Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Restoration clarification

  1. #1

    Restoration clarification

    I would like to pin down the legality of building an out of production aircraft. And if there any repositories of construction information. As much as I would love to build such an aircraft, this is more for personal knowledge. In this instance the last plane was finished about 60 years ago. The Type Certificate is owned by a company that intended to restart production but as far as I know wont get to actual production for some years if at all. There are erection manuals, maintenance manuals, and a few other pertinent documents sold from oversees, obtained I think from asking/helping England to build some of their own during World War 2. As far as I can tell the documents are thorough but ultimately incomplete. Although they make a nice gift, as pages have engineers notes and supply lists written by hand. It seems a bad idea to rely on them for accuracy as plans, and I don't know the legality of that as well. I do understand the rules, and general forbidding, of trying this as they apply to building in the states but I am less certain if there is some international legal barrier or patents to consider. ITAR not being a factor. Digging through the FAA's registry has not been fruitful as a collection to draw upon for additional airframe information and I don't think Grumman still maintains such things. Northrop Grumman or whatever they go by now from what I understand is essentially an unrelated company to the old Grumman. Again, I just enjoy learning and collecting things related to the aircraft. Building one even if it were legal would be way out of my league and economics, .

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hopkins View Post
    I would like to pin down the legality of building an out of production aircraft. And if there any repositories of construction information. As much as I would love to build such an aircraft, this is more for personal knowledge. In this instance the last plane was finished about 60 years ago. The Type Certificate is owned by a company that intended to restart production but as far as I know wont get to actual production for some years if at all. There are erection manuals, maintenance manuals, and a few other pertinent documents sold from oversees, obtained I think from asking/helping England to build some of their own during World War 2. As far as I can tell the documents are thorough but ultimately incomplete. Although they make a nice gift, as pages have engineers notes and supply lists written by hand. It seems a bad idea to rely on them for accuracy as plans, and I don't know the legality of that as well. I do understand the rules, and general forbidding, of trying this as they apply to building in the states but I am less certain if there is some international legal barrier or patents to consider. ITAR not being a factor. Digging through the FAA's registry has not been fruitful as a collection to draw upon for additional airframe information and I don't think Grumman still maintains such things. Northrop Grumman or whatever they go by now from what I understand is essentially an unrelated company to the old Grumman. Again, I just enjoy learning and collecting things related to the aircraft. Building one even if it were legal would be way out of my league and economics, .
    You may build and fly whatever you want as long as it is not for commercial purposes (i.e. built for sale). If you did build a replica of a Grumman F8F or whatever, you would need to register it as a replica or as some other make/model, not as a "Grumman". There are numerous aircraft (Wacos, Aeroncas, Cubs) where this is routinely done.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,461
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hopkins View Post
    I would like to pin down the legality of building an out of production aircraft.
    What country are you in? i.e., what rules/regulations would be followed to build this mental exercise aircraft?

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by martymayes View Post
    What country are you in? i.e., what rules/regulations would be followed to build this mental exercise aircraft?
    I'll be in California for a few years. After that I don't know but I'll still be in the U.S.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,461
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hopkins View Post
    I'll be in California for a few years. After that I don't know but I'll still be in the U.S.
    I've been trying to guess what airplane fits you clues and all I can come up with is one of the Grumman amphibs. Something like the G-21 Goose perhaps?

    Kyle hit on the basics. While you may be able to build an exact clone of such an airplane, it could only be registered in the experimental category. The FAA is not going to let you build and register a standard category aircraft in your back yard. If you do fabricate and assemble the major portion for education and/or recreation, it could be registered as an experimental amateur built aircraft.

    As far as building data, if you obtained all the factory drawings, you could build from that. Or you could obtain every part and reverse engineer it, make your drawings on 8 1/2" x 11" notebook paper if you wish, or some combination of the above. The FAA wouldn't care, the plans would not be subject to any kind of approval. The only requirement for accuracy is what you are comfortable with.

    Would the TC holder get upset that you copied his airplane? Perhaps, but since you're doing if for fun and not for profit, doubtful there would be any legal ramifications. They can't really say you stole any proprietary data because it's all available in public domains.

    Changing the subject slightly, what are your thoughts on the Gweduck? http://www.gweduck.com/
    Granted it's only a generic clone, it's pretty cool.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,718
    Marty, there's also this, http://antillesseaplanes.com/ a rebirth of the Grumman Goose, a new ground-up modern remanufacture with turbines. The company exhibited at Oshkosh a few years ago. Fast forward, there's been dubious activity amidst financial troubles, lawsuits and foreclosures. The company still exists in North Carolina but I can't pinpoint the nature of any activity. They own the Mackinnon STC for turbine Gooses. Its always the money, a lack of sustainable capitalization and a small market for a multi engine, $3.5 million dreamboat.

  7. #7
    FlyingRon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NC26 (Catawba, NC)
    Posts
    2,627
    Your headline is at odds with the body of your post. If you want to build something from plans or looking at an existing rendition, yes you can very much build it as amateur built experimental. However, if you're talking about "restoring" something that's already built, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by FlyingRon View Post
    Your headline is at odds with the body of your post. If you want to build something from plans or looking at an existing rendition, yes you can very much build it as amateur built experimental. However, if you're talking about "restoring" something that's already built, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.
    Fair enough on the headline Ron.

    I should have just used the Goose as my example but I was trying to keep it generic. That way the answers would apply to aircraft in general. Some of the question is indeed because of Antilles Seaplanes and respecting their ownership.

    I have tried to follow the Gweduck as much as possible and I think they did a good thing sticking with it. There are some derogatory stories out in internet land explaining why they weren't likely to pull it off and if they did how poorly it would be built. Which of course makes the story that much sweeter when they can say people will try and tell you that you cant do things and go on and do them anyway. I don't know enough about composites to judge either way. I prefer the shape of the Grumman deigns to a Seabee or Lake so I am glad they took that route. The price seems reasonable and comparable to some Widgeons.

    The path to asking all this grew out of a missing data plate on a very expensive aircraft and all the things that follow from having a data plate assuming having the plate wasn't a theft issue. Which led to conversations about if someone had all the factoy plans what they could do if properly motivated. The plate by the way, was found behind some sidewall plastic after two frantic days of digging around. I like to collect Goose paraphernalia so I've ended up with enough junk and papers to wonder what it would take to spin them into something that flies. I'm petty decent with aluminum, rivets, wielding and what not but ultralights are about as clever a my skills go for now. I would like to see if I could make Goose or Albatross gear but that is a whole other conversation.

    Thank you for you help

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,236
    Ug, the data plate.

    It's the aircraft, legally speaking. This comes up in WWI replica circles for debate from time to time, but the truth of the matter is that if one has a data plate, one has an aircraft - build a Sopwith Camel from scratch from the factory plans, put on an authentic engine with the appropriate panel and it's not a replica, it's the actual aircraft when the dataplate found in an antique shop is attached, just extensively restored. And yeah, it's now held to type certification standards.

    Building an Experimental from parts salvaged from a type certified aircraft are detailed here:

    http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...C%2020-27G.pdf

    It's a minefield that could result in the FAA denying an airworthiness certificate as the end product is neither Experimental or Certified eligible. Get to know your local FSDO and DAR in this area before starting!
    The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,461
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Giger View Post
    Ug, the data plate.

    It's the aircraft, legally speaking. This comes up in WWI replica circles for debate from time to time, but the truth of the matter is that if one has a data plate, one has an aircraft - build a Sopwith Camel from scratch from the factory plans, put on an authentic engine with the appropriate panel and it's not a replica, it's the actual aircraft when the dataplate found in an antique shop is attached, just extensively restored. And yeah, it's now held to type certification standards.
    Well, playing with certificated aircraft data plates can also be a minefield. There's regs governing removal, installation and transfer of data plates and if you get down to the nuts and bolts, you can't buy, find or remove a data plate from an aircraft, build a duplicate aircraft from scratch and install that data plate on that cloned aircraft - without approval from the administrator. Now if you retain some portion of the original airplane, you can call it a restoration, follow the FAA guidance and do it that way. I know, I know, people do it all the time, one can go on barnstormers and buy a data plate, paperwork and logs for a destroyed or otherwise nonexistent aircraft but to make that work there has to be some deception involved. One of the more interesting aspects of this was at one time, there were more Bell 47 helicopters on the FAA registry than Bell had built. Somehow cloned helicopters had arisen out of the ashes and taken on their own identity.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •