51%


Chris Walterson
 

Does anyone know an FAA site or anyplace that says the Q2 complies with the 51% build rule?
 I realize that it is closer to the 80% build rule, but there is no info on any Canadian site.
 Thanks  ---- Chris


Sam Hoskins
 

The FAA won't have anything definitive. I haven't heard of anyone having any sort of a problem in that regard.  Just show the plans and your photo record, I would think that would be enough.

Sam

On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 1:53 PM Dorothea Keats dkeats@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

 Does anyone know an FAA site or anyplace that says the Q2 complies
with the 51% build rule?
 I realize that it is closer to the 80% build rule, but there is no
info on any Canadian site.
 Thanks  ---- Chris


Mike Dwyer
 

Isn't the fact that the FAA is registering them as Experimental proof that they meet the 50% rule?
As I understand it, the factory has to present data to the FAA and then the FAA makes a ruling.  This wasn't done 30+ years ago so I doubt you'll find anything on the 50% rule.
Mike N3QP Q200

Q200 Website: http://goo.gl/V8IrJF


On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Dorothea Keats dkeats@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

 Does anyone know an FAA site or anyplace that says the Q2 complies
with the 51% build rule?
 I realize that it is closer to the 80% build rule, but there is no
info on any Canadian site.
 Thanks  ---- Chris



Patrick Panzera
 

The 51% rule was revised several years ago making it much harder to comply, and there's no grandfathering. So even if the Q complied with the old rule, that doesn't mean anything anymore. 

Kit manufacturers have the option to have their kit(s) inspected by the FAA to be given a green light to advise as being compliant with the new rule.

There's an FAA form with three columns per line item where you check the appropriate box for who built the part. You (me), the kit manufacturer, or a hired gun.

If there are more checks in the "me" column than the other two columns combined, you win.

If not, all is not lost. You can't get it certificated in the EAB category, but you can get it certificated in the Experimental Exhibition category.

I'm on my cell right now or I'd find that checklists for you. Google can find it for you.

I hope this helps. 

Pat 



On Nov 19, 2017 11:53 AM, "Dorothea Keats dkeats@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

 Does anyone know an FAA site or anyplace that says the Q2 complies
with the 51% build rule?
 I realize that it is closer to the 80% build rule, but there is no
info on any Canadian site.
 Thanks  ---- Chris


Eric <ekwaxman@...>
 

Great tip Pat, thank you.

FAA Amateur-Built Fabrication and Assembly Checklist (2011) Fixed Wing:


For filling-out/explaining above "checklist",  Amateur Built Fabrication and Assembly Checklist (2009) Job Aid :


Good info on this page for Amateur-Built Aircraft Kits(where above links were found): https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/kits/

Eric

On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Patrick Panzera editor@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:


The 51% rule was revised several years ago making it much harder to comply, and there's no grandfathering. So even if the Q complied with the old rule, that doesn't mean anything anymore. 

Kit manufacturers have the option to have their kit(s) inspected by the FAA to be given a green light to advise as being compliant with the new rule.

There's an FAA form with three columns per line item where you check the appropriate box for who built the part. You (me), the kit manufacturer, or a hired gun.

If there are more checks in the "me" column than the other two columns combined, you win.

If not, all is not lost. You can't get it certificated in the EAB category, but you can get it certificated in the Experimental Exhibition category.

I'm on my cell right now or I'd find that checklists for you. Google can find it for you.

I hope this helps. 

Pat 



On Nov 19, 2017 11:53 AM, "Dorothea Keats dkeats@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

 Does anyone know an FAA site or anyplace that says the Q2 complies
with the 51% build rule?
 I realize that it is closer to the 80% build rule, but there is no
info on any Canadian site.
 Thanks  ---- Chris





One Sky Dog
 

When I registered my Dragonfly the DAR removed the form from my documents package because it is plans built no kit ever produced. This would apply to a Q1 FYI.

Regards,
Charlie


On Nov 19, 2017, at 4:16 PM, Patrick Panzera editor@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

The 51% rule was revised several years ago making it much harder to comply, and there's no grandfathering. So even if the Q complied with the old rule, that doesn't mean anything anymore. 

Kit manufacturers have the option to have their kit(s) inspected by the FAA to be given a green light to advise as being compliant with the new rule.

There's an FAA form with three columns per line item where you check the appropriate box for who built the part. You (me), the kit manufacturer, or a hired gun.

If there are more checks in the "me" column than the other two columns combined, you win.

If not, all is not lost. You can't get it certificated in the EAB category, but you can get it certificated in the Experimental Exhibition category.

I'm on my cell right now or I'd find that checklists for you. Google can find it for you.

I hope this helps. 

Pat 



On Nov 19, 2017 11:53 AM, "Dorothea Keats dkeats@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

 Does anyone know an FAA site or anyplace that says the Q2 complies
with the 51% build rule?
 I realize that it is closer to the 80% build rule, but there is no
info on any Canadian site.
 Thanks  ---- Chris


Chris Walterson
 

Thanks for the info guys.  In Canada  you need to prove it complies with the 51% rule.  I can get an inspection that cost 435$ plus mileage and lodging, so that is about 2500$ because of where I live to come and see some foam and fiberglass.
The Q2 is not on the list of  TCA/FAA eligable kits, but there is also a category that says"plans" built.
In the preamble of the plans it says to built the Q2 using the plans.  So, I think if I change my application to say "plans built " using premolded fuselage shells, that may work. The lady at MD-RA is trying to help me out. I sent here a bunch of pictures of the parts to evaluate.  Having said all this, any "Kit" airplane you buy from Wicks is only a bunch of material, but is still considered a Kit airplane.  They may need to revisit this classification.
 They have probably built at least twenty Q 2 in Canada,  so hopefully common sence will prevail. Lt you know what happens.
 Canada Chris


Jay Scheevel
 

The UK guys may be able to help. They have managed to get the Q2-Q200 listed on the roster of acceptable amateur built "kits". This fact may be of value towards convincing the Canadian authorities of the legitimacy of the Q2-Q200 meeting criteria required for approval.  Anyone across the pond care to comment?

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q still building


Sam Hoskins
 

When people ask me if my Q-200 came as a kit I respond "Yes, which means all the raw materials came in on the same truck".

Here's a little video of my kit:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V5nNsYn_9A

Sam


On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:07 AM Dorothea Keats dkeats@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

 Thanks for the info guys.  In Canada  you need to prove it complies
with the 51% rule.  I can get an inspection that cost 435$ plus mileage
and lodging, so that is about 2500$ because of where I live to come and
see some foam and fiberglass.
The Q2 is not on the list of  TCA/FAA eligable kits, but there is also a
category that says"plans" built.
In the preamble of the plans it says to built the Q2 using the plans. 
So, I think if I change my application to say "plans built " using
premolded fuselage shells, that may work. The lady at MD-RA is trying to
help me out. I sent here a bunch of pictures of the parts to evaluate. 
Having said all this, any "Kit" airplane you buy from Wicks is only a
bunch of material, but is still considered a Kit airplane.  They may
need to revisit this classification.
 They have probably built at least twenty Q 2 in Canada,  so hopefully
common sence will prevail. Lt you know what happens.
 Canada Chris


Patrick Panzera
 

For what it's worth, here's the article I wrote on the new 51% rule, days after it came out in 2009.

Note that I had to use the wayback machine to find it, as EAA has "lost" all the issues of the Experimenter eNewsletter - 3 years of work. 

https://web.archive.org/web/20120313154351/http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2009-10_51percent.asp

On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Dorothea Keats dkeats@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

 Does anyone know an FAA site or anyplace that says the Q2 complies
with the 51% build rule?
 I realize that it is closer to the 80% build rule, but there is no
info on any Canadian site.
 Thanks  ---- Chris



Jay Scheevel
 

Also in the for-what-its-worth department. Here is a letter from the FSDO#66 that I recieved in 1984 when I was asking the same question. Seems to think that the Q-200 is acceptable. Ancient history now..
Cheers,
Jay

https://xa.yimg.com/df/Q-LIST/FSDO_response_letter_1984.pdf?token=s3q2pNifmZKGjD9KvLs5rxQxdrcjpKNiEGY4czDNidB6fmeoQjSjf-rzxfoPN3oeFuZK4ZBkVgYPLoXa7kvXbVJ5LNdbEzddAWOWgPJVgRLpC287hOa373ZGV2Y&type=download


Patrick Panzera
 

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Patrick Panzera <editor@...> wrote:
For what it's worth, here's the article I wrote on the new 51% rule, days after it came out in 2009.

Note that I had to use the wayback machine to find it, as EAA has "lost" all the issues of the Experimenter eNewsletter - 3 years of work. 

https://web.archive.org/web/20120313154351/http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2009-10_51percent.asp

On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Dorothea Keats dkeats@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

 Does anyone know an FAA site or anyplace that says the Q2 complies
with the 51% build rule?
 I realize that it is closer to the 80% build rule, but there is no
info on any Canadian site.
 Thanks  ---- Chris




Richard Thomson
 

Hi Jay,

I'm not sure we have a 51% rule, I'll have to check. Nearly all my projects have been built from plans and made my own bits so more than 51% anyway, except the TriQ, and that was in such a state that a fair portion of that was rebuilt with new or upgraded parts. It had already flown 368 hours, its just a restore.(just ??)

Richard. T.


Jay Scheevel
 

Thanks Richard,

I seem to remember that there was an official list of acceptable amateur build "kits" that the UK authorities maintained. To get on this list required providing some engineering data, kit info, performance data, approved plans/parts lists, an official POH of sorts, those kinds of things.

I think I remember Paul Buckley mentioning on occasion that to remain within that sanctioned designation, any deviation from accepted plans designs were prohibited. Seems both the Q2/Q-200 and Tri-Q2/Tri-Q-200 were on the sanctioned list in the UK.

Anyway, since these criteria do not apply to my project (in the U.S.), I am a bit hazy on my recollection. I would think the Canadians have followed a similar approach, or maybe a hybrid between the U.S. and UK or Australian rules. I do know that Reg Clarke, although Canadian, certified his modified Q-2 in the U.S. (his brother lives in Montana). That may be an indication of the relative-ease comparison of Canada vs. U.S.

Maybe Paul Buckley would have more insight if he still has his ears on....Paul?

What ever became of Gary Legare?

Cheers,
Jay


quickieq2uk
 

Hi Jay, Richard, Q-Listers

The 51% does apply in the UK to kit built aeroplanes. CAA Publication CAP659 refers to this. Most homebuilt aircraft in the UK come under the auspices of the Light Aircraft Association having delegated authority for airworthiness from the CAA, but there are limits to the maximum horsepower and maximum number of occupants and some other limitations as to what homebuilt aircraft they can administer, otherwise you have to go to the CAA directly which gets very expensive. In the main, most homebuilt aircraft have to be built as per plans/instructions with no modifications unless they have been mandated by the LAA in order for the type to meet UK airworthiness requirements. In reality most aircraft get some form of modification to meet UK requirements. Outside of that you can have modifications but they need to be approved by the LAA if somebody has already done the mod it's a fairly straightforward process to get it approved for your aircraft otherwise it can be expensive and time consuming if you are the first to do a particular mod to a type.
Once a type has been approved by the LAA it goes on their accepted types list. If the type is a kit, it would be fair to say that it meets the 51% rule if it is on that list. I have included some links that may or may not be of use with original posters query.




LAA accepted aircraft list 
United Kingdom

On 21 Nov 2017, at 20:39, jay@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

 

Thanks Richard,

I seem to remember that there was an official list of acceptable amateur build "kits" that the UK authorities maintained.. To get on this list required providing some engineering data, kit info, performance data, approved plans/parts lists, an official POH of sorts, those kinds of things.

I think I remember Paul Buckley mentioning on occasion that to remain within that sanctioned designation, any deviation from accepted plans designs were prohibited. Seems both the Q2/Q-200 and Tri-Q2/Tri-Q-200 were on the sanctioned list in the UK.

Anyway, since these criteria do not apply to my project (in the U.S.), I am a bit hazy on my recollection. I would think the Canadians have followed a similar approach, or maybe a hybrid between the U.S. and UK or Australian rules. I do know that Reg Clarke, although Canadian, certified his modified Q-2 in the U.S. (his brother lives in Montana). That may be an indication of the relative-ease comparison of Canada vs. U.S.

Maybe Paul Buckley would have more insight if he still has his ears on....Paul?

What ever became of Gary Legare?

Cheers,
Jay


Jay Scheevel
 

Great review Simon. Thanks for taking the time to inform us "colonists" :-)

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q, still building


Richard Thomson
 

Jay,

Gary Legare is your side of the pond, he designed the T Tail for the Q.

Perhaps you mean Gary McKirdy, he is still around somewhere. 

The LAA are the designated organisation by the CAA for light aircraft in UK.

Our LAA do the work of looking at New designs, putting them through their approval process, which can take some time.

They inspect the stage build and eventually if you are lucky, they will give you a permit to test, usually with a designated test pilot.

If the design exhibits normal characteristics throughout its test program, you may get a Permit to Fly, which is what our Homebuilt aircraft usually end up with. At that point it will get added to the approved design list.

If you are looking at a commercial design then it has to go through a more stringent process.

That is a basic outline of the process, you can check the detail on the LAA website if you have any other questions.

Website : www.laa.uk.com


Richard T.


Jay Scheevel
 

Thanks Richard. I knew that Gary Legare was on this side of the water. He is Canadian (I think) and had the rights to Quickie sales in Canada during QAC days, if I recall correctly. I just do not know what ever happened to him. Have not heard anyone mention him in a looooong time.

Cheers,
Jay


Chris Walterson
 

Good news.  The inspectors in Canada recognize that  Q2 is way more than a 51% build airplane so I am good to continue.
Now for a question. There needs to be at least two inspections. Precover and final. At what stage does the FAA do the precover. Building the wing and canard you almost need to do all the glassing at once incorporating the spars into the building process. I am going to be talking to my building inspector to see what he wants, but I was curious as to the requirement in the states.
 Here's a picture to bring back memories.  Take care--------------
Canada Chris


Jay Scheevel
 

That's good news Chris,

My DAR recently told me that the real key factor is having enough photos of the build (make sure you get into the frame regularly) that it demonstrates that you built the majority of the plane. As Paul said, at least on this side of the border, they are just checking to see that it is a "homebuilt" and that functionally it is a sound construction, nothing about it having safe flying characteristics.

I also remember a similar building stage as yours from long ago. Here is my version of your photo (taken almost exactly 32 years ago using a polaroid instant camera!). I found the same thing you did with the rear shells warping a bit, once the untrimmed edge was removed. Makes it look like a birds beak slightly open. I don't remember how I handled that re-fitting, but there are a number of ways you could think of that would take care of it without sacrificing any strength or fit. Have fun.

Cheers,
Jay