Rebuilding a factory A/C as a homebuilt?

That said, many years ago at the Backcountry fly-in, I saw an old guy with what looked like a Cessna 185 taildragger. Except, when I looked closer at the tail and interior, I realized it wasn’t. Spoke to the old guy (who was a farmer from North Dakota) and he said he’d had an old 185 that was wrecked and he’d built the aircraft himself, based on the design of the 185. He’d used as many parts as he could from the salvage and made the other stuff himself from scratch. Very impressive. Fully Experimental Amateur Built.

WilliamF wrote:

I am just wondering if anyone else has seen this scenario before?

It’s possible in Norway. There are several helicopters and Yaks and stuff, even a C-172. But it’s really only for restoration of old planes (classics and military), to put them back to original standard where they otherwise would be scrapped. Several Cubs are experimental (old ones), but several are also registered as normal. I think they have to be +30 year old. It cannot be done with an airworthy old plane or a new not airworthy plane. Once in the experimental category, there is no way of getting it “back” to the normal category.

This process has been seen in a few countries to far such as France, Spain, USA to some extent, Norway but it would seem to me that once the newly declared homebuilt aircraft is on that registry as a homebuilt then it is there to stay.

I have been told by someone who looked into this that a European reg (non F reg) homebuilt which is to be placed on the F reg needs to be dismantled and rebuilt at least 51%.

I have no idea how the DGAC measures the 51%!

So what you say William makes sense, but there is probably this farcical 51% route. I doubt anybody bothers, fairly obviously!

The UK has a fairly well developed homebuilt regime which is operated by the LAA. This involves an annual inspection and a flight test(!) by an LAA inspector. I think it is straightforward (subject to many conditions) to place a foreign homebuilt into the G-reg.

Just a thought: there might be a difference in the “homebuilt” and “experimental” categories that might be used to your advantage. A non-standard glass panel might be enough to qualify for “experimental” status. I’m assuming the wings are the same type, just from a donor plane. If the wings are also from some other plane, I’d think that must qualify for “experimental”. AFAIU e.g. in Poland both experimental and homebuilt end up in the same position as far as the CAA is concerned.

Just adding to the database, if you will, in Canada many certified aircraft List can be moved into Owner Maintenance Category, which makes their maintenance similar to homebuilts. Once the plane is there it can’t be moved back to standard category An unwise move to me, as the plane now becomes stuck in Canada with the world’s largest GA market close by, but out of reach. I think it’d be better to find a friendly A&P.

The UK has a fairly well developed homebuilt regime which is operated by the LAA.

That’s a little grudging, Peter. In my experience, the ‘regime’ is highly developed with some very experienced engineers/inspectors monitoring ‘homebuilt’ projects, whether ongoing or complete.

This involves an annual inspection and a flight test(!) by an LAA inspector.

Not sure what the ‘!’ implies, and the annual ‘flight test’ can be carried out by the owner/operator of the aircraft. The initial flight is carried out by a LAA inspector.

Don’t forget there are also ‘homebuilt’ microlights – see: British Microlight Aircraft Association

Apologies for the faint praise there but the LAA is massively “under-expertised” when it comes to moving forward e.g. it’s IFR programme, which is dragging itself along painfully slowly.

And anything nontrivial has to go onto a CAA permit because the LAA can’t deal with it.

The good thing about the UK LAA system is that the non-builder owner gets the same maintenance privileges as the original builder.

In France it is accepted under the condition that you build the entire wing.
Bonne journée