Ultralight plane(s) in a barn story

[martymayes]

Say you come across 2 complete, maybe enough pieces for 2 more, 2-place (aka "fat") ultralights in a soon to be abandoned barn. They've been stored for a number of years and were never registered as LSA. Looking for (more) suggestions on what to do with them.

[Avidflyer2!]

I believe the "window" to register an ultralight as a LSA or amateur built expired in 2010. Unless you can prove you built or meet the 51% rule to register the airplanes as amateur built experimental aircraft, the complete airplanes are simply a collection of parts. If the weight and speed restrictions can be met for an ultralight - then keep them as ultralight airplanes. Don't forget a ballistic parachute will give you an additional weight allowance which may allow a "fat" ultralight meet the regulatory weight restriction.

[airporthound]

They are worthless and can't be used for anything.

You should contact me and I'll take em off your hands.. :-)

[njones]

They can probably be registered in Canada as basic ultralights ... so you could possibly sell them north of the border ...

[stever70]

You dont have to show that you built 51% of the plane to register it as experimental. The plane itself needs to meet the 51% rule. You just wont get the repairmans cert for them, so an A&P will have to inspect all work and do the annual inspection

[MADean]

'airporthound' had it almost right. Only he should have told you to contact me. :cool:

[martymayes]

They can probably be registered in Canada as basic ultralights ...

That's an interesting suggestion...however, I though a 2-seat basic ultralight in Canada was limited to to training roles. Might be worth investigating.



The amateur-built route simply won't work as none of these 'vehicles' fit the definition that the "major portion was fabricated and assembled for recreation/education.

Can certainly be restored to a legal US ultralight vehicle with minimum fuss.

[rosiejerryrosie]

[QUOTE=martymayes;1329]

The amateur-built route simply won't work as none of these 'vehicles' fit the definition that the "major portion was fabricated and assembled for recreation/education.

QUOTE]

How come? Were they built for commercial use? I would think they were built for recreation....

[fixnflyr]

If they are a barn find then most likely it would be unsafe to fly these aircraft with out an extensive maintenance check. I would disassemble everything down to the "kit stage" and then document the building of these aircraft and add enough new parts to meet the 51% rule. Then I could legaly register them as AB and more importantly I could be sure they are safe to fly and built correctly.
Fixnflyr

[stever70]

If they are a barn find then most likely it would be unsafe to fly these aircraft with out an extensive maintenance check. I would disassemble everything down to the "kit stage" and then document the building of these aircraft and add enough new parts to meet the 51% rule. Then I could legaly register them as AB and more importantly I could be sure they are safe to fly and built correctly.
Fixnflyr

Thats got my vote:)

[Dana]

You dont have to show that you built 51% of the plane to register it as experimental. The plane itself needs to meet the 51% rule. You just wont get the repairmans cert for them, so an A&P will have to inspect all work and do the annual inspection

Half correct. Anybody can work on an experimental aircraft; it doesn't need to be an A&P. An A&P (or repairman certificate) is only needed for the annual inspection.





The amateur-built route simply won't work as none of these 'vehicles' fit the definition that the "major portion was fabricated and assembled for recreation/education.



How come? Were they built for commercial use? I would think they were built for recreation....

It may have been built to be used for recreation, but if paid guys at the factory built it, it wasn't "built" for recreation...

[s9pilot]

That's an interesting suggestion...however, I though a 2-seat basic ultralight in Canada was limited to to training roles. Might be worth investigating.

A basic Ultralight in Canada can have a maximum of 2 seats, a max gross weight of 1200 pounds, stall at 45mph or less at gross weight and must have a minimum useful load of (175+1/2engine horsepower) in pounds for a single seater, and (350 + 1/2 engine horsepower) in pounds for a 2 seater. However, a basic ultralight may not carry passengers. Two licensed pilots having either a UL permit or private license, or an instructor and student are the only legal ways to fly two people in a basic ultralight in Canada. Most "fat" ultralights would fall into the Basic Ultralight definition above, and should be able to be registered in Canada. Two seaters may be registered and flown solo without any problem.

[BobM]

Pics or it never happened!:D

[mike65401]

Say you come across 2 complete, maybe enough pieces for 2 more, 2-place (aka "fat") ultralights in a soon to be abandoned barn. They've been stored for a number of years and were never registered as LSA. Looking for (more) suggestions on what to do with them.

OK Marty, what did you finally do with the planes/parts you 'came across'?

[BobM]

OK Marty, what did you finally do with the planes/parts you 'came across'?

And don't forget the pics!:)