I would like a plane...

[Andrew G]

I am (soon to be re-certified) a private pilot with a "passed" medical. Not seeking LSA status.

Want a Series 7 with a Rotax 912S. Mission: 1) Fun with my 2 boys (wife likes tea and a pillow when flying... she has no interest sadly, but glad I am interested in something other than work), 2) Take a 500 mile trip once in a while and an occasional Oshkosh, 3) commute to northern Vermont during the weekends in the summer months (250 mile trip each way)...

Challenge: I have the energy for family and business, but I can't spend 1,500 hours building a plane. I built a boat and I am so type-A that I would spend all night sessions and ignored everything else and that project darned near killed me (700 hours)... Building a plane is not something I can put aside for a season or a year, I'd be thinking about the project day and night... Excellent fit and finish are important to me, no such thing as "good-nuff".

So, instead of buying an LSA craft and living with 1,320 lbs limitations and no (occasional) night flying, I guess I have to "build" one to achieve 1,550 lbs gross-- which is hugely important to me... but what does "build" mean specifically? That's my question please...

1) Do I have to solely build it (i.e. I actually, by myself, perform more than 51% of the $ value? the project time?)? Or, can I hire folks to build most of it and therefore I would be "contracting" it? Preserving the ability to perform future maintenance myself is not a big issue for me. I'd like to perform the maintenance for cost savings and flexibility, but it's not a deal-breaker.

2) The LSA / non-LSA rules are extremely confusing... I have researched the subject and I read about FAA build approvals providing experimental privileges, but "but cannot fly at night"... I'm stuck on the facts.

Finally, when I pull the trigger, as many of you folks have, it'll probably be after I find a house and figure out how to finance it... we are moving soon.

Thank you all fellow T'Kitfoxers for any advice for a guy with a severe case of "plane on the brain..."

[Wiley]

To answer part of your question, as I understand the rules, if you don't do enough work to qualify as the builder the plane would still be Experimental, Amateur Built, you just wouldn't qualify to get a repairman's certificate for your aircraft. There are builder's assist people out there who could speed the time from start of build to first flight, including a jumpstart program offered by the folks at Kitfox. Check with John McBean to see what that entails. You might check with a local EAA chapter to get in contact with a friendly DAR who might give you more insight into where the line might be drawn.

As an experimental, you could still do all the work on it except for the annual conditional inspection, which would have to be signed off by an A&P. It would be the same as if you'd purchased an experimental somebody else had built, which from the sounds of things might be something you may want to look in to.

That said, I am enjoying the build a lot more than I thought I would, and I really like knowing the quality of work used in building the plane and what all the little "wiggly bits" do and where they fit. It's a great aircraft, good luck whichever way you go.

[Andrew G]

Thanks for the info Wiley...

I agree with you re knowing your plane and all... that is a major side benefit of building one-self. If I could "sub-contract" and buy as much as the pre-build that Kitfox has to offer that may be the way to go. Still unclear as to the "rules" however... I am hoping someone knows of a website with the rules all spelled out for a layman like me...

Waiting on a Series 7 already built, with a Rotax, with a glass panel @ 1,550 lbs allowable may take a life time.

I know a little about the head-start program at Kitfox, but the problem for me is taking all that time off - in one shot. I'm on the East Coast, there are multiple trips to make to ID assuming I had it built out there...

Thanks again.

[MotReklaw]

Regards the on-site factory build, I think you should call John or Debra at Kitfox. My understanding is that it is a lot less than you think.

Good luck, and welcome to the Kitfox family.

Tommy Walker in Alabama
(Newbie)

[Mark]

I know a little about the head-start program at Kitfox, but the problem for me is taking all that time off - in one shot. I'm on the East Coast, there are multiple trips to make to ID assuming I had it built out there...


With Kitfox's 'Jump Start' program, you only need to spend 4 days at the factory. You can show up Monday morning and be home Thursday night. Much of the work is done prior to and after your time there. You end up with a completely covered aircraft that still falls into to the 51% criteria. Saves you roughly six months of build time.

[Andrew G]

That sounds like a winner... I'll call John and Deb.


Thanks, Andrew

[Andrew G]

Yeah, I spoke to Travis... great guy... and a very nice plane. I'm stunned that that plane (or any planes frankly) hasn't moved yet. 2 years ago, it would have moved on day 1.

I am making a super long term decision... and I decided on a new 7 series with a Rotax 912S and glass panel... Basically what the McBeans advertise for the LSA, except I have to figure out how to build it and achieve 1,550 and night flight.

Thanks, Andrew

[Rodney]

Sounds like a good choice - am going that same direction myself, except for the 912 - am still researching a couple of other engine choices.

As for the SS7 - looks like we're gonna have to build one - haven't seen one for sale in a long long time. They must be too popular to sell, and I can understand why. For myself, I am going to have to go the LSA route.

Let us know what you finally decide on.

Regards
Rodney

[Andrew G]

Rodney, I am fortunate to have Dorsal in my area... Dorsal just finished a Series 7... he's a very informed guy about matters aviation and now Kitfox construction... and I got to see his plane close up and flying...

Basically, that's what I want, but the Son of a gun won't sell it to me and start a new one

So, we are in this search together, I'll let you know what i learn.

[Av8r3400]

Why not build to these requirements but maintain the documentation for LSA? There is nothing saying that you cannot build to the 1550 gross weight, but still have it documented to the LSA required 1320 max t/o weight. (Lighting is a non-issue for LSA.)

This will guarantee you a higher re-sale value as an LSA rather than experimental amateur-built.

[Andrew G]

Av8... you make a lot of sense... my problem is that i don't know the rules and haven't found a place on the net that presents the LSA/Experimental "rules" in a way that I can understand what can be done in either case... or to preserve the LSA status... despite building a heavier yielding weight plane...

I'll definitely keep this in mind, thank you.

[Dorsal]

I believe the issue is between building (1550 MTOW) or buying a prebuilt SLSA (1350 MTOW). Looks to me like the builder program is a good option, might even lend you a hand if needed

[Wiley]

My understanding is the only difference between the 1320 LSA and the 1550 bird is the gear on the higher gross weight aircraft is just a little bit thicker. Other than than that, I believe they are exactly the same. Maybe Mark or John can confirm.

[Dorsal]

This is about differences in certification not differences in the panes. It is my understanding that for Kitfox Aircraft to manufacture and sell a complete plane it needs to be certified as an LSA, when we are the builder we can certify it however we want (more or less). Once certified as an LSA the plane cannot be legally flown over 1320 and the certification can not be changed after the fact.
Again this is only my understanding of the "rules"

[kmach]

Hi all, There is a new, around 30 hrs, series 7 for sale on Barnstormers, on about page three, after you search Kitfox. It is up in BC Canada , glass panel and Jabiru 3300 if I remember right. It might be worth looking at. Kevin

[Wiley]

I believe any kit you buy and build from Kitfox will be Experimental, Amateur Built; Experimental LSA is not an option. However, if you meet the requirements with the paperwork and options, such as 1320 gross on paper (even if it's really 1550 by design) and prop non-adjustable inflight, yadda yadda, a sport pilot may legally fly it. The factory produced aircraft are indeed LSA. Just clarifying. I'll check and see if I can find a site that has a clear concise explanation of the rules.

[Andrew G]

Thanks guys... I think all of this LSA/Experimental stuff today --- harkens back to the days when I started flying... i.e. when all the planes on the tarmac were new and the upholstery wasn't ripped... so, yes that was a LONG time ago... it was also a time when the legal system commenced abusing GA... Lawyers pushed the notion that Pilot Error didn't exist, it therefore must be the airframe and engine guys.

Anyway, LSA has benefits for Pilots (no medical, blah...) but it also protects GA manufacturers (Vans, KitF, Glasair) from unfounded legal actions... so if I am getting it right, I believe those firms aren't "certifying" the aircraft and therefore if a pilot buys it, he/she is fully responsible.

I studied the Lycoming site the other day and they sell "Uncertified Engines"... I've got to believe it's a legal strategy to protect their companies from any direct or implied "guarantees"... and therefore informed adults like us pilots (and our insurance companies) take the risk. Therefore, the "legal cost item" of "guaranteed/certified products" is lessened and GA flying starts to become semi-affordable again.

Personally, I believe the GA industry had no choice, the LSA rules make sense for a lot of pilots and some GA manufacturers have exploited this niche... and companies like the aforementioned can have the freedom to operate without looking over their shoulders for opportunistic lawsuits... and therefore keep costs down.

So... again, if anyone can clarify the rules re Experimental/LSA with respect to 51%...

1) is it documented labor by the owner only?

2) Can the owner subcontract and get paid help and still get credit for the 51% ?

3) Is it $$ value, i.e. value of work vs documented hours ???)

Thanks, Andrew

[84KF]

Amateur Built 51% Rule Questions and Answers

http://www.eaa.org/govt/ab_qa.asp

--------------------------------
Department of
Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 1, 21, et al.
Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for
the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft;
Final Rule

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_rule.pdf


Leni...., tell me to stop here.

[akflyer]

LMAO.. Sorry, I was gonna ask when you were going to chime in.. and it took all I had to stay out of the 1320 "gross" statements.. why stop now Steve?

[Andrew G]

84KF... thank you for the links... very helpful.

Bottom line... I have to build 51%, and prove it, if I want 1,550 gross -- under the "new plane" scenario".

My wife will kill me.

[Dorsal]

Correction, 51% needs to be amateur built (you and/or other amateurs), it also appears I was mistaken in that the night restriction only applies to the Sport Pilot not the LSA plane.

[akflyer]

and it depends on how you document the build. The guy that originally built mine could not tell me a darn thing about it, which led me to believe that he had "others" build it, but he still got the repairman certificate for it.

[t j]

Andrew G wrote

So, instead of buying an LSA craft and living with 1,320 lbs limitations and no (occasional) night flying, I guess I have to "build" one to achieve 1,550 lbs gross-- which is hugely important to me...

I wonder if you could purchase a completed 1320 gross weight experimental amateur built series 7 and increase the gross weight to 1550? there seems to be no difference in the airframe except the landing gear...maybe. It might be worth asking your FSDO.

[Andrew G]

Good point...

[akflyer]

OK Steve, I cant take it any more....

Where is the requirement for a 1320 "gross" weight, and where on your FAA paperwork for YOUR plane does it list a gross? My Airworthiness does not have it, and none of the other Experimental planes I have looked at has a gross weight listed.

[Dorsal]

Given we are talking whats legal and not what the plane is capable of then I am ASSUMING the following.

If a plane is certified as an LSA, which a factory built plane would be, then I believe the 1320 is implied and it is not legal to fly the plane over that MTOW.

Other than that I agree that MTOW is not listed on my certification or anywhere else on the plane except the POH. I have seen it listed on a data plate but that is at the discretion of the builder. I did have to submit a signed copy of my weight and balance with my application that did list the maximum weight, not sure what, if any, legal ramifications are of flying over that number.

[enyaw]

(hypothetical) So, if I accepted delivery on a factory built (LSA), 1320 max, and then upgraded the gear to the heavier 1550 rated gear and an in-flight adjustable prop (major modification); couldn't I recertify the plane as 1550? Understanding that the plane would be Experimental (not amateur built) and would require an A&P to sign off on the annual conditional inspections.

[Dorsal]

Again I think the question is can you take an LSA, modify it and then re-certify it as a non LSA. Certainly there are examples of certified planes that are allowed to increase MTOW, a friend recently put a bigger engine in his 172 and got to increase the limit. As for changing the type certification I have to imagine that gets significantly more challenging. I believe I read, naturally can't remember where now, that once an LSA always an LSA.

[enyaw]

My point was, as soon as you make a change to an LSA, it is no longer an LSA. Similarly if you take a Cessna 172 and put a non-certified engine in it, it is no longer a certified aircraft, it becomes an experimental.

[Andrew G]

Maybe the nice Kitfox people can help clarify/interpret these important questions... but you guys are on the right track in terms of your points and questions... and that is why I am a little lost...

It's going to take a couple more years for the market and FAA to clarify this stuff on a wide scale.

[Tom Waid]

(A) friend recently put a bigger engine in his 172 and got to increase the limit. As for changing the type certification I have to imagine that gets significantly more challenging. I believe I read, naturally can't remember where now, that once an LSA always an LSA.

A larger engine can be put on a 172 through a Supplemental Type Certificate (http://www.ramaircraft.com/Aircraft-Parts/RAM-STCs/172-upgrade.htm) and remain certified. My 172 has a number of STC's for upgraded equipment. While I still have the original engine I have a STC for the ECI cylinders installed during the last overhaul.

Nice looking kitfox by the way.

[Dorsal]

Tom, yes that is the case with my friends 172, it remains a type certified plane. I did lift the following quote from the net

Note that a type-certified airplane may also be re-categorized as
experimental if it's modified in a form such that the FAA will not
approve on a standard 337. This is often the case for prototype/
modified certified aircraft, or for highly specialized
applications (although these are often categorized as "Restricted"
too).

Another article suggested this process can be arduous as clear justification is needed for the change and the certification may need to be renewed annually. Anyone on the group have experience with an experimental non amateur built certification?

[kmach]

Hi, there is a model 5 taildragger for sale in Minot ND. Call Warren Pietsch at Pietsch's Aero 701 852 4092 for details, I know it is pretty new and has around 30 hrs on it:rolleyes:. Kevin

[Andrew G]

Appreciate the info... I have my heart set on a 7/tri gear... w/ a Rotax and glass panel...

Basically, the same setup as that Texas "Kick Ass"... I even like the blue/black color...

This will be my first/last/only plane... so it's got to be right...

Thanks,Andrew

[Dorsal]

Sure, first you want my plane, now you want Paul's plane, isn't there a commandment about coveting another man's plane?

I sure do like those pretty Aerothane paint jobs.

[Andrew G]

haha... yeah, you and Paul have some nice stuff there.