Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:12 am
In most cases, an IA wouldn't be required, just an A & P.
PbyCat-Guy wrote:Can a non A&P rated person restore an airplane and then have an IA sign off the work?
Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:05 pm
famvburg wrote:In most cases, an IA wouldn't be required, just an A & P.PbyCat-Guy wrote:Can a non A&P rated person restore an airplane and then have an IA sign off the work?
Depends on the plane, and the catagory. Experimental homebuilt, no A&P is needed if you are the builder of the plane.
Experimental exhibition, yes, but a min of a A&P to supervise and approve the work,
Standard, same as a Cessna and ALL regulations apply, You can do the items listed in the FARs, and you can do more under the supervision of a A&P, but, if you reskin a wing, that is a major repiar and requires a IA sign off, as well as a IA sign off for a annual inspection.
Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:22 pm
The first airplane I built was a T-6. I found it to be a great project aircraft and have built four or five others since then. The biggest help for me though, was having other T-6s to look at while building the first one. There's nothing like having a "real" example of whatever it is you're building, since manuals will only take you so far.
Gary
Gary
Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:40 pm
Depends on the plane, and the catagory. Experimental homebuilt, no A&P is needed if you are the builder of the plane.
Experimental exhibition, yes, but a min of a A&P to supervise and approve the work,
Standard, same as a Cessna and ALL regulations apply, You can do the items listed in the FARs, and you can do more under the supervision of a A&P, but, if you reskin a wing, that is a major repiar and requires a IA sign off, as well as a IA sign off for a annual inspection.
Reskinning the wing is a major job, lots of work and not to be taken lightly but it is not a major repair unless the reason for doing it is a major repair like a spar splice. Replacing any part with the identical part is not a major repair no matter how much work it is.
Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:03 pm
John Dupre wrote:Reskinning the wing is a major job, lots of work and not to be taken lightly but it is not a major repair unless the reason for doing it is a major repair like a spar splice. Replacing any part with the identical part is not a major repair no matter how much work it is.
Not necessarily, FAR43, App A:
(xxii) The repair of damaged areas in metal or plywood stressed covering exceeding six inches in any direction.
Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:37 pm
I'd recommend finding a bagged J-3 and building it into a nice L-4. It's a realistic first timers project, it's a small project, and parts are but a phone call away. You can go nuts after that.
Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:38 pm
John Dupre wrote:Depends on the plane, and the catagory. Experimental homebuilt, no A&P is needed if you are the builder of the plane.
Experimental exhibition, yes, but a min of a A&P to supervise and approve the work,
If I want to do all the work, what are my limits of flight use on the aircraft? What keeps me from buying a project airframe and ground up rebuilding it based on NASM microfilm? What would be the difference in that and merely just doing a total scratch build from NASM microfilm without anything original? Should I be looking into joining the local EAA chapter for further insight too?
I'm one of those guys that like the journey just as much as the destination, so I actually look forward to the building process on things I do. I'm in no hurry to be flying anything.
Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:47 pm
retroaviation wrote:The first airplane I built was a T-6. I found it to be a great project aircraft and have built four or five others since then. The biggest help for me though, was having other T-6s to look at while building the first one. There's nothing like having a "real" example of whatever it is you're building, since manuals will only take you so far.
Gary
Ah, the ole "Polish blue print"
Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:20 pm
cvairwerks,
Unless you know of another aircraft designated U-3, I'd consider an early CESSNA 310 to be a pretty complex and challenging project to tackle-what with electric gear and oddball fuel systems (pump it out to the tip tanks, then to the engine?) unless you are really Jonesing for that SONGBIRD fix
Unless you know of another aircraft designated U-3, I'd consider an early CESSNA 310 to be a pretty complex and challenging project to tackle-what with electric gear and oddball fuel systems (pump it out to the tip tanks, then to the engine?) unless you are really Jonesing for that SONGBIRD fix
Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:38 am
Look at a Nanchang CJ6. Cheap to buy and maintain and a great flying airplane to boot. Great first radial engine warbird. Don
Wed Aug 12, 2009 11:38 am
The Inspector wrote:cvairwerks,
Unless you know of another aircraft designated U-3, I'd consider an early CESSNA 310 to be a pretty complex and challenging project to tackle-what with electric gear and oddball fuel systems (pump it out to the tip tanks, then to the engine?) unless you are really Jonesing for that SONGBIRD fix
It seems to me there's a fairly substantial AD that just came into effect for the 310, too.
Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:58 pm
Dan Jones wrote:I'd recommend finding a bagged J-3 and building it into a nice L-4. It's a realistic first timers project, it's a small project, and parts are but a phone call away. You can go nuts after that.
I have long wondered if you can financially bootstrap your way up to ever more complex rebuilds:
In better economies - average; not red hot and not in the cellar - can one get a bagged J-3, put the time/money into it to make it great, fly it a little and then sell it using the "profits" (?) to buy the next level up?
I realize that your time is worth money but for this question ignore the time and just include the $$ necessary to rebuild the J-3. I say this because when I restore things (28 foot wooden sail boats, flight helmets etc.) I enjoy the process and consider it a hobby. And all I would ask is that the sale of the rebuild could finance the next rebuild of higher complexity.
Is this possible?
Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:39 pm
I consider this thread worthless as not one of you listed the N3N as a viable project to be restored 
Why should I always be the one to steer people in the right direction 
Why should I always be the one to steer people in the right direction
Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:07 pm
N3Njeff wrote:I consider this thread worthless as not one of you listed the N3N as a viable project to be restored
Actually, Jeff kinda makes a good point here. Being mostly metal, the N3N would be a pretty simple airplane to build, although I say that without having a ton of experience with one (worked on a couple in my day). I do know where there is a great "fixer-upper" if someone wanted to pursue it.
Gary
Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:33 pm
Jeff: I wasn't trying to slight you in the least bit... 
There were two reasons that I didn't list the N3N.... First, the number of projects out there and the overall availability of type specific parts is very limited compared to the other aircraft that I listed. Secondly, the knowledge base available to a potential neophyte restorers is small...there are what maybe a hundred or so people that have serious experience with rebuilding N3Ns. Because of those reasons, I wouldn't suggest the N3N for a first time restorer. It would though, make an excellent step up in skills for someone. The only reason that I listed the Stearman, is that there are a bazillion of them out there alown with parts support, and wads of people that have experience with them, so a nubie would be able to readily find experienced assitance when needed.
Inspector: I listed the U-3 for the reason that for a 4-5 place bird, it's not overly complicated. Yeah, it has electric retract, but it's way simpler than a T-6 gear, but not as dead simple as the Mooney manual system. It's fuel system is a little weird from what I remember, but for a bigger capacity bird, it's not too complicated. The O-470s are simple and not too hard to keep up. They are identical from side to side...no reverse rotation type stuff, no location specific stuff either. Also, there isn't any hydraulics on the a/c other than brakes and struts and a steering dampner.
Another thing with it, there are lots of parts available and if you need a wing or control or the like, it's just a phone call and $ away with fast turnaround.
I didn't list the CJ's and Yaks, as I don't have any experience with them other than a little bit with a Yak 50. I do know that there is a bit of a learning curve with going to an air start system and air actuated gear and flaps, but that can be dealt with reasonable ease. I'm sure that there are other a/c out there that would make great first projects, but if you don't think that you will keep the bird for a significant number of years after completing it, some thought into resalability should be put into it.
Saville: It can be done, but you have to be very careful in how you spend your $ on the restoration. It's very easy to goldplate the job when you are doing it for yourself, but if it's for resale, you have to be very wary. I've seen C-152's redone and the owner had 30k$ worth of radios in the plane. Unfortunately, the basic a/c was only worth about 15K, and he wondered why no one was showing any interest when it was listed at somewhere above 28K. So, if you plan on selling it to upgrade, you need to do a nice restoration, but don't go wild on upgrades that won't give you a good return on the sale, or price it unrealistically compared to like a/c.
There were two reasons that I didn't list the N3N.... First, the number of projects out there and the overall availability of type specific parts is very limited compared to the other aircraft that I listed. Secondly, the knowledge base available to a potential neophyte restorers is small...there are what maybe a hundred or so people that have serious experience with rebuilding N3Ns. Because of those reasons, I wouldn't suggest the N3N for a first time restorer. It would though, make an excellent step up in skills for someone. The only reason that I listed the Stearman, is that there are a bazillion of them out there alown with parts support, and wads of people that have experience with them, so a nubie would be able to readily find experienced assitance when needed.
Inspector: I listed the U-3 for the reason that for a 4-5 place bird, it's not overly complicated. Yeah, it has electric retract, but it's way simpler than a T-6 gear, but not as dead simple as the Mooney manual system. It's fuel system is a little weird from what I remember, but for a bigger capacity bird, it's not too complicated. The O-470s are simple and not too hard to keep up. They are identical from side to side...no reverse rotation type stuff, no location specific stuff either. Also, there isn't any hydraulics on the a/c other than brakes and struts and a steering dampner.
Another thing with it, there are lots of parts available and if you need a wing or control or the like, it's just a phone call and $ away with fast turnaround.
I didn't list the CJ's and Yaks, as I don't have any experience with them other than a little bit with a Yak 50. I do know that there is a bit of a learning curve with going to an air start system and air actuated gear and flaps, but that can be dealt with reasonable ease. I'm sure that there are other a/c out there that would make great first projects, but if you don't think that you will keep the bird for a significant number of years after completing it, some thought into resalability should be put into it.
Saville: It can be done, but you have to be very careful in how you spend your $ on the restoration. It's very easy to goldplate the job when you are doing it for yourself, but if it's for resale, you have to be very wary. I've seen C-152's redone and the owner had 30k$ worth of radios in the plane. Unfortunately, the basic a/c was only worth about 15K, and he wondered why no one was showing any interest when it was listed at somewhere above 28K. So, if you plan on selling it to upgrade, you need to do a nice restoration, but don't go wild on upgrades that won't give you a good return on the sale, or price it unrealistically compared to like a/c.