Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:06 AM - Re: Re: Viking Engine (ronburnett@charter.net)
2. 04:28 AM - Re: Re: Viking Engine (Henador Titzoff)
3. 05:50 AM - =?utf-8?Q?Chartflier_=93_OT? ()
4. 07:05 AM - Re: Re: Viking Engine (n801bh@netzero.com)
5. 07:36 AM - Re: Re: Viking Engine (Mike Welch)
6. 07:45 AM - Re: Re: Viking Engine (Kelly McMullen)
7. 08:23 AM - Re: Re: Viking Engine (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 09:29 AM - Re: Re: Viking Engine (Pete)
9. 09:30 AM - Re: Viking Engine (Hadley Heinrichs)
10. 11:33 AM - Re: Re: Viking Engine (David)
11. 12:17 PM - Re: Re: Viking Engine (Ed Holyoke)
12. 02:05 PM - Re: Re: Viking Engine (David)
13. 02:35 PM - Re: Re: Viking Engine (John Cox)
14. 03:06 PM - Re: Re: Viking Engine ()
15. 03:56 PM - Re: Re: Viking Engine (Ed Holyoke)
16. 05:25 PM - Op Limits, was Viking Engines (Richard Girard)
17. 06:19 PM - Re: Re: Viking Engine (Charlie England)
18. 07:04 PM - Re: Re: Viking Engine (David)
19. 08:19 PM - Re: Re: Viking Engine (John Cox)
20. 10:05 PM - AEC9008 Low Ohms Adapters User's Manual (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
21. 10:09 PM - Re: Re: Viking Engine (Ed Holyoke)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
I by fuel with ethanol in it which is only an option for an auto engine.
I burn non ethanol 87 octane purchased from a local Co-Op in my Luscombe
8A.
Ron Burnett
Do not archive
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:59 PM, John Morgensen wrote:
> <john@morgensen.com>
>
> You do know that a Lycoming will run on 91 octane as well, right?
>
> johninreno
>
> On 7/11/2011 8:07 PM, ronburnett@charter.net wrote:
>>
>> I am an Eggenfellner customer buying one of the original Subaru H-4
>> engines. I am aware that there are no doubt some legitimate
>> complaints about deliveries of engines and props in some cases and
>> delivery schedules slid considerably in many cases. I do not believe
>> any problems were deliberate, but due to overoptimistim and
>> subcontracting problems as well as others I don't pretend to know.
>>
========================================================
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
The fact that a Lycoming will run on 100LL is a BIG PLUS when traveling cro
ss country, as that's what's mostly available at airports. -The fact that
a Lycoming will run on unleaded automotive fuel is a BIG PLUS when operati
ng out of your home field or near a mogas available airport. -Best of bot
h worlds.=0A=0AI was looking at the pictures on the Viking website. -What
is a Columbian Viking dealer, besides a good looking se=F1or citizen?=0A
-=0AHenador Titzoff=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: J
ohn Morgensen <john@morgensen.com>=0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com=0A
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 11:59 PM=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re:
<john@morgensen.com>=0A=0AYou do know that a Lycoming will run on 91 octane
as well, right?=0A=0Ajohninreno=0A=0AOn 7/11/2011 8:07 PM, ronburnett@char
ter.net=0A> =0A> I am an Eggenfellner customer buying one of the original S
ubaru H-4 engines.- I am aware that there are no doubt some legitimate co
mplaints about deliveries of engines and props in some cases and delivery s
chedules slid considerably in many cases.- I do not believe any problems
were deliberate, but due to overoptimistim and subcontracting problems as w
ell as others I don't pretend to know.=0A> =0A> I believe his Honda engine
would be excellent and I would consider one if I were to build a LSA.- He
continues to sell me needed supplies, if they are available in his invento
ry.- Putting information online is damaging to a small business and can e
nd up hurting the very support you need the most.=0A> =0A> Have flown my RV
-6A for 53 hours now and am enjoying it very much. buying 91 octane is much
cheaper than 100LL BY about $1.50/gal.=0A> =0A> Good luck and let's share
our successes and help our alternative engine community.=0A> =0A> Ron Burne
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Matt Dralle, List
======
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | =?utf-8?Q?Chartflier_=93_OT? |
Hi all,
I was wondering if anyone uses/has practical experience with Chartflier (essentialflight.us).
At this time I would keep Wx weather on a Garmin 396 rather than add the optional
ADS-B receiverthat Chartflier offers.
The main purpose by adding Chartflier is:
1) to have an EFB with all charts,
2) on a PC OS tablet (as opposed to iOS;
3) with geocoded sectionals, IFR LoAlt and IAPs.
We currently pay $132/yr. for all charts (Sportys DVD), non-geocoded, printable
pdfs. The Chartflier subscription would replace the DVD.
Has anyone compared Chartflier to other packages? Any opinions?
You can email me directly: rd2 AT dejazzd. DOT com
Thanks
Rumen
Do not archive
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
That's incorrect. If you fly an experimental then you can burn anything
you want in it, auto engine or not. And since we are talking about Vikin
g engines, considering they CANNOT be installed in a Luscombe, I don't r
eally see your point.
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: ronburnett@charter.net
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
I by fuel with ethanol in it which is only an option for an auto engine.
I burn non ethanol 87 octane purchased from a local Co-Op in my Luscombe
8A.
Ron Burnett
Do not archive
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:59 PM, John Morgensen wrote:
> <john@morgensen.com>
>
> You do know that a Lycoming will run on 91 octane as well, right?
>
> johninreno
>
> On 7/11/2011 8:07 PM, ronburnett@charter.net wrote:
>>
>> I am an Eggenfellner customer buying one of the original Subaru H-4
>> engines. I am aware that there are no doubt some legitimate
>> complaints about deliveries of engines and props in some cases and
>> delivery schedules slid considerably in many cases. I do not believe
>> any problems were deliberate, but due to overoptimistim and
>> subcontracting problems as well as others I don't pretend to know.
>>
========================
========================
========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
____________________________________________________________
57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4e1c535862f6e33ab2est01vuc
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
Guys=2C
To augment Ben's point=2C even if you do have a certified plane=2C you st
ill don't have the
'right' to burn auto gas as the plane comes out of the factory=2C do you?
>From my
experience=2C if you want to use auto gas in a certified airplane=2C you ha
ve to PAY for
an 'STC'.
Maybe newer aircraft have auto gas approved engines from the factory. I
don't know.
I never owned a newer certified plane=2C but the older ones required the ST
C=2C and they
weren't free.
Mike Welch
>That's incorrect. If you fly an experimental then you can burn anything yo
u want in it=2C auto engine or not. And since we are talking about >Viking
engines=2C considering they CANNOT be installed in a Luscombe=2C I don't re
ally see your point.
>do not archive
>Ben Haas
>N801BH
>www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: ronburnett@charter.net
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
I by fuel with ethanol in it which is only an option for an auto engine.
I burn non ethanol 87 octane purchased from a local Co-Op in my Luscombe
8A.
Ron Burnett
Do not archive
On Mon=2C Jul 11=2C 2011 at 10:59 PM=2C John Morgensen wrote:
> <john@morgensen.com>
>
> You do know that a Lycoming will run on 91 octane as well=2C right?
>
> johninreno
>
> On 7/11/2011 8:07 PM=2C ronburnett@charter.net wrote:
>>
>> I am an Eggenfellner customer buying one of the original Subaru H-4
>> engines. I am aware that there are no doubt some legitimate
>> complaints about deliveries of engines and props in some cases and
>> delivery schedules slid considerably in many cases. I do not believe
>> any problems were deliberate=2C but due to overoptimistim and
>> subcontracting problems as well as others I don't pretend to know.
>>
=bsp=3B - The AeroElectric-L============
============3B - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ==
======================3B -
List Contribution Web Site sp=3B &nb=====
====================
____________________________________________________________
57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
ConsumerLifestyles.org
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
What does any of this have to do with aircraft electrics??
On 7/12/2011 7:32 AM, Mike Welch wrote:
> Guys,
>
> To augment Ben's point, even if you do have a certified plane, you
> still don't have the
> 'right' to burn auto gas as the plane comes out of the factory, do you?
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
At 09:41 AM 7/12/2011, you wrote:
>
>What does any of this have to do with aircraft electrics??
Not much, but all the discussions about "who manufactured
my airplane" didn't either. But it is OBAM aviation and
delete buttons work well on any uninteresting posting.
Bob . . .
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
To All,
The ability to burn any fuel is tied to the limitations of the airplane,
whether certificated or experimental. In the case of a certificated
airplane, to change the type of fuel used in the airplane, an STC would be
required. In the experimental, it would most likely require going back into
Phase 1.
In certificated airplanes, the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) shows the
fuel that is allowed for use. In order to use any other fuel, and maintain
the airworthiness of the airplane, an STC would be required. The FAA
doesn't dictate what fuel can be used, but rather the applicant shows they
can meet the certification requirements using a fuel, or fuels, and then
that is what is placed on the TCDS. The fuel itself has to have a
specification. There's a whole separate argument about fuel specifications,
but I will not go into that here. To use any fuel other than what is on the
TCDS requires an STC. Note: an STC is for someone who isn't the type design
holder (manufacturer). The type design holder can amend their TCDS to show
additional fuels, but the process for fuel approval is identical to the STC.
I have not been involved with alternate fuel testing on experimental
airplanes, but it sounds analogous to the use of an alternate powerplant. I
would imagine there would be a 40 hour Phase 1 that would have to be
accomplished prior to being able to operate beyond the Phase 1 operating
area.
I know this subject is not electric in nature, but I was trying to help and
provide some clarification based upon the discussion.
Pete Rouse
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike
Welch
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:33 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
Guys,
To augment Ben's point, even if you do have a certified plane, you still
don't have the
'right' to burn auto gas as the plane comes out of the factory, do you?
>From my
experience, if you want to use auto gas in a certified airplane, you have to
PAY for
an 'STC'.
Maybe newer aircraft have auto gas approved engines from the factory. I
don't know.
I never owned a newer certified plane, but the older ones required the STC,
and they
weren't free.
Mike Welch
>That's incorrect. If you fly an experimental then you can burn anything you
want in it, auto engine or not. And since we are talking about >Viking
engines, considering they CANNOT be installed in a Luscombe, I don't really
see your point.
>do not archive
>Ben Haas
>N801BH
>www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: ronburnett@charter.net
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
I by fuel with ethanol in it which is only an option for an auto engine.
I burn non ethanol 87 octane purchased from a local Co-Op in my Luscombe
8A.
Ron Burnett
Do not archive
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:59 PM, John Morgensen wrote:
> <john@morgensen.com>
>
> You do know that a Lycoming will run on 91 octane as well, right?
>
> johninreno
>
> On 7/11/2011 8:07 PM, ronburnett@charter.net wrote:
>>
>> I am an Eggenfellner customer buying one of the original Subaru H-4
>> engines. I am aware that there are no doubt some legitimate
>> complaints about deliveries of engines and props in some cases and
>> delivery schedules slid considerably in many cases. I do not believe
>> any problems were deliberate, but due to overoptimistim and
>> subcontracting problems as well as others I don't pretend to know.
>>
==========================bsp; - The
AeroElectric-L=======================; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
=======================; - List Contribution Web Site sp;
&nb=========================
____________________________________________________________
<http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/4e1c535862f6e33ab2est01vuc> 57
Year Old Mom Looks 27!
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
ConsumerLifestyles.org
<http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/4e1c535862f6e33ab2est01vuc>
-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://forums.matronics.com
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
my Subaru engine added at least 3-4 years to the build because of all the
shenanigan's Jan pulls. get used to the delays!
________________________________
From: Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
Sent: Mon, July 11, 2011 8:28:11 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Viking Engine
It's interesting to note that on the Viking engine website here;
http://tinyurl.com/69whowh there are photographs of engines on the shipping dock
(or at least crates purporting to be engines) and it says that next weeks
shipments go to Daniel Stanton, Christopher Leng, Glen Sterling, Richard Monroe
and Burton Harger .
I understand frustration, and certainly no customer deserves to be hung up on,
but is there a chance that this dissatisfaction could be premature??
Don't know of course when that page was updated and whether or not it is current
but some effort to deliver seems to be being made.
Bob McC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of dj45
> Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 8:23 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Viking Engine
>
>
> Anyone considering a Viking engine please be advised, I have had $4,300
deposit
> since Oct 28th and payment in full since May 8th and still haven't seen my
>engine yet.
> I called Jan today and he hung up on me and all I got after that was voice
>mail.
> I don't think that I would be ordering an engine from him.
>
> --------
> Do not archive
>
> Dan Stanton
> N801S CH 801
> N226BS CH701
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=345736#345736
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _-
> ==
> ======
> style='mso-spacerun:yes'> - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
>
> style='mso-spacerun:yes'> -->
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
>
> _-> ==
> ======
> style='mso-spacerun:yes'> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
>
> style='mso-spacerun:yes'> --> http://forums.matronics.com>
> _-> ==
> ======
> style='mso-spacerun:yes'> - List Contribution Web Site -
> style='mso-spacerun:yes'> Thank you for your generous support!
> style='mso-spacerun:yes'> -Matt Dralle, List
>Admin.
> style='mso-spacerun:yes'> --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> _-
> ==
> ======
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
>
There are service stations around that sell pure gas; I believe that
mogas at airports has to be non-ethanol. DO not fily with ethanol, esp
above 10,000 feet. IIRC, the alcohol is really bad for flying due to
separation and it's bad for airplane systems due to a sort of
corrosiveness. But, that is all from memory.
David M.
> To All,
> The ability to burn any fuel is tied to the limitations of the
> airplane, whether certificated or experimental. In the case of a
> certificated airplane, to change the type of fuel used in the
> airplane, an STC would be required. In the experimental, it would
> most likely require going back into Phase 1.
> In certificated airplanes, the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS)
> shows the fuel that is allowed for use. In order to use any other
> fuel, and maintain the airworthiness of the airplane, an STC would be
> required. The FAA doesn't dictate what fuel can be used, but rather
> the applicant shows they can meet the certification requirements using
> a fuel, or fuels, and then that is what is placed on the TCDS. The
> fuel itself has to have a specification. There's a whole separate
> argument about fuel specifications, but I will not go into that here.
> To use any fuel other than what is on the TCDS requires an STC. Note:
> an STC is for someone who isn't the type design holder
> (manufacturer). The type design holder can amend their TCDS to show
> additional fuels, but the process for fuel approval is identical to
> the STC.
> I have not been involved with alternate fuel testing on experimental
> airplanes, but it sounds analogous to the use of an alternate
> powerplant. I would imagine there would be a 40 hour Phase 1 that
> would have to be accomplished prior to being able to operate beyond
> the Phase 1 operating area.
> I know this subject is not electric in nature, but I was trying to
> help and provide some clarification based upon the discussion.
> Pete Rouse
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *Mike Welch
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:33 AM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
>
> Guys,
>
> To augment Ben's point, even if you do have a certified plane, you
> still don't have the
> 'right' to burn auto gas as the plane comes out of the factory, do
> you? From my
> experience, if you want to use auto gas in a certified airplane, you
> have to PAY for
> an 'STC'.
> Maybe newer aircraft have auto gas approved engines from the
> factory. I don't know.
> I never owned a newer certified plane, but the older ones required the
> STC, and they
> weren't free.
>
> Mike Welch
>
>
> >That's incorrect. If you fly an experimental then you can burn
> anything you want in it, auto engine or not. And since we are talking
> about >Viking engines, considering they CANNOT be installed in a
> Luscombe, I don't really see your point.
> >do not archive
>
> >Ben Haas
> >N801BH
> >www.haaspowerair.com
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> From: ronburnett@charter.net
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:02:18 -0400 (EDT)
>
>
> I by fuel with ethanol in it which is only an option for an auto engine.
> I burn non ethanol 87 octane purchased from a local Co-Op in my Luscombe
> 8A.
>
> Ron Burnett
>
> Do not archive
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:59 PM, John Morgensen wrote:
>
> > <john@morgensen.com>
> >
> > You do know that a Lycoming will run on 91 octane as well, right?
> >
> > johninreno
> >
> > On 7/11/2011 8:07 PM, ronburnett@charter.net wrote:
> >>
> >> I am an Eggenfellner customer buying one of the original Subaru H-4
> >> engines. I am aware that there are no doubt some legitimate
> >> complaints about deliveries of engines and props in some cases and
> >> delivery schedules slid considerably in many cases. I do not believe
> >> any problems were deliberate, but due to overoptimistim and
> >> subcontracting problems as well as others I don't pretend to know.
> >>
> ==========================bsp; - The
> AeroElectric-L=======================; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
> =======================; - List Contribution Web Site sp;
> &nb=========================
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> *57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!*
> Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
> <http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/4e1c535862f6e33ab2est01vuc>ConsumerLifestyles.org
> <http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/4e1c535862f6e33ab2est01vuc>
> *
>
> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> *
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> *
> *
>
>
> *
--
If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and get rid
of Soros.
...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with morality
and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for ANY type of
gubmnt
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
Most Ex, AB operating limitations specify a minimum 5 hour phase 1 test
flight period after a major alteration. They also usually spec that the
local FSDO must be notified in advance and is in concurrence with your
proposed test flight area and that a logbook entry be made to return the
aircraft to phase 2. The usual method of compliance is to make an
appointment and walk in with two copies of a letter which states what
you intend to do and re-iterates your already assigned phase 1 area. You
get the duty officer to sign it and they keep a copy.
The definition of what constitutes a major alteration is contained in
part 43, appendix A, sec A43.1.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgFAR.nsf/0/AC9BED30F1D032B9852566AB006BC89C?OpenDocument
(2)(vi) Conversions of any sort for the purpose of using fuel of a
rating or grade other than that listed in the engine specifications.
If, on the other hand, you had test flown the aircraft with alternative
fuel during the original phase 1 period, and made a logbook entry to
that effect, you wouldn't have to do anything further.
Read your own oplims to make sure that they are worded this way and that
you agree with my interpretation.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
On 7/12/2011 9:23 AM, Pete wrote:
> To All,
> The ability to burn any fuel is tied to the limitations of the
> airplane, whether certificated or experimental. In the case of a
> certificated airplane, to change the type of fuel used in the
> airplane, an STC would be required. In the experimental, it would
> most likely require going back into Phase 1.
> In certificated airplanes, the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS)
> shows the fuel that is allowed for use. In order to use any other
> fuel, and maintain the airworthiness of the airplane, an STC would be
> required. The FAA doesn't dictate what fuel can be used, but rather
> the applicant shows they can meet the certification requirements using
> a fuel, or fuels, and then that is what is placed on the TCDS. The
> fuel itself has to have a specification. There's a whole separate
> argument about fuel specifications, but I will not go into that here.
> To use any fuel other than what is on the TCDS requires an STC. Note:
> an STC is for someone who isn't the type design holder
> (manufacturer). The type design holder can amend their TCDS to show
> additional fuels, but the process for fuel approval is identical to
> the STC.
> I have not been involved with alternate fuel testing on experimental
> airplanes, but it sounds analogous to the use of an alternate
> powerplant. I would imagine there would be a 40 hour Phase 1 that
> would have to be accomplished prior to being able to operate beyond
> the Phase 1 operating area.
> I know this subject is not electric in nature, but I was trying to
> help and provide some clarification based upon the discussion.
> Pete Rouse
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *Mike Welch
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:33 AM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
>
> Guys,
>
> To augment Ben's point, even if you do have a certified plane, you
> still don't have the
> 'right' to burn auto gas as the plane comes out of the factory, do
> you? From my
> experience, if you want to use auto gas in a certified airplane, you
> have to PAY for
> an 'STC'.
> Maybe newer aircraft have auto gas approved engines from the
> factory. I don't know.
> I never owned a newer certified plane, but the older ones required the
> STC, and they
> weren't free.
>
> Mike Welch
>
>
> >That's incorrect. If you fly an experimental then you can burn
> anything you want in it, auto engine or not. And since we are talking
> about >Viking engines, considering they CANNOT be installed in a
> Luscombe, I don't really see your point.
> >do not archive
>
> >Ben Haas
> >N801BH
> >www.haaspowerair.com
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> From: ronburnett@charter.net
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:02:18 -0400 (EDT)
>
>
> I by fuel with ethanol in it which is only an option for an auto engine.
> I burn non ethanol 87 octane purchased from a local Co-Op in my Luscombe
> 8A.
>
> Ron Burnett
>
> Do not archive
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:59 PM, John Morgensen wrote:
>
> > <john@morgensen.com>
> >
> > You do know that a Lycoming will run on 91 octane as well, right?
> >
> > johninreno
> >
> > On 7/11/2011 8:07 PM, ronburnett@charter.net wrote:
> >>
> >> I am an Eggenfellner customer buying one of the original Subaru H-4
> >> engines. I am aware that there are no doubt some legitimate
> >> complaints about deliveries of engines and props in some cases and
> >> delivery schedules slid considerably in many cases. I do not believe
> >> any problems were deliberate, but due to overoptimistim and
> >> subcontracting problems as well as others I don't pretend to know.
> >>
> ==========================bsp; - The
> AeroElectric-L=======================; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
> =======================; - List Contribution Web Site sp;
> &nb=========================
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> *57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!*
> Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
> <http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/4e1c535862f6e33ab2est01vuc>ConsumerLifestyles.org
> <http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/4e1c535862f6e33ab2est01vuc>
> *
>
> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> *
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> *
> *
>
>
> *
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
AIUI, once you have your papers, any subsequent major changes do not
require notification of anyone, just a log entry and 5 hours of phase 1
flying, then another log entry. Repeat as necessary.
David M.
> Most Ex, AB operating limitations specify a minimum 5 hour phase 1
> test flight period after a major alteration. They also usually spec
> that the local FSDO must be notified in advance and is in concurrence
> with your proposed test flight area and that a logbook entry be made
> to return the aircraft to phase 2. The usual method of compliance is
> to make an appointment and walk in with two copies of a letter which
> states what you intend to do and re-iterates your already assigned
> phase 1 area. You get the duty officer to sign it and they keep a copy.
>
> The definition of what constitutes a major alteration is contained in
> part 43, appendix A, sec A43.1.
> http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgFAR.nsf/0/AC9BED30F1D032B9852566AB006BC89C?OpenDocument
>
> (2)(vi) Conversions of any sort for the purpose of using fuel of a
> rating or grade other than that listed in the engine specifications.
>
> If, on the other hand, you had test flown the aircraft with
> alternative fuel during the original phase 1 period, and made a
> logbook entry to that effect, you wouldn't have to do anything further.
>
> Read your own oplims to make sure that they are worded this way and
> that you agree with my interpretation.
>
> Pax,
>
> Ed Holyoke
>
> On 7/12/2011 9:23 AM, Pete wrote:
>> To All,
>> The ability to burn any fuel is tied to the limitations of the
>> airplane, whether certificated or experimental. In the case of a
>> certificated airplane, to change the type of fuel used in the
>> airplane, an STC would be required. In the experimental, it would
>> most likely require going back into Phase 1.
>> In certificated airplanes, the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS)
>> shows the fuel that is allowed for use. In order to use any other
>> fuel, and maintain the airworthiness of the airplane, an STC would be
>> required. The FAA doesn't dictate what fuel can be used, but rather
>> the applicant shows they can meet the certification requirements
>> using a fuel, or fuels, and then that is what is placed on the TCDS.
>> The fuel itself has to have a specification. There's a whole
>> separate argument about fuel specifications, but I will not go into
>> that here. To use any fuel other than what is on the TCDS requires an
>> STC. Note: an STC is for someone who isn't the type design holder
>> (manufacturer). The type design holder can amend their TCDS to show
>> additional fuels, but the process for fuel approval is identical to
>> the STC.
>> I have not been involved with alternate fuel testing on experimental
>> airplanes, but it sounds analogous to the use of an alternate
>> powerplant. I would imagine there would be a 40 hour Phase 1 that
>> would have to be accomplished prior to being able to operate beyond
>> the Phase 1 operating area.
>> I know this subject is not electric in nature, but I was trying to
>> help and provide some clarification based upon the discussion.
>> Pete Rouse
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
>> *Mike Welch
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:33 AM
>> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> *Subject:* RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
>>
>> Guys,
>>
>> To augment Ben's point, even if you do have a certified plane, you
>> still don't have the
>> 'right' to burn auto gas as the plane comes out of the factory, do
>> you? From my
>> experience, if you want to use auto gas in a certified airplane, you
>> have to PAY for
>> an 'STC'.
>> Maybe newer aircraft have auto gas approved engines from the
>> factory. I don't know.
>> I never owned a newer certified plane, but the older ones required
>> the STC, and they
>> weren't free.
>>
>> Mike Welch
>>
>>
>> >That's incorrect. If you fly an experimental then you can burn
>> anything you want in it, auto engine or not. And since we are talking
>> about >Viking engines, considering they CANNOT be installed in a
>> Luscombe, I don't really see your point.
>> >do not archive
>>
>> >Ben Haas
>> >N801BH
>> >www.haaspowerair.com
>>
>> ---------- Original Message ----------
>> From: ronburnett@charter.net
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
>> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:02:18 -0400 (EDT)
>>
>>
>> I by fuel with ethanol in it which is only an option for an auto engine.
>> I burn non ethanol 87 octane purchased from a local Co-Op in my Luscombe
>> 8A.
>>
>> Ron Burnett
>>
>> Do not archive
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:59 PM, John Morgensen wrote:
>>
>> > <john@morgensen.com>
>> >
>> > You do know that a Lycoming will run on 91 octane as well, right?
>> >
>> > johninreno
>> >
>> > On 7/11/2011 8:07 PM, ronburnett@charter.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I am an Eggenfellner customer buying one of the original Subaru H-4
>> >> engines. I am aware that there are no doubt some legitimate
>> >> complaints about deliveries of engines and props in some cases and
>> >> delivery schedules slid considerably in many cases. I do not believe
>> >> any problems were deliberate, but due to overoptimistim and
>> >> subcontracting problems as well as others I don't pretend to know.
>> >>
>> ==========================bsp; - The
>> AeroElectric-L=======================; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
>> =======================; - List Contribution Web Site sp;
>> &nb=========================
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> *57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!*
>> Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
>> <http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/4e1c535862f6e33ab2est01vuc>ConsumerLifestyles.org
>> <http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/4e1c535862f6e33ab2est01vuc>
>> *
>>
>> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>> *
>> *
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>> *
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
> *
>
>
> *
--
If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and get rid
of Soros.
...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with morality
and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for ANY type of
gubmnt
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
Wait. Wait. Wait. I just spoke this AM to an FAA Airworthiness
Inspector on the subject of major alteration to an RV-12. The owners
can make the major mod. They must inform the FSDO. The FSDO will
authorize another Phase One. It will likely have the same terms and
geographic boundary of the original. There must be an accurate and
appropriate logbook entry prior to the Phase One and upon completion.
So at this point "any subsequent major changes do not require
notification of anyone" I am saying show me.
John Cox
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
AIUI, once you have your papers, any subsequent major changes do not
require notification of anyone, just a log entry and 5 hours of phase 1
flying, then another log entry. Repeat as necessary.
David M.
> Most Ex, AB operating limitations specify a minimum 5 hour phase 1
> test flight period after a major alteration. They also usually spec
> that the local FSDO must be notified in advance and is in concurrence
> with your proposed test flight area and that a logbook entry be made
> to return the aircraft to phase 2. The usual method of compliance is
> to make an appointment and walk in with two copies of a letter which
> states what you intend to do and re-iterates your already assigned
> phase 1 area. You get the duty officer to sign it and they keep a
copy.
>
> The definition of what constitutes a major alteration is contained in
> part 43, appendix A, sec A43.1.
> http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgFAR.nsf/0/AC9BE
> D30F1D032B9852566AB006BC89C?OpenDocument
>
> (2)(vi) Conversions of any sort for the purpose of using fuel of a
> rating or grade other than that listed in the engine specifications.
>
> If, on the other hand, you had test flown the aircraft with
> alternative fuel during the original phase 1 period, and made a
> logbook entry to that effect, you wouldn't have to do anything
further.
>
> Read your own oplims to make sure that they are worded this way and
> that you agree with my interpretation.
>
> Pax,
>
> Ed Holyoke
>
> On 7/12/2011 9:23 AM, Pete wrote:
>> To All,
>> The ability to burn any fuel is tied to the limitations of the
>> airplane, whether certificated or experimental. In the case of a
>> certificated airplane, to change the type of fuel used in the
>> airplane, an STC would be required. In the experimental, it would
>> most likely require going back into Phase 1.
>> In certificated airplanes, the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS)
>> shows the fuel that is allowed for use. In order to use any other
>> fuel, and maintain the airworthiness of the airplane, an STC would be
>> required. The FAA doesn't dictate what fuel can be used, but rather
>> the applicant shows they can meet the certification requirements
>> using a fuel, or fuels, and then that is what is placed on the TCDS.
>> The fuel itself has to have a specification. There's a whole
>> separate argument about fuel specifications, but I will not go into
>> that here. To use any fuel other than what is on the TCDS requires an
>> STC. Note: an STC is for someone who isn't the type design holder
>> (manufacturer). The type design holder can amend their TCDS to show
>> additional fuels, but the process for fuel approval is identical to
>> the STC.
>> I have not been involved with alternate fuel testing on experimental
>> airplanes, but it sounds analogous to the use of an alternate
>> powerplant. I would imagine there would be a 40 hour Phase 1 that
>> would have to be accomplished prior to being able to operate beyond
>> the Phase 1 operating area.
>> I know this subject is not electric in nature, but I was trying to
>> help and provide some clarification based upon the discussion.
>> Pete Rouse
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
>> *Mike Welch
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:33 AM
>> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> *Subject:* RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
>>
>> Guys,
>>
>> To augment Ben's point, even if you do have a certified plane, you
>> still don't have the 'right' to burn auto gas as the plane comes out
>> of the factory, do you? From my experience, if you want to use auto
>> gas in a certified airplane, you have to PAY for an 'STC'.
>> Maybe newer aircraft have auto gas approved engines from the
>> factory. I don't know.
>> I never owned a newer certified plane, but the older ones required
>> the STC, and they weren't free.
>>
>> Mike Welch
>>
>>
>> >That's incorrect. If you fly an experimental then you can burn
>> anything you want in it, auto engine or not. And since we are talking
>> about >Viking engines, considering they CANNOT be installed in a
>> Luscombe, I don't really see your point.
>> >do not archive
>>
>> >Ben Haas
>> >N801BH
>> >www.haaspowerair.com
>>
>> ---------- Original Message ----------
>> From: ronburnett@charter.net
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
>> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:02:18 -0400 (EDT)
>>
>>
>> I by fuel with ethanol in it which is only an option for an auto
engine.
>> I burn non ethanol 87 octane purchased from a local Co-Op in my
>> Luscombe 8A.
>>
>> Ron Burnett
>>
>> Do not archive
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:59 PM, John Morgensen wrote:
>>
>> > <john@morgensen.com>
>> >
>> > You do know that a Lycoming will run on 91 octane as well, right?
>> >
>> > johninreno
>> >
>> > On 7/11/2011 8:07 PM, ronburnett@charter.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I am an Eggenfellner customer buying one of the original Subaru
>> >> H-4 engines. I am aware that there are no doubt some legitimate
>> >> complaints about deliveries of engines and props in some cases and
>> >> delivery schedules slid considerably in many cases. I do not
>> >> believe any problems were deliberate, but due to overoptimistim
>> >> and subcontracting problems as well as others I don't pretend to
know.
>> >>
>> ==========================bsp; - The
>> AeroElectric-L=======================; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
>> =======================; - List Contribution Web Site sp;
>> &nb=========================
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> *57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!*
>> Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
>> <http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/4e1c535862f6e33ab2est01v
>> uc>ConsumerLifestyles.org
>> <http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/4e1c535862f6e33ab2est01v
>> uc>
>> *
>>
>> -List"
>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>> *
>> *
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://ww
>> w.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com
>> /c
>> *
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
> *
>
>
> *
--
If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and
get rid of Soros.
...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with
morality and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for
ANY type of gubmnt
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
Strangely enough you both could be right. There was an interesting article on this
I think in Kitplanes awhile back. It all depends on your operating limitations
when your plane was certified. If I remember correctly there was a time when
they were putting a passage in that you did not have to notify anyone just
do phase one flight testing. There have also been periods where you had to get
the FSDO approval in person and new phase one and, like mine, a time where you
had to write a letter and get approval for flight testing. So in all cases
you are bound by the aircraft operating limitations it says.
Rodney
---- John Cox <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> wrote:
>
> Wait. Wait. Wait. I just spoke this AM to an FAA Airworthiness
> Inspector on the subject of major alteration to an RV-12. The owners
> can make the major mod. They must inform the FSDO. The FSDO will
> authorize another Phase One. It will likely have the same terms and
> geographic boundary of the original. There must be an accurate and
> appropriate logbook entry prior to the Phase One and upon completion.
> So at this point "any subsequent major changes do not require
> notification of anyone" I am saying show me.
>
> John Cox
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:50 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
>
>
> AIUI, once you have your papers, any subsequent major changes do not
> require notification of anyone, just a log entry and 5 hours of phase 1
> flying, then another log entry. Repeat as necessary.
>
> David M.
>
> > Most Ex, AB operating limitations specify a minimum 5 hour phase 1
> > test flight period after a major alteration. They also usually spec
> > that the local FSDO must be notified in advance and is in concurrence
> > with your proposed test flight area and that a logbook entry be made
> > to return the aircraft to phase 2. The usual method of compliance is
> > to make an appointment and walk in with two copies of a letter which
> > states what you intend to do and re-iterates your already assigned
> > phase 1 area. You get the duty officer to sign it and they keep a
> copy.
> >
> > The definition of what constitutes a major alteration is contained in
> > part 43, appendix A, sec A43.1.
> > http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgFAR.nsf/0/AC9BE
> > D30F1D032B9852566AB006BC89C?OpenDocument
> >
> > (2)(vi) Conversions of any sort for the purpose of using fuel of a
> > rating or grade other than that listed in the engine specifications.
> >
> > If, on the other hand, you had test flown the aircraft with
> > alternative fuel during the original phase 1 period, and made a
> > logbook entry to that effect, you wouldn't have to do anything
> further.
> >
> > Read your own oplims to make sure that they are worded this way and
> > that you agree with my interpretation.
> >
> > Pax,
> >
> > Ed Holyoke
> >
> > On 7/12/2011 9:23 AM, Pete wrote:
> >> To All,
> >> The ability to burn any fuel is tied to the limitations of the
> >> airplane, whether certificated or experimental. In the case of a
> >> certificated airplane, to change the type of fuel used in the
> >> airplane, an STC would be required. In the experimental, it would
> >> most likely require going back into Phase 1.
> >> In certificated airplanes, the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS)
> >> shows the fuel that is allowed for use. In order to use any other
> >> fuel, and maintain the airworthiness of the airplane, an STC would be
>
> >> required. The FAA doesn't dictate what fuel can be used, but rather
> >> the applicant shows they can meet the certification requirements
> >> using a fuel, or fuels, and then that is what is placed on the TCDS.
> >> The fuel itself has to have a specification. There's a whole
> >> separate argument about fuel specifications, but I will not go into
> >> that here. To use any fuel other than what is on the TCDS requires an
>
> >> STC. Note: an STC is for someone who isn't the type design holder
> >> (manufacturer). The type design holder can amend their TCDS to show
> >> additional fuels, but the process for fuel approval is identical to
> >> the STC.
> >> I have not been involved with alternate fuel testing on experimental
> >> airplanes, but it sounds analogous to the use of an alternate
> >> powerplant. I would imagine there would be a 40 hour Phase 1 that
> >> would have to be accomplished prior to being able to operate beyond
> >> the Phase 1 operating area.
> >> I know this subject is not electric in nature, but I was trying to
> >> help and provide some clarification based upon the discussion.
> >> Pete Rouse
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ---
> >> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> >> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> >> *Mike Welch
> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:33 AM
> >> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> >> *Subject:* RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
> >>
> >> Guys,
> >>
> >> To augment Ben's point, even if you do have a certified plane, you
> >> still don't have the 'right' to burn auto gas as the plane comes out
> >> of the factory, do you? From my experience, if you want to use auto
> >> gas in a certified airplane, you have to PAY for an 'STC'.
> >> Maybe newer aircraft have auto gas approved engines from the
> >> factory. I don't know.
> >> I never owned a newer certified plane, but the older ones required
> >> the STC, and they weren't free.
> >>
> >> Mike Welch
> >>
> >>
> >> >That's incorrect. If you fly an experimental then you can burn
> >> anything you want in it, auto engine or not. And since we are talking
>
> >> about >Viking engines, considering they CANNOT be installed in a
> >> Luscombe, I don't really see your point.
> >> >do not archive
> >>
> >> >Ben Haas
> >> >N801BH
> >> >www.haaspowerair.com
> >>
> >> ---------- Original Message ----------
> >> From: ronburnett@charter.net
> >> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> >> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
> >> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:02:18 -0400 (EDT)
> >>
> >>
> >> I by fuel with ethanol in it which is only an option for an auto
> engine.
> >> I burn non ethanol 87 octane purchased from a local Co-Op in my
> >> Luscombe 8A.
> >>
> >> Ron Burnett
> >>
> >> Do not archive
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:59 PM, John Morgensen wrote:
> >>
> >> > <john@morgensen.com>
> >> >
> >> > You do know that a Lycoming will run on 91 octane as well, right?
> >> >
> >> > johninreno
> >> >
> >> > On 7/11/2011 8:07 PM, ronburnett@charter.net wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I am an Eggenfellner customer buying one of the original Subaru
> >> >> H-4 engines. I am aware that there are no doubt some legitimate
> >> >> complaints about deliveries of engines and props in some cases and
>
> >> >> delivery schedules slid considerably in many cases. I do not
> >> >> believe any problems were deliberate, but due to overoptimistim
> >> >> and subcontracting problems as well as others I don't pretend to
> know.
> >> >>
> >> ==========================bsp; - The
> >> AeroElectric-L=======================; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
> >> =======================; - List Contribution Web Site sp;
> >> &nb=========================
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> *57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!*
> >> Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
> >> <http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/4e1c535862f6e33ab2est01v
> >> uc>ConsumerLifestyles.org
> >> <http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/4e1c535862f6e33ab2est01v
> >> uc>
> >> *
> >>
> >> -List"
> >> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> >> http://forums.matronics.com
> >> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >>
> >> *
> >> *
> >>
> >> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://ww
> >> w.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> >> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> >> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com
> >> /c
> >> *
> >> *
> >>
> >>
> >> *
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
>
> --
> If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and
> get rid of Soros.
>
> ...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with
> morality and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for
> ANY type of gubmnt
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
That's why I said read _your_ oplims. The latest version that is being
issued is as I laid out. I had an earlier version that had no provision
for major alterations and would have required a re-inspection of the
aircraft and new airworthiness cert.The addition of a wing leveler is,
by definition, a major alteration. It also said no IFR. I wanted to be
able to train for and fly IFR in my aircraft and so got a new set of
oplims (and a new airworthiness cert - oplims are considered to part of
the AW cert.) issued so that I could legally modify my aircraft and
legally fly in IMC. It was quite a bit of fun getting the FSDO to
re-issue, but that's another story.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
On 7/12/2011 3:03 PM, r.r.hall@cox.net wrote:
>
> Strangely enough you both could be right. There was an interesting
> article on this I think in Kitplanes awhile back. It all depends on
> your operating limitations when your plane was certified. If I
> remember correctly there was a time when they were putting a passage
> in that you did not have to notify anyone just do phase one flight
> testing. There have also been periods where you had to get the FSDO
> approval in person and new phase one and, like mine, a time where you
> had to write a letter and get approval for flight testing. So in all
> cases you are bound by the aircraft operating limitations it says.
>
> Rodney
> ---- John Cox <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> wrote:
> <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
> >
> > Wait. Wait. Wait. I just spoke this AM to an FAA Airworthiness
> > Inspector on the subject of major alteration to an RV-12. The owners
> > can make the major mod. They must inform the FSDO. The FSDO will
> > authorize another Phase One. It will likely have the same terms and
> > geographic boundary of the original. There must be an accurate and
> > appropriate logbook entry prior to the Phase One and upon completion.
> > So at this point "any subsequent major changes do not require
> > notification of anyone" I am saying show me.
> >
> > John Cox
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:50 PM
> > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
> >
> >
> > AIUI, once you have your papers, any subsequent major changes do not
> > require notification of anyone, just a log entry and 5 hours of phase 1
> > flying, then another log entry. Repeat as necessary.
> >
> > David M.
> >
> > > Most Ex, AB operating limitations specify a minimum 5 hour phase 1
> > > test flight period after a major alteration. They also usually spec
> > > that the local FSDO must be notified in advance and is in concurrence
> > > with your proposed test flight area and that a logbook entry be made
> > > to return the aircraft to phase 2. The usual method of compliance is
> > > to make an appointment and walk in with two copies of a letter which
> > > states what you intend to do and re-iterates your already assigned
> > > phase 1 area. You get the duty officer to sign it and they keep a
> > copy.
> > >
> > > The definition of what constitutes a major alteration is contained in
> > > part 43, appendix A, sec A43.1.
> > > http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgFAR.nsf/0/AC9BE
> > > D30F1D032B9852566AB006BC89C?OpenDocument
> > >
> > > (2)(vi) Conversions of any sort for the purpose of using fuel of a
> > > rating or grade other than that listed in the engine specifications.
> > >
> > > If, on the other hand, you had test flown the aircraft with
> > > alternative fuel during the original phase 1 period, and made a
> > > logbook entry to that effect, you wouldn't have to do anything
> > further.
> > >
> > > Read your own oplims to make sure that they are worded this way and
> > > that you agree with my interpretation.
> > >
> > > Pax,
> > >
> > > Ed Holyoke
> > >
> > > On 7/12/2011 9:23 AM, Pete wrote:
> > >> To All,
> > >> The ability to burn any fuel is tied to the limitations of the
> > >> airplane, whether certificated or experimental. In the case of a
> > >> certificated airplane, to change the type of fuel used in the
> > >> airplane, an STC would be required. In the experimental, it would
> > >> most likely require going back into Phase 1.
> > >> In certificated airplanes, the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS)
> > >> shows the fuel that is allowed for use. In order to use any other
> > >> fuel, and maintain the airworthiness of the airplane, an STC would be
> >
> > >> required. The FAA doesn't dictate what fuel can be used, but rather
> > >> the applicant shows they can meet the certification requirements
> > >> using a fuel, or fuels, and then that is what is placed on the TCDS.
> > >> The fuel itself has to have a specification. There's a whole
> > >> separate argument about fuel specifications, but I will not go into
> > >> that here. To use any fuel other than what is on the TCDS requires an
> >
> > >> STC. Note: an STC is for someone who isn't the type design holder
> > >> (manufacturer). The type design holder can amend their TCDS to show
> > >> additional fuels, but the process for fuel approval is identical to
> > >> the STC.
> > >> I have not been involved with alternate fuel testing on experimental
> > >> airplanes, but it sounds analogous to the use of an alternate
> > >> powerplant. I would imagine there would be a 40 hour Phase 1 that
> > >> would have to be accomplished prior to being able to operate beyond
> > >> the Phase 1 operating area.
> > >> I know this subject is not electric in nature, but I was trying to
> > >> help and provide some clarification based upon the discussion.
> > >> Pete Rouse
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> ---
> > >> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> > >> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> > >> *Mike Welch
> > >> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:33 AM
> > >> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> > >> *Subject:* RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
> > >>
> > >> Guys,
> > >>
> > >> To augment Ben's point, even if you do have a certified plane, you
> > >> still don't have the 'right' to burn auto gas as the plane comes out
> > >> of the factory, do you? From my experience, if you want to use auto
> > >> gas in a certified airplane, you have to PAY for an 'STC'.
> > >> Maybe newer aircraft have auto gas approved engines from the
> > >> factory. I don't know.
> > >> I never owned a newer certified plane, but the older ones required
> > >> the STC, and they weren't free.
> > >>
> > >> Mike Welch
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >That's incorrect. If you fly an experimental then you can burn
> > >> anything you want in it, auto engine or not. And since we are talking
> >
> > >> about >Viking engines, considering they CANNOT be installed in a
> > >> Luscombe, I don't really see your point.
> > >> >do not archive
> > >>
> > >> >Ben Haas
> > >> >N801BH
> > >> >www.haaspowerair.com
> > >>
> > >> ---------- Original Message ----------
> > >> From: ronburnett@charter.net
> > >> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> > >> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
> > >> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:02:18 -0400 (EDT)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I by fuel with ethanol in it which is only an option for an auto
> > engine.
> > >> I burn non ethanol 87 octane purchased from a local Co-Op in my
> > >> Luscombe 8A.
> > >>
> > >> Ron Burnett
> > >>
> > >> Do not archive
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:59 PM, John Morgensen wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > <john@morgensen.com>
> > >> >
> > >> > You do know that a Lycoming will run on 91 octane as well, right?
> > >> >
> > >> > johninreno
> > >> >
> > >> > On 7/11/2011 8:07 PM, ronburnett@charter.net wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I am an Eggenfellner customer buying one of the original Subaru
> > >> >> H-4 engines. I am aware that there are no doubt some legitimate
> > >> >> complaints about deliveries of engines and props in some cases and
> >
> > >> >> delivery schedules slid considerably in many cases. I do not
> > >> >> believe any problems were deliberate, but due to overoptimistim
> > >> >> and subcontracting problems as well as others I don't pretend to
> > know.
> > >> >>
> > >> ==========================bsp; - The
> > >> AeroElectric-L=======================; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
> > >> =======================; - List Contribution Web Site sp;
> > >> &nb=========================
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ____________________________________________________________
> > >> *57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!*
> > >> Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
> > >> <http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/4e1c535862f6e33ab2est01v
> > >> uc>ConsumerLifestyles.org
> > >> <http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/4e1c535862f6e33ab2est01v
> > >> uc>
> > >> *
> > >>
> > >> -List"
> > >> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> > >> http://forums.matronics.com
> > >> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> > >>
> > >> *
> > >> *
> > >>
> > >> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://ww
> > >> w.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> > >> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> > >> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com
> > >> /c
> > >> *
> > >> *
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> *
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> > > *
> >
> > --
> > If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and
> > get rid of Soros.
> >
> > ...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with
> > morality and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for
> > ANY type of gubmnt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Op Limits, was Viking Engines |
Folks, Please see FAA Order 8130.2G "Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft
and Related Products", pages 4-44 through 4-48 for E-LSA and pages 4-64
through 4-69 for E-AB.
Rick Girard
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
Having owned homebuilts with three versions of the oplims (there may be
more) and gotten old ones updated, I have a bit of experience, too. It
should be said that FSDO experiences are highly dependent on the
individual FSDO. My experience with mine has been about as painless as
anyone could reasonably expect.
On the issue of fuel, I wouldn't pretend to be an expert, but I can find
no evidence anywhere that fuel selection is any sort of alteration to an
airframe or engine. I have never, until now, in around 20 years of
flying homebuilts, ever heard anyone suggest that fuel selection is a
major alteration when discussing homebuilt rules. If you ask the
question of the wrong FSDO, you might easily get an answer you don't
like, but that would probably just mean that the FSDO doesn't know what
it's talking about. Like the foolishness several years ago when one FSDO
tried to re-write rules & disallow training in any a/c that didn't have
a full set of dual controls (Luscombe or others with only left-side
brakes, etc). That went on until FAA HQ officially and publicly slapped
their hand.
On the subject of alcohol, experience seems to contradict a lot of the
commonly held beliefs in aviation circles. There's a guy who's active on
the VAF forum (search for 'frankh') that has flown an injected Lyc
running gasahol for years. He did do what would be considered a major
alteration to the airframe to run it; he omitted the engine driven fuel
pump (alcohol kills the diaphragm) & replaced it with redundant Facet
fuel pumps. Testing I've read about seems to show that phase separation
only becomes an issue at well up into the oxygen altitudes & at below
Antarctic-like temps. Corrosion is an issue with *methanol* (Indy cars),
but seems to be a minimal issue with ethanol, which can come from corn,
and is where we get our gasahol in the USA, due to corn lobby-induced
rules & subsidies. I'd love to see the subsidies/rules go away, & if the
market supports ethanol based gas (hopefully, from a more sensible
source), then we can adjust to it, at least in the homebuilt community.
Charlie
(playing along with thread creep...)
On 07/12/2011 05:52 PM, Ed Holyoke wrote:
> That's why I said read _your_ oplims. The latest version that is being
> issued is as I laid out. I had an earlier version that had no
> provision for major alterations and would have required a
> re-inspection of the aircraft and new airworthiness cert.The addition
> of a wing leveler is, by definition, a major alteration. It also said
> no IFR. I wanted to be able to train for and fly IFR in my aircraft
> and so got a new set of oplims (and a new airworthiness cert - oplims
> are considered to part of the AW cert.) issued so that I could legally
> modify my aircraft and legally fly in IMC. It was quite a bit of fun
> getting the FSDO to re-issue, but that's another story.
>
> Pax,
>
> Ed Holyoke
>
> On 7/12/2011 3:03 PM, r.r.hall@cox.net wrote:
>>
>> Strangely enough you both could be right. There was an interesting
>> article on this I think in Kitplanes awhile back. It all depends on
>> your operating limitations when your plane was certified. If I
>> remember correctly there was a time when they were putting a passage
>> in that you did not have to notify anyone just do phase one flight
>> testing. There have also been periods where you had to get the FSDO
>> approval in person and new phase one and, like mine, a time where you
>> had to write a letter and get approval for flight testing. So in all
>> cases you are bound by the aircraft operating limitations it says.
>>
>> Rodney
>> ---- John Cox <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> wrote:
>> <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>> >
>> > Wait. Wait. Wait. I just spoke this AM to an FAA Airworthiness
>> > Inspector on the subject of major alteration to an RV-12. The owners
>> > can make the major mod. They must inform the FSDO. The FSDO will
>> > authorize another Phase One. It will likely have the same terms and
>> > geographic boundary of the original. There must be an accurate and
>> > appropriate logbook entry prior to the Phase One and upon completion.
>> > So at this point "any subsequent major changes do not require
>> > notification of anyone" I am saying show me.
>> >
>> > John Cox
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> David
>> > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:50 PM
>> > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
>> >
>> >
>> > AIUI, once you have your papers, any subsequent major changes do not
>> > require notification of anyone, just a log entry and 5 hours of phase 1
>> > flying, then another log entry. Repeat as necessary.
>> >
>> > David M.
>> >
>> > > Most Ex, AB operating limitations specify a minimum 5 hour phase 1
>> > > test flight period after a major alteration. They also usually spec
>> > > that the local FSDO must be notified in advance and is in concurrence
>> > > with your proposed test flight area and that a logbook entry be made
>> > > to return the aircraft to phase 2. The usual method of compliance is
>> > > to make an appointment and walk in with two copies of a letter which
>> > > states what you intend to do and re-iterates your already assigned
>> > > phase 1 area. You get the duty officer to sign it and they keep a
>> > copy.
>> > >
>> > > The definition of what constitutes a major alteration is contained in
>> > > part 43, appendix A, sec A43.1.
>> > >
>> http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgFAR.nsf/0/AC9BE
>> > > D30F1D032B9852566AB006BC89C?OpenDocument
>> > >
>> > > (2)(vi) Conversions of any sort for the purpose of using fuel of a
>> > > rating or grade other than that listed in the engine specifications.
>> > >
>> > > If, on the other hand, you had test flown the aircraft with
>> > > alternative fuel during the original phase 1 period, and made a
>> > > logbook entry to that effect, you wouldn't have to do anything
>> > further.
>> > >
>> > > Read your own oplims to make sure that they are worded this way and
>> > > that you agree with my interpretation.
>> > >
>> > > Pax,
>> > >
>> > > Ed Holyoke
>> > >
>> > > On 7/12/2011 9:23 AM, Pete wrote:
>> > >> To All,
>> > >> The ability to burn any fuel is tied to the limitations of the
>> > >> airplane, whether certificated or experimental. In the case of a
>> > >> certificated airplane, to change the type of fuel used in the
>> > >> airplane, an STC would be required. In the experimental, it would
>> > >> most likely require going back into Phase 1.
>> > >> In certificated airplanes, the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS)
>> > >> shows the fuel that is allowed for use. In order to use any other
>> > >> fuel, and maintain the airworthiness of the airplane, an STC
>> would be
>> >
>> > >> required. The FAA doesn't dictate what fuel can be used, but rather
>> > >> the applicant shows they can meet the certification requirements
>> > >> using a fuel, or fuels, and then that is what is placed on the TCDS.
>> > >> The fuel itself has to have a specification. There's a whole
>> > >> separate argument about fuel specifications, but I will not go into
>> > >> that here. To use any fuel other than what is on the TCDS
>> requires an
>> >
>> > >> STC. Note: an STC is for someone who isn't the type design holder
>> > >> (manufacturer). The type design holder can amend their TCDS to show
>> > >> additional fuels, but the process for fuel approval is identical to
>> > >> the STC.
>> > >> I have not been involved with alternate fuel testing on experimental
>> > >> airplanes, but it sounds analogous to the use of an alternate
>> > >> powerplant. I would imagine there would be a 40 hour Phase 1 that
>> > >> would have to be accomplished prior to being able to operate beyond
>> > >> the Phase 1 operating area.
>> > >> I know this subject is not electric in nature, but I was trying to
>> > >> help and provide some clarification based upon the discussion.
>> > >> Pete Rouse
>> > >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >> ---
>> > >> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> > >> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
>> > >> *Mike Welch
>> > >> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:33 AM
>> > >> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> > >> *Subject:* RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
>> > >>
>> > >> Guys,
>> > >>
>> > >> To augment Ben's point, even if you do have a certified plane, you
>> > >> still don't have the 'right' to burn auto gas as the plane comes out
>> > >> of the factory, do you? From my experience, if you want to use auto
>> > >> gas in a certified airplane, you have to PAY for an 'STC'.
>> > >> Maybe newer aircraft have auto gas approved engines from the
>> > >> factory. I don't know.
>> > >> I never owned a newer certified plane, but the older ones required
>> > >> the STC, and they weren't free.
>> > >>
>> > >> Mike Welch
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> >That's incorrect. If you fly an experimental then you can burn
>> > >> anything you want in it, auto engine or not. And since we are
>> talking
>> >
>> > >> about >Viking engines, considering they CANNOT be installed in a
>> > >> Luscombe, I don't really see your point.
>> > >> >do not archive
>> > >>
>> > >> >Ben Haas
>> > >> >N801BH
>> > >> >www.haaspowerair.com
>> > >>
>> > >> ---------- Original Message ----------
>> > >> From: ronburnett@charter.net
>> > >> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> > >> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
>> > >> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:02:18 -0400 (EDT)
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> I by fuel with ethanol in it which is only an option for an auto
>> > engine.
>> > >> I burn non ethanol 87 octane purchased from a local Co-Op in my
>> > >> Luscombe 8A.
>> > >>
>> > >> Ron Burnett
>> > >>
>> > >> Do not archive
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:59 PM, John Morgensen wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > <john@morgensen.com>
>> > >> >
>> > >> > You do know that a Lycoming will run on 91 octane as well, right?
>> > >> >
>> > >> > johninreno
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On 7/11/2011 8:07 PM, ronburnett@charter.net wrote:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> I am an Eggenfellner customer buying one of the original Subaru
>> > >> >> H-4 engines. I am aware that there are no doubt some legitimate
>> > >> >> complaints about deliveries of engines and props in some
>> cases and
>> >
>> > >> >> delivery schedules slid considerably in many cases. I do not
>> > >> >> believe any problems were deliberate, but due to overoptimistim
>> > >> >> and subcontracting problems as well as others I don't pretend to
>> > know.
>> >
>>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
It could be that the FAA changed it back to having to notify them and I
just hadn't heard. I'm sorry if I'm not keeping up.
David
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Cox"<johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>
> Wait. Wait. Wait. I just spoke this AM to an FAA Airworthiness
> Inspector on the subject of major alteration to an RV-12. The owners
> can make the major mod. They must inform the FSDO. The FSDO will
> authorize another Phase One. It will likely have the same terms and
> geographic boundary of the original. There must be an accurate and
> appropriate logbook entry prior to the Phase One and upon completion.
> So at this point "any subsequent major changes do not require
> notification of anyone" I am saying show me.
>
> John Cox
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:50 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: David<ainut@knology.net>
>
> AIUI, once you have your papers, any subsequent major changes do not
> require notification of anyone, just a log entry and 5 hours of phase 1
> flying, then another log entry. Repeat as necessary.
>
> David M.
>
>
>> Most Ex, AB operating limitations specify a minimum 5 hour phase 1
>> test flight period after a major alteration. They also usually spec
>> that the local FSDO must be notified in advance and is in concurrence
>> with your proposed test flight area and that a logbook entry be made
>> to return the aircraft to phase 2. The usual method of compliance is
>> to make an appointment and walk in with two copies of a letter which
>> states what you intend to do and re-iterates your already assigned
>> phase 1 area. You get the duty officer to sign it and they keep a
>>
> copy.
>
>> The definition of what constitutes a major alteration is contained in
>> part 43, appendix A, sec A43.1.
>> http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgFAR.nsf/0/AC9BE
>> D30F1D032B9852566AB006BC89C?OpenDocument
>>
>> (2)(vi) Conversions of any sort for the purpose of using fuel of a
>> rating or grade other than that listed in the engine specifications.
>>
>> If, on the other hand, you had test flown the aircraft with
>> alternative fuel during the original phase 1 period, and made a
>> logbook entry to that effect, you wouldn't have to do anything
>>
> further.
>
>> Read your own oplims to make sure that they are worded this way and
>> that you agree with my interpretation.
>>
>> Pax,
>>
>> Ed Holyoke
>>
>> On 7/12/2011 9:23 AM, Pete wrote:
>>
>>> To All,
>>> The ability to burn any fuel is tied to the limitations of the
>>> airplane, whether certificated or experimental. In the case of a
>>> certificated airplane, to change the type of fuel used in the
>>> airplane, an STC would be required. In the experimental, it would
>>> most likely require going back into Phase 1.
>>> In certificated airplanes, the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS)
>>> shows the fuel that is allowed for use. In order to use any other
>>> fuel, and maintain the airworthiness of the airplane, an STC would be
>>>
>
>>> required. The FAA doesn't dictate what fuel can be used, but rather
>>> the applicant shows they can meet the certification requirements
>>> using a fuel, or fuels, and then that is what is placed on the TCDS.
>>> The fuel itself has to have a specification. There's a whole
>>> separate argument about fuel specifications, but I will not go into
>>> that here. To use any fuel other than what is on the TCDS requires an
>>>
>
>>> STC. Note: an STC is for someone who isn't the type design holder
>>> (manufacturer). The type design holder can amend their TCDS to show
>>> additional fuels, but the process for fuel approval is identical to
>>> the STC.
>>> I have not been involved with alternate fuel testing on experimental
>>> airplanes, but it sounds analogous to the use of an alternate
>>> powerplant. I would imagine there would be a 40 hour Phase 1 that
>>> would have to be accomplished prior to being able to operate beyond
>>> the Phase 1 operating area.
>>> I know this subject is not electric in nature, but I was trying to
>>> help and provide some clarification based upon the discussion.
>>> Pete Rouse
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ---
>>> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
>>> *Mike Welch
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:33 AM
>>> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>> *Subject:* RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
>>>
>>> Guys,
>>>
>>> To augment Ben's point, even if you do have a certified plane, you
>>> still don't have the 'right' to burn auto gas as the plane comes out
>>> of the factory, do you? From my experience, if you want to use auto
>>> gas in a certified airplane, you have to PAY for an 'STC'.
>>> Maybe newer aircraft have auto gas approved engines from the
>>> factory. I don't know.
>>> I never owned a newer certified plane, but the older ones required
>>> the STC, and they weren't free.
>>>
>>> Mike Welch
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> That's incorrect. If you fly an experimental then you can burn
>>>>
>>> anything you want in it, auto engine or not. And since we are talking
>>>
>
>>> about>Viking engines, considering they CANNOT be installed in a
>>> Luscombe, I don't really see your point.
>>>
>>>> do not archive
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Ben Haas
>>>> N801BH
>>>> www.haaspowerair.com
>>>>
>>> ---------- Original Message ----------
>>> From: ronburnett@charter.net
>>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
>>> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:02:18 -0400 (EDT)
>>>
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: ronburnett@charter.net
>>>
>>> I by fuel with ethanol in it which is only an option for an auto
>>>
> engine.
>
>>> I burn non ethanol 87 octane purchased from a local Co-Op in my
>>> Luscombe 8A.
>>>
>>> Ron Burnett
>>>
>>> Do not archive
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:59 PM, John Morgensen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Morgensen
>>>> <john@morgensen.com>
>>>>
>>>> You do know that a Lycoming will run on 91 octane as well, right?
>>>>
>>>> johninreno
>>>>
>>>> On 7/11/2011 8:07 PM, ronburnett@charter.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: ronburnett@charter.net
>>>>>
>>>>> I am an Eggenfellner customer buying one of the original Subaru
>>>>> H-4 engines. I am aware that there are no doubt some legitimate
>>>>> complaints about deliveries of engines and props in some cases and
>>>>>
>
>>>>> delivery schedules slid considerably in many cases. I do not
>>>>> believe any problems were deliberate, but due to overoptimistim
>>>>> and subcontracting problems as well as others I don't pretend to
>>>>>
> know.
>
>>>>>
>>> ==========================bsp; - The
>>> AeroElectric-L=======================; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
>>> =======================; - List Contribution Web Site sp;
>>> &nb=========================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> *57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!*
>>> Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
>>> <http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/4e1c535862f6e33ab2est01v
>>> uc>ConsumerLifestyles.org
>>> <http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/4e1c535862f6e33ab2est01v
>>> uc>
>>> *
>>>
>>> -List"
>>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>> *
>>> *
>>>
>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://ww
>>> w.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com
>>> /c
>>> *
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>>
> --
> If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and
> get rid of Soros.
>
> ...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with
> morality and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for
> ANY type of gubmnt
>
>
>
--
If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and get rid
of Soros.
...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with morality
and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for ANY type of
gubmnt
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
Here is a kernel of value. The Inspector told me If you write and send
the statement of work and request for a new Phase One via USPS, they
respond USPS. If you email it, they respond by email. As a former
letter carrier, the speed of light is just a tad quicker. I doubt if you
send it FEDEX they would respond in kind, so chose wisely. Waiting to
hear back.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
It could be that the FAA changed it back to having to notify them and I
just hadn't heard. I'm sorry if I'm not keeping up.
David
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John
Cox"<johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>
> Wait. Wait. Wait. I just spoke this AM to an FAA Airworthiness
> Inspector on the subject of major alteration to an RV-12. The owners
> can make the major mod. They must inform the FSDO. The FSDO will
> authorize another Phase One. It will likely have the same terms and
> geographic boundary of the original. There must be an accurate and
> appropriate logbook entry prior to the Phase One and upon completion.
> So at this point "any subsequent major changes do not require
> notification of anyone" I am saying show me.
>
> John Cox
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
David
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:50 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: David<ainut@knology.net>
>
> AIUI, once you have your papers, any subsequent major changes do not
> require notification of anyone, just a log entry and 5 hours of phase
1
> flying, then another log entry. Repeat as necessary.
>
> David M.
>
>
>> Most Ex, AB operating limitations specify a minimum 5 hour phase 1
>> test flight period after a major alteration. They also usually spec
>> that the local FSDO must be notified in advance and is in concurrence
>> with your proposed test flight area and that a logbook entry be made
>> to return the aircraft to phase 2. The usual method of compliance is
>> to make an appointment and walk in with two copies of a letter which
>> states what you intend to do and re-iterates your already assigned
>> phase 1 area. You get the duty officer to sign it and they keep a
>>
> copy.
>
>> The definition of what constitutes a major alteration is contained in
>> part 43, appendix A, sec A43.1.
>>
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgFAR.nsf/0/AC9BE
>> D30F1D032B9852566AB006BC89C?OpenDocument
>>
>> (2)(vi) Conversions of any sort for the purpose of using fuel of a
>> rating or grade other than that listed in the engine specifications.
>>
>> If, on the other hand, you had test flown the aircraft with
>> alternative fuel during the original phase 1 period, and made a
>> logbook entry to that effect, you wouldn't have to do anything
>>
> further.
>
>> Read your own oplims to make sure that they are worded this way and
>> that you agree with my interpretation.
>>
>> Pax,
>>
>> Ed Holyoke
>>
>> On 7/12/2011 9:23 AM, Pete wrote:
>>
>>> To All,
>>> The ability to burn any fuel is tied to the limitations of the
>>> airplane, whether certificated or experimental. In the case of a
>>> certificated airplane, to change the type of fuel used in the
>>> airplane, an STC would be required. In the experimental, it would
>>> most likely require going back into Phase 1.
>>> In certificated airplanes, the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS)
>>> shows the fuel that is allowed for use. In order to use any other
>>> fuel, and maintain the airworthiness of the airplane, an STC would
be
>>>
>
>>> required. The FAA doesn't dictate what fuel can be used, but rather
>>> the applicant shows they can meet the certification requirements
>>> using a fuel, or fuels, and then that is what is placed on the TCDS.
>>> The fuel itself has to have a specification. There's a whole
>>> separate argument about fuel specifications, but I will not go into
>>> that here. To use any fuel other than what is on the TCDS requires
an
>>>
>
>>> STC. Note: an STC is for someone who isn't the type design holder
>>> (manufacturer). The type design holder can amend their TCDS to show
>>> additional fuels, but the process for fuel approval is identical to
>>> the STC.
>>> I have not been involved with alternate fuel testing on experimental
>>> airplanes, but it sounds analogous to the use of an alternate
>>> powerplant. I would imagine there would be a 40 hour Phase 1 that
>>> would have to be accomplished prior to being able to operate beyond
>>> the Phase 1 operating area.
>>> I know this subject is not electric in nature, but I was trying to
>>> help and provide some clarification based upon the discussion.
>>> Pete Rouse
>>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ---
>>> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
>>> *Mike Welch
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:33 AM
>>> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>> *Subject:* RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
>>>
>>> Guys,
>>>
>>> To augment Ben's point, even if you do have a certified plane,
you
>>> still don't have the 'right' to burn auto gas as the plane comes out
>>> of the factory, do you? From my experience, if you want to use auto
>>> gas in a certified airplane, you have to PAY for an 'STC'.
>>> Maybe newer aircraft have auto gas approved engines from the
>>> factory. I don't know.
>>> I never owned a newer certified plane, but the older ones required
>>> the STC, and they weren't free.
>>>
>>> Mike Welch
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> That's incorrect. If you fly an experimental then you can burn
>>>>
>>> anything you want in it, auto engine or not. And since we are
talking
>>>
>
>>> about>Viking engines, considering they CANNOT be installed in a
>>> Luscombe, I don't really see your point.
>>>
>>>> do not archive
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Ben Haas
>>>> N801BH
>>>> www.haaspowerair.com
>>>>
>>> ---------- Original Message ----------
>>> From: ronburnett@charter.net
>>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
>>> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:02:18 -0400 (EDT)
>>>
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: ronburnett@charter.net
>>>
>>> I by fuel with ethanol in it which is only an option for an auto
>>>
> engine.
>
>>> I burn non ethanol 87 octane purchased from a local Co-Op in my
>>> Luscombe 8A.
>>>
>>> Ron Burnett
>>>
>>> Do not archive
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:59 PM, John Morgensen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Morgensen
>>>> <john@morgensen.com>
>>>>
>>>> You do know that a Lycoming will run on 91 octane as well, right?
>>>>
>>>> johninreno
>>>>
>>>> On 7/11/2011 8:07 PM, ronburnett@charter.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: ronburnett@charter.net
>>>>>
>>>>> I am an Eggenfellner customer buying one of the original Subaru
>>>>> H-4 engines. I am aware that there are no doubt some legitimate
>>>>> complaints about deliveries of engines and props in some cases and
>>>>>
>
>>>>> delivery schedules slid considerably in many cases. I do not
>>>>> believe any problems were deliberate, but due to overoptimistim
>>>>> and subcontracting problems as well as others I don't pretend to
>>>>>
> know.
>
>>>>>
>>> ==========================bsp; - The
>>> AeroElectric-L=======================; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
>>> =======================; - List Contribution Web Site sp;
>>> &nb=========================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> *57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!*
>>> Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
>>>
<http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/4e1c535862f6e33ab2est01v
>>> uc>ConsumerLifestyles.org
>>>
<http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/4e1c535862f6e33ab2est01v
>>> uc>
>>> *
>>>
>>> -List"
>>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>
>>> *
>>> *
>>>
>>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://ww
>>> w.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com
>>> /c
>>> *
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>>
> --
> If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism,
and
> get rid of Soros.
>
> ...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership
with
> morality and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said
for
> ANY type of gubmnt
>
>
>
--
If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and
get rid of Soros.
...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with
morality and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for
ANY type of gubmnt
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | AEC9008 Low Ohms Adapters User's Manual |
Had some queries about the instructions for the
new low ohms adapter. The manual was just posted
at:
http://tinyurl.com/6g9e7vm
Bob . . .
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
John,
Once again, most of the newer oplims specify that they must be notified
and concur with the test flight area. You don't request a new phase 1
period. The best way is to walk it in and get the signature on your
letter, then you're not waiting for them to respond by mail, snail or
otherwise.
Charlie, you might be right about changing fuel not being an alteration,
however Appendix A does say that "conversions of any sort for the
purpose of using a fuel of a rating or grade other than that listed in
the engine specifications" is a major alteration. That would seem to
include removing the engine driven fuel pump and adding a second boost
pump to take it's place. If the engine doesn't have a data plate on it,
well maybe, but only because it doesn't have any specifications, not
because it isn't an alteration. Speaking of Lycomings, here. Auto
conversions are a bit of a different story, of course.
Ed Holyoke
On 7/12/2011 8:16 PM, John Cox wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Cox"<johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>
> Here is a kernel of value. The Inspector told me If you write and send
> the statement of work and request for a new Phase One via USPS, they
> respond USPS. If you email it, they respond by email. As a former
> letter carrier, the speed of light is just a tad quicker. I doubt if you
> send it FEDEX they would respond in kind, so chose wisely. Waiting to
> hear back.
>
> John
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 6:50 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: David<ainut@knology.net>
>
> It could be that the FAA changed it back to having to notify them and I
> just hadn't heard. I'm sorry if I'm not keeping up.
>
> David
>
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John
> Cox"<johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>> Wait. Wait. Wait. I just spoke this AM to an FAA Airworthiness
>> Inspector on the subject of major alteration to an RV-12. The owners
>> can make the major mod. They must inform the FSDO. The FSDO will
>> authorize another Phase One. It will likely have the same terms and
>> geographic boundary of the original. There must be an accurate and
>> appropriate logbook entry prior to the Phase One and upon completion.
>> So at this point "any subsequent major changes do not require
>> notification of anyone" I am saying show me.
>>
>> John Cox
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> David
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:50 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
>>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: David<ainut@knology.net>
>>
>> AIUI, once you have your papers, any subsequent major changes do not
>> require notification of anyone, just a log entry and 5 hours of phase
> 1
>> flying, then another log entry. Repeat as necessary.
>>
>> David M.
>>
>>
>>> Most Ex, AB operating limitations specify a minimum 5 hour phase 1
>>> test flight period after a major alteration. They also usually spec
>>> that the local FSDO must be notified in advance and is in concurrence
>>> with your proposed test flight area and that a logbook entry be made
>>> to return the aircraft to phase 2. The usual method of compliance is
>>> to make an appointment and walk in with two copies of a letter which
>>> states what you intend to do and re-iterates your already assigned
>>> phase 1 area. You get the duty officer to sign it and they keep a
>>>
>> copy.
>>
>>> The definition of what constitutes a major alteration is contained in
>>> part 43, appendix A, sec A43.1.
>>>
> http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgFAR.nsf/0/AC9BE
>>> D30F1D032B9852566AB006BC89C?OpenDocument
>>>
>>> (2)(vi) Conversions of any sort for the purpose of using fuel of a
>>> rating or grade other than that listed in the engine specifications.
>>>
>>> If, on the other hand, you had test flown the aircraft with
>>> alternative fuel during the original phase 1 period, and made a
>>> logbook entry to that effect, you wouldn't have to do anything
>>>
>> further.
>>
>>> Read your own oplims to make sure that they are worded this way and
>>> that you agree with my interpretation.
>>>
>>> Pax,
>>>
>>> Ed Holyoke
>>>
>>> On 7/12/2011 9:23 AM, Pete wrote:
>>>
>>>> To All,
>>>> The ability to burn any fuel is tied to the limitations of the
>>>> airplane, whether certificated or experimental. In the case of a
>>>> certificated airplane, to change the type of fuel used in the
>>>> airplane, an STC would be required. In the experimental, it would
>>>> most likely require going back into Phase 1.
>>>> In certificated airplanes, the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS)
>>>> shows the fuel that is allowed for use. In order to use any other
>>>> fuel, and maintain the airworthiness of the airplane, an STC would
> be
>>>>
>>
>>>> required. The FAA doesn't dictate what fuel can be used, but rather
>>>> the applicant shows they can meet the certification requirements
>>>> using a fuel, or fuels, and then that is what is placed on the TCDS.
>>>> The fuel itself has to have a specification. There's a whole
>>>> separate argument about fuel specifications, but I will not go into
>>>> that here. To use any fuel other than what is on the TCDS requires
> an
>>>>
>>
>>>> STC. Note: an STC is for someone who isn't the type design holder
>>>> (manufacturer). The type design holder can amend their TCDS to show
>>>> additional fuels, but the process for fuel approval is identical to
>>>> the STC.
>>>> I have not been involved with alternate fuel testing on experimental
>>>> airplanes, but it sounds analogous to the use of an alternate
>>>> powerplant. I would imagine there would be a 40 hour Phase 1 that
>>>> would have to be accomplished prior to being able to operate beyond
>>>> the Phase 1 operating area.
>>>> I know this subject is not electric in nature, but I was trying to
>>>> help and provide some clarification based upon the discussion.
>>>> Pete Rouse
>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ---
>>>> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>>>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
>>>> *Mike Welch
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:33 AM
>>>> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>>> *Subject:* RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
>>>>
>>>> Guys,
>>>>
>>>> To augment Ben's point, even if you do have a certified plane,
> you
>>>> still don't have the 'right' to burn auto gas as the plane comes out
>>>> of the factory, do you? From my experience, if you want to use auto
>>>> gas in a certified airplane, you have to PAY for an 'STC'.
>>>> Maybe newer aircraft have auto gas approved engines from the
>>>> factory. I don't know.
>>>> I never owned a newer certified plane, but the older ones required
>>>> the STC, and they weren't free.
>>>>
>>>> Mike Welch
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That's incorrect. If you fly an experimental then you can burn
>>>>>
>>>> anything you want in it, auto engine or not. And since we are
> talking
>>>>
>>
>>>> about>Viking engines, considering they CANNOT be installed in a
>>>> Luscombe, I don't really see your point.
>>>>
>>>>> do not archive
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Ben Haas
>>>>> N801BH
>>>>> www.haaspowerair.com
>>>>>
>>>> ---------- Original Message ----------
>>>> From: ronburnett@charter.net
>>>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Viking Engine
>>>> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:02:18 -0400 (EDT)
>>>>
>>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: ronburnett@charter.net
>>>>
>>>> I by fuel with ethanol in it which is only an option for an auto
>>>>
>> engine.
>>
>>>> I burn non ethanol 87 octane purchased from a local Co-Op in my
>>>> Luscombe 8A.
>>>>
>>>> Ron Burnett
>>>>
>>>> Do not archive
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:59 PM, John Morgensen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Morgensen
>>>>> <john@morgensen.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> You do know that a Lycoming will run on 91 octane as well, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> johninreno
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/11/2011 8:07 PM, ronburnett@charter.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: ronburnett@charter.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am an Eggenfellner customer buying one of the original Subaru
>>>>>> H-4 engines. I am aware that there are no doubt some legitimate
>>>>>> complaints about deliveries of engines and props in some cases and
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> delivery schedules slid considerably in many cases. I do not
>>>>>> believe any problems were deliberate, but due to overoptimistim
>>>>>> and subcontracting problems as well as others I don't pretend to
>>>>>>
>> know.
>>
>>>>>>
>>>> ==========================bsp; - The
>>>> AeroElectric-L=======================; - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
>>>> =======================; - List Contribution Web Site sp;
>>>> &nb=========================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> *57 Year Old Mom Looks 27!*
>>>> Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
>>>>
> <http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/4e1c535862f6e33ab2est01v
>>>> uc>ConsumerLifestyles.org
>>>>
> <http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/4e1c535862f6e33ab2est01v
>>>> uc>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> -List"
>>>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://ww
>>>> w.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>>>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com
>>>> /c
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>> --
>> If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism,
> and
>> get rid of Soros.
>>
>> ...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership
> with
>> morality and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said
> for
>> ANY type of gubmnt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|