Why dismantled

[LayTek]

Hi everyone,

I just saw an add in Barnstormersand wondered why it would need a registration number and be partially dismantled? I am thinking liability or annual inspection, but I'm not sure

Alan

[cap01]

if it never had an n number how did it get 125 hrs ? maybe the time is on the engine only and the plane had never had a registration issued . if you look closely at the pics , it doesnt appear to have ever been completed .

[rogerh12]

For liability reasons, sometimes guys will de-register a plane they built, take it appart and sell it as "parts". The new owner then puts it back together again and registers it as a new flying plane under his or her name, thus the new owner is no longer listed as the builder and can't be sued so easy if some builder defect is found and an accident results.

Roger

[Av8r_Sed]

I looked at this ad too and couldn't figure how you'd be able to register the plane. You couldn't do it as an experimental since you didn't build it and it was never previously registered. To me, it would only be worth salvage for the engine and instruments.

-- Paul S

[Dorsal]

I don't think you need to be the builder to register an amateur built plane but you would need to show that it was amateur built (51% rule). You would not, however, be able to get the repairman's certificate.

[Mnflyer]

Hi Dorsal, could you explain how you would get this airplane registered? You say you would have to show that it was amateur built how would that be done?
I know that technically one can be the 2nd / 3rd or more owner of an unfinished kit and can get it certified by proving that it was amateur built by having the builder logs photos etc, but this is a finsihed was once a certified flying aircraft, if the seller is worried about being the builder eniough to register it its very doubtful he'll pass on the builder logs etc, and then the buyer would have to be a elaborate lair claiming he built the plane. Just my humble opinion.

[Dorsal]

Mnflyer, I agree with you and suspect you are correct about the original builder. My statement was to the general case not this plane specifically, in hindsight it was not very helpful

[Mnflyer]

Hi Dorsal, that's alright, as I'm sure your aware the EAA and others have been trying to get the FAA to make some changes to the 51% rule I'm not sure what all that involved but it's looks like the FAA has stalled that was wonder if you had some information about that.
I'm thinking the only way that plane could fly again would be if a person had a badly damaged plane and used it as parts to rebuild the damaged plane.

[rogerh12]

You guys are taking the whole 51% rule too hard, that just keeps you from buying a factory built plane and then registering it as an experimental and you as the builder (so you can get the repairmans certificate). Unless the plane says Cessna on the side, I have never heard of anyone getting turned down because his plane didn't meet the 51% rule (as long as they didn't start with a cub frame or something factory like that). Kit sellers just say they meet the rule so they can build most of the plane for you, and you can still get it registered experimental, but if it is clearly an experimental plane, and even if you buy all the parts prebuild, you can still just do final assembly (take some pics first), log your work and then get it into phase 1 in the experimenal class. That's the beauty of the class. Also, ANYONE can do ANYTHING to an experimenal plane, you don't need a AP for anything other than the annual inspection if you don't have the repairmans certificate, however, if the work counts as a "Major change", you do have to tell the FAA and they may require a few flight test hours to verify the change is airworthy (or not).

Hope this helps
Roger