Need advice, considering buying a nearly complete project from canadian builder/owner

[Austintatious]

Thank you everyone for the responses.

So far the owner had not been able to find a Bill of sale from when he purchased the kit. This is a Bede BD-5 aircraft. The current owner said he purchased the untouched kit from an American who bought it directly from Bede.

He has sent me a lot of pictures of the aircraft and of the pictures of the build process. I dont know how many pictures are sufficient, but I can tell you from the pictures I have that there are shots of almost every major stage of build being done. They are quite old pictures as this project was started in the late 70's.

The owner was indeed building it for himself, although he was a professional aircraft builder specializing in sheet metal work (he is 94 years old and worked on the F-104 starfighter!)

I can obviously acquire a bill of sale from him, and even a written statement that he was building it for his own personal recreation/education.

It sounds like from what I have heard here that absence of a BOS from Bede to the original kit purchaser and a BOS from him to the current owner is going to be a showstopper. Have I misunderstood? Are there any other options?

I really like this aircraft and he is selling it for a song... but ultimately I want something I can make legally airworthy.

[Bill Berson]

You might get an affidavit (statement of fact) from the seller stating the chain of custody.
EAA staff may be able to help.
EAA sells a certification kit of documents needed for this, about $20.
I attended a staff forum presentation last year at Airventure. It takes about an hour to go through it.

[BoKu]

... ultimately I want something I can make legally airworthy.

Oh, a BD-5.

Two relatively minor, but often important, points:

* I know we toss it around rather casually here, but the word "airworthy" has a very specific meaning to the FAA. To them it means "in compliance with type certificate data." And by that definition, no BD-5, nor any amateur-built experimental aircraft, will ever truly be airworthy. Yes, an operational example carries an "airworthiness certificate," but when you look closely you see that it is actually a "Special Airworthiness Certificate" issued to permit the operation of an aircraft that is not airworthy according to the definition in the FARs. The best we ever get is "of a condition for safe operation."

* With a BD-5, I would not be too inclined to sweat the paperwork. My reasoning is that by the time you've made something capable of safe operation, you're probably only using about half of what was in the kit. At issue is that the BD-5 exists within the intersection of an engine with good power to weight, a lightweight yet very low-drag airframe, a simple yet robust propeller drive, and all these things delivered at an affordable price. And to the degree all those things came into being, we might as well have thrown in the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny. Because the propeller drive wound up being heavy, complicated, and tender, the airframes came in at the expected weight only if built to a scrupulous minimalism, and even today a reliable engine with the requisite power to weight ratio remains elusive. Which is to say that the BD-5 as Jim Bede envisioned it is just barely technically feasible, cannot be achieved using only parts and technologies delivered in the BD-5 kit, and will never be the kind of affordable that was originally promised.

--Bob K.

[martymayes]

I really like this aircraft and he is selling it for a song... but ultimately I want something I can make legally airworthy.

I don't think you'll have any trouble showing the plane meets major portion rule. No trouble at all. If necessary, call it a BaD-5.

[Austintatious]

Thanks everyone for the advice... I called the EAA and was PROMPTLY helped (I am seriously impressed!) It appears there is a pretty strait forward way around the absence of bills of sale prior to my purchase. They are dealings I am willing to undertake so I am pushing forward with the purchase.

[dkhiza]

Thanks everyone for the advice... I called the EAA and was PROMPTLY helped (I am seriously impressed!) It appears there is a pretty strait forward way around the absence of bills of sale prior to my purchase. They are dealings I am willing to undertake so I am pushing forward with the purchase.

I am in the same boat (partial kit with no chain of ownership). What was the solution?

[Eric Page]

I am in the same boat (partial kit with no chain of ownership). What was the solution?

I bought a second-hand Kitfox Series 5 project recently. The original owner lost almost all of the paperwork for the kit, including the bill of sale and the build manual, which contained his notes and served as his builder's log.

I contacted both EAA and FAA, and putting their advice together, here's what I did.

1. I wrote a purchase contract and bill of sale for my purchase that included, (a) a statement that the seller had lost the original bill of sale and builder's log, and (b) that the seller agreed to sign, in front of a notary, a photographic and textual record of his work, which I would prepare.

2. After getting the kit home, I took copious photographs and notes, then wrote an 18-page document, describing in words and pictures, as much of the original builder's progress as I could. It included the following statements, each initialed by the seller: (a) that he performed all of the work shown and described in the document, (b) that he did not hire anyone to do any of the work for him, (c) that his work on the kit up to the date of sale constituted substantially less than 50% of the total fabrication and assembly tasks required to complete the aircraft, and (d) that he performed the work solely for his own education and recreation. This document was mailed to the seller, who initialed every page, signed it, had it notarized and mailed it back to me.

3. I prepared FAA AC Form 8050-2 (Aircraft Bill of Sale). On the FAA inspector's advice, I struck out he word "aircraft" and replaced it with "kit" throughout the form, and otherwise filled it out as you normally would for the purchase of a completed aircraft. This was signed by the seller.

4. Kitfox Aircraft has a form letter on their website, addressed to the FAA's Registration Branch, that briefly explains the corporate history of the Kitfox aircraft line and why the current company cannot re-issue a bill of sale for a kit sold by a predecessor company (in my case, SkyStar Aircraft). The second page of this letter is a form to record the aircraft information, which company sold the kit in question and who bought it. I prepared this form and had the seller sign it as well.

All of this documentation will be available to the DAR or Airworthiness Inspector to review. The bill of sale, AC Form 8050-2 and Kitfox form letter will be submitted with my registration documents to the FAA.

[Mike M]

OK, I'm confused. The original poster has a stack of aircraft parts but no airplane and no real proof it was ever a kit, or not a kit? We all know even a certificated aircraft starts as a list of parts. So what's the problem with buying a list of parts that's never been an aircraft without getting an FAA 8050? Then as someone else mentioned, import the stack of parts of all sizes and shapes and sub-assemblies with as many receipts as possible to show as many taxes as possible already paid.

"Back in the day" I didn't get an FAA 8050 with my kit because it wasn't an airplane. I got a receipt for a list of parts. When I sold it, it flew away with one FAA 8050. With my (used) certificated airplanes they came and left with FAA 8050s but only one on the way in, one on the way out. When I bought my current EAB it flew in with one FAA 8050.

Nobody has ever offered or asked for more than one FAA 8050 on any of my purchases or sales. However. Last transaction was 20 years ago. What's changed?