Cessna question

[aerofoil1]

Hello all
Quick question is it possible to build a Cessna 152/172 from spare donor parts etc?
Let’s say I buy a fuselage then a pair of wings and engine and everything else from a breakers
In terms of getting a C of A and all the correct certifications would this be possible ?

[TowerDog]

Hello all
Quick question is it possible to build a Cessna 152/172 from spare donor parts etc?
Let’s say I buy a fuselage then a pair of wings and engine and everything else from a breakers
In terms of getting a C of A and all the correct certifications would this be possible ?

Oh dear.
You must be new to flying?
Just like it is not a good idea to buy the cheapest parachute you can find, it may not be smart to buy scattered airplane pieces and try make them fit :ooh:

[Pilot DAR]

is it possible to build a Cessna 152/172 from spare donor parts etc?

Yes

In terms of getting a C of A and all the correct certifications would this be possible ?

Depending upon the nation, it would vary from hard "no", to "very, very difficult". "Easy" or "economical" are out of the question.

The absolute only reason to build your own plane, would be if you really enjoy building planes as a pastime, and are very knowledgeable about doing it. Otherwise, if simply flying the plane is your objective, buy or rent one in flying condition. Building a plane is an excellent way to become really conversant with building and maintenance, but if you value your time at all, no way to save money to fly one. It is certain, that you can buy a flying certified Cessna, for less than the cost of buying one airplane's worth of airworthy parts, let alone the effort required to assemble it, and letting alone the complexities of having it inspected and approved. Any used part for a certified requires authoritative "previous certification", without which, the part is virtually useless. And with it, the part can still be useless, depending upon its condition, and AD/SB compliance.

[fitliker]

All you need is the data plate and money and you can rebuild any aircraft .
Pacific aircraft salvage could build you a beaver from a data plate . Some rumours about four abandoned Army beavers still in the crate in Korea , almost complete just missing the data plates :)

[Pilot DAR]

All you need is the data plate and money and you can rebuild any aircraft .

Is true, though to fly it, you'll also need certification for all the parts which were used to build the plane. In Canada, we have a program, which for certain parts, may be used to recertify some parts for which documentation has been lost, but building a whole airplane under that program would be prohibitively expensive (compared to just buying one).

[aerofoil1]

Many thanks for the reply’s everyone ! It was just a hypothetical question really wether the task could be viable clearly with out the data plate probably not worth it but thanks again !

[N707ZS]

At my local light airfield, a number of guys build their own kit microlight aircraft and over the years many nice aircraft have evolved. Might be a route to follow if you fancy the construction side of aviation. Cost of build compared to purchase I have never asked.

[Pilot DAR]

The economies of this thinking came to me early in life, when I used to fly the "U control" model planes, powered by a small engine. I could barely afford to buy the engine. I happened across a price list for the parts for the engine from the manufacturer. Aha! I said to myself, I'll buy the parts and assemble it myself. When I tallied the cost of the parts separately, it was more than twice the cost of the engine whole.

Later in life in the mid '80's, a worked for an aircraft engine overhaul shop. As a sideline, and to provide a source of overhauled, on the shelf, ready to go engine parts (cylinders in particular), my boss would buy whole airplanes. I would go and pick up the plane wherever it was (as far as 1500 miles sometimes) and fly it home. His son and I would then fly the planes around for fun and errands, to the end of whatever inspection interval remained. The final flight would be to the "wrecking yard", where the plane was disassembled. My boss took the engines, his colleague took the airframes, and everything was parted out. They may very happy profits from both the engine parts, an airframe parts. Over a few years, I probably took more than twenty planes to their break up. The handy side benefit for us (me) was that on the few occasions I damaged a plane a little, we usually had the required repair parts in stock.

In part, the economies of this were a reality, in that a Cessna 150, with a 4/10 paint job, 3/10 interior, and junk avionics (let alone what maintenance it might need) was worth less as a flying plane than the cost to paint it, replace the interior and avionics. The parts were more badly needed to keep the 9/10 fleet flying. Though I'm no longer involved, that business still exists, though they only buy damaged planes now, the flying ones are finally too valuable to break up!

[wrench1]

In terms of getting a C of A and all the correct certifications would this be possible ?
Just to add, the key point to this part are the national CAA rules and regulations. And this should be the initial point at which to start any project like this. The lack of a national certification route of the final product makes any other costs moot no matter how cheap they might be.
Any used part for a certified requires authoritative "previous certification", without which, the part is virtually useless. And with it, the part can still be useless, depending upon its condition, and AD/SB compliance.
FYI: It depends. For example, there is FAA guidance that allows the use of surplus and salvage parts in the repair and restoration of type certificated aircraft. Actually there are some models where this was the only option like Stearmans, Wacos, and other older tube and fabric aircraft. Even some conventional built aircraft have been brought back to legal flight status using salvage and owner-produced parts. At one time you could scrounge up enough parts and even without an original data plate build a "certified" aircraft. However, if you wanted a standard airworthiness certificate you needed a permission letter from the current TC holder to bless the aircraft. If no letter then you were stuck with a restricted AWC. Never heard of one of those letters ever issued though. While it can be economical to tackle a project like the OP suggested, most are not unless you are a A&P mechanic or get the mechanic work for free. Regardless, it can be an interesting endeavor.

[Maoraigh1]

The OP is in the UK. Cessna 150/152/172 are Certified aircraft. The CAA will require full documentation of all parts, and work must be signed by a certificated engineer.
I own an EASA type aircraft, recovered after being abandoned, but the CAA only allowed it an LAA Permit to Fly, and may be more strict today.

[Fl1ingfrog]

It has been in doubt what bit of an aeroplane is the aeroplane, certainly in the UK. The CAA from memory did decide that the fuselage should be the aeroplane or someone in the authority did. Common sense says it should be the fuselage but it is easy to take off a registration plate and rivet it to another. Engineers are out here stitching parts together in the hope of making a few bob. The value of old second hand aeroplanes has risen dramatically and I would suspect a rebuild of miscellaneous parts - perhaps following an insurance write off*, may return a profit. The key will be having up to date log books that go back to when new, and without a break, to be married with.

* an insurance write off only reflects that it is cheaper or more practical for the insurer to end the issue with a pay out. Many owners do not register a 'write off' with the authority. Buyer beware!

[Pilot DAR]

there is FAA guidance that allows the use of surplus and salvage parts in the repair and restoration of type certificated aircraft.

Yes, and in Canada too, more liberally in fact. However, for a certified plane, it will still require that the licensed aircraft mechanic sign for the part, and it's installation. If you present a part with an unknown history, the aircraft mechanic may accept and sign for it under some circumstances - he/she is then certifying its installation. But, a whole plane worth of parts would not be accepted without authoritative certification.

My previously fully certified FAA TCDS airplane was modified with a different engine and propeller, both fully certified at the time of installation, and installed in accordance with data provided by the original airplane designer - but it was never STC approved. I moved the airplane into the Canadian "Owner Maintenance" category, which permits this change, and it was accepted by the authority, and so registered. It has flown since 2008 to this day this way. The FAA denies it entry into US airspace, as it incorporates [certified] parts, not certified for that type. I was actually once paced for 45 minutes by a US Border Security helicopter (flying on the US side), while I flew along the Canada/US border, always wholly within Canada - the FAA takes its restrictions very seriously! My airplane, which does not qualify as "certified" any more, may be repaired with undocumented parts if need be - but, you still could not build a new one that way, it had to start with a full C of A, and have been flying airworthy, to be eligible for entry into this category.

[wrench1]

But, a whole plane worth of parts would not be accepted without authoritative certification.
My previously fully certified FAA TCDS airplane was modified with a different engine and propeller, both fully certified at the time of installation, and installed in accordance with data provided by the original airplane designer - but it was never STC approved.
I don't quite follow your meaning with these two statements. So long as you remain within the approved aircraft specifications, to include any engine or prop changes, there is no required additional "authoritative certification" needed outside of an A&P certificate. Even an STC approval is not required since per the Part 1 definition of a major alteration states any alteration listed in an aircraft specification is not considered a major alteration. And there have been a number of engine/prop changes listed in such a manner. Regardless, the TCCA Owner Maintained category is a completely separate topic/issue way outside the OPs initial premise for the simple fact that those category aircraft no longer meet international standards and agreements and are permanently stuck in Canada unless a country elects to specifically accept them. Granted my viewpoint is strictly FAA based, but this is exactly why anyone attempting the type of work mentioned by the OP must ensure their local/national aviation authority will permit such work and provide a path to certify it with minimal restrictions..

[Pilot DAR]

So long as you remain within the approved aircraft specifications, to include any engine or prop changes, there is no required additional "authoritative certification" needed outside of an A&P certificate.

I am aware that FAA A&P privileges are a little different from those I'm familiar with in Canada, as are the FAA standards for previous certification. An (unrelated to the topic) example is that I understand that a previously certified airplane may be moved into an "experimental" category at the owner's option. This is not permitted in Canada, unless there is a genuine experimental flight test program to be carried out on the airplane, for which an accepted flight test plan will be followed. This difference was an impetus for the creation of the Canadian Owner Maintenance category, to enable some airplanes to be voluntarily moved from certified to a status part way toward "amateur built" (which a previously certified airplane is not).

On the main topic, very dependent upon what certification or other records accompanied an airplane part, and what nation the work is being certified in, a licensed aircraft mechanic might be allowed to accept it for installation - if it "conforms to the type design" (for which the records probably help) and is "fit and safe of operation". I expect that if the documentation which accompanies a part is considered incomplete, it'll take more time and consideration by the mechanic to accept it for installation. For a couple of parts to repair an airplane maybe it's worth it. A major number of the parts to construct a whole plane - probably not worth the time it would take for the mechanic to be at peace with the determination. A factor in this is the confirmation of the "fit and safe for installation" part of the requirement, as donor parts from wherever will require detailed inspection for conduit and geometry.

Even an STC approval is not required since per the Part 1 definition of a major alteration states any alteration listed in an aircraft specification is not considered a major alteration. And there have been a number of engine/prop changes listed in such a manner.

Correct, if the proposed engine and/or prop is listed on the TCDS, or STC approved. But, if neither approval is available, an STC will be required for the airplane to be fully certified following the changed engine/propeller installation. I am aware of a few situations where the installation of a different engine and or propeller created an unexpected unsafe condition - I've found a few during flight testing. This is a particularly important consideration if the airplane also has other modifications. "Multi mod" airplanes are receiving more scrutiny these days to assure that they meet the requirement that: "Compatibility of this design change with previously approved modifications must be determined by the installer". Such determination could be an aircraft certification type activity, and may be beyond the scope of some installers.

Example of the situation:

Cessna A185F being rebuilt following groundloop damage - wings replaced. The licensed mechanic signed out the repair, understanding (but not mentioning in the work report) that Cessna 182Q wings were installed in place of the wings intended for an A185F. The 182 wings, with some modification, will fit and work - but are not approved, and they did not do all of the required modifications. But, the airplane was returned to service, flew many years, and passed several annual inspections without this non compliance being noticed, nor the several unsafe conditions being noticed or resolved - until a prospective purchaser did a good pre purchase technical record review, and found this major discrepancy. Questions were asked, unsafe conditions suspected, and the airplane grounded. Fuel and control systems differ between the types, and a major difference, the stall warning system. Story of making it right here:

https://www.pprune.org/flight-testing/646672-modifying-cessna-stall-warning-system.html

In this situation, a $450,000 airplane was rebuilt with errors related to the use of wrong or undocumented parts, and in a number of aspects, was unsafe. The owner pilot, and several licensed mechanics did not notice these unsafe conditions for years. It cost the value of a decent smaller Cessna to make it all right.

[wrench1]

An (unrelated to the topic) example is that I understand that a previously certified airplane may be moved into an "experimental" category at the owner's option.
If you are referring to the Experimental-Amateur Built category there is no path to move a type-certificated aircraft into E/AB. However, there are 6 other experimental categories which a TC’d aircraft can operate under like exhibition, research & design, racing, etc. The 51% rule precludes any TC aircraft under E/AB. However, you may use a limited amount of TC parts in the construction of your E/AB aircraft.
I expect that if the documentation which accompanies a part is considered incomplete, it'll take more time and consideration by the mechanic to accept it for installation.
That’s provided there is any documentation at all with the part and as you mention the country you’re in. While FAA Part 121, 135, 145 operations may have certain part documentation requirements, you’ll find a majority of Part 91 parts will not have an "official" paper trail with some venders charging extra for a Form 8130-3 or similar tag. This of course excludes any required tracked item and certain components. So in general, it takes the same amount of time and consideration for a mechanic to determination if the part is useable and serviceable regardless of documentation.
A major number of the parts to construct a whole plane - probably not worth the time it would take for the mechanic to be at peace with the determination.
I believe the "number of parts" is subjective to the person performing the work. I for one have no issues making those determinations on a large scale. As I mentioned, there are a number of aircraft out there that were “reborn” from a core airframe and a pile of other parts. However, I’m not talking about illegally swapping data plates and the like. Anybody who follows that path should be prohibited from aviation and jailed.
if the proposed engine and/or prop is listed on the TCDS
One thing to keep in mind is that the Part 1 definition of major alteration only refers to the “aircraft specifications” and not the TCDS when making a major determination. There is a difference.

In general terms, prior to the change from the CAA to the FAA, the documents now known as the TCDS were called Aircraft Specifications. And some still are titled as such even though they are listed in the TCDS database. These particular documents are also formatted with an “A” prefix like A-691.

Once these documents were renamed the TCDS and reformatted, the “aircraft specifications” for new aircraft were moved under the type design as noted in Part 21. Subsequently, the OEM started listing factory alterations via mostly bulletins, installation instructions and so on. So if you only check the TCDS for changes you may miss those factory alterations (aircraft specifications) listed in other OEM documentation.
Example of the situation:
Your 185 example is an excellent example on how there is a commonality of parts between different models and the paperwork it takes to use them. But from my view point its not that the installers put 182Q wings on a 185F but rather they installed wing structure assy P/N 123456-88 in place of wing structure assy P/N 123456-99.

As I recall all 180 series aircraft use the same core wing structure P/N 123456-xx regardless of variant. Where the original installers erred was not making the necessary physical changes (ie., stall warning, fuel, etc.) to the -88 structure to make it compliant to a -99 wing structure assy and document those minor changes. As they say the job isn’t done till the paperwork is complete.

So in terms of the OPs post, the first place to start with a project of this magnitude is to contact his national aviation authority and find out what legal possibilities there are.

[Pilot DAR]

In general terms, prior to the change from the CAA to the FAA, the documents now known as the TCDS were called Aircraft Specifications. And some still are titled as such even though they are listed in the TCDS database. These particular documents are also formatted with an “A” prefix like A-691.

Very interesting Wrench1, I did not make that distinction, thanks! I have used these TCDS's for decades for STC approval projects, and had wondered a little about the format change in document numbers. And then to confuse me more, the Transport Canada and EASA TCDS numbers do presently follow the "A-###" format (Cessna 206H is Transport Canada TCDS number A-212.

Where the original installers erred was not making the necessary physical changes (ie., stall warning, fuel, etc.) to the -88 structure to make it compliant to a -99 wing structure assy

Yeah, the big miss was that the leading edge skins for the 182Q and 185F where the stall horn is installed are different, as the square hole is in a different position on the leading edge radius. This was a matter of: a) using the wrong parts, and b), not thinking to actually confirm all of the differences. On a 185, the [functioning] stall warning system is TCDS basic required equipment, so the fact that is was not installed correctly, and thus did not work at all, was a definite error.

[pattern_is_full]

I think it would simply fall under the requirements for any amateur-built EXPERIMENTAL aircraft. These are for the USA, don't know what they are for other jurisdictions.

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/sp_awcert/experiment

As to a placard or data plate, I suspect trying to use an official Cessna one would not be a good idea. In fact, Cessna's lawyers would probably demand that the final aircraft make no reference whatsoever to Cessna.

There do exist special EXPERIMENTAL data plates for homebuilts:

EXPERIMENTAL AMATEUR BUILT AIRCRAFT
Model: (say) Airfoil1 X52
Serial No: AF100001
Date of mfg: 17/9/2022
Engine: (say intentions)
Empty Weight: (weigh it)
Gross Weight: (test it)
Horsepower: (say intentions)

BUILT BY
Name: Airfoil1
Address: ------
City/State/Other: Stoke-On-Trent, UK

[wrench1]

I think it would simply fall under the requirements for any amateur-built EXPERIMENTAL aircraft. These are for the USA, don't know what they are for other jurisdictions.
FYI: you'll find a type certificated aircraft like a Cessna does not meet the regulatory definition of amateur built aircraft so that specific experimental category is not an option. There are a few FAA guidance docs on this. Same with removing data plates from TC'd aircraft.

[Pilot DAR]

I have had airplanes placed into the experimental category in Canada while I have been flight testing a change to the airplane. This was temporary, and in all but one case, the airplane was removed from this category, and approved as fully certified after the testing (experimentation) was competed. I'm not sure about the FAA system, but in Canada, "experimental" and "amateur built" are two very different categories for different purposes. I have seen N registered airplanes, which appeared to be solely amateur built, with "experimental" placarded. I'm not sure if these planes were non certified types being used for flight experimentation, or just "fun" - the "experimental" aspect of the their flying was not evident. Some non certified types (I'm thinking of Burt Rutan's space lift aircraft are obviously truly experimental, and due operation in that category). But all of that is outside the scope of recreational use of an airplane.

With the exception of the Canadian Owner Maintenance category (with its own specific purpose, eligible types, and limitations), I'm unaware of a method to take a previously certified airplane into an amateur built category, without actually and evidently actually building 51% of the airframe. That's not just bolting 51% of the parts of certified airplanes together, but cutting and riveting (or laying up and bonding) 51% of the airplane. I do know a fellow who built up a former Cessna 175 as a Canadian amateur built airplane, but he actually did spend many years building more than 51% of it from raw materials. It was a beautiful job, which took him many years as a labour of love.

Even an amateur built airplane has some burden, if there is a desire to replace a data plate. My boss once bought a beautifully built Thorpe T-18, with the commitment that it never again be flown. Though he did intend to honour that, and sold off the engine and prop, it beckoned him badly! He bought a set of plans and some parts (like a new canopy), and with Transport Canada inspector agreement, and oversight, I built him a new Thorpe T-18 out of some of the parts of the old one, as an entirely new amateur built airplane. In that way, the data plate, and thus liability of the one he had purchased never did fly again, even though quite a bit of the airplane did.

[wrench1]

I'm not sure about the FAA system, but in Canada, "experimental" and "amateur built" are two very different categories for different purposes.
The FAA system starts with 2 classes of airworthiness certificate: Standard and Special. Each class if further broke down into categories. On the Special certificate side there 8 categories: Primary, Restricted, Multiple, Limited, Light Sport, Experimental, Special Flight Permit, and Provisional. Under the Experimental category there are 10 "sub-categories" one of which is: operating amateur-built aircraft. So in the FAA system amateur built aircraft is a subset of the Experimental category but not a standalone special airworthiness certificate category. However, there is the same 51% amateur build rule as the TCCA system with similar limitations and restrictions.

[Pilot DAR]

Thanks Wrench, that clears it all up for me! I have had FAA Inspectors temporarily designate an "N" airplane as "experimental" when I was flight testing it. I had to put the word in the window, even though I was not leaving the airport with it!