Sportcopter Gyro for Sale - SOLD

[Mayfield]

If this machine has never been registered with the FAA then it should be straightforward to obtain a registration number.

After a registration certificate is obtained then having an airworthiness inspection by a DAR can probably be arranged. Most DARs I have worked with understand that this machine, almost by definition, was built by an amateur. Sport Copter may be able to help with kit information.

You won't be able to make the claim that you were the builder so a repairman certificate would not be possible.

Alternatively, you may be able to use many of the parts (rotor, prop, engine, rotor head, instruments, seat, wiring components, wheels, brakes, cluster plates, some of the tubing, etc.) in a legal build of your own.

Jim

 

[j4flyer]

I’ve found (in my limited experience ) that if you disassemble a kit built gyro that by the time you reassemble it you will have done as much work as the original builder. For example, the original builder receives a rotorhead which he installs. The rebuilder disassembles the same rotorhead and replaces the bearing and hardware be for reinstalling it. Who has done more work ?
The airframe is disassembled and the hardware is replaced. The airframe is inspected and parts that have corroded are replaced or treated. Who has done more work ?
The engine is inspected with cylinders borescoped or carbon removed from the head, new spark plugs, crank seals, intake boots, isolator mounts and wiring. Again who has done more work, the original builder who received a new engine and bolted it on or the guy who bought the used gyro ? Very few Gyros or airplanes are simply good to go.
Then there’s the panel. If. The gyro is several years/ many years old the instruments are not up to the standard of what’s available now. A lot of guys will keep the basic instruments but add engine monitors and radios. There are Gyros with IPad panels and Garmin GPS’ mounted. They all require modifying the existing panel or in most cases making a new one.
It is my opinion if someone buys an older used gyro design that if inspected properly, that guy could document his labor and be considered the builder.

 

[Mayfield]

It is my opinion if someone buys an older used gyro design that if inspected properly, that guy could document his labor and be considered the builder.

Hi Bob,

Legally, this is just not accurate.

If, for example, someone builds an aircraft. The Make/Model/ serial number is Smith/Belchfire/001. The aircraft is registered as N12345Z. Later, the aircraft is totally destroyed. You sift through the ashes and find the data plate. You rebuild this aircraft using all new parts. It is, was, and always will be a Smith Belchfire serial #001, built by the original builder. It truly does not matter how much work you do in the restoration. Whether that is right, fair, or just is a philosophical question, but legally, once it is an aircraft, it will always be that aircraft.

On the other hand, let's take that same aircraft. Somehow it has come into your possession.

You decide to scrap the Smith Belchfire and build a new aircraft. You use many components from the Smith Belchfire in your new build. You build a Lewis Sky Ranger and assign serial #BL001. You register your new aircraft as N54321A, perform 51% of the fabrication and assembly of your new aircraft, apply for and receive an EAB AWC. Now N54321A, using many components from N12345Z, is your EAB and is perfectly legal and above board.

I'm not arguing that the path you describe does not make sense. I'm simply stating that the regulations are pretty clear and can be complied with.

Jim

 

[Aerofoam]

Hi Bob,

Legally, this is just not accurate.

If, for example, someone builds an aircraft. The Make/Model/ serial number is Smith/Belchfire/001. The aircraft is registered as N12345Z. Later, the aircraft is totally destroyed. You sift through the ashes and find the data plate. You rebuild this aircraft using all new parts. It is, was, and always will be a Smith Belchfire serial #001, built by the original builder. It truly does not matter how much work you do in the restoration. Whether that is right, fair, or just is a philosophical question, but legally, once it is an aircraft, it will always be that aircraft.

On the other hand, let's take that same aircraft. Somehow it has come into your possession.

You decide to scrap the Smith Belchfire and build a new aircraft. You use many components from the Smith Belchfire in your new build. You build a Lewis Sky Ranger and assign serial #BL001. You register your new aircraft as N54321A, perform 51% of the fabrication and assembly of your new aircraft, apply for and receive an EAB AWC. Now N54321A, using many components from N12345Z, is your EAB and is perfectly legal and above board.

I'm not arguing that the path you describe does not make sense. I'm simply stating that the regulations are pretty clear and can be complied with.

Jim

And as I stated before, put a tall tail on it and bump up the engine size and it is significantly different enough to to be a new aircraft built out of parts from another aircraft......
The tall tail alone would probably be enough, but it's probably going to be anemic with a 503......

 

[Mayfield]

I think it is clear, but just to make sure:

You can use as many components from the donor aircraft as you want. but there are two important qualifiers.

first, the donor aircraft no longer exists vis-a-vis the new aircraft documentation. You are starting from scratch with the paperwork.

Second, to build a new aircraft and be legal, an amateur must do at least 51% of the Fabrication and assembly of the new aircraft.

Jim

 

[Mayfield]

Even my post above is not entirely accurate. I say the donor aircraft no longer exists. That is not necessarily true. You can use every component of the donor aircraft except the data plate in your new build and then you could also legally rebuild the original aircraft starting with the data plate.

There is a market for data plates/AWC. I have no idea what a P51D data plate/AWC is going for, but I suspect, if one is available, it is many thousands of dollars.

Jim

 

[WaspAir]

Jim is correct here. When the Smithsonian Air & Space museum spends 40,000 man-hours to completely rebuild and restore a warbird that Consolidated Vultee created in 2,000 man-hours long ago, it doesn't matter who did the most work. It remains a Consolidated Vultee. The same applies to any rebuilder, modifier, or restorer.

A Republic SeaBee converted to twin engine and then to twin turbine, and then pressurized, is still a Republic SeaBee. There is only ever one original manufacturer even if it becomes unrecognizable to that builder.

 

[Jazzenjohn]

to build a new aircraft and be legal, an amateur must do at least 51% of the Fabrication and assembly of the new aircraft.

According to the letter of the rules, that statement is true. In practice if you look at Many examples of aircraft the FAA has already looked at and certified as 51% built, the picture is a bit less clear. Often, 51% aircraft have very little or no "fabricating" and they are legal as far as the FAA is concerned. The rule was put in place so that you could build an aircraft and claim to be the 51% builder so you would not be able to sue aircraft manufacturers out of business. A gyro builder can buy a tail, rotorhead, blades, a stick, seat tank, wheels with brakes, an instrument panel and assemble a gyro few would bother to argue wasn't completely amateur built. If you bought the Sportcopter above, you are simply sourcing the parts from one person and it doesn't appear to be registered at all, so no need to cancel the previous N number. If you really wanted to make it legal. you would get rid of the Wunderlich prerotator at about 25 pounds, Get rid of the instrument panel at ~10-15 pounds, and you'd be very close. If you needed more, the blades could be swapped for 23' Dragon Wings saving about 9 pounds. If you still weren't there, and you really wanted to make weight, swapping the rotorhead and tail could net you another 15 pounds or so, maybe more. Lastly, you could put a parachute on it and get 24 pounds credit.

 

[Mayfield]

The rule was put in place so that you could build an aircraft and claim to be the 51% builder so you would not be able to sue aircraft manufacturers out of business.

I don't quite agree with your reasoning John.

I believe it is more likely the person charged with writing the regulation was trying to find a way to ensure the "builder" did "most" of the work. I believe we are fortunate that he didn't say 75% or even more had to be done by the builder.

As far as fabrication, we are again fortunate that the usual interpretation of the regs by the FAA and the DARs favors us. Many years ago (when I built my first EAB) the FAA, as part of their thought process, described drilling holes in raw stock as fabrication. Sometime around the mid 1970s, coincident with the appearance of some of the first Quick Build kits, that verbiage mostly disappeared and was replaced by statements describing drilling or reaming holes to size. We began to see parts arrive with pilot holes drilled in the proper location. The builder reamed the hole to size and received credit for fabricating that part.

We are very fortunate in our freedoms.

Jim

 

[WaspAir]

The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 was the first time the Feds ever showed any concern for lawsuits against manufacturers (establishing an 18 year statute of repose). The 51% rule predates that by decades.

If you can dig up the legislative history of 14 CFR 21.191(g) the actual reasoning will be stated there in the rulemaking documents. It's often not easy to find that really old stuff online.

 

[Mayfield]

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), part 21, section 21.191(g), defines an amateur-built aircraft as an aircraft "the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by person(s) who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation."

I maintain the FAA could have inserted 90% instead of major portion. We are fortunate.

Jim

 

[WaspAir]

Agreed!

 

[Jazzenjohn]

I'm not convinced there wasn't a lawyer who put forth the 51% to make it a majority build by the individual for legal purposes, or maybe manufacturers petitioned them to do it to attempt to indemnify themselves. I don't believe it is a number drawn out of a hat. I don't doubt they could have used another number but I'm not so sure they would have ever entertained anything less than 50% or bothered with anything like 90%.
I don't believe 51% is a "gift" I believe the actual gift is their allowance of many kits to be considered 51% that might not seem so under a more strict reading of the regulation.

 

[Mayfield]

I'm not convinced there wasn't a lawyer who put forth the 51% to make it a majority build by the individual for legal purposes,

Hi John,

I guess I have been intellectually lazy. I am not aware of anywhere in the regulation where 51% is mentioned.

The regulation simply says "major portion."

We have begun to use 51% as mental shorthand and a descriptor of the minimum requirement.

I don't believe any of the kit manufacturers have enough clout to lobby the FAA for the phraseology used in a regulation.

Jim

 

[Jazzenjohn]

Try AC20-27G table 1

 

[Mayfield]

Try AC20-27G table 1

I'm familiar with the AC. 50%, more than 50% and 51% are mentioned several times in the non-regulatory AC.

Jim

 

[WaspAir]

or maybe manufacturers petitioned them to do it to attempt to indemnify themselves.

Unlikely.

Airplane kit manufacturers (RV and so forth) came about because of the opportunities under the EAB rules, not the other way around. They didn't pre-exist the rules to do any lobbying. Major airplane manufacturers (Cessna and the like) get no legal protection from the EAB rules and generally stay away ftom the kitplane business, so they didn't need any. Gyros have essentially had no influence on the FAA over the years, except to get themselves excluded from SLSA in the pre-MOSAIC world, demonstrating their complete lack of effective historical lobby power.

 

[pushpuller]

Has it been sold

 

[Doug Riley]

Wasp, back when dinosaurs roamed, Igor Bensen managed to convince the FAA to allow a builder of an EAB gyro to obtain a 90-day student-pilot signoff based on a CFI's observation from the ground of the candidate's piloting a towed gyroglider. I got some of these signoffs.

IIR, a candidate could even get a private ticket to pilot a single-place EAB gyro based on an examiner's watching from the ground. This is some evidence of FAA's willingness (way back then) to accommodate the EAB gyro community.

The FAA did decline Igor's request to allow type certification of the B-8M based on operational history in lieu of the usual testing.

The lenient rule about signoffs based on ground observation of towed flight lasted until Don Farrington requested that the FAA rescind it. After the fact, the PRA assured us members that this had been done for our own good.

 

[WaspAir]

The ATP - Gyroplane rating suffered the same fate.