal pieces and use some of them but not all or it could be interpreted as simply a repair to a major assembly.

They also talk about converting a Certified airplane to Experimental by simply rebuilding the thing....that's a no no.

The practice of performing alterations, repairs, and rebuilding of previously type-certificated aircraft for the purpose of obtaining an experimental amateur-built airworthiness certificate is not authorized under § 21.191(g). Such maintenance actions properly fall under 14 CFR part 43, Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding, and Alteration. You will not receive credit for these actions toward fabrication or assembly. We will not accept applications for airworthiness inspections on such aircraft.

So, whatever you make, it has to be very convincing that you didn't just take apart a 170 and put it back together again, rivet by rivet....But you could make enough parts yourself to be 51% and still retain the round tail and general look.

The fuselage is the easy part tho. The wings and spars will be insane to fabricate.
This is probably why most/all non-kit homebuilts are rag and tube.

Funny, on a Certified airplane a mechanic can not fabricate new parts but As an Experimental you can't repair certified parts

Bruce Fenstermacher wrote:John, you could use Cessna blue prints and build your own experimental 170 as well. How many Piper or Cessna parts you use is not directly considered as long as you can convince the FAA that you built 51% of the aircraft.

I think the Canadians can do that??

bagarre wrote:AC-20-27G is guidance for building Experimental and explains the 51% rule.

They talk about using salvaged assemblies and allows it. However you can not 'take credit' for the assembly towards your 51% of the plane. That sounds the same as buying a 'quick build' kit from Vans or even buying bulkheads and stringers already formed. You'd have to completely disassemble the components to their bare metal pieces and use some of them but not all or it could be interpreted as simply a repair to a major assembly.

They also talk about converting a Certified airplane to Experimental by simply rebuilding the thing....that's a no no.

The practice of performing alterations, repairs, and rebuilding of previously type-certificated aircraft for the purpose of obtaining an experimental amateur-built airworthiness certificate is not authorized under § 21.191(g). Such maintenance actions properly fall under 14 CFR part 43, Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding, and Alteration. You will not receive credit for these actions toward fabrication or assembly. We will not accept applications for airworthiness inspections on such aircraft.

So, whatever you make, it has to be very convincing that you didn't just take apart a 170 and put it back together again, rivet by rivet....But you could make enough parts yourself to be 51% and still retain the round tail and general look.

The fuselage is the easy part tho. The wings and spars will be insane to fabricate.
This is probably why most/all non-kit homebuilts are rag and tube.

Funny, on a Certified airplane a mechanic can not fabricate new parts but As an Experimental you can't repair certified parts

FAR 21.303 Can be used to produce "Owner produced" parts that meet the letter.. The Cessna 100 Series serice manual you can obtain the aluminum specs. of 2024-T3. Some of the parts would need to be formed while soft or "SO" then tempered. This could be a problem unless you have access to a furnace and the special solutions called out for tempering. Some people have lines on that.

BL. I hate to offend you but if you'd move to Canada your wish would be fulfilled. If I choose I can do all my maintenance, use whatever parts I choose and do all my own annuals. It's my rear and maybe my family up there tho' so I think it pays to make sure it's done properly. But for instance I installed shoulder harness from aircraft spruce did my log entry and we're good to go. I also chose to have an AME our version of A&P do my inspection as i feel unqualified. I bought it as owner maintained, came with a few thousand dollars spare parts as the former owner didn't want to be stuck not finding what he needed.
Hope I can keep it flying and in decent shape for many years.
Kim

One problem I forgot to mention tho. I can slap together a few sticks and fabric, stick a vw engine and handcarved prop on the front. maintain it myself and get permision to fly to oshkosh. But my 170 built by Cessna can nevermore cross the line into US of A because I maintain it.
Kim

Copa is working on that but..... Special flight permits are dished out on both sides to allow crossings in amateur built so why not apply the same rules to owner maintained aircraft?

blueldr wrote:If anyone could ...change the registry of a "certified" airplane to "experimental" that would allow it to be operated in the manner of a homebuilt, he could be a world hero to guys like me....Just think! No more ADs, 337s , or annuals. Wouldn't that be nice? Get your parts at NAPA.....

I think you've answered your own suggestion..... Re-classifying an airplane in order to avoid dangerous Airworthiness Directives and use common auto parts/hardware is patently ridiculous. Why can't we just take rat poison instead of "anti-coagulant" prescriptions?

How would you feel if your child were killed because some yeahoo decided to tow his boat trailer using chineese No 2 bolts instead of SAE Grade 8? (I almost had to face this scenario personally when some Doofus towing his pickup behind another used electrical wire to secure the tow-hitch instead of a safety-chain. The towed pickup broke loose in a curve, at the top of the hill, passed Doofus in his tow-truck, and I was faced with a head-on driver-less vehicle doing 70 mph! We barely missed.
It was the day after I won my lengthy, expensive lawsuit gaining custody of my 8-yr old daughter. The irony of that potential scene has never left me.)

There are legitimate reasons for regulations and if you can't afford to ante' up, ...then get out of the game. My 2-cents)

Dick, ...my heart goes out to you,...and you know I love you and we are friends.... but let me ask you the question: What is keeping you from buying one of the very many amatuer-built experimental aircraft which are on the market and enjoy flying like you wish, instead of unavailingly criticizing a legitimate regulatory process?