I've been offered a 1960's 182 by a person whose ranch hangar/horse stall partially collapsed on the wings. It was in annual but only flown a dozen hours a year for the past couple of decades, but was in annual/kept legal as well. Both wings are damaged beyond repair, and the fuselage may be affected, but it is not visible.

Aside from the fact the engine might not be in great shape from a lack of use, everything else looks pretty good inside. The cost to return it to certificated status is simply too far out there unless he simply gives it away to someone. He wants to sell it to me cheap if I would get it flying again. I have the time to take on a project over a couple of years, but am less interested in continuing to own a certificated airplane, or putting time and effort into restoring a certificated plane.

My question is whether anyone has ever come across an Experimental 182, besides the Canada outfit? People make Experimental PA-18's and 12's partially from certified fuselages. What keeps a person from using the fantastic 182 fuselage and copying/building new wings, tail feathers, and other mods to meet the 51% rule?

The idea would be to more or less copy the existing designs for the tail and wings, making things a bit more back-country friendly (perhaps droop aileron improvements, extended cuff, a bit of extra span, other minor things). The tail could be enlarged, and a change to conventional gear could be made as well. I don't want to spend my last moments on earth as a test pilot- I just want an Experimental, solid backcountry performer to tinker with, a nice multi-year project, and hopefully some small improvements to what is already a great, fast, roomy, load-hauling airplane.

What are the regulatory bumps in the road that are different from simply building a plane from a quick build kit?

I've scoured the EAA and other websites on the subject, and can't seem to get a consistent message out of my posts or reading. The local FAA office has no interest in pointing me in the right direction either. And the crowds in the other forums seem to think such a project is a crazy idea, even though they are flying Frankenstein Super Cubs.

If this worked out, it seems like I might be able to have a fully instrumented, experimental category airplane for $25k, including a field overhaul of the engine, guessing at the cost of the home built wing and tail materials. I have sheet metal experience (non-airplane), and some other resources available. This is more of an inquiry to see if anyone else has heard of such a thing in the wild, and whether there are any obvious downsides to the idea?

I"m sure I'll get corrected by someone who knows certificated airplanes better than me but as far as I know, you cannot take a Cessna 182, restore it and call it an "Experimental." Pretty much once certified, always certified. Now if you take the parts of the plane, and build something completely new that is NOT a 182, you might get away with it. But my best guess is if it looks anything like a 182, they will say it's the original certificated airplane and must comply with all the pertinent regs and inspections.

All depends on how far into the gray area the DAR you hire is willing to go. The rule is if you use and major component of certified plane then zero of the work you do on that component counts towards the 51%. Pretty hard to come up with 51% when you can't count the fuselage, gear, etc. You can't take the wings apart and rebuild them and count that work either unless you are willing to lie and claim you built them from scratch.

I tried every loophole I could think of and there is no way to do it and still keep your integrity intact.

I've seen a lot written about the wings and empennage counting as 51% and all of the examples I've run into were either PA-X drivers or a few other homebuilts that used Piper wings.

If I bought aluminum sheet, measured and detailed the original wing design, completely fabricated the wings from flat sheet stock and other scratch means, including a completely new tail planform, and didn't use a single part of the old wings or tail feathers, created a useful cargo door in the fuselage, how could this count as anything less than what others have done with the Pipers?

I guess I keep asking because there are several Experimental Pipers out there with stock certificated fuselages and new tail and wings that met this 51% rule based on that...I've met one guy who didn't even have to re-cover the fuselage...just bought a ground looped Piper, welded some scratch fabricated landing gear on, made some wings and tail feathers from plans over a couple of winters, and was able to get through the process somehow. I've also met (and he might be on this forum somewhere) a guy that built the fuselage and tail, and used some wings and the firewall forward from a certificated SC without doing much else, and it met the rule too somehow.

I have never seen a Cessna with the same story though. I can't figure out why. But if I have to give up on this opportunity, it will be a shame to see it get scrapped out. I really like the fuselage better than any homebuilt I've flown in, and the wing project would be a labor of love for me.

There is a detailed checklist the DAR uses to judge the 51% rule. I'd have to do some digging to find it but it is pretty self explanatory. 5 years ago it was not too difficult to move a certified plane into EAB but not anymore.

Like I said it all depends on the DAR. He best advice I can give is to talk to the local EAA guys, find out who the DARs are that cover your area and discuss it with them.

AC 20-27G has the checklist in the appendix that the FAA uses to determine compliance with the 51% rule if you wanted to see how the percentages worked out with what you'd build vs. use from the plane, so my understanding (which probably isn't worth much) would be as long as the work you complete (and have the documentation/pictures to prove) exceeds 51% per that checklist you could do it.

fredy wrote:AC 20-27G has the checklist in the appendix that the FAA uses to determine compliance with the 51% rule if you wanted to see how the percentages worked out with what you'd build vs. use from the plane, so my understanding (which probably isn't worth much) would be as long as the work you complete (and have the documentation/pictures to prove) exceeds 51% per that checklist you could do it.

This is true. But as it was explained to me by 2 different DARs and 2 different FAA inspectors ANY work done on a major component from a certified plane does not count. So you take that 182 fuselage and modify it with a baggage door or whatever, none of that work counts. You take a Pacer fuselage and weld new main get on it and recover it, none of that work counts unless you claim you built it from scratch or obtained it by other means than from a certified airplane.

I hope you find a way to make it work. Just sharing my experience from wanting to do the same thing with a Stinson.

Thanks. It seems to me that if the wings and empennage count for 51%, then I should be able to make this work, even without credit for any fuselage mods. I do need to visit with the EAA group as well- thanks for the suggestion, since it may be the only way around here I can get a hold of a DAR to talk with.

I agree with the intent about excluding work done to rework certificated parts. I just think the line seems to be as fuzzy to me as for a lot of people I've talked to. It must be about getting the right DAR. I really want to build an entire plane, but I also really like the 18X series of cabins and their performance, and I don't want to scratch build something for 10 years before trying it out.

What were you thinking of trying with the Stinson?

Thanks for the information!

Trim Tab wrote:What were you thinking of trying with the Stinson?

108-3 wings, -1 tail, maule like baggage door with enlarged baggage compartment, taller gear legs. Think it would have been a cool build.

There's a Cessna / Cub mishmash under construction which proves the point. Obviously my memory is hazy on how they are doing it, but there is a way.

Edit - right, it wasn't a 51% thing, it was for another category like R&D. Local authorities seemed very happy with it. No idea what the plan was once the CoA terminates after the elapsed time.

The 51% rule only applies to amateur-built aircraft. There are other types of experimental aircraft out there. See FAR 21.191 for what an experimental airworthiness certificate can be for and FAR 21.193 for the procedure to get one. In this case, perhaps you want to use this 182 for the purposes of research and development (making a new STOL STC for the 182 or something), or maybe it's for exhibition purposes. You don't need to build more than half of it to qualify for those categories.

Neat sounding Stinson.

Trim Tab wrote:Thanks. It seems to me that if the wings and empennage count for 51%, then I should be able to make this work, even without credit for any fuselage mods. I do need to visit with the EAA group as well- thanks for the suggestion, since it may be the only way around here I can get a hold of a DAR to talk with.

I agree with the intent about excluding work done to rework certificated parts. I just think the line seems to be as fuzzy to me as for a lot of people I've talked to. n!

It doesn't make any difference what "seems to you" in this, and it isn't a matter of finding the "right" DAR. DARs are at risk of losing their designation if they violate the FAA guidance.

And, the new guidance is NOT "fuzzy". It is pretty clear, thoug there seem to be a lot of folks who think there are still "loopholes" to jump through to get you there using certificated parts in an EAB airplane.

As the man told you, go find a DAR and pay them to guide you through the process.

You say the FAA was not helpful....why? Because they didn't give you the answer you wanted?

Whee has given you a really good assessment of the process as it stands TODAY. EAB airplanes that were certificated a couple years ago are irrelevant. The rules have changed.

Further, a lot of those EAB cubs were built on EXP fuselages, some built in Super Cub jigs, but NOT a Piper frame.

So, find a DAR, and pay him to guide you.

MTV

If you aren't interested in owning a certified airplane, buy it, fix it, sell it, and buy an experimental. Give that poor airplane new life and pass it on to someone that will use and appreciate it so it doesn't sit in horse manure for the rest of its life!

mtv wrote:a lot of those EAB cubs were built on EXP fuselages, some built in Super Cub jigs, but NOT a Piper frame.

The planes I am referring to were built using actual certificated fuselages or certificated wings. That was a while ago. One guy didn't even re-cover or paint the wings. Things have changed.

The assistance I got from the FAA the last time I inquired on this subject was fuzzy- I was referred to the same very helpful advisory circulars and regulations kindly and usefully provided here. There was never an actual determination of "yes" or "no", but there was a "maybe...but not sure" from an experienced DER I knew. That's why I said it was "fuzzy".

I know, and agree with, the idea that no credit should be given to work to modify an existing certificated component. The FAA docs also say they don't expect people to build each and every component of their planes, and that some certificated components are to be expected and acceptable, and very few builders are hard core enough to complete a scratch build.So I think it is fair for a clear declaration of what the 51% rule really means in this case.

This is far from a case of looking for loopholes or trying to shop for a DAR who will say yes. I fly often, and am happy with what I have. I want the experience of designing and building a substantial portion of a plane, and this opportunity came up as a 182- a plane I like a lot.

The only people who have actually said "No" are people who have no affiliation with the FAA whatsoever (with a lot of the same group of people saying "yes"), and the very limited input I have from a person with FAA affiliation says "Maybe".

So there is my question. I'm happy enough if the answer is no. But if the answer is yes, I'd be a fool to not at least ask the right persons and get an answer.

And, thanks to this forum, it appears I have gotten in touch with someone at the FAA on this matter directly.

Thanks!

You will spend a lot of money. You will not get an airworthiness certificate. I am surprised more verbose writers have not chimed in. Save the headache. Move on.

Trim tab not much of a chance of making 182 expemental , I have 182 wings FS and do major repairs ,we also have several Stinson projects for sale or trade.

Trim Tab

Since you do not show the region you live in it is hard to give you a shop.

BUT, I would suggest that your first go to a repair shop and see how complicated the front spar is on the wings of a 180 - 182. They are not a simple extrusion. there must be at least a dozen overlapping extrusions. I have helped with a 180 wing. It took lots of all new, read expensive, parts. Yous basically have to take each part off in order to inspect corrosion between the layers of extrusions. There is a form of corrosion that takes place when the extrusion rollers impart impurities on the various strips.

It was a shocker of an education for me.

The only two places I know of is Bill Reid who posted to you and Nick at West Coast Wings in Ukiah Calif.


Best of luck either way

Trimtab (the original)

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.

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.