[RViter]

What is the process that occurs to 'convert' a used Lycoming O-360 from certificated to experimental? (assuming that is the right question)

If one buys a mid-time or run-out certificated engine and wants to go the DIY rebuild (with all the parts shipped out for inspections, etc). Does that 'become' an experimental engine from that point on?

If one buys the certificated engine from Vans but hangs it on an experimental, then it remains certificated and requires A&P for future work? But what if one buys the experimental engine? Or, builds an ECI up?

Re-read FAR 43-10 and 43-1, but don't know where else to research. Maybe just point me in a direction to FAA guidelines?

Probably answered a gazillion times in the FAQ?
THANKS

RV-6A (ordering Fin Kit)
Wings, Fuse, Emp (QB)
Lyc O-360-A3A [awaiting teardown]

 

[wilddog]

If you put a certificated engine in an expermental airplane, the engine then becomes an expermental engine and cannot legally be returned to a certificated engine by any method I know of.

 

[turbo]

not true.

If you put a certificated engine in an expermental airplane, the engine then becomes an expermental engine and cannot legally be returned to a certificated engine by any method I know of.

as long as it gets signed off by an faa inspector it stays certified.

 

[pierre smith]

Hi RV

We rebuilt our Lyc. 0-360 that had come out of a Comanche that was flipped.

Since I'm not an A@P, I couldn't sign it off. We simply removed the data plate and renamed it a Smith-Morgan 0-360...perfectly legal.

Regards,

 

[N941WR]

In my case the FAA asked me to leave the data plate on the engine so they could trace its history, should something happen down the road.

This was after I had my hands on the inside of it, replaced the accessory case, changed an idler gear, and some other things so it would work in an RV.

In fact, I'm still using the log book from 1955.

 

[David Clifford]

I made an entry in the engine log book on the IO-540 V4A5 that the engine was removed from __________ by ___________ and is now in the experimental category. I documented the "overhaul" and kept all the yellow tags for the parts sent out for the required propstrike inspection along with the receipts for the required new parts. I had a new data plate made that clearly identifies the engine as "EXPERIMENTAL" with a new serial number (001), new mfg (me), and engine data. That replaced the original plate which I saved with my yellow tags and receipts. I plan to continue recording in the original log book.

 

[RViter]

I see a trend -

Thanks guys - sounding interesting.

Using FAR 43.1 (c)(3) and combining that with guidance from the requirements for disposition in FAR 43.10, it would seem that y'all are going by the concept that once removed from certificated status, you became the manufacturer and the engine was a bunch of parts which could be used in an experimental engine you then "created" from those parts.

The disposition section 43.10 - covers documentation to control the parts and they are no longer used in a certificated environment. The on-going A&P requirement to certify work performance and readiness to return to service falls on the 'manufacturer' during build -and later, presumably under the 'repairman cert' - while personally owned and operated. Upon disposition to a third-party, that owner must again have an A&P certify and perform authorized work, but it is still an experimental engine.

Is that close? Sure seems that EAA would have guidance derived from FAA regs that would provide the newbie as well as the 'repeat offender' in this area.

Appreciate the comments and it is soundlng 'reasonable' so I hope I don't sound unloyal to say that I'll continue research along those lines and post what I find.

Owner of a certificate O-360-A3A and future owner of an IO-360-A3A experimental engine ... manufactured by me.

 

[Radomir]

I'm trying to figure out what you're asking here If you end up with an "experimental" engine, then there are no requirements to have an A&P sign anything at any point in time.. You can do whatever you want to that engine at that point.. and there are no third-party sign-offs required.

There are no "conversions" from certified to experimental... that happens automatically once you (not an A&P) start messing with it No signoffs required for that...

The disposition section 43.10 - covers documentation to control the parts and they are no longer used in a certificated environment. The on-going A&P requirement to certify work performance and readiness to return to service falls on the 'manufacturer' during build -and later, presumably under the 'repairman cert' - while personally owned and operated. Upon disposition to a third-party, that owner must again have an A&P certify and perform authorized work, but it is still an experimental engine.

 

[RViter]

Struggling for the words ...

Sometimes my words get in the way of a conversation ... sorry if I'm confused, just looking for enlightment.

I'm using the term 'conversion' more in the sense that it is 'no longer certificated' - as you describe, once I start "messing with it." Not a formal ceremony or stamp of approval process, just that it 'became experimental'.

Seems that it's more of a declaration of independence, as stated by some, and the person making that declaration becomes the 'experimental engine manufacturer' - regardless of the data plate retention. That is the disposition phase - described in FAR 43.10. "Tag & Bag" for lack of a term, the certification is dead. Freedom to work on and maintain. But still maintain documentation along the way, for the record.

But if you sell that a/c with that engine to the next owner, he is not acquiring a 'repairman' status for continued maintenance, right? And, therefore, needs an A&P to sign-off airworthiness on work, right? (That's the third-party I mentioned.) And, since he's not the manufacturer, does he simply 'mess with it' and go on? Was not my understanding ...

Whether it can ever become 'certificated' again is beyond my pay-grade, but even as an experimental somebody has to maintain it. My focus is practical, the "here and now" phase. For my post-strike acquisition, I plan to evaluate, tear-down, document, ship/inspect/repair the parts, and rebuild/assemble under supervision and with help.

Wanting to stay on the good side of the freedom deal.

 

[RVbySDI]

experimental repair work

Anyone regardless of whether they built the airplane (or engine) can work on (read repair) an experimental engine on an experimental aircraft. He/she does not have to have any written or oral permission to do so. The regulations allow for anyone to work on an experimental aircraft.

The work being done is not the questionable issue in the eyes of the FAA. No, the real issue to the FAA is who can or cannot sign off on any inspections on an experimental aircraft. The FAA requires that only those who hold a "REPAIRMAN CERTIFICATE" for that aircraft or an A&P/IA be allowed to sign the aircraft off as airworthy.

It is a subtle difference but a very important one.

 

[Mel]

The FAA requires that only those who hold a "REPAIRMAN CERTIFICATE" for that aircraft or an A&P/IA be allowed to sign the aircraft off as airworthy.

It is a subtle difference but a very important one.

IA is not required at any time for experimental aircraft. The regs call out "...an appropriately rated mechanic may perform the condition inspection...". No "inspection authorization" is required.

 

[RViter]

Thanks - starting to get it

Anyone regardless of whether they built the airplane (or engine) can work on (read repair) an experimental engine on an experimental aircraft. He/she does not have to have any written or oral permission to do so. The regulations allow for anyone to work on an experimental aircraft.

The work being done is not the questionable issue in the eyes of the FAA. No, the real issue to the FAA is who can or cannot sign off on any inspections on an experimental aircraft. The FAA requires that only those who hold a "REPAIRMAN CERTIFICATE" for that aircraft or an A&P/IA be allowed to sign the aircraft off as airworthy.

It is a subtle difference but a very important one.

So if Susie builds an experimental (A/C and Engine), and sells it to Fred, he or anyone else, can 'work on the engine' but since he didn't build it (and doesn't have a Repairman Cert), an "...an appropriately rated mechanic" (Mel) would have to 'sign-off' airworthiness for it to fly? An airworthiness is a pre-requisite for a Private Pilot to fly an A/C, right?

 

[Mel]

In a word....NO.

So if Susie builds an experimental (A/C and Engine), and sells it to Fred, he or anyone else, can 'work on the engine' but since he didn't build it (and doesn't have a Repairman Cert), an "...an appropriately rated mechanic" (RVbySDI) would have to 'sign-off' airworthiness for it to fly? An airworthiness is a pre-requisite for a Private Pilot to fly an A/C, right?

First, let's back up a little on terminology. The definition of airworthy is "It meets it's type certificate." An amateur-built aircraft does not have a type certificate and therefore can never be airworthy. An amateur-built must be "in a condition for safe operation."
Anyone may perform maintenance, repairs, and even modifications to an amateur-built aircraft. Only a certificated mechanic or the holder of the repairman certificate for that aircraft may perform the "condition inspection."

 

[N941WR]

Mel,

If the holder of a repairman's certificate (ie. the BUILDER) makes some changes to his aircraft after he has completed phase I testing but doesn't enter those changes into the log book but performs the condition inspection and signs off on it, is the plane legal to fly?

This assumes the changes do not require it to go back into Phase I. Say something like installing a new instrument or an auto pilot.

 

[RViter]

Words do have meaning -

First, let's back up a little on terminology. The definition of airworthy is "It meets it's type certificate." An amateur-built aircraft does not have a type certificate and therefore can never be airworthy. An amateur-built must be "in a condition for safe operation."
Anyone may perform maintenance, repairs, and even modifications to an amateur-built aircraft. Only a certificated mechanic or the holder of the repairman certificate for that aircraft may perform the "condition inspection."

Precision in words, Thanks Mel. The thread has been about the experimental engine, and it's starting to be more generalized. But, I think y'all have adequately addressed my original question. I will do more learning but have guidance now to progress further in this new arena.

Thanks to all -

 

[Mel]

Mel,

If the holder of a repairman's certificate (ie. the BUILDER) makes some changes to his aircraft after he has completed phase I testing but doesn't enter those changes into the log book but performs the condition inspection and signs off on it, is the plane legal to fly?

This assumes the changes do not require it to go back into Phase I. Say something like installing a new instrument or an auto pilot.

Just like on a "standard certificated" aircraft when the inspector signs off the condition inspection, he is accepting any changes that have been made. If they have not been properly recorded and he does not note them, he may be held liable for any issues that come up regarding the changes.

 

[RVbySDI]

IA is not required at any time for experimental aircraft. The regs call out "...an appropriately rated mechanic may perform the condition inspection...". No "inspection authorization" is required.

Thanks Mel for that correction. My error in mentioning an IA. I was more specifically trying to point out that anyone at all can work on the experimental aircraft but only specific individuals have the right to sign it off as "In a condition for safe operation".

What Mel says will hold more weight on this subject than anything I may ever add.

 

[Mel]

I knew U knew!

Thanks Mel for that correction. My error in mentioning an IA. I was more specifically trying to point out that anyone at all can work on the experimental aircraft but only specific individuals have the right to sign it off as "In a condition for safe operation".

Steve,
I know that you know, I was just trying to keep others from misunderstanding.

 

[jnorris]

as long as it gets signed off by an faa inspector it stays certified.

Nagative. Once the engine is installed on an airframe that is issued an experimental airworthiness certificate it is an experimental engine regardless of who does or doe not work on it or sign it off. The experimental airworthiness certificate applies to the entire aircraft, including engine, propeller and all installed equipment and accessories. And since the regulations allow the possibility of non-certificated individuals performing maintenance on the aircraft (including the engine) and there is no way to verify whether or not said non-certificated individuals have or have not worked on the aircraft (including the engine), the engine cannot be considered to be "certificated" even if an A&P signs off all logged engine maintenance. This is true regardless of whether the engine still bears its original data plate or not. It is an experimental engine.

As for returning the engine to "certificated" status, it would be possible so long as it can be verified that the engine does indeed meet its type certificate (inlcuding any STCs or ADs that apply). This can really only be done by overhaul of the engine by a certified shop or individual with careful documentation of all installed parts and components.

Joe