RAF 2000 for sale

[joe vitable]

... Uh ... Body count?

Very stupid comment

 

[WaspAir]

Very stupid comment

Well, that's helpful.

 

[j4flyer]

I’ve found that if you disassemble a gyro or any aircraft, inspect it properly and reassemble it, you will have made the 51%. I have yet to find anything that I haven’t had to complete a lot of maintenance during the assembly process. Even the instrument panels. Most panels and homebuilts are wired using automotive standards. I typically discard that and go with aircraft spec. (Or I hand my friend Bob Aspegren his tools while he re wires everything properly haha). Anyway, without cheating or lying to the FAA I have met the percentage. Of course, Im not the “if it starts” I’ll fly it type person. I want my things to be right.

 

[GyroChuck]

I’ve found that if you disassemble a gyro or any aircraft, inspect it properly and reassemble it, you will have made the 51%. I have yet to find anything that I haven’t had to complete a lot of maintenance during the assembly process. Even the instrument panels. Most panels and homebuilts are wired using automotive standards. I typically discard that and go with aircraft spec. (Or I hand my friend Bob Aspegren his tools while he re wires everything properly haha). Anyway, without cheating or lying to the FAA I have met the percentage. Of course, Im not the “if it starts” I’ll fly it type person. I want my things to be right.

That will not fly in our FSDO. It is considered illegal.

 

[WaspAir]

I’ve found that if you disassemble a gyro or any aircraft, inspect it properly and reassemble it, you will have made the 51%. I have yet to find anything that I haven’t had to complete a lot of maintenance during the assembly process. Even the instrument panels. Most panels and homebuilts are wired using automotive standards. I typically discard that and go with aircraft spec. (Or I hand my friend Bob Aspegren his tools while he re wires everything properly haha). Anyway, without cheating or lying to the FAA I have met the percentage. Of course, Im not the “if it starts” I’ll fly it type person. I want my things to be right.

You could do ten times the work of the original builder (indeed, most restorations are like that) but that doesn't make you the manufacturer. If the original builder did 51%, that's a legal EAB with that person as the builder. But an aircraft is only built once. If you take apart and rebuild an aircraft, the time put in is irrelevant because you didn't build it. You rebuilt it. The FARs for amateur built, including the 51% rule, only apply to original construction, not to restorations. 14 CFR 21.191(g) does not address anything but building -- not RE-building.

Otherwise, everything in air museums, from Cessnas to Boeings to Lockheeds, would be EAB by the restoration staff.

 

[Mayfield]

I'm hesitant to broach this because I am absolutely not advocating ever breaking the already very liberal EAB rules, but....

There is absolutely nothing to preclude you from using major components from completed aircraft as long as your new project is constructed, at least 51%, by amateurs for education and recreation.

Rotor blades and head, engine, propeller, avionics, lights, fiberglass body shell or cabin, etc come to mind for us Rotorcraft folks,

Wings, struts, control surfaces, etc for the airplane guys and gals.

We know this is true or there could not be an EAB Breezy, for example.

If I were going to build an aircraft and incorporate parts that had been previously used, I would be very careful to start a new project and thoroughly document every purchase and every fabrication step.

I would also make an appointment at the FSDO with an airworthiness ASI and discuss my plan in detail. "I'm going to use these components. I'm going to fabricate these components using this raw material."

Don't try to fool the system. Work within the rules.

Jim
.

 

[WaspAir]

There is a distinction between disassembling and reassembling a McCulloch J-2 and registering it with the FAA as a new Joe Smith, on the one hand, and taking the engine from a J-2 and mounting it in a gyro frame you built, calling it a Joe-rocopter, on the other. Of course, the more you borrow, the more you must fabricate to reach 51% validly.

I fully endorse your last comment.

 

[Mayfield]

There is a distinction between disassembling and reassembling a McCulloch J-2 and registering it with the FAA as a new Joe Smith, on the one hand, and taking the engine from a J-2 and mounting it in a gyro frame you built, calling it a Joe-rocopter, on the other. Of course, the more you borrow, the more you must fabricate to reach 51% validly.

I fully endorse your last comment.

I agree with your statements.

The first post identifies this aircraft as N70202. There is no way this aircraft can be disassembled, repaired, rebuilt, restored, or remade into a legal, newly built EAB aircraft.

I could however, use any component or components of this machine and incorporate it/them into my new EAB aircraft if I fabricated at least 51% of the new aircraft. How could I do that and keep myself on the correct side of the regs?

The frame on this aircraft consists of less than 20 feet of 6061T6, 2 inch by 4 inch, 1/8 wall extruded aluminum, and about 7 square feet of 1/8 inch 6061T6 plate, and a few hundred pull rivets.

You have the original airframe as a template.

You could easily reach 51% of the aircraft by building a "new" airframe. This is a lot of work and should only be undertaken if it's important to you to be the builder, and only after discussing this with an ASI at your FSDO.

Otherwise, consult with aircraft registration and sort out how to transfer ownership to you.

Jim

 

[GyroChuck]

N70202 has been reserved so it has not been inspected yet.

 

[Mayfield]

N70202 has been reserved so it has not been inspected yet.

Thanks Chuck. I guess I went off halfcocked. In that case, if that number has only been reserved, has it ever been registered? If it has not, it should be possible to prove it was built by amateurs. It would, however, be impossible to get the repairman certificate.

 

[GyroChuck]

The N Number was previously registered then deregistered . The previous aircraft was an RAF 2000

 

[Mayfield]

The N Number was previously registered then deregistered . The previous aircraft was an RAF 2000

ARRRRGH! But never an airworthiness certificate? OKC FAA Aircraft Registration is probably who he needs to help him.

 

[Andino]

It's been done often.

Nearly all videos were solo flights rather than with passenger. Recall that I didn't say such were impossible, merely challenging.

 

[j4flyer]

There is a distinction between disassembling and reassembling a McCulloch J-2 and registering it with the FAA as a new Joe Smith, on the one hand, and taking the engine from a J-2 and mounting it in a gyro frame you built, calling it a Joe-rocopter, on the other. Of course, the more you borrow, the more you must fabricate to reach 51% validly.

I fully endorse your last comment.

I agree that a disassembly and reassembly would not change a J2 into a different aircraft. One reason is it’s certified and you are required to follow approved data, as you know as you did it for your restoration projects. However, an experimental can be approached differently. I believe you can disassemble a machine and start with a pile of parts. You photograph all the changes you make as you reassemble it. The example I had was a gyro airframe I bought. The airframe was deregistered. I had to make a tail (rudder, horn and vert stab) bend the metal and weld it, cover the surfaces and install them on a keel tube I bought, drilled and installed. I had to install a motor which I partially overhauled and installed using new motor mounts hardware etc., I built a panel using aluminum. I disassembled the brakes, replaced o rings in the calipers and master cylinders. I built a foldable mast and installed it as the airframe had no mast. I bought a rotorhead, disassembled it and installed a new bearing. I fabricated new control rods as the old rods were not long enough for proper travel. I installed new fuel lines, a new fuel pump, a new alternator and two overhauled mags. I kept receipts and photographs. I filed out the paperwork to register it as my build. I don’t believe I did anything illegitimate in registering this gyro. Now if this were a J2 it would still be a J2 as it’s an apple to oranges comparison. Of course this is my opinion and I’ve certainly been incorrect before.

 

[WaspAir]

I'm afraid it's still apples to apples. Experimental vs. Standard makes no difference as to identifying the original manufacturer, and there will only ever be one of those, whether amateur or professional, no matter how much restoration is done. Disassembling, overhauling, replacing worn parts, upgrading components, and major maintenance or modifications done to an existing (formerly or currently registered) aircraft, experimental or not, will not change the identity of the original manufacturer.

Cannibalizing some assemblies from other aircraft to use in a new one can be a different story, but it (the sources and history of everything) all needs to be disclosed before 51% can be evaluated properly by FAA/DAR.

 

[j4flyer]

I'm afraid it's still apples to apples. Experimental vs. Standard makes no difference as to identifying the original manufacturer, and there will only ever be one of those, whether amateur or professional, no matter how much restoration is done. Disassembling, overhauling, replacing worn parts, upgrading components, and major maintenance or modifications done to an existing (formerly or currently registered) aircraft, experimental or not, will not change the identity of the original manufacturer.

Cannibalizing some assemblies from other aircraft to use in a new one can be a different story, but it (the sources and history of everything) all needs to be disclosed before 51% can be evaluated properly by FAA/DAR.

I guess we just disagree.

 

[lanichol]

Can someone explain the forward pipe on the passenger side exhaust?
( The small tube with the air filter?).

 

[Mayfield]

Can someone explain the forward pipe on the passenger side exhaust?

Carb heat. Connected to air cleaner with SCAT tubing. The small tube with the air filter is a mystery to me

 

[rancherman]

Just yanking your chain. I congratulate you. I am about to begin a new(old) way of eating called carnivore. It’s supposed to be the ticket for finally getting back to a good weight and health. Look up Dr. Ken Barry on you tube.

I have a sister in law that is currently on that plan. She's tried everything ever concieved in the last 40+ yrs.
This seems to be effective!

 

[wilsonballew]

Hi All - Can somebody provide any thoughts on the current day RAF 2000 kits that utilize the rotor "stabilator" system. I'm trying to figure out if that system has resolved some of the previous issues associated with RAF and non-centerline thrust pitch issues. Basically curious if the current day RAF is a worthwhile consideration - would love to hear from someone who owns one. From their website:

"The two rotational axes between fuselage and rotor disc removes the ingrained visual reference between wing and horizon for fixed –wing conversion pilots. Rotor motion independent from fuselage motion creates control system movements that further complicate conversion from the fixed-wing practice.

That is why the innovation was introduced by Rotary Airforce and each production-built RAF2000 gyroplane is equipped with a Rotor Stabilator and not a Horizontal Stabilator, the RAF 2000 gyroplane is different in many ways from other types.

In a gyroplane the rotor-disc is flown, not the fuselage, by controlling the rotors which are always changing in lift and drag, the Rotor Stabilator acts to control the rotors in flight and gives the pilot feedback when making maneuvers.

The Rotor Stabilator is a system that controls the rotor disc yet leaves the pilot with full control of the aircraft. The Rotor Stabilator gives a full electric trim in pitch and roll even in more turbulent air. The Rotor Stabilator has proven to be an effective way to control pitch inputs by the pilot or external forces.

The Rotor Stabilator trims rotor motion in steady level, climb, and descent flight. Air passing over the Stabilator counteracts minor rotor pitch movements and keeps the aircraft flying straight and smooth. Maintaining a fixed flight attitude by applying airflow against a control surface is called dynamic trim.

The dynamic trim provided by the Rotor Stabilator adjusts through all flight speeds and increases in effectiveness as the airspeed increases.

The Rotor Stabilator is the only dynamic trim device available for gyroplanes that dampens rotor motion. Rotor orientation primarily determines gyroplane motion. Common sense dictates that dampening rotor motion will most effectively dampen gyroplane motion."