Getting back to the topic, I reckon it would be much easier to set up a metal bashing shop than a composite lay-up shop.
Especially as the client might one day be asked to strip it back to 49% and then will be really p1ssed off 
@Silvaire I just seem to remember posting it at the time. I too was surpriszd by the figure which is why I posted it.
@Peter there may be a case in France whereby a kit is homologated in the first place. If so it is possible that OSAC only has to consider how those parts are put together. Like the PFA in thz UK they are mainly concerned that the aircraft has been put together in a safe manner and has documentation, photos etc and testing to prove it so that they can assure themselves that the aircraft is safe to be given a C of A.
If the kit is homologated they have no need to test eg the thickness of the quality of the metal or the strength of a spar (examples off the top of my head). However, they might want to look at control cable runs or if there are photos they might not. If they can talk and ask questions of the builder, that too can help in their thinking.
You wouldn’t normally have a 51% of an engine but the engine might well be homologated.
But a comprehensive set of tests, taxiing, runway needed to reach rotation speed and flight tests etc etc etc. All these indicate to OSAC whether or not to issue a Cof A which is then used to be given F-P registration and a CDNR. All factors go into the 51% .
So it isn’t really a case of stripping an already flying aircraft back to the kit or whatever its really about proving in the eyes of an inspector that it is safe enough to be signed off. And that can mean an inspector being very picky. After all if anything does go wrong and the BEA looks at the C of A it will be his/her signature that will be there.
I don’t know if OSAC actually states what 51%of a build should be but then most I have been involved in were built from plans or a kit where rhe amount of builders input is well over 51% of the final product.
One case where we tried to help a Brit transfer his Luscombe onto F-P there were many problems. But having found the way to do it OSAC restricted it to flying pilot only for a period. He didn’t wish to accept that so I don’t know how long the restriction would have lasted.
One case where we tried to help a Brit transfer his Luscombe onto F-P there were many problems. But having found the way to do it OSAC restricted it to flying pilot only for a period. He didn’t wish to accept that so I don’t know how long the restriction would have lasted.
Which is why taking the UK Luscombe fleet off the normal category N-register 40 years ago and onto the UK Permit to Fly system looks in retrospect to be the dumbest thing that was ever done with a Luscombe. The Canadian owner maintenance category is similarly the way to eliminate the viability of an super-easy to maintain N-registered plane outside of a small nation’s local market.
Today on Planecheck a beautiful (IMO) RV7 well equipped professionally constructed at a price of €306,000 for sale for €198,000.
It is indeed Vans recommendation to start with the tail, and there is little reason to approach it any other way. One would have to butcher it completely to warrant ordering a whole new tail kit, but it is totally normal to write off a few parts throughout the process – I know I have. The parts are cheap but the shipping can be expensive if the part is large.
My inspector has a reputation for being picky and I set myself fairly high standards. Plenty of times in hangars and maintenance shops I have seen certified aircraft structures opened up and observed such atrocious standards of fit, alignment and riveting that I would never tolerate on my RV in a million years and nor would my inspector.
Plenty of times in hangars and maintenance shops I have seen certified aircraft structures opened up and observed such atrocious standards of fit, alignment and riveting that I would never tolerate on my RV in a million years and nor would my inspector.
Me too. In a factory environment the QA standards depend on the stress and fatigue criteria for the local area of a given part. If the manufacturer has a formal process to resolve quality problems, if/when the quality issue is referred to Engineering and they say it’s not a functional problem then likely nobody is going to worry about minor or externally invisible cosmetics. Or Manufacturing may have blanket approval to accept defects within a given range. As a result you see stuff like that years later when working on factory built parts in the field. Many homebuilders are more fastidious and the CNC drilled matched hole riveting on RVs is anyway less likely to allow error.
