Originally Posted by
Bill Greenwood
Sam, as I said I don't know a relevant FAR, But.
There is probably no problem at all with his rebuilding the Pitts,
BUT to call it a new airplane is just not factual, any more than if you rebuilt a wrecked Ferrari and tried to pass it off as a new car.
And of course it is a normal part of almost anyone buying a plane to ask about previous damage. Is he going to falsify that? If he buys a new engine it will come with a new logbook from the factory, and if it is a used engine most buyers are going to want to see the logbook that came with and shows the history of that engine. Is he going say that there is no engine log as if the engine has no history and just came out of thin air?
Now he can probably just keep the plane for himself and call it anything he wants;But
Let's say he sold the plane, as a new airplane, and then there was either a qualiity problem or even worse an accident that might be traced to the tailplane off the wrecked plane.
Any attorney who can read and write is going to raise this issue.
How do you think a jury of average people, not EAA folks or pilots, is going to react when the lawyer tells them that the seller sold a plane that he represented as new, when in fact it was not new, and more so had parts that were not only used,, but which some came from a wreck. And his side can call an expert witness like yourself, perhaps to try to convince them that according to EAA that used and wrecked is really new.
How do you think they are going to vote? Not how you'd vote, but the jury that would hear such a case?
Why not rebuild the plane, but be honest on describing it if and when it is sold?