Ok here's the deal I have a wreak in my hangar...been getting parts and stuff togather to rebuild.Have new set wings and just scored a new fuselage. BUT have been thinking of just going experimental rather than rebuilding mine... could then sell off my left over stuff with paperwork ect. recoup some of my loss and build a light cub the way I would like with out the issues from feds. My friend built a great 12 last year as exp. I watched him do great things without the big fight. It's a real beauty.

Am sitting on the fence here and June will be here before we realize it.

So give me your pro and con Two Cents ??


paul

Glacier,

Before you commit and get too far in to the deal make sure you can get your current parts and pieces into an ex-am cert... otherwise the benefits are not as great and the hassles can be more than standard...

Rob, am in process of doing that very thing now.........

thanks

I've heard it argued that being experimental will depress the resale value of a plane if the owner ever decides to sell. Maybe this is less true for a cub in Alaska, especially if you do a nice job.

Yes that is always a consideration...but the stigma from Exp. is fading faster that the dec. sun in nome as far as I can see... dont know the numbers but I'd guess in the last several years there has been more kit built and exp cubs registered than most anything else ??

thanks

paul

30,000 amateur-built aircraft certificated in the United States! That’s a quarter of the general aviation fleet. I'd say the stigma has gone the way of the dodo .

If you are using the plane for personal flying and don't plan to make a living with it then go for it. Why burden yourself with all the regulation that has left aircraft advances in the stone age. Just get a look at the new EFIS packages available for experimentals as an example. Let alone being able to add/modify/change as the need arises.

Just my 2 cents.

I think in canada you can build it as a homebuilt without being experimental as long as you do more than 51% of the work and now they include fabrick as a large percent of the work. might be worth looking into the homebuilt rules down there.
As for resale value, I wanted a non certified cub, and any nice ones were at least as much as legal ones! my theory is that there is only so many commercial cubs around and if you dont need to be commercial why bother being cert. at all. makes your options for props engines and accesories almost unlimited.

The other point I've heard argued is that with a certificated aircraft the liability for a malfunction rests with the company- Cessna, Piper, whatever. The argument goes that if you sell an experimental that you built or re-designated as experimental, the liability comes back to you in the event of a malfunction. I know of one experimental owner who gave away his aircraft under the strict condition that the recipient not fly it until after his death.

I don't want to give the impression that I'm against experimentals. Just trying to offer some different angles on your question. Good luck whatever you do.

denali makes a very good point. Take a look at the John Denver accident, for a lesson in this very thing.

Even though John Denver's heirs had all his money, which was substantial, they sued the "manufacturer" of the homebuilt airplane, basically to punish him for "changing the design" of the fuel selector.

The salient point here, I guess and the decision you'd have to make is: Will you ever sell this airplane? If you do, and you have ANY money or assets, you'd be better off to part it out, and sell the pieces.

This may not be an issue, but something to think about.

MTV

Paul

I'd part out the Cub and buy that Citibria behind Nugget. You'll be back up on the Knik Glacier a lot sooner.

I have always shied away from experimentals for resale purposes, and you certainly can't fly passengers around.

Nizina

Hi Paul,

I have been in your shoes twice now. I am just wrapping up another certified revamp...

I would really rather have an experimental, the problem is both times I had too much of a certified cub to waste it by selling off the paperwork. A complete cub can bring you a lot more $$$ than paper, if you build it back up yourself. Then you can do an experimental "right" if that's where your heart lies.

IMHO, a molested cub with a few tweaks here and there is not an experimental worth the value hit. There are some really sweet cubs out there that are certified. If you are going to go experimental you may as well go with a nicer than cert. motor(ie: o-340, o-375), better flaps, better ailerons, longer wings (or shorter if that floats your boat), and an extensively mod.d fuse... Wayne Mackeys cub is a great example, but at least I'd build on par with one of the more tricked out Smith cubs.

A couple thoughts I had:

The commercial argument is bogus, plain and simple.... If you are not holding a 135 cert. there are very few ways to make money with your cub, and a few of those ways you can do without a standard airworthiness...
Do you have a 135 or plan on it? Coincidentally, most cubs I have seen (Standard A/W or not) would have a tough time passing the muster on a 135 cert...

The value question is too broad to apply to the a/w certs...I can't think of a better example than a nicely built RV-6. It will almost always bring more $$$ than a mediocre certified plane of similar type... A smith may not bring as much as a new CC Ranger, but I'm guessing you won't have as much in your rebuild as a new CC ranger costs either...

Saving money through owner maintenance is almost as bogus. A properly maintained cub should have an annual that takes less than a half a day... Owner assist that and your annual will probably not be over $400... mine has never been... Heavy maintenance (the kind most guys will send out regardless of a/w cert) should be pretty far in the future on a bird that just got built. But having said that will you replace jugs or tear down the engine on your experimental? If you will send these out to your mechanic, then again the savings is not what it's played out to be...

Just opinions of course

Take care, Rob

The experimental category precludes any kind of commercial work, including flight instruction. (owner can get instruction, but not give instruction) It also has restrictions about flying over "heavily populated areas" except for landing and takeoff. I suspect that this rule is overlooked by just about every experimental owner. Get in an accident, and it may be a big deal?

On the other hand, I really like being able to work on my own plane. I've designed and built a number of improvements and add-ons without having to worry about getting any blessing from the feds.

Part of my decision is based on the type of flying I like to do. Boondocks, not cities. The valley I live in is heavily farmed, and just about any place my plane craps out, I can land safely. I don't want to fly to Portland, Or. I'd rather go to JC or land on a dry lakebed or dirt road to camp.

tom

The FAA has said time and time again that Experimentals can fly over densely populated areas. There is even a letter that was sent to all the FSDOs to this fact. But as with any FED you are at their mercy. I never had an issue flying with the RV-4 and it had great resale value even in this economy.

Flying for hire would be a deal killer. If you need to fly for hire don't bother. But if this is a personal plane for you, try to file for the repairman's cert on it and never pay for an annual again. Legally do all the work yourself.

I will never fly a certified plane again. The flexibility I have to make changes to my equipment at my whim is priceless.

Oh, and Savannah-Tom... AMEN!

MTV is right.
I wouldn't have any money in the Books.
I'm not paranoid, but lawyers love aviation problems.
If I sold it, After a demo without a witness, I would remove the wings
and get a separate receipt for several items, As Is.
The buyer may be your best friend, but the surviving relatives are NOT.
A night sale in a dark alley, cash only.

These sales should come with a history warning like it IS our best friend.
It might make the buyer a better operator. I think its common to buy and trade in planes to fix and re sell. Much with limited experience. Don't we think older taildraggers have much questionable history anyway?
Now its buyer and seller beware.

You may have already done this and I am not familiar with what goes on all the time in alaska. BUT before I would consider "rebuilding" a certificated airplane as an experimental (and I know it can be done because it has been done right here on our field) I would make sure that you first talk to a DER who will agree to work with you toward ultimately being the guy you will need to do the sign off.
Bob, A&P/IA

winger wrote:MTV is right.
I wouldn't have any money in the Books.
I'm not paranoid, but lawyers love aviation problems.
If I sold it, After a demo without a witness, I would remove the wings
and get a separate receipt for several items, As Is.
The buyer may be your best friend, but the surviving relatives are NOT.

.....

Here's a question. Aircraft manufacturers liability was limited to 18 years, if I have that right, and since a home builder is considered the manufacturer wouldn't the liability also be limited to 18 years?

GroundLooper wrote:
.....Here's a question. Aircraft manufacturers liability was limited to 18 years, if I have that right, and since a home builder is considered the manufacturer wouldn't the liability also be limited to 18 years?

The 18 years may be a gray area, as some Homebuilders are in a perpetual state of changes and maint.

My 2 cents, All planes are subject to an engine failure over dire terrain, but I'v had many handyman machines in my 60+years, and I like a bargain.I checked the torque on the main gear 4 axle bolts of this Skywagon, and found an alarming disparity in compliance. Even if you don't have a torque wrench, A limited force to check things is better than ignoring it for years.