Av8r3400 wrote:

roamak wrote:About a week ago there was a c180/185 sitting at Northern Lights Avionics in Los Anchorage with a Experimental decal in the back window. Not sure if its still there but will drive by next chance and have a look.
Seems some years ago it wouldn't be much of a problem, but, without getting political......good luck on finding someone to sign their name to it.

Most likely this was/is an experimental exhibition category plane, not experimental amature built.

The exhibition category is for modifications to a certified plane, engine, airframe or whatever. The usability is very limited because you need to declair to the FAA much of the flying of the airplane and you must submit a list of event you intend to exhibit the aircraft.

It may have also been one of the 180/185 clones built from a kit. Kits were available as the "Cyclone" I believe.

MTV

I bought and sold an Experimental Cessna 150 years ago. It was in the Experimental/exhibition class. I have a chance to buy it back and it isn't much more than the fuselage and wings. It was an acrobatic plane when it was flying and I wanted to take a Certified plane and use the parts to fix it. That is basically what was on it before. I have been thinking of trying a VW diesel engine like they are putting in 172's in Germany. I wanted to use this fuselage since the it's been beefed up for acrobatic work. Is it possible to get it in the Experimental class only? I know I should be asking this of the FAA but I not sure if they will know either.

The 185 with experimental sticker was most likely my buddys 185 being used as test bed for new capstone update. It is back in normal category now. FAA wanted the upgrade tested so paperwork was no problem. There are a few aircraft up here that go in and out of the experimental category as they test new products.
DENNY

I know in Canada you can do it by meeting the 51% rule. it means hand fabing a ton of stuff though because you can't just bolt on parts off an other certified airplane, unfortunately.

Even in Canada they have stopped the use of certified parts on amateur built aircraft. Lots of politics involved in this one. Someone in the USA put the pressure on the FAA to stop the use of certified parts being used on amateur built planes, then the FAA put the squeeze on Transport Canda to follow suit.
I am not sure who started this deal. Mabey some of the kit manufacturers put two and two together and realized that guys were buying old certified planes and converting then to amateur built for 1/3 the cost of a similar kit. Mabey it was the certified manufacturers that did not want their parts going amateur built for fear of liability or fear of loss of parts sales. Who knows what the real reasons are, but you can bet it is money related and has nothing to do with safety.
I was very lucky to get my Cessna 175 project approved and in the system just prior to them closing the door on this way of doing things.

Like I said, I do know things have changed. I contacted the former FAA person who was recommended for this question. His answer was to contact the FAA office, and I am hopeful I can put it to rest one way or the other soon.

The opportunity for an almost free, moderately damaged airframe to use will go away at some point this spring, and I think there are a few casual low-ball offers in the works. The owner has me at the front of the line for now, but I don't want it to drag on.

As often as this same basic question has been asked in a multitude of forums, and as often as the answer has been, "you can't do it", I have to wonder why the question keeps being asked. It's sort of like a corollary to the definition of insanity. An amazing amount of time and effort goes into trying to get the answer to be "yes you can", but as far as I can determine, the answer really is "you can't do it."

Cary

My question is why would you want to Maybe cause it feels good when you stop

if they gave it to u for free, it still wouldnt be agood deal....lots of good older182's out there where your $ will be better protected...keep a shoppin'....

I have personal involvement with three different DAR's and from my experience all three have different ways to interpret the guidelines set forth for amateur built aircraft. I know what is right and what is not according to the printed material but I have seen this glossed over by one and adhered to verbatim by another. I think the original poster just hates to see a good fuselage go to waste but the efforts to do what he has described would net diminishing returns. Just my 2 cents.

As has been stated already, doing as you are inquiring was concievable years ago, but the rules have changed. I am not saying you can't do it but I doubt it will be able to be done with any money saved over buying an airworthy 182. Especially after you browse Barnstormers or any of the other aircraft sales places, you will see they can be bought for very fair prices these days.
ALso, experimental/exhibition catagory has been mentioned, this is another possibility but you are very limited in what/and where you can do with this plane once it is completed.
As a side note on this particular catagory, have you senn the 170 listed for the past couple of years in this catagory? Almost unsellable due to the limitations on the plane.
If you like the 18X series have you looked at the Cyclone/Tundra/etc. catagory of AB's?

WWhunter wrote:As has been stated already, doing as you are inquiring was concievable years ago, but the rules have changed. I am not saying you can't do it but I doubt it will be able to be done with any money saved over buying an airworthy 182. Especially after you browse Barnstormers or any of the other aircraft sales places, you will see they can be bought for very fair prices these days.
ALso, experimental/exhibition catagory has been mentioned, this is another possibility but you are very limited in what/and where you can do with this plane once it is completed.
As a side note on this particular catagory, have you senn the 170 listed for the past couple of years in this catagory? Almost unsellable due to the limitations on the plane.
If you like the 18X series have you looked at the Cyclone/Tundra/etc. catagory of AB's?

No, the rules have not changed. All that changed is that the rules are actually being enforced now. The rules for Experimental/Amateur Built haven't changed substantially, at least in regard to the use of used certified parts.

If you read the preamble to that rule, you'll find that the rule is intended to provide people with the opportunity to learn the various skills involved in building aircraft. It's not intended, and never has been intended to make it easy or cheap to build an airplane. That's why the 51 % rule.

MTV

Thanks for all the comments on the idea, including the ones that implied I was a silly, obstinate fool for posting. One person told me it was like playing Stairway to Heaven in a guitar shop...prepare to be looked down at by those who already know everything under the sun better than you.

It is not a new idea, as already mentioned. It is also not an idea meant to save tons of money. However, the thoughts of having an engine in reasonable shape, if not just for rebuilding, a full VFR panel with several newer instruments, and a great, proven fuselage for almost free are hard to pass up.

My goal is to build the wings, tail, and engine mount from scratch, using a design to give me the opportunity to do some serious learning about sheet metal construction. I've fabricated more than one steel tube fuselage, put on more than one envelope, welded from here to the next county, etc. I'm not interested as much in diving into more of that- been there already.

It will also allow me to make some utility changes to the 182 fuselage that might include a cargo access, better nose gear installation (hence the engine mount build), perhaps even a tail wheel conversion (but why?), and some other features to perhaps improve speed slightly and low speed handling significantly. The biggest win will be to build my own project and enjoy the process and product for years to come.

I communicated as clearly as I could with the FAA, and after disappearing into their process for a completely reasonable period of time, and working its way upwards a couple of levels, I got my answer, in writing, as clearly as I could ever expect.

Here is the Reader's Digest version:

<<YES>>

Here are the "but's"....

Oh wait, there aren't any.

Instead, once taken out of a normal AW status, it might never go back from my reading of the letter. That is the extent of it.

I am excited to be able to put this to good use, and look forward to filling up the last empty section of my shop with a large brake and a shear and a lot of bent airplane in the next few months. It's the beginning of the adventure.

As for being too obstinate to take "NO" for an answer, as a few mentioned previously, all I can say is, I never heard "NO" from anyone but the forums, never from the FAA, and by simply asking the right people, got a perfectly clear answer. I've actually gotten quite a bit of interest and support from some knowledgeable folks familiar with the situation.

Trim Tab wrote:Thanks for all the comments on the idea, including the ones that implied I was a silly, obstinate fool for posting. One person told me it was like playing Stairway to Heaven in a guitar shop...prepare to be looked down at by those who already know everything under the sun better than you.

It is not a new idea, as already mentioned. It is also not an idea meant to save tons of money. However, the thoughts of having an engine in reasonable shape, if not just for rebuilding, a full VFR panel with several newer instruments, and a great, proven fuselage for almost free are hard to pass up.

My goal is to build the wings, tail, and engine mount from scratch, using a design to give me the opportunity to do some serious learning about sheet metal construction. I've fabricated more than one steel tube fuselage, put on more than one envelope, welded from here to the next county, etc. I'm not interested as much in diving into more of that- been there already.

It will also allow me to make some utility changes to the 182 fuselage that might include a cargo access, better nose gear installation (hence the engine mount build), perhaps even a tail wheel conversion (but why?), and some other features to perhaps improve speed slightly and low speed handling significantly. The biggest win will be to build my own project and enjoy the process and product for years to come.

I communicated as clearly as I could with the FAA, and after disappearing into their process for a completely reasonable period of time, and working its way upwards a couple of levels, I got my answer, in writing, as clearly as I could ever expect.

Here is the Reader's Digest version:

<<YES>>

Here are the "but's"....

Oh wait, there aren't any.

Instead, once taken out of a normal AW status, it might never go back from my reading of the letter. That is the extent of it.

I am excited to be able to put this to good use, and look forward to filling up the last empty section of my shop with a large brake and a shear and a lot of bent airplane in the next few months. It's the beginning of the adventure.

As for being too obstinate to take "NO" for an answer, as a few mentioned previously, all I can say is, I never heard "NO" from anyone but the forums, never from the FAA, and by simply asking the right people, got a perfectly clear answer. I've actually gotten quite a bit of interest and support from some knowledgeable folks familiar with the situation.

Damn, this sounds interesting! Keep us up to date on how this works out!

I'm not sure people here are too interested in the gory details of the aero or structural engineering for the new wings and tail. It isn't nearly as complicated as people have strong opinions about, but even a simplified presentation of any of it would send them looking for cat videos or bushwheels.

If people are interested, PM me and I'll see about getting a Google group going. It might be easier that way. I don't think there will be anything other than pictures of the analysis for quite a while, and I doubt anyone but me wants to see that stuff. Interest in engineering these things is far from an interesting topic with people who just want to see a bolt together kit, fly it, and assume that all the right choices were already made to make sure the thing stays in one piece.

mtv wrote:

WWhunter wrote:As has been stated already, doing as you are inquiring was concievable years ago, but the rules have changed. I am not saying you can't do it but I doubt it will be able to be done with any money saved over buying an airworthy 182. Especially after you browse Barnstormers or any of the other aircraft sales places, you will see they can be bought for very fair prices these days.
ALso, experimental/exhibition catagory has been mentioned, this is another possibility but you are very limited in what/and where you can do with this plane once it is completed.
As a side note on this particular catagory, have you senn the 170 listed for the past couple of years in this catagory? Almost unsellable due to the limitations on the plane.
If you like the 18X series have you looked at the Cyclone/Tundra/etc. catagory of AB's?

No, the rules have not changed. All that changed is that the rules are actually being enforced now. The rules for Experimental/Amateur Built haven't changed substantially, at least in regard to the use of used certified parts.

If you read the preamble to that rule, you'll find that the rule is intended to provide people with the opportunity to learn the various skills involved in building aircraft. It's not intended, and never has been intended to make it easy or cheap to build an airplane. That's why the 51 % rule.

MTV

Not sure why you have propensity to nit-pik on a play of words, but you are wrong. There has been changes and and they were in 2009. It was easier before that time to use certified parts then it is currently. Basically the definitions are more clearly defined as to what can and cannot be used. Loopholes, skirting the rules, whatever you want to call it, were more loosely open to interpitation by the builder years ago. This lead to build centers, people turning certified aircraft into expiremental catagory aircraft, etc. that were not meant to be allowed, so a rewrite or clarification of the rules was needed.

I did not say what the Op wanted to do was impossible, I said that I doubted he would save much money over buying an already air worthy aircraft. I learned a long time ago, as stated by the OP that anything is possible. If you throw enough money at it, or do a lot of work and scrounging, a person can achieve their dream..

www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2009-10_51percent.asp

Good for you Trim Tab. I for one would enjoy your continued posts as your project moves along. I have completed several home built aircraft and understand the satisfaction and sense of accomplishment. There have been positive as well as negative posts to your desire to do this. I'm reminded of a discussion regarding the scratch built Super Cub I constructed and now have 1300 hrs. in. Went something like this, The detractor stated you could have spent your time doing about anything else and made more money. The bystander asked when I worked on it and for how long in which I replied evenings and other spare time for 5 years. Bystander asked detractor what he did in the evenings, answer watch TV. Bystander says Cub builder can see what he accomplished the last five years, do you remember what you watched on TV over the last 5 years.

Trim Tab wrote:I'm not sure people here are too interested in the gory details of the aero or structural engineering for the new wings and tail. It isn't nearly as complicated as people have strong opinions about, but even a simplified presentation of any of it would send them looking for cat videos or bushwheels.

If people are interested, PM me and I'll see about getting a Google group going. It might be easier that way. I don't think there will be anything other than pictures of the analysis for quite a while, and I doubt anyone but me wants to see that stuff. Interest in engineering these things is far from an interesting topic with people who just want to see a bolt together kit, fly it, and assume that all the right choices were already made to make sure the thing stays in one piece.

Don't underestimate the interest and potential for learning that can occur with your new project. And don't forget that this is an opinion based format where every question, comment, idea and video posted will be likely be critiqued and opinionized by those here that like to do that sort of thing. If that is beyond your desire to deal with then, yes, you should probably take your project elsewhere, but I would encourage you to look past that and share your progress with all of us. There are a lot of talented and intelligent people on this forum who will definitely get into the "engineering" part of this project and there are those of us who will anxiously be anticipating the "bolt together" phase of the project but neither group is better than the other! The more we come together as a community to explore the possibilities that exist in general aviation the better off we are. You never know who you will inspire or educate with your knowledge and experience.

FWIW

CW

Trim Tab.
Tally Ho!!
Remember to Aim Low, There Ridin Shetlands!!

clippwagon wrote:

Trim Tab wrote:I'm not sure people here are too interested in the gory details of the aero or structural engineering for the new wings and tail. It isn't nearly as complicated as people have strong opinions about, but even a simplified presentation of any of it would send them looking for cat videos or bushwheels.

If people are interested, PM me and I'll see about getting a Google group going. It might be easier that way. I don't think there will be anything other than pictures of the analysis for quite a while, and I doubt anyone but me wants to see that stuff. Interest in engineering these things is far from an interesting topic with people who just want to see a bolt together kit, fly it, and assume that all the right choices were already made to make sure the thing stays in one piece.

Don't underestimate the interest and potential for learning that can occur with your new project. And don't forget that this is an opinion based format where every question, comment, idea and video posted will be likely be critiqued and opinionized by those here that like to do that sort of thing. If that is beyond your desire to deal with then, yes, you should probably take your project elsewhere, but I would encourage you to look past that and share your progress with all of us. There are a lot of talented and intelligent people on this forum who will definitely get into the "engineering" part of this project and there are those of us who will anxiously be anticipating the "bolt together" phase of the project but neither group is better than the other! The more we come together as a community to explore the possibilities that exist in general aviation the better off we are. You never know who you will inspire or educate with your knowledge and experience.

FWIW

CW

X2. Could not have worded it any better! I for one would really like to follow your progress. If you can do it for the cessna, there is no reason it cant be done on other planes. I have a PA12 and PA20 project I would love to go experimental with. Build parts and fabing is not an issue for me if I can get it done. If your paving the way I would be happy to drive down the road.