Not that big a deal? Given that the buyer is only required to attach the wheels and tail, what kind of airworthiness certificate would you expect to be able to get for it?
If one were to remove it from the crate & then attempt to claim they "built" it, then Yes, not legit.
But, if it were me wanting to claim it as AB, I'd wants to make changes to various parts, adding this or removing that. I guess most people would, given the nature of humans as to their toys. I would certainly want to go AB to be legal WRT fuel capacity. I find peace of mind knowing my machine is legal w/in it's FAA classification.
So, yes, the builder would have to get their hands dirty & exercise their mind creating their aircraft.
Brakes can always be improved (or added), instruments changed, nose wheel & main wheels & tires changed, trim systems added, prop diameter (as well as # of blades), engine, rudder cables improved, etc.
Bigger, more powerful engines requires upgrading or reinforcing the ultralight-designed engine mounting, & on & on. Adding weight & more power, would then require a larger lifting force, so changes (or replacement) might have to be made to the existing rotor system.
Certainly a larger, more powerful engine would also require a larger prop diameter, which might not fit existing allowances for prop tip clearance, etc. Or, more prop blades.
Yes, then the aircraft has become something very different from it's original configuration, & cannot be considered a factory build anymore.
Then the builder has created their aircraft w/in the realm of the freedoms possible in the FAA's AB classification, & having a blast exploring all that work for their
education &
recreation benefits AB allows.
Basically, going AB removes the Part 103 weight & fuel restrictions, almost demanding upgrading of the various sytems that were designed into an aircraft in attempt to meet Part 103.
I still suspect that w/ the newer statement of a 50 HP engine on the horizon for NANO, it still won't be enough ooomph to fly a pilot of say 200+# anywhere more than just ASL. I would love to be proven wrong in that opinion!
I base my opinion on my experience flying both "ultralight" & experimental versions of gyroplanes. As I aged into an old guy, weight gain was too easily attained, so minimal engine HP & ultralight-legal gyroplanes don't cut for me anymore. I also found even a Rotax 503's power borderline dangerously insufficient for me flying my gyro @ altitudes between 3K' & 5K'.
I believe it has been stated previously by at least one gyroplane DAR, that w/ the new (2011) gyroplane checklist approved by the FAA, simply assembly of gyroplane parts qualifies w/ enough points to exceed the 51% AB rules, w/ no manufacturing of parts required.
My hat is off to Barry! When all that he does in his corner of aviation is considered, the NANO gyroplane is just another small part of his creative juices.
How many others in the gyro world have so many different kinds of aircraft, let alone only gyroplanes, especially the completely different kinds of engines he has flown on his machines?
Never having met the guy, those that have or know him, all say he is a great human being for all his aviation sharing, giving, & friendliness. One of my goals to to make it to "Barry Days" someday. If only he wasn't so far away from the US west coast!
I still consider the NANO a wonderful idea & hope it does well even as a Part 103 compliant aircraft. A breath of very fresh air in a gyroplane market that seems to mostly cater to the pilots & not for builders. I even harbor hope to own one someday!