It is common for most people that hear the word EXPERIMENTAL in an aviation setting to assume that the subject is an amateur-built experimental airworthiness certificate. FAA Executive Order 8130.2, Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and Related Products gives detailed instructions and procedures for issuance of airworthiness certificates and the proper way to submit FAA Form 8130-6, Application For U.S. Airworthiness Certificate. There are 2 types ofAirworthy Certificates, Standard and Special. There are 7 categories of Special Airworthiness Certificates; Primary, Light Sport, Limited, Provisional, Restricted, Experimental, and Special Flight Permit. There are 10 Classes in the Experimental Category ; Research and Development, Air Racing, Crew Training, Market Survey, Amateur Built, Exhibition, etc. In times past it was not uncommon for an aircraft that was "Factory Built" to be issued a Special Airworthiness certificate in the Experimental Amateur Built category and class. BIG CHANGE. Current FAA policy is that NO aircraft that was produced under a Production Certificate or Type Certificate (Factory Built) may be issued an Experimental Amateur Built Special Airworthiness Certificate. Fortunately a Modernized 14-13 fits nicely in the Experimental Exhibition class.
Experimental Confusion
- Thread starter flyar112
- Start date
SoCalPlaneDoc
New member
Exhibition is used for production built aircraft made in facilities that were not certified by the FAA (such as ex-military or foreign-built) - and comes with some pretty severe restrictions that are commonly creatively interpreted or outright ignored.
modified production aircraft use the R&D category. ostensibly intended to allow testing of modifications such as previously unused engines or propellers, or as a step in the process towards an STC, or for aircraft on the path to certification.
big change? I don't think so. modified Type Certificated planes were never allowed to carry amateur built category. Homebuilts using "parts" of certificated are allowed to use amateur built so long as the "51% rule" is adhered to, and now has much more evidence required than in the past. examples included the Volmer Sportsman which was designed to use Aeronca or Piper wings if the builder desired. There have been several plans and kits offered to make identical replicas of planes and in the early days some guys got away with using mostly salvaged parts from other aircraft but the regs never intended that. They would justify it by saying that refurbishing them amounted to doing more than 50% of the work. That led to the now more stringent evidence required. But it's still up to the discretion of the DAR reviewing it.
On my field years ago there was a guy that ground looped his certified PA-14, destroying the tail in the process. He bought parts from a kit provider (call the sportsman 2+2) instead of repairing or just building new parts (come on, a tail isn't that hard to build) and tried to pass the plane off as a homebuilt. He failed.
another interesting story is a guy here that built a P-51 from SCRATCH! absolutely gorgeous plane with modern avionics. He was in the business of making parts for them already and went all-the-way. Thinking he'd get a higher sale price if it was exp/exhibition instead of amateur built, he took the data tags from a wreckage and installed them on the plane, presenting it as merely an original P-51 with every part (except the data tags) replaced. He eventually won-over the feds and succeeded, although I don't know if he got a higher price for it.
a modernized 14-13 would be experimental - Research and Development, unless someone built one from scratch and could prove it, or a shady DAR allowed it (not likely since DARs are well compensated and most unwilling to risk losing the designation)
modified production aircraft use the R&D category. ostensibly intended to allow testing of modifications such as previously unused engines or propellers, or as a step in the process towards an STC, or for aircraft on the path to certification.
big change? I don't think so. modified Type Certificated planes were never allowed to carry amateur built category. Homebuilts using "parts" of certificated are allowed to use amateur built so long as the "51% rule" is adhered to, and now has much more evidence required than in the past. examples included the Volmer Sportsman which was designed to use Aeronca or Piper wings if the builder desired. There have been several plans and kits offered to make identical replicas of planes and in the early days some guys got away with using mostly salvaged parts from other aircraft but the regs never intended that. They would justify it by saying that refurbishing them amounted to doing more than 50% of the work. That led to the now more stringent evidence required. But it's still up to the discretion of the DAR reviewing it.
On my field years ago there was a guy that ground looped his certified PA-14, destroying the tail in the process. He bought parts from a kit provider (call the sportsman 2+2) instead of repairing or just building new parts (come on, a tail isn't that hard to build) and tried to pass the plane off as a homebuilt. He failed.
another interesting story is a guy here that built a P-51 from SCRATCH! absolutely gorgeous plane with modern avionics. He was in the business of making parts for them already and went all-the-way. Thinking he'd get a higher sale price if it was exp/exhibition instead of amateur built, he took the data tags from a wreckage and installed them on the plane, presenting it as merely an original P-51 with every part (except the data tags) replaced. He eventually won-over the feds and succeeded, although I don't know if he got a higher price for it.
a modernized 14-13 would be experimental - Research and Development, unless someone built one from scratch and could prove it, or a shady DAR allowed it (not likely since DARs are well compensated and most unwilling to risk losing the designation)
blimpy
New member
The size of the bucket of money supporting a flying Bellanca probably doesn't change that much
no matter what labels are applied.
One of the reasons a really nicely restored Bellanca is such a bargain on the used market,
is that the owner probably spent 3 dollars for every dollar he gets when he sells.
It is nearly impossible to hire out the work really required to do some of the jobs involved.
And nearly impossible to get the work signed off if you do it yourself !
I'm glad there are still a few people who make bellancas their business !
no matter what labels are applied.
One of the reasons a really nicely restored Bellanca is such a bargain on the used market,
is that the owner probably spent 3 dollars for every dollar he gets when he sells.
It is nearly impossible to hire out the work really required to do some of the jobs involved.
And nearly impossible to get the work signed off if you do it yourself !
I'm glad there are still a few people who make bellancas their business !
SOCAL...Things may be different in California. Mr. Carlton Cochran, head of the FAA Southwest Region MIDO in Oklahoma City was inspecdting an aircraft on my airfield on 7 July 09. While here he was asked to evaluate a cruisair that was being modernized/updated by the addition of a Lycoming engine, new cowl, etc. After looking at the aircraft he instructed the owner/builder to apply for an Experimental Exhibition airworthiness certificate when construction was complete. Flight Restrictions ??? I have been involved in building, maintaining, and flying experimental aircraft since the 70s. Currently I have 5 experimental aircraft in annual and airworthy (including a cruisair in Experimental Show compliance with FAR). I have never felt the flight restictions were overly restrictive or onerous. Most appear to be mere statements of common sense "Persons may be carried limited to the design seating capacity". The only point I wish to make with this post is that there is a way (or ways) to modernize and vastly improve a cruisair and remain in full compliance with FAA requirements--- just need to understand what those requirements are. HOWEVER, things may be different in California. AR11
Dan Cullman
New member
Experimental/Exhibition:
This is the way I look at it.....having two airplanes registered this way...one, a Bellanca, another foreign
military. The Bellanca T14-14 was a one only factory prototype, never certified "standard."
Both aircraft have a listed home base and a radius of operation of 300 sm. Flight outside this perimeter
must be called in to the FSDO. The Phase 1 and Phase 2 flight testing has long ago been satisfied.
If you can live with this, have at it.
I've heard lots of stories of difficulties getting field approvals or STCs....but they can be done if you throw enough time and $$ at the project. I know of three field approved 180 Lycoming installations, one "single STC" 180 conversion and Mike Grimes' 220 Franklin approval. There is, of course, The multiple STC 180 Franklin from Debs, which I have. You are permitted to shop around for understanding DARs and FSDOs, though FSDOs are becoming more standardized.
I just went through an engine/propeller upgrade for the 14-19-2. Yes, I had to use a DAR and get FAA engineering and manufacturing involved....The same guys that certify the Boeings up here in Seattle.
The cost? I haven't gotten all the bills, yet. But as Blimpy Larry said, "pour three dollars in...get one back."
Dan
This is the way I look at it.....having two airplanes registered this way...one, a Bellanca, another foreign
military. The Bellanca T14-14 was a one only factory prototype, never certified "standard."
Both aircraft have a listed home base and a radius of operation of 300 sm. Flight outside this perimeter
must be called in to the FSDO. The Phase 1 and Phase 2 flight testing has long ago been satisfied.
If you can live with this, have at it.
I've heard lots of stories of difficulties getting field approvals or STCs....but they can be done if you throw enough time and $$ at the project. I know of three field approved 180 Lycoming installations, one "single STC" 180 conversion and Mike Grimes' 220 Franklin approval. There is, of course, The multiple STC 180 Franklin from Debs, which I have. You are permitted to shop around for understanding DARs and FSDOs, though FSDOs are becoming more standardized.
I just went through an engine/propeller upgrade for the 14-19-2. Yes, I had to use a DAR and get FAA engineering and manufacturing involved....The same guys that certify the Boeings up here in Seattle.
The cost? I haven't gotten all the bills, yet. But as Blimpy Larry said, "pour three dollars in...get one back."
Dan