Experimental Mooney

[HRM]

I've been browsing the salvage sites, Ebay, etc. and have also noticed quite a few C's and E's being parted out here on MooneySpace.

 

So let's say you gathered up all the parts needed for a Mooney, let's say an E, and assembled them into Franken-E.

Would Franken-E be eligible for registration as an experimental? 

 

I am assuming that you could prove that you met the 51% rule, which given the number of "Fast Build" kits for very sophisticated homebuilts I am allowing that you could.

 

[WardHolbrook]

Yes, you can move a certified airplane into an experimental category - it's something that's done every day. However, it's typically only done for short periods. For example, a few years back, we needed to get an RVSM STC approved for the bizjet I was flying at the time. This required moving our airplane into the experimental category for a day while we went flying with some flight test engineers. I think what you're thinking about is the Experimental - Amateur Built category. Obviously, that's not an option because your airplane wasn't built by amateurs. That leaves the Experimental - Exhibition category and you likely wouldn't be very happy with all of the restrictions and limitations associated with that one.

[N601RX]

I know of one local plane that started out as a couple of certified planes and is now registered as an amateur built experimental.  The wings came from one brand and were shortened, the fuselage was something else and was extended.  The engine was a Ford V6 with a radiator mounted in the rear.  If I remember correctly it won alternate power a few years ago at SERFI. He was able to convince the DAR that although it contained parts from certified planes he built 51% of it.  It is now a Hacoda Hornet!

[WardHolbrook]

I know of one local plane that started out as a couple of certified planes and is now registered as an amateur built experimental.  The wings came from one brand and were shortened, the fuselage was something else and was extended.  The engine was a Ford V6 with a radiator mounted in the rear.  If I remember correctly it won alternate power a few years ago at SERFI. He was able to convince the DAR that although it contained parts from certified planes he built 51% of it.  It is now a Hacoda Hornet!

 

I've seen those types as well. The Volmer VJ-22 amphibian comes readily to mind - it uses the wings and tail off of an Aeronca Champ. I've also seen guys using Super Cubs and Tri-Pacers as starting points for their homebuilts, but by the time they finished building, modifying, tweeking, lengthening, shortening, stretching, pulling and tugging it ended up as something altogether different. If I read it right, HRM was talking about doing something different - building up a short-bodied Mooney using Mooney components, parts, bits and pieces scavenged from various sources and assembled into a flyable "Frankenmooney". I think any way you sliced that, the FAA would look at that project as something that was assembled by someone, rather than an amateur built aircraft. Again, I'm not saying it couldn't be done, it's just that what he ended up with wouldn't fit into the Experimental - Amateur Built category. Putting it into any of the other experimental categories entails a lot of limitations and restrictions that would probably make it totally unsuitable for the casual week-end hobby pilot.

[carusoam]

Franken E will probably be known for it's S/N on it's tail...

It's logs will be filled with all the important details to support all AW requirements to pass an annual inspection by your mechanic.

Sounds more expensive than buying a complete plane and overhauling it.

Best regards,

-a-

[aviatoreb]

I'm not sure how it works but I have read of cases where certified airplanes airplanes are so drastically that they have been dubbed experimental homebuilt as they passed the magic 51% rule.

 

For example this aerostar now for sale 

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/aircraft/Multi+Engine+Piston/2009/Aerostar/602P/1742426.html

was featured about two years ago in AOPA - it is an aerostar twin that was drastically modified to hang a twin on the nose instead of two pistons on the wings.

 

I have also read about some war bird restoration that was so complete (some jet from the 1950s) that was dubbed experimental homebuilt since the strip and rebuild was called more than 51%.

I even read of a drastically modified 182 under this concept that sports a corvette v8.  A corvette v8 would be fun in an M20J.

[aaronk25]

I'm not sure how it works but I have read of cases where certified airplanes airplanes are so drastically that they have been dubbed experimental homebuilt as they passed the magic 51% rule.

For example this aerostar now for sale

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/aircraft/Multi+Engine+Piston/2009/Aerostar/602P/1742426.html

was featured about two years ago in AOPA - it is an aerostar twin that was drastically modified to hang a twin on the nose instead of two pistons on the wings.

I have also read about some war bird restoration that was so complete (some jet from the 1950s) that was dubbed experimental homebuilt since the strip and rebuild was called more than 51%.

I even read of a drastically modified 182 under this concept that sports a corvette v8. A corvette v8 would be fun in an M20J.

A corvette V8 in a J.....flipping cool that baby would smoke!

[carusoam]

I'm a big fan of the GM V8... L98 and LT1 experience...

The aviation gear boxes have been too challenging for that application...

Lots of torque blended with a too light construction gearbox.

Leads to catastrophic failure as large parts have a tendency to separate from the AC.

-a-

[HRM]

Sounds more expensive than buying a complete plane and overhauling it.

 

 

I agree, this was just theoretical musing. You should see the responses on the MAPAlist, positively outraged.

 

Anyway, my thinking was this:

 

If someone (good lord not me) went around and took parts of a Mooney (E for the sake of discussion) and assembled them for the first time as a single aircraft, IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS A HOMEBUILDER PUTS TOGETHER A KIT, would that not qualify as an "Experimental"?

 

Apparently, the loophole existed at one time and now it is closed.

 

My reasoning was "What was to keep someone from pulling the cert plate off his aircraft and claiming that he built it from parts?"

 

Again, it appears that the FAA has closed this loophole by restricting the use of certified parts...but then that opens a different dilemma for the homebuilder.

[N601RX]

Unless the rules have changed again recently they don't restrict the use of certified parts. Up until early 2000's you were just required to oversee the building of any 51% of it. Now they require the 51% to be troken down in severa subcategories.

The trick is finding a DAR who will sign the Paperwork. Most have higher standards than a few.

[kerry]

I'm a big fan of the GM V8... L98 and LT1 experience...

The aviation gear boxes have been too challenging for that application...

Lots of torque blended with a too light construction gearbox.

Leads to catastrophic failure as large parts have a tendency to separate from the AC.

-a-

I know of a Lancair where this happened.  Propeller spun right off on take off.  He got rid of the V8 and replaced it with a turboprop.

[aviatoreb]

I know of a Lancair where this happened.  Propeller spun right off on take off.  He got rid of the V8 and replaced it with a turboprop.

 

Yeah - I didn't say I wanted a corvette V8 engine on an airplane - I was just reporting that I saw a website about a C182 that had one as an example of how people have converted a certified airplane to homebuilt experimental category.

 

If I were ever to build an experimental - and I won't ever - I would use an aviation engine of some kind.

[jetdriven]

The sole Ravin I know of had a LS1 V8 engine. Sadly, it was lost in a  crash just after they reported smoke in the cockpit.  This report is interesting. The owner said the LS1 is extremely sensitive to cooling and at 4,000 RPM will reach 230 degrees in a matter of seconds. ..

 

Anyways, perhaps understressed and dumb is better.

 

from the report: "The airplane’s owner stated that in the month leading up to the accident, four of the five flights he’d made had issues where the engine heated up due to improper ventilation. In each case, the owner landed the airplane before the cooling water reached a temperature of 210 degrees F. The owner stated that the LS series engines are very sensitive and at 4,000 rpm, the temperature will climb to 230 degrees F in a matter of seconds if the cooling is not adequate. If the temperature exceeds 230 degrees F, the engine will go into a safe mode and the rpm will be controlled by the engine control unit (ECU). The factory setting for the ECU is around 1,000 rpms. The owner described the airplane as essentially a glider at that power setting. The owner said having experienced this in 2009 he had the pilot’s company set the ECU safe mode to 3,000 rpms. The owner said that flying the airplane in the safe mode was not something he recommended, but the airplane would stay in the air and have enough power to make a safe landing."

 

http://www.thekathrynreport.com/2011/05/ravin-500-n913ra-2-people-killed-in.html

[WardHolbrook]

It sounds like the reason why we still have to deal with our 1930's engine technology is because it still works and works pretty well.  

[1964-M20E]

To the best of my knowledge you cannot take a box of parts from salvaged certified airplanes of the same make and model and put them together to build a new experimental airplane it would be a certified plane.  

 

Now if you were to say take the wing, roll cage and landing gear and then build a new fuselage around that structure then you could get an experimental registrations for that. There was one listed on EBAY a while back and I have thought of this but do I want to take the time to design and build a fuselage.

 

I just wish I could slap EXPERIMENTAL on the side of my current plane and re-register it with the FAA and then fall under all the same rules as if I had bought an RV6 that someone else had built.  

[HRM]

If I were ever to build an experimental - and I won't ever - I would use an aviation engine of some kind.

 

I thought a Mooney Rocket was an Experimental 

[aviatoreb]

I thought a Mooney Rocket was an Experimental 

 

Nope - the Mooney Rocket was built by much better craftsman than me, and engineered by much better engineers than me, and test flown by much better test pilots than me.  Its certified!

[BobAustin]

To clarify...

 

My Missile (serial # 5) when converted by Rocket Engineering was Experimental with a large sign in the window.  The reason was that Darwin Conrad had not yet gotten final certification from the FAA.  A couple of months later it was received and I simply took down the sign.

 

 Rocket has a great relationship with the FAA and had no problem with my Mooney Missile.

[carusoam]

Bob,

What was your Plan B in the event that the paperwork took too long to complete?

Put it all back the way it started following a clearly documented business agreement?

The Rocket Engineering group today is as well known as Mooney is.

There was another "group" of Mooney modifiers in Florida that looked similar on the surface, but had an integrity challenge at times.

How were you able to proceed with the required confidence?

Nerves of steel? Or just a Handshake with Mr. Conrad?

Best regards,

-a-

[ryoder]

I'm a big fan of the GM V8... L98 and LT1 experience...

The aviation gear boxes have been too challenging for that application...

Lots of torque blended with a too light construction gearbox.

Leads to catastrophic failure as large parts have a tendency to separate from the AC.

-a-

Quiet aviation.com had a LS2 experimental Cessna 172 but it didn't seem to go anywhere. I like the GM V8 powerplants also having driven multiple examples since the 80s. I only drive Chevy.

[DaV8or]

Buying up a bunch of Es and Cs and then building one flyable airplane is just a restoration project, not an experimental. It is still certified. Paul at LASAR has done this several times recently. When work is slow, he has his guys assemble planes from all the parts he has acquired over the years. When they're done, they are certified Mooneys with lots of 337s. Here is a picture of two of the most recent projects. One is a completed E that has since been painted a basic white and is for sale and the other is a J that is coming along. I rode in the E plane and it flew straight and true. Both planes are built from bits and pieces of other planes. There is zero profit in this. In fact Paul looses money on each one. However, if he can afford the loss, he does it to keep his guys busy and money in their pocket. Paul Lowen is just like that.