Nuts to Certified

Rick6a · #1 10-19-2006, 07:49 AM

The current classified ad describing a plan to part out a Bonanza prompts me to write this. Several days ago, a local pilot forgot to lower the landing gear on his recently purchased Bonanza.

A salvage hoist was called in. While waiting, I counted 21 slash marks on the runway centerline.

Many hours later, we had that Bonanza back up on its wheels.

After the FAA and almost everybody else left, I quietly helped the owner wheel the bruised Bonanza back into his hangar. The prop is trash and the engine will have to be disassembled, that's obvious. I inspected the lower skins closely and surprisingly, little obvious damage exists other than the belly mounted antennas and nose gear doors, but therein lies the rub. Upon superficial visual inspection, the Bonanza was ultimately declared a total loss. A big reason why the Bonanza was deemed totalled are those nose landing gear doors. The doors are not complicated in assembly and any experienced RV4 builder could cob together an acceptable replacement in less than a day of basic sheetmetal work. Nevertheless, the owner was told those doors cost $4000 each. Thats $8000 for maybe $50-$200 in materials cost. Throw in the labor to remove and replace those itty bitty "BEECHCRAFT" doors and you could buy a couple of standard RV subkits! Upon learning that news, another local Bonanza owner thought it prudent to increase his insurance coverage.
Bottom line for me is this..... experimental aircraft are the pointing the way towards sanity and affordability in the world of general aviation. The world of certificated airplanes has gradually morphed into a grotesque caracature of excess and lawsuits and greed. RV's rule!

RV6_flyer · #2 10-19-2006, 07:58 AM

I did the prebuy on an RV-6A that replaced a C-182 that had carb ice and was wrecked. The insurance totaled it also. The lower cowl was $22,000 from Cessna. That was JUST the LOWER Cowl. Any RV builder could make the cowl but since it is Cessna, the price is SKY HIGH.

Gary

pierre smith · #3 10-19-2006, 07:59 AM

Rick,
I couldn't have said it better! $4000 per door= $3000 for product liability, $50.00 for the aluminum and the rest for labor.

I sold Cessna Agwagons and 'Trucks in the seventies for a dealer and a Cessna rep told me that EACH airplane's product liability was $30,000 for that $100,000 airplane!!

Brantel · #4 10-19-2006, 08:02 AM

I may be a dummy for asking this, but can a "Certified" airplane be re-registered as an "Experimental"?

cjensen · #5 10-19-2006, 08:05 AM

Only if it's being used to test a possible new STC installation, or something along those lines. When the testing is done, it is returned to certified status IIRC.

pierre smith · #6 10-19-2006, 08:05 AM

Brian,
There's a guy in Texas who owns a turbine repair facility near Corpus and he installed a PT-6 in the front of a Cessna push-pull. It is now experimental and the rear engine compartment is a luggage area.

Mel · #7 10-19-2006, 08:11 AM

A certified aircraft CAN be certified as Experimental. But it is not practicle. What category would you put it in? It doesn't qualify as amateur-built. You CERTAINLY don't want it in Exibition. R&D requires periodic recertification. And if you EVER wanted it back in Standard category, you would have to prove that it meets it's type certificate. Not a cheap or easy task.

mlw450802 · #8 10-19-2006, 08:28 AM

I read an article a few years back where some guy had a crunched 182 (I think - fuzzy memory) that required way more effort than the 51% rule. He was able to reconstruct the thing and was allowed to have it placed in the experimental category. It was essentially a stock 182 that he built largely from scratch.

-mike

jcaplins · #9 10-19-2006, 08:38 AM

what about "owner manufactured parts"?

forgive my lack of providing proof that my statements are true.... but I am under the impression that an owner can manufacture parts themselves as long as they are not redesigned, and the work is inspected by an A&P.

Perhaps a more enligtened individual can shed some light on this matter. I'm sure I saw an article on this in AOPA magazine.

Jeff

Dgamble · #10 10-19-2006, 09:09 AM

This just came up in A&P class last night. The instructor was talking about instruments and how they are located in the panel. At the point he was talking about clocks and their normal proximity to other instruments used in partial panel, he pointed to a Mooney panel and how the clock was in the yoke. He expressed that he didn't know why they had made that design decision.

I offered that the reason was obvious: so they could charge $1000 for a $10 clock. I doubt if I'm very far from the mark.