Buying a used (experimental) airplane?

azblackbird

azblackbird

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
1,550
Location
Colorado Boonies
Display Name
Display name:
azblackbird
As an offshoot from a another thread. I notice many homebuilt/experimental aircraft are in the owners name as being the make/model of the aircraft.

My question is... let's say I find a nice used CarbonCub FX (experimental) for sale and buy it. Does the experimental status transfer to me? If so, then after proving to an FAA examiner that I know my s**t about the airplane, can I then get a Repairman's Certificate and conduct my own inspections and maintenance? :dunno:
 
It'll always show the original builder as the manufacturer and it'll always be experimental. You can work on it all you want but you can't get a repairman's cert unless you're the original builder so that forces you to use an A&P for an annual condition inspection.
 
Stewartb said:
It'll always show the original builder as the manufacturer and it'll always be experimental. You can work on it all you want but you can't get a repairman's cert unless you're the original builder so that forces you to use an A&P for an annual condition inspection.
Click to expand...
Got it. ;)
 
You can always conduct your own maintenance --no repair cert required for that. Repairman cert's are tied to the specific airframe by make, model, and serial number and aren't transferable from owner to owner. If the original builder didn't apply for the cert and if you as the new owner have the requisite skills then maybe you could get the cert, but it's hard to see that happening.
 
tsts4 said:
You can always conduct your own maintenance --no repair cert required for that.
Click to expand...
Does that include engine overhaul, structural improvements (i.e., adding leading edge slats) or anything else above and beyond normal maintenance?
 
azblackbird said:
Does that include engine overhaul, structural improvements (i.e., adding leading edge slats) or anything else above and beyond normal maintenance?
Click to expand...

A major change requires going back to a "Phase 1" testing phase. Major change isn't well defined by the FAA, but the addition of slats would certainly qualify. You'd have to consult the particular aircraft's operating limitations to determine how to place the airplane back into Phase 1.
 
But just because you can doesn't mean you should. For example, I'm completely comfortable doing routine things like oil changes, spark plug mnx, installing and removing accessories, timing, and compression checks. But last Aug I had an in-flight prop gov failure that resulted in an engine overspeed and necessitated a complete engine teardown. I had an engine shop do it as it was beyond my level of expertise even though it would have been legal for me to do so.
 
azblackbird said:
Does that include engine overhaul, structural improvements (i.e., adding leading edge slats) or anything else above and beyond normal maintenance?
Click to expand...

Are you thinking of adding slats? To what type of plane? FWIW there's nothing structural about them, at least the ones I'm familiar with. Cub slats attach to the leading edges using PK screws. No reinforcement required. I added nut plates for mine. I'm absolutely loving the EX category!
 
azblackbird said:
Does that include engine overhaul, structural improvements (i.e., adding leading edge slats) or anything else above and beyond normal maintenance?
Click to expand...
Fabric work, replacing fuel lines, welding fuel tank, adding vortex generators, re-mounting radiator, fabricating new exhaust, installing transponder, re-wiring stuff, re-locating the battery, and cowl mods. At least so far on my ride. Probably some other things too, but that would involve getting off the couch and looking in the log books. Some of that work is on my youtube channel if you are having problems sleeping.

The "Major modification" thing can be an issue - my solution is to just do things one step at a time as a series of minor modifications. Slats could be considered major - you can do it, but it may end up involving paperwork and probably having to re-fly the 40 hour phase 1 testing.
 
Some experimental operating limitations just have a 5 hour return to phase 1 for major changes.
 
The mandatory log entries are governed by the OPLIMS (like logging the condition inspection), or the OPLIMS point to FAR required inspections/maintenance that have to be logged:"Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under 14 CFR § 91.205 must be inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of 14 CFR part 91. Any maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the aircraft logbook and maintenance records."

Beyond that FAR part 43 does not regulate what logbook entries are required for an E-AB because the very first paragraph of FAR part 43 says "This part does not apply to any aircraft for which an experimental airworthiness certificate has been issued".

That said I personally log everything: I record what I did in detail, date, time in service, name, signature, certificate number, and type of certificate. I usually print this out an glue it into the applicable log book.
 
Stewartb said:
Are you thinking of adding slats? To what type of plane? FWIW there's nothing structural about them, at least the ones I'm familiar with. Cub slats attach to the leading edges using PK screws. No reinforcement required. I added nut plates for mine. I'm absolutely loving the EX category!
Click to expand...
Carbon Cub FX...I'd add the same type slats as this guy did. When prospecting for gold, the slower I can fly the better. Plus would be useful for getting in and out of tight spots.

 
Last edited:
tsts4 said:
That said I personally log everything: I record what I did in detail, date, time in service, name, signature, certificate number, and type of certificate. I usually print this out an glue it into the applicable log book.
Click to expand...
Seems the logical thing to do, especially when showing logs to a new buyer.
 
A major modification is defined as anything that can significantly change the aircraft's operational characteristics. So adding slats is major. Changing to a different type engine or prop is major.

Major or minor repairs are a different matter; anybody can do them (legally, if not wisely, depending on their abilities). You can and should log them but aren't legally required to. On my plane I've done structural repairs and fabric work, replaced fuel lines, tail brace wires, and brake cables, fabricated a new tailwheel assembly, removed cylinder heads and ground the valves, replaced the magneto, replaced several instruments, replaced most of the primary bolts holding the plane together, added a breather oil separator, and numerous other things I can't recall at the moment. All legal for me to do and log, but since I didn't build the plane I need an A&P for the annual condition inspection... even though I know the plane far better than he ever will.

Older experimentals have operating limitations that say "any manor change invalidates the airworthiness certificate." Later ones just require notifying the FSDO and putting it back in phase 1 for 5 hours. If you have the older wording, the FSDO will replace the op limitations with the new version on request (I did so for my plane).
 
azblackbird said:
Carbon Cub FX...I'd add the same type slats as this guy did. When prospecting for gold, the slower I can fly the better. Plus would be useful for getting in and out of tight spots.

Click to expand...

Do you have much Cub time? Cool plane, the Carbon Cub, but not well suited for slats. For the $250K you'd have into it you could have Wayne Mackey (the slat expert) build you a more useful airplane. It'll take a bunch of hours to get good in either one.
 
Super Cubs don't need slats or VGs. They are already uber STOL!! They just add weight, uneeded complexity and cost. Give you a hint if you want reliable, economical (as possible) airplane. Buy a good one and keep it stock!
 
Super Cubs definitely benefit from VGs.

Slats are great, too, but other mods usually accompany them.
 
Stewartb said:
Do you have much Cub time? Cool plane, the Carbon Cub, but not well suited for slats. For the $250K you'd have into it you could have Wayne Mackey (the slat expert) build you a more useful airplane. It'll take a bunch of hours to get good in either one.
Click to expand...
Just as a little kid riding around in the farmers cub who we leased our alfalfa fields from. I just like the Carbon Cub family and particularly the FX "builder assist" program if I was going to go new. Hoping to find a used one in the $100k range or way less if possible. Just looking for something I can play around in the AZ backcountry with. There are a ton of short strips sprinkled throughout the state (many in gold bearing areas) that would be fun to explore.
 
A 180hp Carbon Cub for under $100K? You're dreaming. A new FX with the popular options and allowing for your travel expenses will crowd $250K. Build an equal EX version with some professional help and you'll easily be in the $200K+ range depending on your skill set. There's a reason why the certificated X Cub is topping $300K. I'm 85% through a modified Backcountry Cub and have a very good grasp on what these planes cost. Not my first Cub build, either, so I knew what I was in for.
 
Stewartb said:
A 180hp Carbon Cub for under $100K? You're dreaming.
Click to expand...
I'm well aware what they cost. What piqued my interest was seeing an older model CC here in AZ for $139k in one of the classifieds. That gave me a little hope that by the time I'm ready to purchase, maybe I could get one for $100k or less. $250k makes for a very expensive off-road vehicle. ;)
 
azblackbird said:
I'm well aware what they cost. What piqued my interest was seeing an older model CC here in AZ for $139k in one of the classifieds. That gave me a little hope that by the time I'm ready to purchase, maybe I could get one for $100k or less.
Click to expand...

You remind me of a friend who spent two years thrashing over what plane to buy while he was training to get a PPL. He got his medical and passed his written and logged about 50 hours. He even joined AOPA and subscribed to Flying Magazine and researched and became expert on and took test rides in a number of STOL, piston singles and turboprops. He even thought about buying a plane and hiring a pilot to fly him around in it.

He quit just before his checkride two years ago. He no longer wants to talk about or is interested in aviation. And now prefers to play golf and sail his boat instead.
 
Last edited:
Be aware that anything with the letters "C", "u", "b" in the name is going to cost tens of thousands more than an equivalent aircraft with other letters in the name.

Iffen your objective is farting around in and out of short / unimproved strips consider things like the Just Aircraft Highlander, Zenith, and others with out the magic letters in the name. Even my little $20,000 LSA with only 80 hp gets in and out of tight spots pretty well:

Wind 160 at 5
Temperature 22, dew point 15
Altimeter 30.35
Runway 17 at ONZ - 590' MSL, paved, level.

1050 pounds takeoff weight (out of 1300 gross, 740 empty)

Stop with the tail right on the end of the runway - Apply brakes, run up the mighty Rotax 912, and go. Ground run 196 feet.

Roll in from a moderate taxi speed, start pushing power in as I turn - as much as I felt comfortable with. Ground run (measured from the end of the runway) about 165 feet.
 
citizen5000 said:
He quit just before his checkride two years ago. He no longer talks about or is interested in aviation. And prefers to play golf and sail his boat instead.
Click to expand...
My golfing days are over, and I have no interest in sailing. I love aviation... always have and always will. Now that I'm getting older and having BTDT in many cool hobbies or recreational activities. I want to fly! If I can combine that with my business and my current hobby (gold prospecting) that's all the better. ;)
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Be aware that anything with the letters "C", "u", "b" in the name is going to cost tens of thousands more than an equivalent aircraft with other letters in the name.
Click to expand...
Yea, I kinda gathered that. Another cool aircraft I've been eyeballing is the Highlander. Those are some badass planes also. :thumbsup:

 
Badass hobby planes. No useful load, which works since there's no useful space.
 
Nice. I'm only familiar with panning. Looks like fun.
These specs look pretty 'useful' to me....
 

Attachments

  • just-specs.jpg
    just-specs.jpg
    69.2 KB · Views: 9
Something you guys who dream of STOL airplanes need to remember, at the payloads many of these planes specify, like the Highlander above, you can achieve those operating distances at those payload weights in much bigger, more versatile airplanes. My 180, for example. When I built my first Cub a friend asked why I was doing it. I told him i wanted to land in front of my cabin and the 180 wouldn't do it on floats. "It will if you carry the same load that Cub will" was his reply. And then it hit me. My new Cub goes a lot further into the STOL mods. We live, we learn.

If the lightweight STOL category is what you like, take a look at the Shock Cub. I wouldn't want to buck the wind in one of them but if you can pick your weather days it'd be fun to fly. Slats, deep chord ailerons, split flaps, long travel suspension...
 
Last edited:
Stewartb said:
Something you guys who dream of STOL airplanes need to remember, at the payloads many of these planes specify, like the Highlander above, you can achieve those operating distances at those payload weights in much bigger, more versatile airplanes. My 180, for example.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong. I love any of the Cessna taildraggers and would take one in a heart beat. Unfortunately for the type of missions I plan (at least recreation wise) your type/size of plane is just not feasible.

Just to give you an idea of some of the territory I love to explore, watch this video and tell me a place where you think you could set your 180 down. Believe it or not, and maybe you can't see them, but there are several clear "playas" in that particular area that are 200-300 ft. in length and have rocks small enough that wouldn't bother a good set of tundras. There is a couple spots at the bottom of the hill as I come off the trail that you could probably get your 180 in without much trouble. It's a narrow road and is pretty smooth by 4-wheeler standards anyways, and has a few pull-out areas that you would be able to park.

 
Sounds to me like you need a Helicopter not an airplane. I think I read you are a student pilot somewhere here on the board, if that is the case you have years and years of flying ahead of you before you should try tackling the type of flying you are talking about. To achieve the numbers these airplanes quote you are flying on the edge of the stall envelope which is no small feat.
 
I'm looking for shorter ops on softer surfaces myself. My 180 is a great plane but my new Cub will go places the 180 can't. Not just short but soft. A Cub with slats and split flaps on 35" tires is pretty amazing if it's set up correctly.
 
If the original builder never applied for the repairman certificate for the airframe he constructed, you may apply for it but you would have to prove to the FAA that you were intimately familiar with the construction process. Only one person can ever get the repairman certificate for an amateur built experiment and usually it would be the person that built it but not always. An A&P, for instance, may not bother to get the repairman certificate for an amateur built experimental he constructed since he already has all the privileges the repairman certificate bestows.
 
A&Ps are usually advised to get the repairman certificate anyway, because if something bad happens and the FAA takes action against the person who signed off the condition inspection, only his repairman certificate is at risk and not his A&P certificate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top