Warbird Information Exchange

"Classic Fighter Industries is the "Certificate Holder" of record for the reproductions and is certificated as a PMA according to the FAA, so they can manufacture and "yellow tag" parts for the airplane. Additionally, as the engines are certificated units (CJ-610's), and I believe the new landing gear units are modified from certificated units as well, meaning they have at least limited support of a PMA."

They are the builders of an experimental aircraft. No reason to have a PMA that has no real bearing on this aircraft other than to add cost. No yellow tags necessary either. This aircraft wouldn't require any PMA paperwork or support. I hold two PMA certificates, so I have a little bit of history with them.

It's good that they used a certificated engine and a loud one at that to give it the real jet sound.

David

Landing gear was custom built.

_________________
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass..."
Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto

While having a PMA supporting an aircraft does increase part cost, I would think it'd greatly diminish insurance cost (since the risk is not solely with the operator of the aircraft) and make the FAA politicos happy because they can use it as a "CYA" maneuver in why they're okay with an experimental aircraft being used for flight instruction.

... I kind of liked the original scheme ...

_________________
“With bottomless pockets...anything is possible”

"While having a PMA supporting an aircraft does increase part cost, I would think it'd greatly diminish insurance cost (since the risk is not solely with the operator of the aircraft) and make the FAA politicos happy because they can use it as a "CYA" maneuver in why they're okay with an experimental aircraft being used for flight instruction."

I highly doubt that having PMA parts installed on an experimental exhibition jet has any influence on the insurance premium especially because it is doing flight instruction. Any thoughts Rick H?

Then those of us with "broad a$$es" should have no problems with that triangular fuselage cross section, eh?

Sorry, couldn't resist that one.

Carry on.

Yes the "Pear Shaped" among us will have a much better fit!

A certain song by Queen comes to mind...

_________________
Zane Adams
There I was at 20,000 ft, upside down and out of ammunition.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Join us for the Texas Warbird Report on WarbirdRadio.com!
http://www.facebook.com/WarbirdRadio
Listen at http://www.warbirdradio.com

Classic Fighter Industries is not listed with the FAA as holding any PMA's for anything.Search
for yourself, Link below.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... enFrameSet

I am 99.9% sure the FAA will not grant a PMA for an item thats sole intention is for use on a
EXPERIMENTAL NON-CERTIFICATED aircraft. The FAA definition of a PMA is for an entity to produce
approved parts for TYPE CERTIFICATED aircraft. Thats not to say you cant use a PMA'd part
meant for another aircraft on an experimental.
As for insurance, I am very impressed and happy the Collings Foundation got insurance to fly the
262 with a passenger.

As a person who has managed one of the largest FAA PMAs in the Southwest region for the last 20 years, I agree with your assessment.

Maybe instead of "PMA" he meant to say they have/are a PAH - a Production Approval Holder? That would entitle them to manufacture "approved" parts for it...

_________________
“To invent the airplane is nothing. To build one is something. But to fly is everything!” - Otto Lilienthal

Natasha: "You got plan, darling?"
Boris: "I always got plan. They don't ever work, but I always got one!"

Remember, any dummy can be a dumb-ass...
In order to be a smart-ass, you first have to be "smart"
and to be a wise-ass, you actually have to be "wise"

You have to have some type of FAA certificated product in order to produce anything under a PAH. The 262 is not a FAA certified aircraft under Part 23 or Part 25 or any other parts besides the experimental rules.

Isn't one of the ME-262's that is still "airworthy" an actual restored original wartime Messerschmitt-built aircraft?

N94503 is registered as having been built actually by Messerschmitt. However, in spite of that, when you do a Make/Model registry search for all "ME-262" aircraft, it still shows up as a supposedly "amateur" built aircraft.

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/AcftRef_Results.aspx?Mfrtxt=&Modeltxt=ME262&PageNo=1

I wouldn't classify Messerschmitt as an "amateur" aircraft builder. Shouldn't it instead have been issued a TC just like any other "warbird" built originally for the military (in this case the Luftwaffe) or does that apply only to aircraft built for the US military? (Like the Grumman G-64/HU-16 series for example.)

_________________
“To invent the airplane is nothing. To build one is something. But to fly is everything!” - Otto Lilienthal

Natasha: "You got plan, darling?"
Boris: "I always got plan. They don't ever work, but I always got one!"

Remember, any dummy can be a dumb-ass...
In order to be a smart-ass, you first have to be "smart"
and to be a wise-ass, you actually have to be "wise"

The CAA (before FAA) did not just issue TCs to former military aircraft. A person (or company) would have to request a TC be issued which was usually a Limited Type Certificate. And by request, the FAA would create the TC and mail it to you. I was really that easy back then.

The Limited TC only specified engines, engine limits, fuel type, propellers, airspeed limits and weights/CGs and any required notes and operating limitations for the particular model of aircraft.

Under the Limited TC there would be no production basis allowed and there was usually a very limited duration that people could apply for the Limited TC airworthiness on their aircraft. After a certain date (usually within a couple of years of the issue of the Limited TC) the door would close and no new Limited airworthiness certificates could be issued.

So a production certificate or PMA could not be issued against a Limited TC.

N94503 does not have any type of airworthiness certificate issued to it according to the FAA.

Interestingly, the other two airplanes (N262AZ & N262MF) have Experimental Exhibition airworthiness. For those of us that work with airworthiness on a daily basis, that seems a bit odd as these airplanes are really amateur built airplanes and should not have an Exhibition airworthiness.

[quote="Rajay"]Isn't one of the ME-262's that is still "airworthy" an actual restored original wartime Messerschmitt-built aircraft? [quote]


No. Paul Allens will be, but that is some way off yet.

_________________
Classic Wings Magazine

https://www.classicwings.com/

Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/ClassicWingsMagazine/

Preserved Axis Aircraft

http://www.classicwings.com