Re: N169W


One Sky Dog
 

Jay,

I was told by the FSDO do not read things into the regulations. By FAA definition Q’s are not “kits” they were before the 51% rule. They are EAB plans built airplanes even if the shells were offered by QAC.
 
Hire a DAR and make it understood his job is to get you through the bureaucratic process. When he asks about “kit” state plans built. The big who built what form goes away in the registration package.

Do not bring up past history. Write scrapped on registration and send it in. It is no longer an airplane but a pile of amateur built parts.

Apply for your N-number. You are the builder assign your own serial number. Records of material purchases were lost in the … move,divorce,flood, but you will sign an affidavit of purchase.

Do not engage in conversation with the DAR about who built what. State you are the “primary builder” and you had help from other amateur builders. It is not lying even if you bought the “amateur built part” the builder of the part helped you complete your project.  Primary builder is an undefined FAA term but is used in educational builds like the one week wonders to register them. No one built 51% but someone put their name on the registration.

Regards,

On Monday, July 11, 2022, 8:38 AM, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

I ran into this issue with mine, Charlie. I think I may be the most recent Q to have been certified (2018), but things have even changed since then. The Dragonfly and QAC ran their course before the FAA had put together their officially approved 51% summary list of kit built aircraft. I think that got finalized about 1987 or 1988 and has been periodically updated.

 

The main problem that you may run into is that if you call it a kit, then they want to see the bill of sale from the kit-manufacturer (QAC), and all subsequent bills of sale, proceeding to the present owner. I was able to talk my way out of the primary bill of sale by showing all of my purchase correspondence, cancelled checks, delivery sheets, etc. QAC did not issue an FAA approved “bill of sale”, so that was a problem (and I am the only owner, so no subsequent ones were required).

 

I think the latest generation of younger DAR’s for the most part have never heard of a kit without a kit-manufacturer bill of sale, so it really throws them off.  Calling it a plans built or perhaps even an original design may be the more practical approach, especially if you want it to be registered with a repairman certificate issued to you. The only time the DARs really get bent out of shape if you include (non-avionics) assemblies or components that were salvaged from fully certified aircraft. When using experimental components, they are more liberal.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 

From: main@Q-List.groups.io <main@Q-List.groups.io> On Behalf Of One Sky Dog via groups.io
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 8:21 AM
To: main@Q-List.groups.io; main@q-list.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Q-List] N169W

 

Jay,

 

I just looked at the FAA approved kit list. The Q’s like Dragonfly do not appear on the list. That puts it in the category of plans built. 

 

I deregistered my Dragonfly by writing scrapped on the registration and sent it in. I re- registered it same serial number and new N number. I presented it to the DAR as amateur built with me as the primary builder.

 

Regards,

 

Charlie




 

On Sunday, July 10, 2022, 7:16 PM, Jay Scheevel <jay@...> wrote:

IMO the best approach is to call it by a new model name (something like: Quickie model Q2A, serial number 1), then register it as a new homebuilt replica Q2 as built from parts. If you try to use the original QAC serial number it may become complicated since it has already been registered. FSDO can confirm this if you can find a DAR that is reasonably easy to work with.

 

Cheers,

Jay

 



On Jul 10, 2022, at 6:55 PM, Mike Dwyer <q200pilot@...> wrote:



That's a 1985 Q2.  It was FAA deregistered on 11/15/2012.  That's going to be a problem.  I'd suggest you talk to your local fsdo to see if you can re-register it somehow.

Mike Dwyer

 

On Sun, Jul 10, 2022, 19:49 Sandaircraft <Snoboarders@...> wrote:

So today was the day, we moved 169W from behind my cousins garage into my hanger. I got a better look at what im working with. Im excited but not overly so. Alot of work ahead. So far from what i see its solid, but there areas of concern, some delam on corner of elevator, delam on rear wing inboard of aileron, basically the filet between the aileron and fuselage. The tail has been modified and has a single spring tail wheel mount, the  rudder has obviously been modified and didnt survive the trip intact. Looks like the bottom mount has broken.
My plans are complete disassembly, sand down complete fuselage mostly using straight line sander, make sure she has good bones. Fingers crossed that i can work with whats there.




Join main@Q-List.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.