|
"JP" <hypercycle1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7B_gg.247$VW4.189@read3.inet.fi...
> The main idea seems to be to build an amateur built aircraft using MOSTLY
> certified aircraft components. Such a project is a kind of balancing act I
> suppose?
>
> In such a case, you remove the original manufacturer identification plate.
> The process involves other things too. Basicly you have to rename the
> plane.
>
> Here's some information about the matter:
>
> http://www.v8seabee.com/aircraft_usa_regulations.asp
>
> Here's the FAA (51% rule) check list.
>
>
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/3209fec2139ccb3f862569af006ab9e9/$FILE/AC20-139.pdf
>
> JP
>
>
>
> "150flivver" <timothywitt@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message:1149529705.384038.55660@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> On the AOPA board an individual is rebuilding a Bellanca Viking and
>> claims that as long as he can show he rebuilt 51% of the aircraft, he
>> can relicense it as a homebuilt experimental. Is this so? Seems like
>> all the basket cases that I have seen rebuilt from the ground up are
>> still certified as manufactured aircraft. Why wouldn't you see more
>> experimental Cessnas, Pipers and such?
>>
>
It also depends on what class of experimental you are seeking. A long time
ago they used to have a category called something that allowed you to modify
a certificated aircraft with things like different engines, prop wings ect.
You could modify pretty much anyway you wanted, but you lost the standard
airworthiness. That category of experimental in the US was eliminated many
years ago.
>
|
|
Re: Rebuilding to Experimental
