Registering an Experimental?

[Aviator22S]

I recently acquired an experimental airplane which is in perfectly flyable condition and has many hours already on the airframe and engine. When the original owner built the airplane it was in the ultralight category and did not need an N-number. It now longer fits the ultralight category since those rules have changed and it now needs to be registered. In order to get an N-number for it, do I need to have it inspected by a DAR first? As far as I know, the builder being now deceased, the airplane has no logs either of the build or of the flight time. Since it has flown quite a bit, however, can I simply apply for an N-number?

[1600vw]

When one builds an airplane it goes through a series of inspections in order to be signed off as an experimental. When one is building an Ultralight no inspections is needed. Without these inspections by a Dar, I do not believe this airplane can ever be N numbered.
This is not like its an out of date registration. This has never had an registration and so its never been issued a Special Airworthy certificate. Without this certificate it can never be anything but what its is, a non registered airplane. You can not call it an ultralight for its not one. I am assuming this airplane does not fall into the Par 103 rules.
Now could you strip all the covering and go through this airplane, inspect every part and have it signed off, sure but you must love this airplane to go through all this work, but anything can be done, but without knowing such things like the glue used i doubt any inspector would come within 20 feet of this.

My 2 cents.

Tony

Tony

[Sam Buchanan]

When one builds an airplane it goes through a series of inspections in order to be signed off as an experimental. When one is building an Ultralight no inspections is needed. Without these inspections by a Dar, I do not believe this airplane can ever be N numbered.
This is not like its an out of date registration. This has never had an registration and so its never been issued a Special Airworthy certificate. Without this certificate it can never be anything but what its is, a non registered airplane. You can not call it an ultralight for its not one. I am assuming this airplane does not fall into the Par 103 rules.
Now could you strip all the covering and go through this airplane, inspect every part and have it signed off, sure but you must love this airplane to go through all this work, but anything can be done, but without knowing such things like the glue used i doubt any inspector would come within 20 feet of this.

My 2 cents.

Tony

Tony

There is only one inspection by a DAR for an aircraft builder seeking an experimental airworthiness certificate and that is conducted just prior to first flight. Sequential inspections were phased out over twenty years ago.

The primary purpose of that inspection is to determine that at least 51% of the aircraft has been constructed by a non-commercial builder and to complete the paperwork for the certificate application. Some inspectors also look for safety issues but this is not always the case.

Your aircraft can be N-numbered if the DAR can determine it meets the 51% rule. Without builder logs this may be difficult and will depend on the thoroughness of the particular DAR or FAA rep. In any case, you need to consult with builders in your local EAA chapter as to which DAR would be most receptive to your application. A call to that DAR would be the next step and he will assist you with your application.

Best wishes for a successful transition to a N-number!

[1600vw]

Sam thanks for setting this straight.

[WLIU]

I will add a couple of points.

First, the ship in question is likely unique. That is you won't find a kit supplier, and it is not a design where the industry has a history of businesses that build kits for other people (commercial assistance). This data supports the assertion that the ship qualifies as E-AB.

Second, the condition of the ship likely reflects its age, supporting the narrative in post #1, including that the ship was built by an individual for education and recreation, then purchased by the current owner. All of the build logs that we do today are recommended, but not actually required to substantiate E-AB status. The important point is that the DAR or the FAA has to be convinced that the ship is amateur built. The narrative and condition are evidence. This is a little like losing the logbooks on your Part 23 airplane. The FAA accepts that new logs can be created with the statement on page 1 of "Original logs lost. Estimated airframe (or engine or prop) time xxxxx hrs".

So the situation is a conversion to an aircraft covered by 14 CFR Part 43. There is actually a body of precedent for this. Essell and Faulkner did this with the ultralight that they flew in their wing walking airshow act. You will get operating limitations and an N-number.

The kicker is that the DAR can either issue an E-AB airworthiness certificate and operating limitations, or can issue an Experimental Exhibition airworthiness certificate and operating limitations. For the owner of the aircraft in question the two have the same effect. You go fly. The DAR should only look at the E-E type paperwork if there is a really strong reason to believe that the ship was professionally built. So in the end, after some $$ and paperwork, you go fly.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Sam Buchanan]

...the ship in question is likely unique...

I suspect the aircraft in question is a "two-place ultralight" that failed to make it into the S-LSA recert window. This might provide some manufacturer documentation but would also create problems if the manufacturer routinely sold "ready-to-fly" aircraft.

[WLIU]

If it is, then there definitely is precedent for converting to an N-numbered aircraft. Essell and Faulkner flew a Quicksilver II. The FAA said that they could not perform in waivered airspace (airshow airspace) with an ultralight, so they registered it and flew their act wearing a N-number. Essell still does the act with his daughter now that Faulkner has retired.

Now this was a while ago, but a DAR shoulf be able to get this done.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Sam Buchanan]

If it is, then there definitely is precedent for converting to an N-numbered aircraft. Essell and Faulkner flew a Quicksilver II. The FAA said that they could not perform in waivered airspace (airshow airspace) with an ultralight, so they registered it and flew their act wearing a N-number. Essell still does the act with his daughter now that Faulkner has retired.

Now this was a while ago, but a DAR shoulf be able to get this done.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

I'm not familiar with that situation, but the FAA has made it very clear that two-place ultralights that weren't amateur built and missed the recertification window are now lawn ornaments.

[Aviator22S]

I suspect the aircraft in question is a "two-place ultralight" that failed to make it into the S-LSA recert window. This might provide some manufacturer documentation but would also create problems if the manufacturer routinely sold "ready-to-fly" aircraft.

The airplane is only a single place airplane, called a Mini-Max. I don't believe that there are any of these that were ready-to-fly airplanes. As far as I know they are all built from plans as is the case with this one, unless someone else knows otherwise. Maybe that might help me in my quest for an N-number as that should make it rather easy to prove to a DAR that this one is plans-built. It was built in the builders garage. He taught himself to fly in it back in the days when it was an ultralight. It is still in very nice condition although there are some signs of wear.

Thanks for all of the feedback! It has all been helpful.

[FlyingRon]

You've lost me then. The rules have NOT changed then. The mini-max if built to spec is light enough and low powered enough to operate as ultralight.
What makes you think it no longer qualifies?

[Sam Buchanan]

The airplane is only a single place airplane, called a Mini-Max. I don't believe that there are any of these that were ready-to-fly airplanes. As far as I know they are all built from plans as is the case with this one, unless someone else knows otherwise. Maybe that might help me in my quest for an N-number as that should make it rather easy to prove to a DAR that this one is plans-built. It was built in the builders garage. He taught himself to fly in it back in the days when it was an ultralight. It is still in very nice condition although there are some signs of wear.

Thanks for all of the feedback! It has all been helpful.

Ahhhhh...if you had told us up front it is a MiniMax it would have saved a bunch of guesstimating. :)

I built a MiniMax twenty years ago (alas..it has since been removed from the land of the living....) and it is one of the most beloved little wood airplanes ever drawn to plans (or kitted). This is an aircraft that definitely falls within the 51% rule regardless of whether it was built from plans or a TEAM kit. It is very unlikely it was professionally built because the profit margin would have been too thin to make it worthwhile.

My MiniMax:

3817

There is only one version of the MiniMax that is Part 103 compliant, and I bet yours isn't. The Max 103 is a stripped down version with a single-cylinder 277 Rotax. Most Maxes were built with a twin 377 Rotax.

All you gotta do is get in touch with a DAR, tell him what you have, and let him send you a doc package to get the process started. The DAR will conduct one inspection and make sure all paperwork is in proper order.

All this info and links to most of the docs is available on the EAA site:

http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/registering/register.html

Here is technical support:

http://www.teammini-max.com/

Enjoy your great little airplane!

[FlyingRon]

Right, but nothing has changed. If it's not a legal part 103 bird today, it wasn't when it was built. Nobody's touched the regs. The only thing is the "training" exemption (which wasn't in the regs anyhow) went away and the LSA amnesty for non-compliant birds.

[Sam Buchanan]

Right, but nothing has changed. If it's not a legal part 103 bird today, it wasn't when it was built. Nobody's touched the regs.

I wasn't going there......... ;)

[Aviator22S]

Ahhhhh...if you had told us up front it is a MiniMax it would have saved a bunch of guesstimating. :)

I built a MiniMax twenty years ago (alas..it has since been removed from the land of the living....) and it is one of the most beloved little wood airplanes ever drawn to plans (or kitted). This is an aircraft that definitely falls within the 51% rule regardless of whether it was built from plans or a TEAM kit. It is very unlikely it was professionally built because the profit margin would have been too thin to make it worthwhile.

My MiniMax:

3817

There is only one version of the MiniMax that is Part 103 compliant, and I bet yours isn't. The Max 103 is a stripped down version with a single-cylinder 277 Rotax. Most Maxes were built with a twin 377 Rotax.

All you gotta do is get in touch with a DAR, tell him what you have, and let him send you a doc package to get the process started. The DAR will conduct one inspection and make sure all paperwork is in proper order.

All this info and links to most of the docs is available on the EAA site:

http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/registering/register.html

Here is technical support:

http://www.teammini-max.com/

Enjoy your great little airplane!

Thanks so much for the help Sam! I actually didn't know what kind of airplane it was at first so that's why I didn't say up front. I didn't realize it would make a whole lot of difference until I saw speculation that it might be a two place airplane. I had no idea that there ever was such a thing as a two place ultralight. As far as the rules having changed, I haven't been in aviation long enough to know what the 103 rules used to be so I'm simply going off of what I was told by other people. All I know is that it was legal without an N-number before and now I'm being told it isn't so it needs one.

By the way, that's a pretty airplane. Sorry to hear that it is no more.

[Sam Buchanan]

Thanks so much for the help Sam! I actually didn't know what kind of airplane it was at first so that's why I didn't say up front. I didn't realize it would make a whole lot of difference until I saw speculation that it might be a two place airplane. I had no idea that there ever was such a thing as a two place ultralight. As far as the rules having changed, I haven't been in aviation long enough to know what the 103 rules used to be so I'm simply going off of what I was told by other people. All I know is that it was legal without an N-number before and now I'm being told it isn't so it needs one.

By the way, that's a pretty airplane. Sorry to hear that it is no more.

I know it is confusing when you don't have extensive background on the regs and folks around you give you conflicting info. In this case, someone is giving you incorrect information. As Ron stated earlier, Part 103 rules haven't changed in regard to how a single-place aircraft is in compliance. I see you dealing with one of the following scenarios:

1) The MiniMax has always been overweight for 103 but it was flown without registration by its former owner(s). This happens a lot. :)

2) The Minimax is compliant with 103 and can continue to be flown as an ultralight. This would require the Max to be the Max-103 model of which relatively few were built because they are so lightly and sparsely built/equipped (no seat padding, no brakes, single-cylinder engine, lighter tail, etc, etc). In this case no paperwork needs to be generated. You might consider membership in USUA so you can obtain liability insurance if based on a general aviation airport.

3)The Max never was compliant and those around you recognize this and are encouraging you to register the aircraft as E-AB (experimental, amateur-built).

If you have one of the rare Max-103 aircraft, there is no need for you to register it unless you just want the privileges that go with an experimental certificate. If the Max is a bit heavy (likely) you can continue to fly it as it was previously (depends on your sense of propriety), or seek an experimental airworthiness certificate. I don't think you will hit any insurmountable obstacles if you pursue the certificate.

Hope all this hasn't been too confusing. See if you can find someone who really knows the experimental/ultralight universe and find out what you have and your options. As a general rule, those with only experience with certified spam cans or no UL background won't have a clue as to how to approach your plane. And once you find that competent person, have them give your plane an exhaustive pre-flight inspection.

[1600vw]

I owned a Hi-Max that never was registered by the builder, I then sold it. I sold this Hi-Max to an A&P IA. He told me he would have it N-Numbered so he contacted the FAA. The FAA wanted the Airplane, the builder the FAA inspector or whoever the FAA sends and the current owner all at one place or under the same roof all at the same time.
I am not sure he ever did this. Hard to get everyone at one place when the builder lives across the country. But this is what the FAA told him needed to be done in order to N-Number this non-registered Experimental.

Tony

[Sam Buchanan]

I owned a Hi-Max that never was registered by the builder, I then sold it. I sold this Hi-Max to an A&P IA. He told me he would have it N-Numbered so he contacted the FAA. The FAA wanted the Airplane, the builder the FAA inspector or whoever the FAA sends and the current owner all at one place or under the same roof all at the same time.
I am not sure he ever did this. Hard to get everyone at one place when the builder lives across the country. But this is what the FAA told him needed to be done in order to N-Number this non-registered Experimental.

Tony

We have to keep in mind that there often is no monolithic "FAA". There can be considerable variation in procedures from one FSDO to another. They all should be working from the same federal orders...but we often see various interpretations. Some FSDOs are very territorial, others will allow DARs from neighboring FSDOs into their territory with prior arrangement.

Tech counselors often advise builders to "shop" their DAR in order to find those who are most friendly to the task at hand. Unfortunately this sometimes doesn't happen and the builder ends up having to deal with challenges he never anticipated.

Take this for whatever it is worth.....things are not always as cut-n-dried as we think they are.

[1600vw]

We have to keep in mind that there often is no monolithic "FAA". There can be considerable variation in procedures from one FSDO to another. They all should be working from the same federal orders...but we often see various interpretations. Some FSDOs are very territorial, others will allow DARs from neighboring FSDOs into their territory with prior arrangement.

Tech counselors often advise builders to "shop" their DAR in order to find those who are most friendly to the task at hand. Unfortunately this sometimes doesn't happen and the builder ends up having to deal with challenges he never anticipated.

Take this for whatever it is worth.....things are not always as cut-n-dried as we think they are.

Just imagine if we ran the DMV this way.

Tony

[WLIU]

I will second what Sam said. Every FAA office is a different FAA. Shop around. In my neck of the woods we even see folks look at the "service area" for the local FSDO's and find a way to locate their work in the area of the FSDO that is most accommodating to what they are doing. So ask around the EAA chapters in your area for advice on other builder's experiences.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS