Franken-Plane

[CopilotDoug]

Iis it possible to go to a junkyard and mix and match pieces to make your own airplane? I am not talking about Piper Gear with a Cessna wing, but lets say you already have aCessna 340 airframe where the wing spar needs to be replaced along with the landing gear. Could you go get a wing and a landing gear at a junkyard? Is there some sort of FAA process for this? Is it even cost effective?

Thanks

 

[SpoilerFault]

Doug, I think it would be legal to do so but probably a bit of a headache. First, the parts would have to be the same part number/model that were certifcated for the aircraft to be repaired. The parts would have to be properly inspected and or overhauled (landing gear) to ensure their serviceability. Then comes the question of records. Are any of the parts you want to replace life limited by cycle/hours and what are the status of any applicable AD's and SB's?. It can be done as long as you have your ducks in a row as far as paperwork and have serviceable parts. Check out Advisory Circular 20-62D and FAR part43. If there are any GA Guru's on the Forum that could set me straight if I'm wrong please do.

 

[CopilotDoug]

That's a good point. I completely forgot about the records aspect of this. This brings up some other questions:

-If an engine is 'zero-timed' does it need to have a paper trail reflecting time before the overhaul?

-Are other components (life limited) capable of being zero-timed ?

Thanks,

Doug

 

[SpoilerFault]

Doug, once again I hope any GA experts correct me if I'm wrong but I'm not sure that TT of the engine BEFORE it was zero timed would be super important. If you had the engine logs great but since the engine would have to go to certifcated repair facility or the manufacturer to truly be "zero timed". I'm not sure how important the info would be. I know that when a engine is 0 timed it is brought to within limits of an newly manufactured engine and not just the in-service limits. I would assume that any life-limited engine components would be replaced when they do this. You know how it is in aviation though...the more info you have the better! As far as your second question. I don't know of any disposition of life limited parts on an aircraft other than replacement.

 

[bocefus]

The only entity that can "zero time" an engine is the manufacturer, as in a factory remanufactured engine. Although they do use parts that have previous operating time on them, they do not carry the time forward. The engine comes with a logbook indicating "zero" time in service.

 

[CopilotDoug]

All good things to think about. Thanks for the feedback guys

Doug

 

[freeflyer14]

This one takes the cake, I have many jumps out of "frankenotter", it has since been repainted, but it was always great to see new students response when walking towards it...

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0156384&WxsIERv=Qr%20Univyynaq%20Pnanqn%20QUP-6-...%20Gjva%20Bggre&Wm=0&WdsYXMg=FXLQVIR%20NEVMBAN&QtODMg=Rybl%20-%20Zhavpvcny%20%28R60%29&ERDLTkt=HFN%20-%20Nevmban&ktODMp=Bpgbore%201999&BP=0&WNEb25u=Cnhy%20Ybhtuanar&xsIERvdWdsY=A226PF&MgTUQtODMgKE=Jbhyq%20lbh%20srry%20fnsr%3F&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=942&NEb25uZWxs=2001-04-18%2000%3A00%3A00&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=&static=yes&width=883&height=585&sok=JURER%20%20%28nvepensg_trarevp%20%3D%20%27Qr%20Univyynaq%20Pnanqn%20QUP-6%20Gjva%20Bggre%20%28I-18%29%27%29%20NAQ%20%28ZNGPU%20%28nvepensg%2Cnveyvar%2Ccynpr%2Ccubgb_qngr%2Cpbhagel%2Cerznex%2Ccubgbtencure%2Crznvy%2Clrne%2Cert%2Cnvepensg_trarevp%2Cpa%2Cpbqr%29%20NTNVAFG%20%28%27%2B%22fxlqvir%22%27%20VA%20OBBYRNA%20ZBQR%29%29%20%20beqre%20ol%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=16&prev_id=&next_id=0125881
http://www.airliners.net/search/pho...r=photo_id+DESC&nr_pages=2&engine_version=6.0

 

[sleddriver77]

Doug,

The short answer is... Maybe.

A few years back, the Feds got kinda nasty about "building an airplane from a data plate." The thinking was, "as long as you have a data plate, you have an airplane." That's still partially true, because if an airplane's data plate goes missing, you no longer have an airplane. (or at least you'll have a long, tedious process getting it replaced.)

What guys were doing was taking the data plate off of a TOTALED airframe, and then piecing together an airplane from spare parts and other wrecks. Absolutely NOTHING flying around attached to the data plate for AirKnocker serial number XXXXX had anything to do with the original AirKnocker serial number XXXXX.

This has led to questions about how badly damaged an airplane can be before it can no longer be rebuilt. Obviously, if the fuel truck backs into the wing of your 172, you can find a new 172 wing somewhere, have a mechanic put it on, have an IA dot ehpaperwork and go. Or, if you're recovering your super cub, and want to STC the big tailfeathers on to it, that's not a problem either. However, I know of a person who asked an FAA inspector while recovering the Cub, if it would be OK to:

1. Add big tail feathers.
2. Add the "wide" fuselage
3. Add Dakota-Cub metal wings.
4. Convert to 180 horsepower

...and go flying once the appropriate 337's were turned in. These are all STC's. The answer was NO, that would be building an airplane around a data plate. After further discussion, it was decided that as long as the local FAA office was kept informed of the ENTIRE project, FROM THE BEGINNING, before work ever started, and it could obviously be proven that these were all mods done during a re-cover, and NOT building around a data plate, it would be OK.

Usedta' a guy could slap a bunch o' parts from different airplanes together and call it a homebuilt. Not any more. If you do it as an experimental, you'll be able to get a NON-RENEWABLE TEMPORARY airworthiness certificate for it, but you'll also need to provide a reason WHY you did it. (Like research and development.) Not worth the expense.

If you are looking at rebuilding a wreck, get with your FSDO first to make sure they buy it.

 

[Rob P.]

I don't understand why it's a problem. If someone can do the STC's individually, then they should be allowed to do them all at once with no interference or additional paperwork or "supervision".

Even building "frankenplane" from scrapyard parts should be allowed if the parts are tagged and an IA or AP does the work and logs it. Afterall, if I bend my airplane and need a new fuse, then I can get a serviceable/tagged one and rebuild my bird. No problems. If I can do that then why can't I buy a broken bird for the data plate and rebuild it. To me it's the same thing.

Because some FAA interpretation of a non existent rule says otherwise? How does this apply to Stitts Playboys and Playmates? They are frankenplanes made from parts from DIFFERENT aircraft yet they don't have a "temporary non-renewable" certification.

Methinks the FAA types are getting above themselves in this. But, I'm not an expert nor did I sleep in a holiday inn last nite.

 

[JimNtexas]

Here is another picture of this airplane:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=486758

This airplane proves that enthropy always increases.

 

[FL420]

Here's your junkyard

Iis it possible to go to a junkyard and mix and match pieces to make your own airplane?

Here's your junkyard. White Industries in Bates City, MO. Ask these folks. Just a walk through their inventory is interesting as they had some one offs that had never been certified when I was there looking for Cheyenne windows.

http://www.whiteindustries.com/

 

[avbug]

Whites is a wonderland; I've procured parts from there before.

Unbeknownst to me, an aircraft I was assigned to fly for a small company came from there. It had been scrapped by a jump operation, if that tells you anything...when a jump operation says the aircraft is no longer fit to fly, then one may take it on good faith that it's probably a serious understatement.

This aircraft had been purchased from Whites, refurbished (to use the term with great liberality), and repainted...the paint being the only thing that they did right. What a disaster. Good paint and clever log entries can't hide bad work, and I grounded it very quickly. The operator tried flying it anyway, and soon came to regret that decision...but not before nearly killing several people.

No issues exist regarding replacing multiple assemblies on an airframe with parts of a known history and quality, and the appropriate part number.

I've always maintained that the most dangerous part of any jump is the ride to altitude. Wuffo you goan jump outta apufektlygood airplane wuffo, anyway? So sayeth the wuffos among us. That's an easy one...there's no such thing as a perfectly good airplane.

Especially when one has a perfectly good parachute strapped to one's back.

 

[Gorilla]

Can't you pretty much do anything so long as you declare the aircraft EXPERIMENTAL, and the FAA will buy off on the structural soundness?

I've always wondered about Rutan's brilliant designs, and can imagine the inspector looking at the first VAri-eze, and saying "Oh my, what is that? You want ME to sign it off?"

 

[erj-145mech]

There are different classes of "Experimental". Which class would you put that in? It isn't amateur built, it isn't exhibition. There are also many restrictions imposed on Experimental operation, including use for hire, parachute ops, etc.

Putting an aircraft into experimental isn't a free for all.

 

[bocefus]

Exactly. And trying to use the experimental category to get relief from other regulations/requirements is not going to work. They will never issue a certificate.