Hey all, been lurking for a long time and wanted to post a question(s) on a topic I've not found any discussion on...

What is involved in taking a certified aircraft into the experimental category?

Have any of you done this, what benefits, draw backs, liability, etc?

Is it just not worth the hassle?

I am finally getting to a point in my career and life where I can pursue my ambitions to fly. I have decided to rent for a year or so to really decide what it is I want to do. I've got in my mind the aircraft type I want to buy but would like a little confirmation before making the investment.

I've been flip flopping between building a kit or buying certified. I recently found the certified airplane I think I want to buy, it has been torn down and a restoration begun. I know the cost is considerable and I don't want to tackle a project like this now but can't help wondering if it would benefit a project like this to make it Experimental.

Look forward to your input, this is just a curiosity question, I've convinced myself I am not buying this and even promised my wife.

Thanks

The best source of info on that is the EAA. Although, I do believe that if a certified airplane is rebuilt then it is not eligible for an experimental certificate. In the past they did allow this I think but they are cracking down now.

You can take a certified airplane into a couple of the Experimental categories, but you CANNOT take a certified airplane into the most common and most desireable Experimental category, which is Experimental/amateur built.

There is an Ex/Flight test category, but it's for flight testing structures/aircraft/mods, and has a very short duration, like a few months. Then it goes away, and you will have a hard time getting it back. That also severely restricts what you can do with the plane, like NO passengers.

There is an Ex/Airshow and Exhibition category. All you can do there is go to and from airshows and some proficiency flying to stay current.

Ex/amateur built is the one everyone wants to use. The kicker here is that the BUILDER (as in YOU) must FABRICATE at least 51% of that aircraft. You cannot just rip the fabric off a certified airplane and replace the fabric and claim you did 51% of the construction of that plane.

This has been the case FOR A VERY LONG TIME, by the way. And, in fact, the FAA is starting to seriously sniff around some of the kit built Super Cub clones that are being offered, since all the parts are provided, and the FAA is concerned that it's just an erector set, with little if any fabrication or actual construction done by the builder. Also, there are a lot of hired guns out there, putting these things together, and selling them to people who don't want to build their own.

Bottom line: It is impractical to take a certified airplane into the Experimental category. Possible, but you'd wind up in Airshow and Exhibition, and that category is useless to most.

MTV

It can and has been done as long as the 51% rule is met. Look at Bushwacker, the Maule in Big rocks and long props for example, or Turbine powered cubs etc. You can't just placard a certifiedaircraft experimental though, and oh and you can't just take certified parts off of a couple of different aircraft and put yourself together a frankenstein airplane either. You are supposed to "build" 51% of it and repairs like recovering and painting don't count.
How the numerous quick build factory assistance, two weeks to taxi programs etc. get by the rule, I have no idea.

Thanks guys, I figured it wouldn't give me the result I would want or everyine else would be trying it. I wonder if I could convince the regulators to give me a special condition because I am a special person.....hhhmmmm.......

To modify a certified plane and turn it into an amateur build experimental is impractical and expensive, but that hasn't stopped people before. I met a guy who took an old Super Cub, split the fuselage down the middle, added enough width to fit a Cessna windshield he had laying around, put a big engine in it, did a bunch of other stuff, and ended up with a 4-place Super Cub that looked kind of like a Maule! It was an experimental, so I presume that it met the 51% rule. I didn't ask what he had in it, but I'm guessing that it cost more and had less resale value than that M4 that it looked like. It was his creation and he was proud of it, so I doubt that mattered to him.

There is a FAA form (imagine that!) used to determine if the major portion was built by you. It is form 8000-38. Unfortunately there isn't a direct link to it, but you can find it in form 8130.2F on page 223. There is also a lot of other interesting info in there too. Here's a site that gives you the Cliff's Notes version.

Thanks JRStripe, I figured as much. Like I said I was curious but figured it wouldn't be worth the hassle or more people would have done it. Guess I'll keep on with the plan to get licensed and start looking in the spring hopefully find what I want about this time next year.

hooznext wrote:Thanks JRStripe, I figured as much. Like I said I was curious but figured it wouldn't be worth the hassle or more people would have done it. Guess I'll keep on with the plan to get licensed and start looking in the spring hopefully find what I want about this time next year.

Oh, I didn't mean to say that it isn't worth the hassle. It is a hassle, but to that guy that I talked with it was worth it. It appeared to me that he just used a different measure to quanitfy value than the $.

Oh, I didn't mean to say that it isn't worth the hassle.

I understand, in my eyes the Maule and others are plenty capable aircraft. Nice useable load, STOL, good power, nice cruise speeds so for me to take one and go through the hassle to convert it to experimental would not be worth it. It's not like I was considering that move because I can improve on its capabilities or design. I was thinking more along the lines of being able to do more of the cost intensive aspects of maintaining the aircraft, if I wanted as well as being able to take advantage of some of the avionics available to the experimental group.

I think I'm going to stick to my original plan of waffling back and forth between buying a certified aircraft or building an experimental myself.

hooznext

If you lived in Canada, you could put your certified plane into the Owner Maintenance category. You could then do the maintenance yourself.
Because of our beauracracy, vested interests, and people not wanting to give up power, we do not have that option. We, apparently, are not as talented mechanically as our Canadian brothers and sisters.

I understand that the resale value decreases when a plane is taken out of the Certified category. If your considering resale, it is best to keep the plane certified.

flyer

You beat me to the punch in bringing up the Canadian "owner maintenance" category. I'd sure like to see someting similar here in the US, but I doubt it'll happen, at least in my lifetime.

Eric

As good as the owner maintenance is, its pretty limiting, flying out of country is prohibited. As well only simple non-complex aircraft are eligible, so no constant speed props or no retracts. Which really weeds out all of the good airplanes

You could move to europe ( maybe Sweden ) then you need a certified mechanic to work on your auto.
I am rebuilding a 57 172 and thought about going experimental and my IA said no-way Jose - Hosa whatever ( just going to have to get this spanish thing down ).

JRStripe wrote:..... I met a guy who took an old Super Cub, split the fuselage down the middle, added enough width to fit a Cessna windshield he had laying around, put a big engine in it, did a bunch of other stuff, and ended up with a 4-place Super Cub that looked kind of like a Maule! .........

Sounds like the airplane I saw about 10 years ago at Hood River airport.

zero.one.victor wrote:Sounds like the airplane I saw about 10 years ago at Hood River airport.

Probably was. I met the guy at Owyhee, but that was where he said he was from. He called it a Super Bear, if I remember correctly.

Yup, super bear, that's the one. Looked like quite an airplane.