Reregistering a deregistered Kitfox.

[rdooley79]

This post was originally placed under the "Classified" section but contained too much good information to delete after 60 days. I've moved it to the "Gerneral" discussion area for archiving. The dead Craig's list link has been removed as it had no use or impact on value of information.






From the year, 1988, it's probably a model 1. The model 2's came out in 1989 according to kitfox.

Looks like a nice bird with low time.

[avidflyer]

Just ran the N # on the FAA website, and it says the plane has been deregistered. Kindof different though as well. Says there is a Hold on it as well. Don't know what that means..... I would say it's bound to lower the price somewhat. Jim Chuk

[rdooley79]

the registration is not a huge deal but is a pain to deal with for sure. Basically what you have to have is the airworthyness inspection sheet from the DAR. As long as it was signed off as airworthy at some point it can loose it's N-number but the plane is not "junk". Like a car it's like a title and license plates. You have to have a "title" but get new plates. not quite the same with a plane but similar.

Basically what you do is get in touch with your local FSDO. Tell them what you got, provide all of the documentation, A.R.O.W. as it was last legal, 3-view pictures and pictures of the N-number/experimental/passenger warning placards. It will need to be inspected by a A&P/I&A and endorsed as airworthy. They'll have you fill out all the paperwork again for registration but you won't need to get the bird inspected by a DAR, it's a paperwork thing. They'll review it all and as long as it's all correct and matches and you're cool to them (hey it helps a lot) then you should just need to go down to the FSDO and sign about 5 things and walk away with a registered plane all good to go. You may need to pick an n-number if the one on the plane is not available.


It sounds convoluted, it is because it's the gov but as long as you know what to expect and the plane is able to be registered and is flight worthy, you'll not have too big a problem.

If that's not right, please speak up!

[Av8r3400]

Well I can tell you I know of a lot of heavy ultralights that are now legally scrap because the owners didn't file paperwork in time to get them legal. The window to do this closed for ever in 2007. A bunch of early Kitfoxes were built and flown as "ultralight trainers". These were the type of planes that were well outside 103 weight and speed operating limits that Light Sport was designed to eliminate.


The three planes you have shown here, none of them, by the photos are legal. If the one was "deregistered" is has become a pumpkin. Its all over for that one. It will never get put back on the books. I seriously doubt that they can become legal as easily as you suggest, judging by the grief I have seen others go through attempting this. Have you personally done this? If you have, I would love to know where and how, in detail, did this happen.

My opinion is that all three of these examples will never fly legally again.
(Not that they ever did in the first place.)

[avidflyer]

My understanding is that the only way to register these planes and get them legal is to lie and claim you built the plane and then get the DAR to go along with it. Some have said they will tear the plane all apart and put it back togeather. Then get it registered as a new build. I believe that is illegal as well. It probably would work when you claim it was assembled from parts, but if the truth was know by the FAA they would say it was illegal. I know I wouldn't try it. Jim Chuk

[Geowitz]

I would do a rebuild and use the "miscellaneous parts" option. What's the difference?

[rdooley79]

So you are all talking about the *Airworthiness* in all the previous comments. The FAA has a page dedicated to this topic that confirmed what I was saying above. For an airplane that WAS PREVIOUSLY issued an airworthiness and has just had the N-number expire, is not that tough. It's almost the same as changing the N-number. mostly paperwork. This is not a discussion about the ultralighht to experimental transition or rebuilding the plane to get another Airworthiness, this is just the N-Number. Check it out, link below.

http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certific...eregistration/

This should clear the confusion when dealing with an airplane that has an airworthiness but just let the N-Number expire.

Not saying that I would buy this plane, on the contrary, it's not what I'm looking for but for someone who would like a model 1 that appears to be in good shape from the photos, you'll want to pay special attention to the info in the link.

I just hate to give someone the wrong impression by confusing the airworthiness with the registration. two very different documents and requirements. The FAA is the best resource.

[Geowitz]

Touche ...That explains the registration status.

However, if the airworthy certificate is missing I would still suggest the same as before.

[Av8r3400]

Okay, I see your point on registration versus the airworthiness certificate, rdooley79, and I don't disagree.

When I see a small, homebuilt, 2-seat aircraft without an "N" number on the side, I assume it to be considered (by the owner) as a "fat" ultralight. An airplane whose N-number has expired, would (IMO) not have the number removed from the side of the plane. Why would the owner go to that much effort, if sending $5 and a return form was too much...

[rdooley79]

Totally agree. The other airplanes without an n-number are total fat ultralights and are illegal, parts planes. This one though is not "lost" and can be flown as an experimental Light Sport.

I see a N-Number above the stripe behind the kitfox logo, also the dash appears to be labeled with the number as well. The number (N170CK) will be held by the FAA for 5 years in anticipation for you to re-register the airplane, how nice of them! haha

This is a stickey point because people get them mixed up all the time. I've ran in to this looking for my next airplane on multiple occasions. Knowing the rules has saved me from buying a "pumpkin". I also suggest seeing the log books endorsement from the DAR when it was inspected initially. That can save you because the FAA has the records on file in case the *Airworthyiess* is lost. The registration is routinely reissued by the FAA. so it really comes down to the airworthiness inspection endorsement from the DAR that will say weather the plane is a pumpkin or not.

You should have all the documents for the A.R.O.W. (Airworthiness, Registration card, Operating limitations, Weight&Balance) and if it's a good plane these should be as easy to find as walking over to the plane and reaching inside the cockpit. These are always in the plane as mandated by the FAA.

The technique is the same if you need to move the phase 1 flight testing area. Which you'll have to do after buying the plane anyways because the registration will need to be transferred under your name.

So, yea, this model 1 might be a nice little plane considering the headaches with the paperwork. But if you're a pilot this shouldn't be too much of a shock considering it's the FAA we're talking about here! haha..

Good discussion!