Question about the M22 and experimental.

[Schllc]

I know this question has been asked about the more common certified airframes, but would converting something like the M22which only has 14 models registered in the world be possible?

It would be interesting to see that with a turbine on the nose. 

[Shadrach]

33 minutes ago, Schllc said:

I know this question has been asked about the more common certified airframes, but would converting something like the M22which only has 14 models registered in the world be possible?

It would be interesting to see that with a turbine on the nose. 

I’m not saying it’s impossible, but highly unlikely to get an approval to move to a new category. And if you were able to it would likely be for flight testing purposes only so no passengers or travel.

[Schllc]

You mean it would go to a limited category vs experimental?

[Vance Harral]

14 hours ago, Schllc said:

You mean it would go to a limited category vs experimental?

This question suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the experimental category.

Aircraft do not receive airworthiness certificates that just say "experimental".  Experimental airworthiness certificates also define a "purpose" for the experimental certificate.  The list of valid purposes are defined in 21.191, and the restrictions associated with those purposes branch out from 91.319.  The most common experimental purpose is "amateur built".  The Mooney examples posted above are "research & development".  I'm sure it's theoretically possible to get the FAA to issue an experimental airworthiness certificate for an M22, but the owner would have to decide what purpose to pursue.

An M22 turbine conversion would involve such extensive work that it would probably meet the requirements for experimental/amateur-built, in which case after passing an inspection and flying 25-40 hours of solo flight test in a designated "non populated" area, you could fly the airplane in day VFR conditions.  Lots of kit planes are "specifically authorized by the Administrator" to operate under night/IFR as well, but that's not automatic for a one-off like you're proposing.  Building a pressurized turbine airplane that likely can only be operated day VFR seems silly to me, but... like... that's just my opinion, man.

The experimental/research-and-development Mooneys referenced above are theoretically restricted to only flight activities specifically associated with a specific R&D project.  I'm as curious as the next Mooniac what's being researched and developed, but you'd have to ask the owner.  I'm sure people try to play games with this on occasion, like saying that a flight to visit Grandma is "testing cruise characteristics and range", and that the spouse and kids are "required flight test crew".  I've never participated in the process, so I don't know how strictly it's enforced.

But in general, as was said in another thread, the purpose of Experimental airworthiness certificates is not to provide an avenue for aviators who don't like the rules for certified aircraft to work around them.  So while it might be fun to daydream about M22 vanity project, it's really not a serious discussion.  If the goal is to have a pressurized airplane that's not subject to standard airworthiness limitations, there are a plethora of better ways to achieve that than hacking up a 60-year old, limited production, certified airframe.

[Schllc]

7 minutes ago, Vance Harral said:

This question suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the experimental category.

Guilty as charged. 
I do however realize it is not an elective when you register a plane, you can’t just decide to go experimental. 
More specifically, would it be possible to disassemble and modify to a point it would qualify?

[wombat]

I'll assume that for the purposes of this conversation, you want an airplane that is 'experimental' like all of those cool Van's RVs flying around. Then you can just go fly it whenever and wherever you want and modify it with parts from the Aviation isle at Home Depot.   That means experimental amateur-built.  While there are some limitations on what you can do with it, all of the other experimental varieties have a lot more restrictions.

And the rule is that the builder must have built 51% or more of the aircraft.   As of 2020, according to Ron Wanttaja (another member of my local EAA Chapter, that I've been participating in for about 10 years now) the FAA's stance on the use of certified aircraft assemblies has varied over the years, and they are currently doing this by task.   Read a little more here: https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/certificated-parts-on-amateur-built-question.127940/

Also, read more here: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_20-27G.pdf 

 

Could you put a turbine on an M22 and fly it under experimental R&D?  Sure.   But you can't take your family.

Could you put a turbine on an M22 and fly it under experimental AB?  Nope.   

Could you take apart an M22, and use some portion (less than 50%!!!) to create your own experimental amateur built aircraft that has a turbine?  Sure.  It's a LOT of work.   Good luck, have fun!   I'd love to read about it.

[Schllc]

On 12/28/2023 at 1:58 PM, wombat said:

Good luck, have fun!   I'd love to read about it.

It is not economical, it is not logical, but little of GA is….  
it would be a labor of love, and a project to tinker. 
I was just wondering if it is actually possible. 
I don’t understand the mission of the FAA. If you would view the things they do in a literal perspective, one would think they would like to eliminate piston GA completely. 
It would seem that it is an indirect objective, because they know that there would be a revolt if they announced this mission. 
but if the mission was to preserve the genre, they would look for ways to support the aging fleet. 
I understand the morass that would result in a 172 being converted to experimental, but we are discussing a real orphan, that will eventually be grounded forever without some alternative path to keeping them flying. 
I realize this is an esoteric and far fetched fantasy…

a guy can dream right?  
if there was a clear path for a legitimate alteration to this airframe I would buy it tonite. 

[wombat]

My personal opinion is that the FAA's real purpose is...   To keep the innocent, unsuspecting public safe.   And with that in mind, they've done a great job.

We had a 10 year stretch with 0 airline fatalities.   Amazing.  

Do they want to get rid of GA?   Well, probably.  Unfortunately, all of the pilots of these airlines happen to be...  Umm.. Pilots.  And they all learned in GA aircraft.    We keep training them in GA aircraft, then the senior pilots all want to keep having the new pilots trained in GA aircraft too.      It's a vicious cycle.

I think we *could* do all airline training in simulators and classrooms and eliminate GA entirely. Airline operation is 99.999% systems management and procedure following.   No need to learn how to run a piston engine in order to run an Airbus.   It would make things easier for administrators and ATC, and cheaper and safer for the public.   Get rid of all these little airports all over the place.     Get rid of all of these complaints about little planes buzzing people's neighborhoods.  Get rid of those 66+ year old crazies that are out there in their bugsmashers and are too old and incompetent to hear "Turn to heading 080" and are tying up the airspace while they lumber around the sky.  Get rid of all of these 'airplane accidents' that make people drink before getting on their airline flight because they are so scared.  Get rid of all of the planes falling out of the sky onto people's houses. Get rid of anything that isn't fully approved by the FAA first with a multi-million dollar budget.  But all those pesky pilots that think you need to learn how to fly a little airplane first....  Ugh.

[Ron McBride]

Ask Don Maxwell what is the registration on the the predator?