Warbird Information Exchange

So are there any war birds and war bird engines that are and are not Faa type certified?
And what does it all mean?

Read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_certificate

And understand that most warbirds were not built with the intent to have a type certificate.

The background to get the type certificate is what is most important; it means an aircraft has gone through an extensive design review and testing to ensure its operability. It also means that the aircraft should be within the condition as described in the type certificate if it is maintained properly. This has large implications on the actuarial risks on an airplane, making it insurable with reasonable risk.

My Stinson L-5 is a type certificated airplane. That means I can operate it commercially with the capability of insuring it, meaning I can hire it out. Experimental aircraft are limited in their commercial viability, unless something like a rides program is set up with the FAA.

A very useful thing to know about is the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS). They are listed on the FAA website, and you can use it to find appropriate parts for your aircraft, as they are listed in the body of the TCDS.

_________________
REMEMBER THE SERGEANT PILOTS!

Just to muddy the waters...Don't forget about the Limited and Restricted categories.

Here is an article about military aircraft being operated under the Restricted category.

https://www.verticalmag.com/features/ma ... -category/

The long and short of it, you CAN operate warbirds commercially, for some jobs without having an ATC.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

The T-6 is type certificated in the standard catagory, same as any Cessna or Piper, but a Harvard IV cannot be standard, but a Harvard II can be.

_________________
Matt Gunsch, A&P, IA, Warbird maint and restorations
Jack, You have Debauched my sloth !!!!!!
We tried voting with the Ballot box, When do we start voting from the Ammo box, and am I allowed only one vote ?
Check out the Ercoupe Discussion Group on facebook

The reasoning (I guess) is that the Harvard II was built at Inglewood and the Harvard IV was built in Canada. That being said though, I suspect that there's several Harvard IV's in the US pretending to be T-6G's. When they went surplus some of them sold for as little as $500 (a friend paid $700 for his and it came with a spare engine in a can).

_________________
Defending Stearmans on WIX since Jeff started badmouthing them back in 2005.

Harvard ll were also made in Canada the IV was post war and I believe it has to do with the tail wheel strut.

Harvard ll were also made in Canada the IV was post war and I believe it has to do with the tail wheel strut.

I believe that the PBY 5A ,can be used for passengers but the 6a can’t,something like that

That's right too - I forgot that Noorduyn built Mk II's as well as North American.

_________________
Defending Stearmans on WIX since Jeff started badmouthing them back in 2005.

per the TCDS
Prior to civil certification, it must be ascertained that Harvard aircraft manufactured in the United States
conform to the type design. Some of the known deviations from the original configuration are discussed as
follows:
(a) The mixture control must be reworked to standard American system, that is "lean-aft, Rich-forward".
A conversion to exact AT-6 system would be acceptable. Any other system would have to be evaluated.
(b) The long exhaust stack configuration should be modified to the AT-6 system.
Utilization of winterized stack would require evaluation with respect to:
(1) Carbon monoxide content in the cockpit from both the fresh air system, heat exchanger within the
stack and the stack proper.
(2) Detrimental temperature effects on the fuselage skin due to the proximity of the stack to the fuselage
as well as possible adverse exhaust back pressure.
(3) Determination that system was United States manufactured inasmuch as a foreign built unit would not
be eligible for approval.
(c) The use of Pratt & Whitney S3H1 engine is acceptable with Item 1 propeller.
(d) The acceptability of engine accessories must be determined. In this regard, Technical Order 00-25-29
"Maintenance Interchangeability Cross Reference Charts" may be utilized as a guide.
(e) The use of a foreign manufactured landing gear is not considered acceptable, and therefore must be
replaced by an acceptable gear manufactured in the United States.
(f) The landing gear fairing and associated attachment hardware must be installed.
(g) The forward control stick has a four inch hand grip which differs from the standard straight stick
installation. If clearance from the structure appears adequate this may be considered acceptable.
(h) Electrical system deviations from the approved type design data must be appropriately changed and adjusted
satisfactorily.
(i) Airspeed flap speed and cylinder head gage limits must be incorporated as in the AT-6 aircraft.
Other existing difference must be satisfactorily resolved with the local FAA Engineering Office prior to
certification.

_________________
Matt Gunsch, A&P, IA, Warbird maint and restorations
Jack, You have Debauched my sloth !!!!!!
We tried voting with the Ballot box, When do we start voting from the Ammo box, and am I allowed only one vote ?
Check out the Ercoupe Discussion Group on facebook

How about C-97 and the engines? Then Merlins and Allisons?
I don't think they are type certified.

The B-29 has no type certificate. Both airworthy examples are registered in the experimental class.

I am not sure if the C-97 has a type certificate or not..as some were used commercially as fire bombers and cargo planes.. that said the BAHF C-97 is registered in the experimental class.

https://flightaware.com/resources/registration/N117GA

The R-4360 should be a certified engine.

Since the C-97 is basically the same as the Stratocruiser...
And the C-47 is basically the same as DC-3s...
And most DC-4s out there began life as C-54s...

I would guess they would have to be inspected and some minor mods done.

I've never heard of C-97s being used as anything other than freighters and tankers in the U.S., So I doubt if they ever had full ATCs.

But if memory serves correctly, the USAF did lease C-54s to airlines post war, and some were pressed back into military service during Korea.
If true, the airlines flew military types or the USAF flew airplanes with civil mods.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

You're applying logic to FAA regulations.

That way lies madness

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.

A quick look at the TCDS on the FAA site shows that there are datasheets available for the C-54, but I can't find anything for the C-97 or the model 377. Have a look here: https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guid ... t?OpenPage

_________________
A Little VC10derness - A Tribute to the Vickers VC10 - www.VC10.net