Restoration question: P-51 vs. F-86

[jcw]

Steve / vlado

Steve as far as the “limited” acft go there is no change.. the requirements only affected the experimental / experimental exhibition acft. Anyone can jump in a “limited” acft and go with a checkout as simple as from the owner (for now) and no time limits that I know of. Now we know that it is for all practical purposes impossible to get a “new” restoration thru a conformity inspection and into “limited” category.. The FAA just wont sign one off…it is however still on the books… now I wont say never here as all the regs say “at the discression of the administrator”. So if you find an FAA guy who is a real good friend and is ready to retire and can get his boss to let him sign one off you might get it, but this is a huge uphill battle. Also I have heard that they are trying to change the limited acft to conform to the new rules but I’m not sure where they are in this process ( it wont affect me)..

Vlado as far as the LOA’s expiring at different times enter the “unlimited high perf piston LOA”… Once you got that no expiration date.. Now ,enter the ETR , the unlimited LOA goes away and you need a checkride for each type you don’t have..The ETR is a “sort of “ type check however, I am not sure how they are going to handle this. As I understand, they want it to conform to the “regular” type rating criteria.. Ok, so if this is true then a regular type rating requires a “recurrency type check” every 12 months unless you are alternating type checks then you can drag one out to 24 months on any one type as long as you have had a type check in the previous 12. So the question becomes are they going to make us get a “recurrent type check” in, lets say, your experimental P51 every year????? I don’t know but I would hope they wont be that stupid to try as the warbird community would raise heck with them.. This is one of those where we sit back and fight the battles as they come up.

take care fly safe

jcw

[HarvardIV]

As far as I know LOAs are no more and they are called type ratings instead. 500 hours PIC, and 1000 Total.

[mlenoch]

I had an unlimited rating for the props(Now it is airplane specific). The jets were a different story. I had several jet ratings that were lost during various expiration date conflicts, etc. While my jet partner had jet LOAs with no expirations what so ever from his local FSDO. My jet LOAs were obtained at various locations around the US. His were all obtained at his local FSDO. That was my contention with FSDO 'kingdom' problems. I couldn't get any consistency with FSDOs around the country. I hope this new program is 'more' consistant!

[Randy Haskin]

Boeing used to use a Canadair Sabre as their chase plane for years...don't know what kind of difficulties they ever had with certification, though.

[bdk]

Boeing used to use a Canadair Sabre as their chase plane for years...don't know what kind of difficulties they ever had with certification, though.

Was that a D/L-model? That may be the one that went to Northrop University.

[bdk]

From Chris Fahey at Planes of Fame regarding T-33, F-86, and Mig-15 fuel burn:

$1200/hr; $1800/hr, $1800/hr.

But really, It depends. At max range cruise at 25000 feet:

T-33=200 GPH, F-86=300 gph
@40000 feet: T-33=180gph F-86=185 gph
sea level: T-33=310 GPH, F-86=455gph

The Mig is between the two, having a higher thrust copy of the British engine that became the T-33's J-33 engine (we copied Rolls Royce.)

(GPH = Gallons Per Hour)

These are cruise numbers, max endurance would be less fuel flow and flying faster would be more.

[Randy Haskin]

Was that a D/L-model? That may be the one that went to Northrop University.

It is apparently a CL-13B. It is now located at the Museum of Flight in Seattle, so Mike Henniger should be able to get a *very* current photo of it as it is currently displayed on the trip he's advertising in another thread.

http://photos.airliners.net/83b08b99a88 ... 138447.jpg

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/sabre5jh_1.htm

http://www.museumofflight.org/collectio ... html?ID=33

[mrhenniger]

You will find one shot of it in my MoF album for the trip I made out there last month. Here is the link to page 3 of that album...

http://community.webshots.com/album/253372192pgVPax/2

Regards,

Mike

[bdk]

Come to think of it the Northrop University example might have been used by North American Aviation.

[Glenn Wegman]

Hello JCW,

The way I understand your post is that Mustangs are no longer eligable for Limited category. Is this what you are saying, and if so, if you would please explain why I would greatly appreciate it. The type certificate says it is eligible for Limited Category and if it meets the certificate........

Thank You,

Glenn

[jcw]

glen
check your PM

jcw

[jcw]

Glen
Lets qualify this just a bit first. Vlado is right on when he said that the FSDO’s are different and there seems to be a problem with consistency. Enter the “at the discretion of the administrator” line. My data is a few years old on this subject so it would be nice if we could get john lane, bill klaires, steve penning or someone from fighter rebuilders to update the info. In the past the FAA has been very reluctant to sign off any new acft in the limited category. This is not to say it can’t be done. This is why the paperwork from the wrecks is so important and it seems that acft are getting rebuilt over and over. Paperwork form a smoking hole has some real value. The FAA takes a real dim view of people trying to take paperwork and a builders plate and build up an acft. It does seem to happen occasionally but if they find out you can be in some hot water. We have found it easier when we want to do something different (ie STC’s) to get it done in the central southwest as opposed to the northwest. The seattle engineering is a real bear to work with on these issues. If you have a mustang coming up I wish you all the best but I would prepare yourself for an uphill battle. The FAA does not seem to have any problem in signing one off in the experimental / experimental exhibition category. I hope this has helped a little and would also hope that one of the rebuilders could way in on this discussion and update my info as I too may be going thru this process again in the near future.

Take care fly safe

[Jeffrey]

Not sure about the CAC Sabres Rob but I noticed something ages ago. if you check the registry there's 1 CAC built mustang registered in there as being an aussie built machine and flying in america, A68-198, and 4 flying in america under different id's, A68- 1, 39, 100 and 187, and the id's they all fly under are american built machines.

considering the differences between the avon sabres built by CAC and the american ones perhaps there's a bit too much of a certification problem there because of such large differences in the designs. the canadair sabres would have been watched in their production etc a lot closer ( no, I was not trying to be funny based on distances ) than the CAC examples and because of that certification might be a lot easier.

also might have been a bit more "redesign" with the CAC rather than the canadair Sabres too.

[Glenn Wegman]

JCW,

Sounds like the FAA was on the right track, the proedure on a new issue is to first license it in Experimental, fly of a given amount of time in a designated area, and then issue the Limited Certificate. It's all in the book! There may be differences in opinion and interpretation between different regions, but we all have the same book.

Sounds like you may be leaving out a few details on your P-51 dilema. What was their reason for not issuing the Limited Certificate? Is it still in Experimental?

I sent a guy in to get an LOA for a Mustang and the FAA refused to issue it since "there are no Mustangs in Experimental Category, they belong in Limited Category and no LOA is needed"! When questioed they produced the list of aircraft eligible for Limited Category. The same office had issued my LOA for the P-51!

Vlado's situation is a little different, LOA's could be issued with or without an expiriation date. Operating Limitations are the same, there are pages of them and it is up to the Administrator to select the ones he feels should apply. Limited is fairly gray there. That stuff can be pretty tough to deal with since it is up to the individual issuing them, same with Field Approvals.

I'm not saying it is carved in stone, but if the airplane meets the Type Data Sheet requirements, it's Limited! I'm not sure what part of that is up to the Administrators descretion. I'd have to see something in writing stating they are no longer eligible for Limited.

Glenn

[RMB]

My data is a few years old on this subject so it would be nice if we could get john lane, bill klaires, steve penning or someone from fighter rebuilders


JCW,
GLENN WEGMAN is one of the most respected mustang authorities in the south east. You could add his name to your list, maybe the top on the subject of P-51 certification.