Warbird Information Exchange

Hello,
I am very upset reading through the FAA's NPRM regarding changes to FAR PART 21. They state the following: No person may manufacture a new aircraft, engine or propeller based on a type certificate unless the person:

1. Is the holder of the type certificate or has a licensing agreement from the holder of the type certificate to manufacture the product and meets the requirements of subpart F or G of PART 21 (concerns compliance with existing FAA requirements) or

2. A person may manufacture one new aircraft based on a type certificate without meeting the requirements of the above paragraph if that person can provide evidence acceptable to the administrator that the manufacture of the aircraft began before August 5, 2004.

With Boeing owning the Type Certificate for the NA P-51, they would NEVER allow others to license their work.I have heard they don't even allow the die cast model manufactures to license the designs without a large fee!!

Does this mean the hardwork of AVIA (New Ham Standard blades) Jack Rousch (New Merlin Components), Art Teeters (New P-51 Mustangs) or even the Fighter Factory in San Jose CA( New P-51 production) will cease to exist if this is implimented? Will shops like Steve Hintons Fighter Rebuilders or WestPAC be stoppped in their tracks in producing airworthy restorations? The comment period for this ends December 15 at www.FAA.gov

There are a lot of smart people on this board and I would appreciate someone explaining to me what they are trying to do!

What's the number of this?

Does "New" mean from the ground-up.

I would think that a restoration of an existing airplane would not be considered a "new" airplane.

I would not expect a "new" replica (starting from scratch) P51 would be able to be licensed as an "origional" P51 without pernission from the holder of the origional certificate. That would be infrigment on the owner's rights. Isn't being the holder of certificate like having a patent, which gives the holder exclusive manufacturing and licensing rights? Even the act of building the replica without permission might be considered infringement if the intent is to pass it off as an origional and should be checked out with a lawyer. It would be the equivalent of a person manufacturing a Ford Mustang and trying to pass it off as an origional Ford, even Ford had nothing to do with it.

Isn't this like the Piper Cub vs the Cubby issue. I was told (a long time ago) that the Cubby parts are identical to the Piper Cub parts (even made on some of the origional tooling), but because they didn't have a licensing agreement, the Cubby is a "homebuilt" as opposed to being able to use the Piper Cub's standard certificate.

According to my local hobby store, Model manufactures have run into problems with various manufactures not allowing models of their products to be sold, like models of certain cars. (kids might injest parts of the model and partents might sue the big car company) I thought that I heard that US Military models can be made without licensing fees because the American public paid for the hardware so the "rights" are considered public domain.

A type certificate would have been obtained by a private entity, so it would be considered their property.

Just my thoughts.....

Kenn

_________________
May all your bent wings be F2G Corsairs!

Are you sure this is true? Did they buy the LTC from Cavalier/Dave Lindsay? Does anyone know the chain of ownership on the LTC post-1971?

Not to be an ass.....but for the 100th time....Can we please get it right:

JACK R O U S H

How do we let the FAA know our feelings about this BS?

JohnH,
Not to be an ass, but if you're going to start correcting spelling and grammatical "problems" on the forum, you're going to be VERY busy.

Mudge the dialectician and grammarian

No I won't do that....Maybe I watch too much Nascar where Roush was a big story this week....I was under the influence when I posted the correction. Sorry.

John

My understanding of this new rule is that it relates to newly certificated aircraft that are "built from spares". This would be a newly built, never certificated aircraft where the registration would reflect the manufacturer as "CESSNA/vadeboncoeur" 305A S/N XXXXXX. This would be like the Cessna/AirRepair L-19s with a serial number of AR-1 etc... Unless you can get permission by the type certificate holder you can not manufacture/assemble an aircraft from spares. This of course would not apply as I understand it to any aircraft previously certificated with paperwork to be built up by using spare parts in the assembly or simply a restoration of a "known" aircraft.
The struggle continues....
Mike Vadeboncoeur

T6...OK...in words us rookies can understand, does this mean that AVIA,
Roush:wink:, Teeters, Hinton, et.al. have nothing to worry about.....YET?

Mudge the rookie

I think it is a darn stupid idea from our good, socialist, Federal government. I think we should write the FAA idiots and make our opposition known concerning this subject!!!


Ted

Socialist?! I'm not sure you really know what the word means. The US government isn't even close to being socialist. However, that being said, I agree with your sentiment. The FAA do make a lot of silly and obstructionist rules; this is just one of many. There's a similarly stupid rule going on in Britain at the moment with regards to replica firearms...

Cheers,
Richard

VCSI,

Do you have any more clues on this NPRM such as a Docket No. so that it can be found and read?

It won't affect Roush as there is no TC for the Merlin. That's why none of their parts are STC'd.

Thanks,
Glenn

Hello Mike,

Is the new "CESSNA/vadeboncoeur" 305A S/N XXXXXX" going to have a Merlin and P-63 brakes?

Glenn

Well. let's see, TWA owns the Limited Type Certificate for the B-17F and G, Hughes Aircraft owns the LTC for the A-20, Shell Aviation Corp. holds the LTC for the B-25...good luck with all that.

I would doubt that there were any World War II U.S. fighters or bombers that had type certificates issued to their manufacturers by the CAA...their customers were not civilians. The airplanes were not intended for civil use and thus not designed, reviewed, manufactured, or inspected to any U.S. civil standard. The LTC was the answer to allow surplus military aircraft to comply with the airworthy requirements of civil aviation.

I believe it is correct to say that any "warbird" type that does not have a factory production type certificate (are there any at all?), or is a type listed with a Limited Type Certificate (the last of which was issued in the 1940s), or qualifes for a restricted airworthiness certificate (usually agricultural or forest fire fighting), has to operate as an experimental aircraft. For example. B-29s have to be operated as experimental because there is no production type certificate and no LTC.

I don't think this FAA NPRM is aimed at warbirds and if one reads through the documents located at the NPRM site (http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.cfm?documentid=369870&docketid=14825) it is apparent the FAA is addressing concerns certifying new build production aircraft.

Where it is aimed matters not, where it falls matters a lot!

Regardless of the intent, a bureaucrats later interpretation can be broad and sweeping. Just look at how much effort was required to address the demil bill.