I'm no lawyer but I suspect that someone in the business of building and selling airplanes will be held to a higher standard than the one-time builder of an experimental airplane.

Russ,

I tend to agree with you, I built my airplanes, and I flew them. I sold them for about what I had in them less my time to build. and the buyer knew all he was getting was parts ( signed a agreement that was what he was getting) was getting parts what he did with them afterward was his problem (OBTW both are still flying).

As far as the Epic Lanceairs that are being built I think that very few are amiture built and most of those were hired out and built by professional builders, which IMO violates the rules but I am just a guy.

So we will have to see what happens with NPRM on the 51% rule that should be comming out soon. It will be intersting to see what the FAA does to stop alot of the professional home builders? assisters!!!

Jay

Jay

The scary thing for me is these professional built experimentals are being maintained by the owners who in many cases have no building experience, no mechanical aptitude and weren't involved in the building process. Some of these planes are very complicated and some with pressurization and turbo props.

Russ

I know someone who "built" an Epic turboprop. He spend several weeks at the factory during the build. He's a pretty smart guy and I expect he learned a lot there.

Personally I think that homebuilders, especially kit builders shouldn't be allowed to "repair" any part that they didn't build themselves. For instance if they bolted on an IO-360 from ECI they shouldn't be able to overhaul that engine on their own without an A&P supervising, at least the first time. And on the flip side, it seems to me that an owner of a commercially built airplane flown under part 91 should be allowed to do any maintenance task (not including the annual inspection) by themselves once an A&P has signed something saying they know how to perform that particular task. I'd include all the part 43 appendix a PM stuff (meaning us non-A&P owners couldn't change the oil or spark plugs without a signoff and hopefully some "training") along with most any other maintenance. I think it's just nuts that any pilot is legally qualified to change oil, tires, and spark plugs without having ever picked up a wrench before in his life yet a mechanically savvy owner who's been through changing an alternator under a A&P's supervision can't legally perform the same task on his own after that.

You may be confusing "Experimental Homebuilt" with other experimental categories. The only way you could convert your G36 to "Experimental Homebuilt" would be to disassemble the airplane, reverse engineer the design, and fabricate more than half the parts. The only other experimental categories that could easily apply to your Bonanza are for testing alterations and these generally come with both a time limit and significant restrictions on use.

Or were you thinking of building a homebuilt? Lancair 4P perhaps?

Russ, Lance,

I agree with you 100%, and in the case of engines if a home builder rebuilds it, the data plate must be removed and it becomes a EXP engine. When a builder uses a builder assist program, and builds a complex aircraft like the Epic, or other such aircraft, I feel that they do them no favors, you need to build the thing if you are going to maitain it.

When I built the Veri-EZ I was in High School, and it was all i could do. I hope that most of the Super performance homebuilt's are letting professionals maintain them.

There are exceptions, a friend retired Aerospace engineer from NASA built a Lanceair 4P with a Walter Turbine, but he had the back ground time and money to do it.

I Know that the EAA does not want any new rules to hinder homebuilding but I think that the FAA needs to take a close look at the 51% rule and make sure that people are building there own aircraft.....

Jay Sorry for the rant!

Jay

Jason,

Maybe I'm miss-reading the question, but it sounds like you're asking what is the possibility of making your G36 an experimental and performing the maintenance yourself, much like a testbird but long-term.

At least this is the question I'm wondering, i.e. making it experimental and installing (aka testing) non-TSO'd glass cockpit, different circuit breakers, etc.

I realize that I could (probably) never sell the plane and take responsibility for the mods, etc. But what are the other restrictions? Is there a time limit? Passenger limitation (I plan on only carrying family and personal friends-not for hire)? IMC restrictions? (That would be a no-go for me)

There are some amazing AirCams out there, many with IFR panels...this is the best unofficial site if you haven't already discovered it: www.aircamsite.com

The photo page is prime airplane porn.

I guess that's kind of what I was saying.

When I made this post, I was ignorant of the 51% rule. It all makes more sense now.

I was originally thinking I could just call my airplane "Experimental" and then mod the hell out of it.

That's why BT exists. So I can ask "stupid questions".