Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Parts and Materials Substitution for vintage a/c

Peter wrote:

There are extremely few planes which have an ICAO CofA but are classified as NON EASA, and which are useful for anything.

Some other examples of transportation airplanes in that category are the Bellanca Viking, Meyers 200, Stinson Voyager, Globe Swift all of which have FAA normal category TCs and when on N-register are maintained like any other certified plane. I think it would be true for almost anything that wasn’t exported to European countries when new.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 19 Nov 15:29

alioth wrote:

I don’t think that’s true

Definitely not true. They must be maintained, in principle, very much like and EASA plane. The main difference is (local) manufacturing of parts, and also substitution of materials and parts when old (original) things don’t exist anymore. They can be put on some easier registration, like experimental register or similar, but they will then lose their “ICAO status”. It’s a bit difficult really to find good reasons not to keep them ICAO. In that state, they will last forever, and can be used exactly in the same way as a brand new EASA plane, only they are fully depreciated and most likely will gain value with time, sometimes substantial.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

I now remember previous discussions re the value of such an aircraft. It is immune from the EASA FCL attack on N-regs, while – unlike normal homebuilts – still being able to fly freely around Europe.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

There are extremely few planes which have an ICAO CofA but are classified as NON EASA, and which are useful for anything.
Such planes have great value to the right people because – being NON EASA – they can be maintained in Europe as “homebuilt” (or “experimental” if you prefer) but – being ICAO certified – can fly worldwide without needing any permits, potentially IFR too.

I know you keep saying this, but I will keep correcting you. Not all Non-Easa aircraft are homebuilts or LAA types. There are quite a few Non EASA aircraft that are on a National C of A, not a permit. They cannot be maintained as per homebuilt, they need a NARC by a licenced engineer every year. One example is my PA18-150 Super Cub

Darley Moor, Gamston (UK)

Yes; I am aware. See previous posts.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Yes; I am aware. See previous posts

And I was rather dilatory in my posting; several others beat me to it

Darley Moor, Gamston (UK)

This has been posted before. I notice the Bellanca Viking is in fact listed despite having no EU-member-country type certificate (I have no idea what makes an aircraft an “EASA Product” as they term it) so if you wanted to stay off the list with a Bellanca built, FAA-certified travelling plane you’d need a 14-19 Cruisemaster instead

EASA Aircraft

Last Edited by Silvaire at 19 Nov 22:44
Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Some aircraft types which are listed EASA Aircraft have individual aircraft which are on UK LAA Permit, which makes their maintenance much cheaper, but may lead to restrictions which take a long time to get a response from the LAA other than automatic email receipt acknowledgement.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

Deep in the regulations there is provision for parts to be supplied with the same paperwork as when supplied new.

Before WW2 there was no quality system as we now know it and a qualified maintenance person could decide if a part or raw material was suitable for fitment to an aircraft.

A typical example would be substituting a modern metal tube for an obsolete ( and unobtainable) metal tube providing the tube meets the same technical specification, as to paperwork a certificate of compliance from the manufacturer is more than enough as the original 1930’s paperwork would have been no more than a delivery note.

20 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top