Say I build and experimental, get the repairman's certificate then later decide I want a different engine. Am I no longer able to perform the condition inspection on the plane? I know I'd have to contact the FSDO and go back into Phase 1 but I can't find a clear answer regarding if I'd still be able to do the condition Inspection.

The fed that did my AW inspection said that if it was drastically different (say we wanted to take the Rotax off and hang a 0-320 on as a crazy example) then there would be need of another inspection/phase 1. He said to call and we'd talk about it if we ever decided to cross that bridge.

My advice would be to contact DAR or maintenance inspector and present your particular scenario/question. If it's something fairly equal in weight and hp, might not be a big concern, at least that was my take on the subject.

Whee,

You should be able to do whatever you want to that airplane with the repairman's certificate. You are the original manufacturer, so if you want to change the engine out, put swept wings on, or any other modification, you should still be able to do the annual. Of course, any major modification requires going back into Phase I testing, but ultimately, you still have the ability/documentation to do an annual on that particular airplane. (as an example, I modified my RV9A to be a tailwheel RV9, and still do the annual).

Bottom line is that the repairman's certificate goes with you and the airplane.

Greg

Who is allowed to work on an experimental plane if you did not build it, but bought it and don't have a repairman certificate? Does the work then have to be done by a certified mechanic and get signed of by him?

I'm with Greg on this one. I'm not sure why one would need to go back to phase 1 though. There is no Major Modification procedure on an EAB airplane. The 337 form pertains only to standard category aircraft. There is no place to file it on an experimental. You can take off the wings and put new wings on....take the slats off your 701 and substitute vortex generators. Whatever.

If the operating limitations are part of your Airworthiness certificate. They might change and if they contain any reference to the engine then maybe you would have to submit the changes to OK city....but the AWC does not go away. I'd like to see the CFR 14 reference to additional testing. It may be prudent but required......I dunno.

Major mods definitely require a re-run of the testing phase, over here. Especially anything which effects the 'nameplate data', powerplant being a prime example. Our system is based off the FAA system, so I think there's a good chance you guys have the same rules.

Here is what is in my operating limitations, which are pretty standard:

" (19) After incorporating a major change as described in 14 CFR 21.93, the aircraft owner is required to reestablish compliance with 14 CFR 91.319(b) and notify the geographically responsible FSDO of the location of the proposed test area. ... If the major change includes installing a different type of engine (recip to turbine) or a change of a fixed-pitch from or to a controllable propeller, the aircraft owner must fill out a revised FAA Form 8130-6 to update the aircraft's file in the FAA. ... The aircraft must remain in flight test for a minimum of 5 hours. The FSDO may require additional time (more than 5 hours) depending on the extent of the modification."

That is pretty standard wording for Exp AB operating limits.

Regarding working on an experimental that you didn't build yourself (the situation I'm in): the only requirement for either a repairman's certificate or A&P is for the conditional inspection. There is no requirement, that i'm aware of, for an A&P to do or sign off on other maintenance/repairs/mods. Someone else with more AB experience than me can feel free to chime in if I wrong. I don't want to spread wrong info unknowingly.

fredy wrote:Regarding working on an experimental that you didn't build yourself (the situation I'm in): the only requirement for either a repairman's certificate or A&P is for the conditional inspection. There is no requirement, that i'm aware of, for an A&P to do or sign off on other maintenance/repairs/mods. Someone else with more AB experience than me can feel free to chime in if I wrong. I don't want to spread wrong info unknowingly.

I'm curious about this as well. Also, is it possible to get a repairman's cert for an already built plane?

The repairman's cert is only available to the person who built the plane. The person who complied with the 51% rule.

As to working on an EAB, the owner can do any and all maintenance or modification to the airplane, with the exception of the annually performed condition inspection. This must be performed by a certificated A&P. IA is not required.

There are exceptions to this in the LS world, but not in the general EAB category.

I've never seen the wording on a repairman's certificate. I would assume it calls out the specific airframe in the wording, does it call out a specific engine also? If it does wouldn't you then have to update you certificate and does the FAA allow that? If it just lists the airplane by serial number then if you updated the information with the FAA then I'd figure you are ok to continue doing the condition inspections.

I do know for certain the a major change, such as a changing the engine, requires you to go back into phase 1. That wording is right in the operating limitations. I've been told the phase 1 is usually only for 5 hours in those situations.

[quote="whee"]I've never seen the wording on a repairman's certificate. I would assume it calls out the specific airframe in the wording, does it call out a specific engine also? If it does wouldn't you then have to update you certificate and does the FAA allow that? If it just lists the airplane by serial number then if you updated the information with the FAA then I'd figure you are ok to continue doing the condition inspections.

I do know for certain the a major change, such as a changing the engine, requires you to go back into phase 1. That wording is right in the operating limitations. I've been told the phase 1 is usually only for 5 hours in those situations.[/quot


The wording on a Repairman's Certificate lists the make, model, serial # and the date of manufacture. No engine is listed.
At the time of receiving the certificate, I was told to notify the local FSDO about any major changes to the aircraft and they would determine if any additional flight testing was needed.

Greg

Av8r3400 wrote:The repairman's cert is only available to the person who built the plane. The person who complied with the 51% rule.

As to working on an EAB, the owner can do any and all maintenance or modification to the airplane, with the exception of the annually performed condition inspection. This must be performed by a certificated A&P. IA is not required.

There are exceptions to this in the LS world, but not in the general EAB category.

Good too know, thanks.

More motivation to knock out my A&P when I finish this school

Av8r3400 wrote:The repairman's cert is only available to the person who built the plane. The person who complied with the 51% rule.

As to working on an EAB, the owner can do any and all maintenance or modification to the airplane, with the exception of the annually performed condition inspection. This must be performed by a certificated A&P. IA is not required.

There are exceptions to this in the LS world, but not in the general EAB category.

To clarify this better:

As to working on an EAB, the non-builder owner, who does not possess the repairman's cert, can do any and all maintenance or modification to the airplane, with the exception of the annually performed condition inspection. This must be performed by a certificated A&P. IA is not required.

whee wrote:Say I build and experimental, get the repairman's certificate then later decide I want a different engine. Am I no longer able to perform the condition inspection on the plane? I know I'd have to contact the FSDO and go back into Phase 1 but I can't find a clear answer regarding if I'd still be able to do the condition Inspection.

Was this an academic question? I'm curious why this might be an issue going into building an airplane-- I would think you'd just build it the way you want it. IF the engine is changed later, worry about it then. It can't be too big of a deal.
BTW Whee, what happened to that airplane (bearhawk?) you were flying a while back, as I recall you were planning on buying it? Did the deal fizzle out?

hotrod180 wrote:Was this an academic question? I'm curious why this might be an issue going into building an airplane-- I would think you'd just build it the way you want it. IF the engine is changed later, worry about it then. It can't be too big of a deal.
BTW Whee, what happened to that airplane (bearhawk?) you were flying a while back, as I recall you were planning on buying it? Did the deal fizzle out?

OK. I want to put a TCM IO-360 in a Bearhawk and run it on mogas. Everyone is telling me to not install that engine and to stick with what everyone else is doing, Lyc O-360 or O-540. I've never been a "stick with the crowd" type but that is not my reason for wanting to go with a TCM. I have evaluated my options and think the IO-360 is a good balance between weight, HP and fuel burn. Also, I think the TCM engine will run fine on mogas based on my conversations with Mr. Peterson, the guys at Inpulse and my own knowledge. I have yet to find anyone that has done this so it is unknown what it will cost to make it possible. If my engineering/evaluation skills totally suck and I end up hating the engine I want to be sure I can still perform the condition inspection on the entire airplane after an engine change. There is a guy in Brazil flying a BH with a TCM IO-360 and the one line report I read is that it is awesome. I've yet be able to find his contact info so I can see what he really thinks

The Bearhawk I was flying is no longer an option. The owner decided to keep it in hopes the FAA will change the medical requirements and allow him to fly it. However, I have put a deposit down on a project Bearhawk and plan to go pick it up just after Christmas. Thus my sudden flood of questions.

I've been of the opinion that a 200+ hp engine that weighs a little more than the O-360 but less than the 540 would be a great happy medium. When we had the big discussion on the Bearhawk forum about 360 vs 390 vs 540, the major negative for the 360 was the overall balance of the aircraft. The CG is just too easily moved aft of limits. However, the empty weight with the 540 makes it a little less competitive in the STOL landings. The 390 is just really expensive and even has some cowling fit issues. I'm sticking to my 540 plan though, because one day I will either have children or the money that exists because I don't have children, making the larger engine more practical or more of an affordable luxury. 260hp with just me and the little lady sounds like something I'm interested in.

whee wrote:However, I have put a deposit down on a project Bearhawk and plan to go pick it up just after Christmas. Thus my sudden flood of questions.

Cool!!!

I'm excited for you!

Your reasoning seems sound to me, Whee-- after all, amateur built experimentals are or should be all about doing what YOU want to do with it. Lycomings are great engines, but then again so are Continentals. The Cont IO-360 doesn't have the greatest rep in the world, but I think that stems from their use in the Cessna 337-- in particular the aft engines which seem to have issues (cooling?). I know a couple guys who own T-41's, which was a mid-60's 172 trainer fitted with the 210hp Cont IO-360 and c/s prop-- basically an early version of the Hawk XP. Those airplanes perform great, run very smooth, and when properly maintained don't seem to have any more problems than comparable engines. Great compromise choice, about halfway between the 180hp 360 & 235+ hp 540 Lycomings.
Your comment about Petersen thinking it would work fine with mogas is interesting, since the IO-360 Cont is notably missing from the list of mogas-approved engines in an older Petersen brochure I have. There was a guy on the C170 site who owned an IO0360 powered 170, he said he ran it on (91 octane?) mogas all the time and it worked just fine. Maybe compromise by filling one tank with 100LL for takeoff and climb, and the other with mogas for cruise.
"Tailwheel Tom" Anderson of XP Mods fame converted a number of 170's to the IO-360 Cont via field approvals, and thought enough of it that he followed through and eventually got an STC for the conversion. I know a guy who had an IO-360 Cont in a Swift and really liked it. When he had a mishap with it and the insurance totaled it out, he wanted another Super Swift but passed on several Lyc powered ones and searched and searched until he found another one with the IO-360 and bought it.

Thanks CamTom! I'm excited too but very nervous I just bit off more than I can chew...we'll find out.

hotrod180 wrote:Your comment about Petersen thinking it would work fine with mogas is interesting, since the IO-360 Cont is notably missing from the list of mogas-approved engines in an older Petersen brochure I have.

I must clarify my earlier comment. I talked to Mr. Peterson about the IO-360 and he said they never evaluated that specific engine because he didn't feel there was a market for it. The IO-470 uses the same fuel injection system as the IO-360 except it uses a non-altitude compensating fuel pump. The IO-360 has a 8.5:1 CR while the IO-470 has a 8.6:1 ratio. They added a boot pump upstream of the engine driven fuel pump to provide 3.5-4psi to ensure there wouldn't be vapor lock issues and they added water methanol injection for when the engine is pulling 24" MP or greater or the cylinder heads are 400F or higher to increase the detonation margin. He did not see why the IO-360 would behave any differently. He stated the TCM fuel injection never showed much sign vapor lock issues but the boost pump was necessary. He also said the Bendix fuel injection used on Lycomings had all kinds of vapor lock problems when trying to run mogas so they eventually gave up testing. Inpulse now holds the STC for the IO-470. I talked to them and they said they would be happy to build me a water methanol system but I don't think I'll need it; if I do I know where to go.

What's the weight on a fully dressed TCM IO-360?

It sounds like a great combo!


Edit: looks like around 470lbs according to one website.