Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:00 AM - Re: Flying in the rain (Michel Verheughe)
2. 05:04 AM - Re: Flying in the rain (Michel Verheughe)
3. 07:11 AM - Re: corrosion proofing wing spars questions (FlyboyTR)
4. 07:34 AM - Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness Certificate, and DARs (Bob Brennan)
5. 07:57 AM - Re: Belly Stringer ()
6. 08:06 AM - Re: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness Certificate, and DARs (Jim_and_Lucy Chuk)
7. 08:25 AM - Re: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness Certificate, and DARs (Jay & Beverly)
8. 09:52 AM - Re: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness Certificate, and DARs (Marco Menezes)
9. 10:11 AM - Re: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness Certificate, and DARs (Pete Christensen)
10. 10:30 AM - Re: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness Certificate, and DARs (Bob Brennan)
11. 10:35 AM - Re: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness Certificate, and DARs (Bob Brennan)
12. 10:51 AM - Re: Re: Kitfox serial number (Bob Brennan)
13. 11:34 AM - Re: Re: Kitfox serial number (Pete Christensen)
14. 12:02 PM - Re: Re: Kitfox serial number (Bob Brennan)
15. 12:22 PM - Re: Re: Flying in the rain (Noel Loveys)
16. 12:35 PM - Re: Re: Flying in the rain (Noel Loveys)
17. 01:19 PM - Re: Re: Kitfox serial number (Jim_and_Lucy Chuk)
18. 01:48 PM - Re: Flying in the rain (Michel Verheughe)
19. 01:54 PM - Re: Re: Kitfox serial number (Bob Brennan)
20. 02:27 PM - Re: Kitfox serial number (Mnflyer)
21. 03:01 PM - Re: Belly Stringer (jeff puls)
22. 07:22 PM - Re: Re: Kitfox serial number (Noel Loveys)
23. 07:26 PM - Re: Re: Kitfox serial number (Noel Loveys)
24. 07:37 PM - Re: Re: Flying in the rain (Noel Loveys)
25. 08:26 PM - Re: Re: Kitfox serial number (steve shinabery)
26. 11:01 PM - (John Allen)
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: Flying in the rain |
> From: Lynn Matteson [lynnmatt@jps.net]
> I check in the tightening direction, and if too
> tight I loosen and re-tighten to the torque specs
This is where I don't follow, Lynn. How do you know they are too tight if you don't
try to loosen them first?
Cheers,
Michel Verheughe
Norway
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: Flying in the rain |
> From: JetPilot [orcabonita@hotmail.com]
> The rain wont hurt the window at all, or even the airframe.
Thanks Mike and Guy. Of course, I don't intend to fly IMC in the rain. I just wanted
to know what was your fly / no-fly decision based on the WX forecast. I
know it's better to be down here, wishing we were up there, than the opposite
but ... lately it has been too many doubtful forecast that turned out to be gorgious
flying weather ... as seen from the ground.
I don't know about you but bright sunshine is not what I like best to fly in. Give
me a high overcast ceiling and I am happy! :-)
Cheers,
Michel Verheughe
Norway
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: | Re: corrosion proofing wing spars questions |
Just a side note about MEK. Always....ALWAYS...wear eye protection when mixing,
pouring, stirring, etc. One drop has the potential to destroy your vision.
Acetone, lacquer thinner, etc will make your eyes burn and hurt for a day or
two...but MEK will make you blind!
Travis :)
--------
Travis Rayner
Mobile, AL
Skystar Vixen, N-789DF
Continental IO-240, Prince P-Tip Prop
ADI-II Autopilot
AnyWhereMap Navigation with weather
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194877#194877
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: | Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness Certificate, and DARs |
Hi all - it's the guy with the grounded UK Model II again:
I met with my local DAR and handed over my box of documentation, and asked
for an Airworthiness Certificate. The airplane was built in 1991 and flown
in the UK as a "microlight".
He said I could not get Light Sport because it specifically excludes foreign
aircraft with previous Airworthiness Certification although he stated he
could not find the Certificate in my documentation. Further research on my
part shows it was flown with a Permit To Fly, which according to the CAA is
only issued to aircraft that are ineligible for an ICAO C of A. I have yet
to present this info to the DAR.
He also said I cannot apply for Experimental-Amateur Homebuilt because I do
not have build logs from the original builder, who I believe is deceased.
Specifically he says I need to prove the 51% rule even though at the time
Denney did not offer a fast-build option or completed aircraft, only kits.
He suggested I apply as Exhibition but I would have to re-apply each year
and supply a list of events I intend to fly to "exhibit" the airplane and
would be restricted to only those flights and "preparation" flying within 1
tank of my home airport. My feeling about this suggestion is that it *sucks*
and even though it would get me in the air this season it would limit if not
eliminate the chance of going Light Sport or Experimental in the future,
even though he says I can.
He also stated at the end of the last meeting that he "gets $600" for the AC
and that he has already accrued 2 hours of chargeable time so far.
So my question to listers is - what do you think of the suggestion to apply
for an Exhibition AC and the possibilities and expense of getting a proper
AC after? And are the suggested fees standard and/or reasonable? I plan to
argue the rejections but am hesitant if I am going to be charged by the hour
to educate a DAR in issuing a CA to an imported aircraft.
Thanks in advance for opinions/advice/similar experiences,
Bob Brennan
1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
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: Belly Stringer |
Thanks Lowell, I'll safety wire mine there too.Lynn also thought that his was
safetied there too, but was using flashlight and mirrors to check. Leon
---- Lowell Fitt <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Leon,
>
> I just looked at mine. I inherited it from a previous builder and he sucked
> it up and safety wired it there. I am going to leave it. As I recall
> looking at lots of Model IVs, that part of the fueseage is sort of wasp
> waisted there due to the stringer being safety wired to that tube. Keep in
> mind that after shrinking the fabric, the stringer won't be going anywhere
> and safety wire is simply to hold everything in place until that time. My
> concern in not tightening it down (up) would be that after shrinking, the
> fabric won't have a solid base in that area if the stringer is not backed by
> the tube.
>
> Lowell
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <l.morris@tx.rr.com>
> To: "Kitfox" <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:28 AM
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Belly Stringer
>
>
> >
> > Iv'e already talked to Lynn off list about this, but would like to hear
> > from someone to confirm his or my opnion on this. The instructions say to
> > epoxy the front end, then safety wire the stringer where it crosses the
> > bottom tubes of the fuselage except the last one at the tow bar cross
> > tube. I did this, but there is a tube below the elevator push/pull tube
> > carry thru bearing that does not tough the stinger and I was wondering if
> > it should be pulled up and safety wired,or left alone to make a straight
> > line down the belly? Leon Morris/Classic 4/want a Jab/65%/ Flower
> > Mound,Tx
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness Certificate, and DARs |
I'm trying to remember if you allready tryed this=2C but I would contact th
e FAA directly. I've delt with the Minneapolis FSDO several times on 2 dif
ferent planes=2C and they were quite helpfull. If you don't get answers fr
om one FSDO=2C try another. If that doesn't work=2C there should be someon
e who you can talk to in the FAA headquarters in Oklahoma. As I understan
d it=2C the exhibition catagory is very limiting and I wouldn't want it. I
f you were close to MN I know a DAR from Duluth that charged $450 for an Av
id that had no build log or original bill of sale due to the death of the o
riginial builder (it was sold by his widow to a friend of mine who finished
up the last 20 percent or so of the plane) This DAR worked with the new o
wner and the FAA and got it inspected and registered. It seems we often h
ave a hard time useing the phone=2C I know I do=2C but persistence can pay
off. Jim Chuk Kitfox 4 Mn> From: matronics@bob.brennan.name> To: kitfox-
list@matronics.com> Subject: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox=2C Airworthine
ss Certificate=2C and DARs> Date: Fri=2C 25 Jul 2008 10:29:51 -0400> > -->
Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bob Brennan" <matronics@bob.brennan.name>>
> Hi all - it's the guy with the grounded UK Model II again:> > I met with
my local DAR and handed over my box of documentation=2C and asked> for an A
irworthiness Certificate. The airplane was built in 1991 and flown> in the
UK as a "microlight".> > He said I could not get Light Sport because it spe
cifically excludes foreign> aircraft with previous Airworthiness Certificat
ion although he stated he> could not find the Certificate in my documentati
on. Further research on my> part shows it was flown with a Permit To Fly=2C
which according to the CAA is> only issued to aircraft that are ineligible
for an ICAO C of A. I have yet> to present this info to the DAR.> > He als
o said I cannot apply for Experimental-Amateur Homebuilt because I do> not
have build logs from the original builder=2C who I believe is deceased.> Sp
ecifically he says I need to prove the 51% rule even though at the time> De
nney did not offer a fast-build option or completed aircraft=2C only kits.>
> He suggested I apply as Exhibition but I would have to re-apply each yea
r> and supply a list of events I intend to fly to "exhibit" the airplane an
d> would be restricted to only those flights and "preparation" flying withi
n 1> tank of my home airport. My feeling about this suggestion is that it *
sucks*> and even though it would get me in the air this season it would lim
it if not> eliminate the chance of going Light Sport or Experimental in the
future=2C> even though he says I can.> > He also stated at the end of the
last meeting that he "gets $600" for the AC> and that he has already accrue
d 2 hours of chargeable time so far.> > So my question to listers is - what
do you think of the suggestion to apply> for an Exhibition AC and the poss
ibilities and expense of getting a proper> AC after? And are the suggested
fees standard and/or reasonable? I plan to> argue the rejections but am hes
itant if I am going to be charged by the hour> to educate a DAR in issuing
a CA to an imported aircraft.> > Thanks in advance for opinions/advice/simi
lar experiences=2C> > Bob Brennan> 1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox> Rotax 582 with 3
=================> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_mess
enger2_072008
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: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness Certificate, and DARs |
Look for an amateur built DAR. There may be a list on the EAA web.
I think the cost is for expenses only. And as suggested, the FAA should
be able to help you.
Jay C.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim_and_Lucy Chuk
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:04 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness
Certificate, and DARs
I'm trying to remember if you allready tryed this, but I would contact
the FAA directly. I've delt with the Minneapolis FSDO several times on
2 different planes, and they were quite helpfull. If you don't get
answers from one FSDO, try another. If that doesn't work, there should
be someone who you can talk to in the FAA headquarters in Oklahoma. As
I understand it, the exhibition catagory is very limiting and I wouldn't
want it. If you were close to MN I know a DAR from Duluth that charged
$450 for an Avid that had no build log or original bill of sale due to
the death of the originial builder (it was sold by his widow to a friend
of mine who finished up the last 20 percent or so of the plane) This
DAR worked with the new owner and the FAA and got it inspected and
registered. It seems we often have a hard time useing the phone, I
know I do, but persistence can payoff. Jim Chuk Kitfox 4 Mn
> From: matronics@bob.brennan.name
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness Certificate,
and DARs
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:29:51 -0400
>
<matronics@bob.brennan.name>
>
> Hi all - it's the guy with the grounded UK Model II again:
>
> I met with my local DAR and handed over my box of documentation, and
asked
> for an Airworthiness Certificate. The airplane was built in 1991 and
flown
> in the UK as a "microlight".
>
> He said I could not get Light Sport because it specifically excludes
foreign
> aircraft with previous Airworthiness Certification although he
stated he
> could not find the Certificate in my documentation. Further research
on my
> part shows it was flown with a Permit To Fly, which according to the
CAA is
> only issued to aircraft that are ineligible for an ICAO C of A. I
have yet
> to present this info to the DAR.
>
> He also said I cannot apply for Experimental-Amateur Homebuilt
because I do
> not have build logs from the original builder, who I believe is
deceased.
> Specifically he says I need to prove the 51% rule even though at the
time
> Denney did not offer a fast-build option or completed aircraft, only
kits.
>
> He suggested I apply as Exhibition but I would have to re-apply each
year
> and supply a list of events I intend to fly to "exhibit" the
airplane and
> would be restricted to only those flights and "preparation" flying
within 1
> tank of my home airport. My feeling about this suggestion is that it
*sucks*
> and even though it would get me in the air this season it would
limit if not
> eliminate the chance of going Light Sport or Experimental in the
future,
> even though he says I can.
>
> He also stated at the end of the last meeting that he "gets $600"
for the AC
> and that he has already accrued 2 hours of chargeable time so far.
>
> So my question to listers is - what do you think of the suggestion
to apply
> for an Exhibition AC and the possibilities and expense of getting a
proper
> AC after? And are the suggested fees standard and/or reasonable? I
plan to
> argue the rejections but am hesitant if I am going to be charged by
the hour
> to educate a DAR in issuing a CA to an imported aircraft.
>
> Thanks in advance for opinions/advice/similar experiences,
>
> Bob Brennan
> 1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox
> Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
> Wrightsville Pa
>
&==============
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. IM anytime
you're online.
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: | Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness Certificate, and DARs |
Bob:
-
I agree with Jim. DAR's are, afterall paid by the hour.-Any such-system
of private contractors-doing the government's work for-a fee is ripe f
or abuse. Some-contractors are more knowledgable, some more honest-than
others. The government, i.e. the-FAA, on the other hand, is the ultimate
source of all knowledge regarding things regulatory. It's employees are pa
id the same salary regardless of how many hours they spend doing the govern
ment's work (or, apparently,-playing golf). You may have to wait longer,
but they will help you find a way to license your airplane.
-
Some words of caution . . .- keep your questions hypothetical and don't f
ile anything until you are-certain of the procedure that will get you whe
re you want to go. Otherwise, "incorrect" statements made in government fil
ings-can come back to bite you in the a** and may prove difficult to undo
.
-
Good luck.
-
Marco Menezes N99KX
Model 2 582-90 C-Box
--- On Fri, 7/25/08, Jim_and_Lucy Chuk <thesupe@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Jim_and_Lucy Chuk <thesupe@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness Certificate, an
d DARs
#yiv1967698181 .hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;padding:0px;}
#yiv1967698181 {
FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma;}
I'm trying to remember if you allready tryed this, but I would contact the
FAA directly.- I've delt with the Minneapolis FSDO several times on 2 dif
ferent planes, and they were quite helpfull.- If you don't get answers fr
om one FSDO, try another.- If that doesn't work, there should be someone
who you can talk to in the FAA headquarters in Oklahoma.-- As I underst
and it, the exhibition catagory is very limiting and I wouldn't want it.-
If you were close to MN I know a DAR from Duluth that charged $450 for an
Avid that had no build log or original bill of sale due to the death of the
originial builder (it was sold by his widow to a friend of mine who finish
ed up the last 20 percent or so of the plane)- This DAR-worked with the
new owner and the FAA and got it inspected and registered.-- It seems
we often have a hard time useing the phone, I know I do, but persistence-
can payoff.- Jim Chuk- Kitfox 4- Mn
> From: matronics@bob.brennan.name
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness Certificate, and
DARs
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:29:51 -0400
>
ame>
>
> Hi all - it's the guy with the grounded UK Model II again:
>
> I met with my local DAR and handed over my box of documentation, and aske
d
> for an Airworthiness Certificate. The airplane was built in 1991 and flow
n
> in the UK as a "microlight".
>
> He said I could not get Light Sport because it specifically excludes fore
ign
> aircraft with previous Airworthiness Certification although he stated he
> could not find the Certificate in my documentation. Further research on m
y
> part shows it was flown with a Permit To Fly, which according to the CAA
is
> only issued to aircraft that are ineligible for an ICAO C of A. I have ye
t
> to present this info to the DAR.
>
> He also said I cannot apply for Experimental-Amateur Homebuilt because I
do
> not have build logs from the original builder, who I believe is deceased.
> Specifically he says I need to prove the 51% rule even though at the time
> Denney did not offer a fast-build option or completed aircraft, only kits
.
>
> He suggested I apply as Exhibition but I would have to re-apply each year
> and supply a list of events I intend to fly to "exhibit" the airplane and
> would be restricted to only those flights and "preparation" flying within
1
> tank of my home airport. My feeling about this suggestion is that it *suc
ks*
> and even though it would get me in the air this season it would limit if
not
> eliminate the chance of going Light Sport or Experimental in the future,
> even though he says I can.
>
> He also stated at the end of the last meeting that he "gets $600" for the
AC
> and that he has already accrued 2 hours of chargeable time so far.
>
> So my question to listers is - what do you think of the suggestion to app
ly
> for an Exhibition AC and the possibilities and expense of getting a prope
r
> AC after? And are the suggested fees standard and/or reasonable? I plan t
o
> argue the rejections but am hesitant if I am going to be charged by the h
our
> to educate a DAR in issuing a CA to an imported aircraft.
>
> Thanks in advance for opinions/advice/similar experiences,
>
> Bob Brennan
> 1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox
> Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
> Wrightsville Pa
>
&==============
>
>
>
Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. IM anytime you'
re online.
=0A=0A=0A
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: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness Certificate, and DARs |
I'm curious, couldn't you hypothetically buy a totaled Kitfox and attach
all of your good parts to it except for the ID plate?
Pete
----- Original Message -----
From: Marco Menezes
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:49 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness
Certificate, and DARs
Bob:
I agree with Jim. DAR's are, afterall paid by the hour. Any such
system of private contractors doing the government's work for a fee is
ripe for abuse. Some contractors are more knowledgable, some more honest
than others. The government, i.e. the FAA, on the other hand, is the
ultimate source of all knowledge regarding things regulatory. It's
employees are paid the same salary regardless of how many hours they
spend doing the government's work (or, apparently, playing golf). You
may have to wait longer, but they will help you find a way to license
your airplane.
Some words of caution . . . keep your questions hypothetical
and don't file anything until you are certain of the procedure that will
get you where you want to go. Otherwise, "incorrect" statements made in
government filings can come back to bite you in the a** and may prove
difficult to undo.
Good luck.
Marco Menezes N99KX
Model 2 582-90 C-Box
--- On Fri, 7/25/08, Jim_and_Lucy Chuk <thesupe@hotmail.com>
wrote:
From: Jim_and_Lucy Chuk <thesupe@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness
Certificate, and DARs
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Date: Friday, July 25, 2008, 11:04 AM
I'm trying to remember if you allready tryed this, but I would
contact the FAA directly. I've delt with the Minneapolis FSDO several
times on 2 different planes, and they were quite helpfull. If you don't
get answers from one FSDO, try another. If that doesn't work, there
should be someone who you can talk to in the FAA headquarters in
Oklahoma. As I understand it, the exhibition catagory is very limiting
and I wouldn't want it. If you were close to MN I know a DAR from
Duluth that charged $450 for an Avid that had no build log or original
bill of sale due to the death of the originial builder (it was sold by
his widow to a friend of mine who finished up the last 20 percent or so
of the plane) This DAR worked with the new owner and the FAA and got it
inspected and registered. It seems we often have a hard time useing
the phone, I know I do, but persistence can payoff. Jim Chuk Kitfox 4
Mn
> From: matronics@bob.brennan.name
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness
Certificate, and DARs
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:29:51 -0400
>
<matronics@bob.brennan.name>
>
> Hi all - it's the guy with the grounded UK Model II again:
>
> I met with my local DAR and handed over my box of
documentation, and asked
> for an Airworthiness Certificate. The airplane was built in
1991 and flown
> in the UK as a "microlight".
>
> He said I could not get Light Sport because it specifically
excludes foreign
> aircraft with previous Airworthiness Certification although
he stated he
> could not find the Certificate in my documentation. Further
research on my
> part shows it was flown with a Permit To Fly, which
according to the CAA is
> only issued to aircraft that are ineligible for an ICAO C of
A. I have yet
> to present this info to the DAR.
>
> He also said I cannot apply for Experimental-Amateur
Homebuilt because I do
> not have build logs from the original builder, who I believe
is deceased.
> Specifically he says I need to prove the 51% rule even
though at the time
> Denney did not offer a fast-build option or completed
aircraft, only kits.
>
> He suggested I apply as Exhibition but I would have to
re-apply each year
> and supply a list of events I intend to fly to "exhibit" the
airplane and
> would be restricted to only those flights and "preparation"
flying within 1
> tank of my home airport. My feeling about this suggestion is
that it *sucks*
> and even though it would get me in the air this season it
would limit if not
> eliminate the chance of going Light Sport or Experimental in
the future,
> even though he says I can.
>
> He also stated at the end of the last meeting that he "gets
$600" for the AC
> and that he has already accrued 2 hours of chargeable time
so far.
>
> So my question to listers is - what do you think of the
suggestion to apply
> for an Exhibition AC and the possibilities and expense of
getting a proper
> AC after? And are the suggested fees standard and/or
reasonable? I plan to
> argue the rejections but am hesitant if I am going to be
charged by the hour
> to educate a DAR in issuing a CA to an imported aircraft.
>
> Thanks in advance for opinions/advice/similar experiences,
>
> Bob Brennan
> 1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox
> Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
> Wrightsville Pa
>
&==============
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. IM
anytime you're online.
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
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: | Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness Certificate, and DARs |
Incorrect statements are *exactly* what I am trying to avoid - and thanks
for that very accurate advice!
This DAR was recommended by the local FAA office as well as lots of people
at the Cub Haven fly-in where he is well respected. His name is on the FAA
website as my most local DAR although his business card states "FAA
Principal Airworthiness Inspector, Retired". There are also 2 DAR numbers on
his card and when I first called him he was at an FAA annual course to
re-qualify for his DAR status (I think).
It all sounds impressive, except for the $600 for the AC, an hourly charge,
plus expenses when he drives here to look at the plane. I am simply covering
the bases to be sure I get my money's worth.
I just spoke with him on the phone and hopefully have resolved any issues
his FAA contact had about applying for Light Sport. All fingers crossed...
Does anyone else have invoices/memories of the cost of getting their
Airworthiness Certificate? My plane has been flying for 17 years with
rigorous annual inspections - one would think it would be a lot simpler to
certify as airworthy than a kit fresh out of the garage!
Bob Brennan
1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marco Menezes
Sent: 25 July 2008 12:50 pm
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness Certificate, and
DARs
Bob:
I agree with Jim. DAR's are, afterall paid by the hour. Any such system of
private contractors doing the government's work for a fee is ripe for abuse.
Some contractors are more knowledgable, some more honest than others. The
government, i.e. the FAA, on the other hand, is the ultimate source of all
knowledge regarding things regulatory. It's employees are paid the same
salary regardless of how many hours they spend doing the government's work
(or, apparently, playing golf). You may have to wait longer, but they will
help you find a way to license your airplane.
Some words of caution . . . keep your questions hypothetical and don't file
anything until you are certain of the procedure that will get you where you
want to go. Otherwise, "incorrect" statements made in government filings can
come back to bite you in the a** and may prove difficult to undo.
Good luck.
Marco Menezes N99KX
Model 2 582-90 C-Box
--- On Fri, 7/25/08, Jim_and_Lucy Chuk <thesupe@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Jim_and_Lucy Chuk <thesupe@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness Certificate, and
DARs
I'm trying to remember if you allready tryed this, but I would contact the
FAA directly. I've delt with the Minneapolis FSDO several times on 2
different planes, and they were quite helpfull. If you don't get answers
from one FSDO, try another. If that doesn't work, there should be someone
who you can talk to in the FAA headquarters in Oklahoma. As I understand
it, the exhibition catagory is very limiting and I wouldn't want it. If you
were close to MN I know a DAR from Duluth that charged $450 for an Avid that
had no build log or original bill of sale due to the death of the originial
builder (it was sold by his widow to a friend of mine who finished up the
last 20 percent or so of the plane) This DAR worked with the new owner and
the FAA and got it inspected and registered. It seems we often have a hard
time useing the phone, I know I do, but persistence can payoff. Jim Chuk
Kitfox 4 Mn
> From: matronics@bob.brennan.name
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness Certificate, and
DARs
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:29:51 -0400
>
<matronics@bob.brennan.name>
>
> Hi all - it's the guy with the grounded UK Model II again:
>
> I met with my local DAR and handed over my box of documentation, and asked
> for an Airworthiness Certificate. The airplane was built in 1991 and flown
> in the UK as a "microlight".
>
> He said I could not get Light Sport because it specifically excludes
foreign
> aircraft with previous Airworthiness Certification although he stated he
> could not find the Certificate in my documentation. Further research on my
> part shows it was flown with a Permit To Fly, which according to the CAA
is
> only issued to aircraft that are ineligible for an ICAO C of A. I have yet
> to present this info to the DAR.
>
> He also said I cannot apply for Experimental-Amateur Homebuilt because I
do
> not have build logs from the original builder, who I believe is deceased.
> Specifically he says I need to prove the 51% rule even though at the time
> Denney did not offer a fast-build option or completed aircraft, only kits.
>
> He suggested I apply as Exhibition but I would have to re-apply each year
> and supply a list of events I intend to fly to "exhibit" the airplane and
> would be restricted to only those flights and "preparation" flying within
1
> tank of my home airport. My feeling about this suggestion is that it
*sucks*
> and even though it would get me in the air this season it would limit if
not
> eliminate the chance of going Light Sport or Experimental in the future,
> even though he says I can.
>
> He also stated at the end of the last meeting that he "gets $600" for the
AC
> and that he has already accrued 2 hours of chargeable time so far.
>
> So my question to listers is - what do you think of the suggestion to
apply
> for an Exhibition AC and the possibilities and expense of getting a proper
> AC after? And are the suggested fees standard and/or reasonable? I plan to
> argue the rejections but am hesitant if I am going to be charged by the
hour
> to educate a DAR in issuing a CA to an imported aircraft.
>
> Thanks in advance for opinions/advice/similar experiences,
>
> Bob Brennan
> 1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox
> Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
> Wrightsville Pa
>
&==============
>
>
>
_____
Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. IM anytime
you're online.
<http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messen
ger2_072008>
D========================
=========
D========================
=========
D========================
=========
D========================
=========
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: | Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness Certificate, and DARs |
Hi Jim - thanks for the advice, please see my reply for more details.
I started by going to the local FAA and they gave me the DARs name to
contact. I'm not sure why but my DAR took all of the documentation and the
application to an FAA "friend" who wrote the rejection letter, so I am a bit
confused as to who actually has the authority to issue the Airworthiness
Certificate. Fortunately, as Jim pointed out, the FAA guy said he couldn't
issue a "formal" rejection letter because the application had not been
filled out in full. Thank goodness for details. Sometimes.....
Bob Brennan
1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim_and_Lucy
Chuk
Sent: 25 July 2008 11:04 am
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness Certificate, and
DARs
I'm trying to remember if you allready tryed this, but I would contact the
FAA directly. I've delt with the Minneapolis FSDO several times on 2
different planes, and they were quite helpfull. If you don't get answers
from one FSDO, try another. If that doesn't work, there should be someone
who you can talk to in the FAA headquarters in Oklahoma. As I understand
it, the exhibition catagory is very limiting and I wouldn't want it. If you
were close to MN I know a DAR from Duluth that charged $450 for an Avid that
had no build log or original bill of sale due to the death of the originial
builder (it was sold by his widow to a friend of mine who finished up the
last 20 percent or so of the plane) This DAR worked with the new owner and
the FAA and got it inspected and registered. It seems we often have a hard
time useing the phone, I know I do, but persistence can payoff. Jim Chuk
Kitfox 4 Mn
> From: matronics@bob.brennan.name
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness Certificate, and
DARs
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:29:51 -0400
>
<matronics@bob.brennan.name>
>
> Hi all - it's the guy with the grounded UK Model II again:
>
> I met with my local DAR and handed over my box of documentation, and asked
> for an Airworthiness Certificate. The airplane was built in 1991 and flown
> in the UK as a "microlight".
>
> He said I could not get Light Sport because it specifically excludes
foreign
> aircraft with previous Airworthiness Certification although he stated he
> could not find the Certificate in my documentation. Further research on my
> part shows it was flown with a Permit To Fly, which according to the CAA
is
> only issued to aircraft that are ineligible for an ICAO C of A. I have yet
> to present this info to the DAR.
>
> He also said I cannot apply for Experimental-Amateur Homebuilt because I
do
> not have build logs from the original builder, who I believe is deceased.
> Specifically he says I need to prove the 51% rule even though at the time
> Denney did not offer a fast-build option or completed aircraft, only kits.
>
> He suggested I apply as Exhibition but I would have to re-apply each year
> and supply a list of events I intend to fly to "exhibit" the airplane and
> would be restricted to only those flights and "preparation" flying within
1
> tank of my home airport. My feeling about this suggestion is that it
*sucks*
> and even though it would get me in the air this season it would limit if
not
> eliminate the chance of going Light Sport or Experimental in the future,
> even though he says I can.
>
> He also stated at the end of the last meeting that he "gets $600" for the
AC
> and that he has already accrued 2 hours of chargeable time so far.
>
> So my question to listers is - what do you think of the suggestion to
apply
> for an Exhibition AC and the possibilities and expense of getting a proper
> AC after? And are the suggested fees standard and/or reasonable? I plan to
> argue the rejections but am hesitant if I am going to be charged by the
hour
> to educate a DAR in issuing a CA to an imported aircraft.
>
> Thanks in advance for opinions/advice/similar experiences,
>
> Bob Brennan
> 1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox
> Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
> Wrightsville Pa
>
&==============
>
>
>
_____
Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. IM anytime
you're online.
<http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messen
ger2_072008>
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: Kitfox serial number |
Besides my Kitfox I am also interested in buying and restoring a 1943 L2,
which is the military version of the Taylorcraft Cub; which is a redesign of
the original "Cub" designed by C Gilbert Taylor which was sold to his
business partner William Piper who bought him out and began making the Piper
J3 Cub. I have found every restorer's dream - an intact L2 in a local garage
whose original owner is now 94 - he bought it as military surplus just after
the war. It last flew in 1995 and was supposedly airworthy when shoved into
a dark corner.
But my DAR says it better have full paperwork - or it will never fly again!
He (the DAR) says he owns the paperwork and title to a rare aircraft (I
forget which) and has *one spar*(!) from that airplane. He says he can
rebuild the plane *around* that spar (or more likely install it in a more
complete model) and claim it was a restoration of the original, with
paperwork.
You can build a legal airplane around a documented spar, but an undocumented
complete flyable airplane cannot fly legally ever again. Go figure...
Bob Brennan
1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
I'm curious, couldn't you hypothetically buy a totalled Kitfox and attach
all of your good parts to it except for the ID plate?
Pete
----- Original Message -----
From: Marco Menezes <mailto:msm_9949@yahoo.com>
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:49 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness
Certificate, and DARs
Bob:
I agree with Jim. DAR's are, afterall paid by the hour. Any such system of
private contractors doing the government's work for a fee is ripe for abuse.
Some contractors are more knowledgable, some more honest than others. The
government, i.e. the FAA, on the other hand, is the ultimate source of all
knowledge regarding things regulatory. It's employees are paid the same
salary regardless of how many hours they spend doing the government's work
(or, apparently, playing golf). You may have to wait longer, but they will
help you find a way to license your airplane.
Some words of caution . . . keep your questions hypothetical and don't file
anything until you are certain of the procedure that will get you where you
want to go. Otherwise, "incorrect" statements made in government filings can
come back to bite you in the a** and may prove difficult to undo.
Good luck.
Marco Menezes N99KX
Model 2 582-90 C-Box
--- On Fri, 7/25/08, Jim_and_Lucy Chuk <thesupe@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Jim_and_Lucy Chuk <thesupe@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness
Certificate, and DARs
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Date: Friday, July 25, 2008, 11:04 AM
I'm trying to remember if you allready tryed this, but I would
contact the FAA directly. I've delt with the Minneapolis FSDO several times
on 2 different planes, and they were quite helpfull. If you don't get
answers from one FSDO, try another. If that doesn't work, there should be
someone who you can talk to in the FAA headquarters in Oklahoma. As I
understand it, the exhibition catagory is very limiting and I wouldn't want
it. If you were close to MN I know a DAR from Duluth that charged $450 for
an Avid that had no build log or original bill of sale due to the death of
the originial builder (it was sold by his widow to a friend of mine who
finished up the last 20 percent or so of the plane) This DAR worked with
the new owner and the FAA and got it inspected and registered. It seems we
often have a hard time useing the phone, I know I do, but persistence can
payoff. Jim Chuk Kitfox 4 Mn
> From: matronics@bob.brennan.name
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness
Certificate, and DARs
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:29:51 -0400
>
<matronics@bob.brennan.name>
>
> Hi all - it's the guy with the grounded UK Model II again:
>
> I met with my local DAR and handed over my box of documentation,
and asked
> for an Airworthiness Certificate. The airplane was built in 1991
and flown
> in the UK as a "microlight".
>
> He said I could not get Light Sport because it specifically
excludes foreign
> aircraft with previous Airworthiness Certification although he
stated he
> could not find the Certificate in my documentation. Further
research on my
> part shows it was flown with a Permit To Fly, which according to
the CAA is
> only issued to aircraft that are ineligible for an ICAO C of A. I
have yet
> to present this info to the DAR.
>
> He also said I cannot apply for Experimental-Amateur Homebuilt
because I do
> not have build logs from the original builder, who I believe is
deceased.
> Specifically he says I need to prove the 51% rule even though at
the time
> Denney did not offer a fast-build option or completed aircraft,
only kits.
>
> He suggested I apply as Exhibition but I would have to re-apply
each year
> and supply a list of events I intend to fly to "exhibit" the
airplane and
> would be restricted to only those flights and "preparation" flying
within 1
> tank of my home airport. My feeling about this suggestion is that
it *sucks*
> and even though it would get me in the air this season it would
limit if not
> eliminate the chance of going Light Sport or Experimental in the
future,
> even though he says I can.
>
> He also stated at the end of the last meeting that he "gets $600"
for the AC
> and that he has already accrued 2 hours of chargeable time so far.
>
> So my question to listers is - what do you think of the suggestion
to apply
> for an Exhibition AC and the possibilities and expense of getting
a proper
> AC after? And are the suggested fees standard and/or reasonable? I
plan to
> argue the rejections but am hesitant if I am going to be charged
by the hour
> to educate a DAR in issuing a CA to an imported aircraft.
>
> Thanks in advance for opinions/advice/similar experiences,
>
> Bob Brennan
> 1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox
> Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
> Wrightsville Pa
>
&==============
>
>
>
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: Kitfox serial number |
Did it have an N-Number in 1995? If so maybe the faa has paperwork on it on
file.
Pete
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Brennan" <matronics@bob.brennan.name>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 11:48 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox serial number
> <matronics@bob.brennan.name>
>
> Besides my Kitfox I am also interested in buying and restoring a 1943 L2,
> which is the military version of the Taylorcraft Cub; which is a redesign
> of
> the original "Cub" designed by C Gilbert Taylor which was sold to his
> business partner William Piper who bought him out and began making the
> Piper
> J3 Cub. I have found every restorer's dream - an intact L2 in a local
> garage
> whose original owner is now 94 - he bought it as military surplus just
> after
> the war. It last flew in 1995 and was supposedly airworthy when shoved
> into
> a dark corner.
>
> But my DAR says it better have full paperwork - or it will never fly
> again!
> He (the DAR) says he owns the paperwork and title to a rare aircraft (I
> forget which) and has *one spar*(!) from that airplane. He says he can
> rebuild the plane *around* that spar (or more likely install it in a more
> complete model) and claim it was a restoration of the original, with
> paperwork.
>
> You can build a legal airplane around a documented spar, but an
> undocumented
> complete flyable airplane cannot fly legally ever again. Go figure...
>
> Bob Brennan
> 1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox
> Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
> Wrightsville Pa
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> I'm curious, couldn't you hypothetically buy a totalled Kitfox and attach
> all of your good parts to it except for the ID plate?
>
> Pete
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marco Menezes <mailto:msm_9949@yahoo.com>
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:49 AM
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness
> Certificate, and DARs
>
> Bob:
>
>
> I agree with Jim. DAR's are, afterall paid by the hour. Any such system of
> private contractors doing the government's work for a fee is ripe for
> abuse.
> Some contractors are more knowledgable, some more honest than others. The
> government, i.e. the FAA, on the other hand, is the ultimate source of all
> knowledge regarding things regulatory. It's employees are paid the same
> salary regardless of how many hours they spend doing the government's work
> (or, apparently, playing golf). You may have to wait longer, but they will
> help you find a way to license your airplane.
>
>
> Some words of caution . . . keep your questions hypothetical and don't
> file
> anything until you are certain of the procedure that will get you where
> you
> want to go. Otherwise, "incorrect" statements made in government filings
> can
> come back to bite you in the a** and may prove difficult to undo.
>
>
> Good luck.
>
>
> Marco Menezes N99KX
>
> Model 2 582-90 C-Box
>
> --- On Fri, 7/25/08, Jim_and_Lucy Chuk <thesupe@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Jim_and_Lucy Chuk <thesupe@hotmail.com>
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness
> Certificate, and DARs
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Date: Friday, July 25, 2008, 11:04 AM
>
>
> I'm trying to remember if you allready tryed this, but I would
> contact the FAA directly. I've delt with the Minneapolis FSDO several
> times
> on 2 different planes, and they were quite helpfull. If you don't get
> answers from one FSDO, try another. If that doesn't work, there should be
> someone who you can talk to in the FAA headquarters in Oklahoma. As I
> understand it, the exhibition catagory is very limiting and I wouldn't
> want
> it. If you were close to MN I know a DAR from Duluth that charged $450
> for
> an Avid that had no build log or original bill of sale due to the death of
> the originial builder (it was sold by his widow to a friend of mine who
> finished up the last 20 percent or so of the plane) This DAR worked with
> the new owner and the FAA and got it inspected and registered. It seems
> we
> often have a hard time useing the phone, I know I do, but persistence can
> payoff. Jim Chuk Kitfox 4 Mn
>
> > From: matronics@bob.brennan.name
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness
> Certificate, and DARs
> > Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:29:51 -0400
> >
> <matronics@bob.brennan.name>
> >
> > Hi all - it's the guy with the grounded UK Model II again:
> >
> > I met with my local DAR and handed over my box of documentation,
> and asked
> > for an Airworthiness Certificate. The airplane was built in 1991
> and flown
> > in the UK as a "microlight".
> >
> > He said I could not get Light Sport because it specifically
> excludes foreign
> > aircraft with previous Airworthiness Certification although he
> stated he
> > could not find the Certificate in my documentation. Further
> research on my
> > part shows it was flown with a Permit To Fly, which according to
> the CAA is
> > only issued to aircraft that are ineligible for an ICAO C of A. I
> have yet
> > to present this info to the DAR.
> >
> > He also said I cannot apply for Experimental-Amateur Homebuilt
> because I do
> > not have build logs from the original builder, who I believe is
> deceased.
> > Specifically he says I need to prove the 51% rule even though at
> the time
> > Denney did not offer a fast-build option or completed aircraft,
> only kits.
> >
> > He suggested I apply as Exhibition but I would have to re-apply
> each year
> > and supply a list of events I intend to fly to "exhibit" the
> airplane and
> > would be restricted to only those flights and "preparation" flying
> within 1
> > tank of my home airport. My feeling about this suggestion is that
> it *sucks*
> > and even though it would get me in the air this season it would
> limit if not
> > eliminate the chance of going Light Sport or Experimental in the
> future,
> > even though he says I can.
> >
> > He also stated at the end of the last meeting that he "gets $600"
> for the AC
> > and that he has already accrued 2 hours of chargeable time so far.
> >
> > So my question to listers is - what do you think of the suggestion
> to apply
> > for an Exhibition AC and the possibilities and expense of getting
> a proper
> > AC after? And are the suggested fees standard and/or reasonable? I
> plan to
> > argue the rejections but am hesitant if I am going to be charged
> by the hour
> > to educate a DAR in issuing a CA to an imported aircraft.
> >
> > Thanks in advance for opinions/advice/similar experiences,
> >
> > Bob Brennan
> > 1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox
> > Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
> > Wrightsville Pa
> >
> &==============
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
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: Kitfox serial number |
Excellent point Pete. The wings have the fabric mostly off but the fuselage
is still completely covered. I haven't totally convinced my old friend to
sell it to me yet but next time I'm there I will take note of the N number
which is hopefully on the tail. As far as I know he did a J3 conversion on
it at some point because it is currently yellow. I plan to restore it (if I
get it!) to its original drab green, much easier to spray than gloss yellow!
Bob Brennan
1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pete
Christensen
Sent: 25 July 2008 2:32 pm
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox serial number
<apeterchristensen@sbcglobal.net>
Did it have an N-Number in 1995? If so maybe the faa has paperwork on it on
file.
Pete
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Brennan" <matronics@bob.brennan.name>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 11:48 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox serial number
> <matronics@bob.brennan.name>
>
> Besides my Kitfox I am also interested in buying and restoring a 1943 L2,
> which is the military version of the Taylorcraft Cub; which is a redesign
> of
> the original "Cub" designed by C Gilbert Taylor which was sold to his
> business partner William Piper who bought him out and began making the
> Piper
> J3 Cub. I have found every restorer's dream - an intact L2 in a local
> garage
> whose original owner is now 94 - he bought it as military surplus just
> after
> the war. It last flew in 1995 and was supposedly airworthy when shoved
> into
> a dark corner.
>
> But my DAR says it better have full paperwork - or it will never fly
> again!
> He (the DAR) says he owns the paperwork and title to a rare aircraft (I
> forget which) and has *one spar*(!) from that airplane. He says he can
> rebuild the plane *around* that spar (or more likely install it in a more
> complete model) and claim it was a restoration of the original, with
> paperwork.
>
> You can build a legal airplane around a documented spar, but an
> undocumented
> complete flyable airplane cannot fly legally ever again. Go figure...
>
> Bob Brennan
> 1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox
> Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
> Wrightsville Pa
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> I'm curious, couldn't you hypothetically buy a totalled Kitfox and attach
> all of your good parts to it except for the ID plate?
>
> Pete
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marco Menezes <mailto:msm_9949@yahoo.com>
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:49 AM
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness
> Certificate, and DARs
>
> Bob:
>
>
> I agree with Jim. DAR's are, afterall paid by the hour. Any such system of
> private contractors doing the government's work for a fee is ripe for
> abuse.
> Some contractors are more knowledgable, some more honest than others. The
> government, i.e. the FAA, on the other hand, is the ultimate source of all
> knowledge regarding things regulatory. It's employees are paid the same
> salary regardless of how many hours they spend doing the government's work
> (or, apparently, playing golf). You may have to wait longer, but they will
> help you find a way to license your airplane.
>
>
> Some words of caution . . . keep your questions hypothetical and don't
> file
> anything until you are certain of the procedure that will get you where
> you
> want to go. Otherwise, "incorrect" statements made in government filings
> can
> come back to bite you in the a** and may prove difficult to undo.
>
>
> Good luck.
>
>
> Marco Menezes N99KX
>
> Model 2 582-90 C-Box
>
> --- On Fri, 7/25/08, Jim_and_Lucy Chuk <thesupe@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Jim_and_Lucy Chuk <thesupe@hotmail.com>
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness
> Certificate, and DARs
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Date: Friday, July 25, 2008, 11:04 AM
>
>
> I'm trying to remember if you allready tryed this, but I would
> contact the FAA directly. I've delt with the Minneapolis FSDO several
> times
> on 2 different planes, and they were quite helpfull. If you don't get
> answers from one FSDO, try another. If that doesn't work, there should be
> someone who you can talk to in the FAA headquarters in Oklahoma. As I
> understand it, the exhibition catagory is very limiting and I wouldn't
> want
> it. If you were close to MN I know a DAR from Duluth that charged $450
> for
> an Avid that had no build log or original bill of sale due to the death of
> the originial builder (it was sold by his widow to a friend of mine who
> finished up the last 20 percent or so of the plane) This DAR worked with
> the new owner and the FAA and got it inspected and registered. It seems
> we
> often have a hard time useing the phone, I know I do, but persistence can
> payoff. Jim Chuk Kitfox 4 Mn
>
> > From: matronics@bob.brennan.name
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness
> Certificate, and DARs
> > Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:29:51 -0400
> >
> <matronics@bob.brennan.name>
> >
> > Hi all - it's the guy with the grounded UK Model II again:
> >
> > I met with my local DAR and handed over my box of documentation,
> and asked
> > for an Airworthiness Certificate. The airplane was built in 1991
> and flown
> > in the UK as a "microlight".
> >
> > He said I could not get Light Sport because it specifically
> excludes foreign
> > aircraft with previous Airworthiness Certification although he
> stated he
> > could not find the Certificate in my documentation. Further
> research on my
> > part shows it was flown with a Permit To Fly, which according to
> the CAA is
> > only issued to aircraft that are ineligible for an ICAO C of A. I
> have yet
> > to present this info to the DAR.
> >
> > He also said I cannot apply for Experimental-Amateur Homebuilt
> because I do
> > not have build logs from the original builder, who I believe is
> deceased.
> > Specifically he says I need to prove the 51% rule even though at
> the time
> > Denney did not offer a fast-build option or completed aircraft,
> only kits.
> >
> > He suggested I apply as Exhibition but I would have to re-apply
> each year
> > and supply a list of events I intend to fly to "exhibit" the
> airplane and
> > would be restricted to only those flights and "preparation" flying
> within 1
> > tank of my home airport. My feeling about this suggestion is that
> it *sucks*
> > and even though it would get me in the air this season it would
> limit if not
> > eliminate the chance of going Light Sport or Experimental in the
> future,
> > even though he says I can.
> >
> > He also stated at the end of the last meeting that he "gets $600"
> for the AC
> > and that he has already accrued 2 hours of chargeable time so far.
> >
> > So my question to listers is - what do you think of the suggestion
> to apply
> > for an Exhibition AC and the possibilities and expense of getting
> a proper
> > AC after? And are the suggested fees standard and/or reasonable? I
> plan to
> > argue the rejections but am hesitant if I am going to be charged
> by the hour
> > to educate a DAR in issuing a CA to an imported aircraft.
> >
> > Thanks in advance for opinions/advice/similar experiences,
> >
> > Bob Brennan
> > 1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox
> > Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
> > Wrightsville Pa
> >
> &==============
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
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: Flying in the rain |
Miichel:
With the amount you are flying I'd say if you were going to have trouble
you'd have it by now. My preference would be to torque the bolts when the
temperature is around 20C. I don't know how your seasons are in Northern
Europe but here winter humidity can be very low followed with almost 100% in
the spring for a couple of months... Then it dries a bit to around 50% for
the summer (good days) and in the fall it gets wet again... The running
joke is that we have three months of winter an nine months of "hard
sledding" :-)
The idea of loosening bolts to check the torque is the recommended
procedure.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michel
Verheughe
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 5:44 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: RE: Flying in the rain
> From: Noel Loveys [noelloveys@yahoo.ca]
> Remember that when the temperature warms up the bolts can elongate and can
> become loose.
Gosh, Noel and Lynn, are you trying to make scare the hell out of me? :-)
Okay, I know that wood, metal and ... some parts of my body are longer when
it is warm ... but what can I do?
Should I check the prop bolts at each pre-flight? When I test the bolts,
should I first unscrew them, then tight them to the right torque? Because
they are either too tight or not enough. If they are too tight, then the
only way to fix it is to slack them first, right?
Now, I haven't been flying a lot but I sailed a lot. I know that when I
start a new long distance sailing, whatever I have screwed need to be
checked. So, I do that ... for a week. Anything that withstand the constant
motion of the vessel more than a week is going to remain tight until the end
of time (22 Dec 2012, if you believe the latest doomsday prophety :-)
Anyway, my bolts haven't moved since I installed the engine and apart from
checking the torque one a year ... I don't feel very much like fixing
something that seems to work ... or, should I?
Cheers,
Michel Verheughe
Norway
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matronics.c
om/Navigator?Kitfox-List</a>
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com</a>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contri
bution</a>
</b></font></pre>
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: | RE: Flying in the rain |
The Ivo I bought for the 582 required the bolts be checked I believe it was
every 50 hr. While on the phone to the factory I asked why there was no
lockwire holes in the heads of the blots. I was told that people didn't
like to cut lockwire, so, to make sure the torques were checked they decided
not to use lock wire. I went along with them only because I was possible
for me to sell the plane with lockwire intact.
Metal props are another quintal of fish! Torque and lockwire!
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Matteson
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: RE: Flying in the rain
Ya got me there, Michel. When I worked as a driver/mechanic for
Chrysler Corp., we would always check torque in the tightening
direction. If it checked out at at least the approved torque, we'd
leave it alone. But working with wood, and given the fear that they
strike into our hearts with the "too loose is a problem" and "too
tight is a problem" I check in the tightening direction, and if too
tight (prop is filled with water...just kidding) I loosen and re-
tighten to the torque specs (120-140 inch-pounds over on this side of
the big pond) If too loose, I just torque to the above specs.
I personally feel that each flight is too often. I would have to
remove the spinner from mine before checking, and that would take a
few minutes. The humidity here stays pretty even for long periods, so
my routine of every 60 hours or so, suits me just fine.
Lynn Matteson
Kitfox IV Speedster
Jabiru 2200
Status: flying w/550+ hrs
On Jul 24, 2008, at 4:14 PM, Michel Verheughe wrote:
>> From: Noel Loveys [noelloveys@yahoo.ca]
>> Remember that when the temperature warms up the bolts can elongate
>> and can
>> become loose.
>
> Gosh, Noel and Lynn, are you trying to make scare the hell out of
> me? :-)
> Okay, I know that wood, metal and ... some parts of my body are
> longer when it is warm ... but what can I do?
> Should I check the prop bolts at each pre-flight? When I test the
> bolts, should I first unscrew them, then tight them to the right
> torque? Because they are either too tight or not enough. If they
> are too tight, then the only way to fix it is to slack them first,
> right?
>
> Now, I haven't been flying a lot but I sailed a lot. I know that
> when I start a new long distance sailing, whatever I have screwed
> need to be checked. So, I do that ... for a week. Anything that
> withstand the constant motion of the vessel more than a week is
> going to remain tight until the end of time (22 Dec 2012, if you
> believe the latest doomsday prophety :-)
>
> Anyway, my bolts haven't moved since I installed the engine and
> apart from checking the torque one a year ... I don't feel very
> much like fixing something that seems to work ... or, should I?
>
> Cheers,
> Michel Verheughe
> Norway
> Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
>
>
> <pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
>
> List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List</a>
> forums.matronics.com</a>
> www.matronics.com/contribution</a>
>
> </b></font></pre>
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: Kitfox serial number |
If it has a registered N # it would take about 20 seconds to see who the li
sted owner is if you are on the FAA inquiry site. http://registry.faa.gov
/aircraftinquiry/NNum_inquiry.asp Just type in the # and hit the button.
This will even show what plane used to have that N # if it has been derigi
stered. Jim Chuk Kitfox4 Mn> From: matronics@bob.brennan.name> To: kit
fox-list@matronics.com> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox serial number>
Date: Fri=2C 25 Jul 2008 14:58:59 -0400> > --> Kitfox-List message posted
by: "Bob Brennan" <matronics@bob.brennan.name>> > Excellent point Pete. The
wings have the fabric mostly off but the fuselage> is still completely cov
ered. I haven't totally convinced my old friend to> sell it to me yet but n
ext time I'm there I will take note of the N number> which is hopefully on
the tail. As far as I know he did a J3 conversion on> it at some point beca
use it is currently yellow. I plan to restore it (if I> get it!) to its ori
ginal drab green=2C much easier to spray than gloss yellow!> > Bob Brennan>
1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox> Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop> Wrightsville Pa> > --
---Original Message-----> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com> [ma
ilto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pete> Christensen
> Sent: 25 July 2008 2:32 pm> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> Subject: Re: K
"Pete Christensen"> <apeterchristensen@sbcglobal.net>> > Did it have an N-N
umber in 1995? If so maybe the faa has paperwork on it on > file.> > Pete>
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bob Brennan" <matronics@bob.brennan
.name>> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>> Sent: Friday=2C July 25=2C 2008 11
:48 AM> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox serial number> > > > --> Kitfo
x-List message posted by: "Bob Brennan" > > <matronics@bob.brennan.name>> >
> > Besides my Kitfox I am also interested in buying and restoring a 1943 L
2=2C> > which is the military version of the Taylorcraft Cub=3B which is a
redesign > > of> > the original "Cub" designed by C Gilbert Taylor which wa
s sold to his> > business partner William Piper who bought him out and bega
n making the > > Piper> > J3 Cub. I have found every restorer's dream - an
intact L2 in a local > > garage> > whose original owner is now 94 - he boug
ht it as military surplus just > > after> > the war. It last flew in 1995 a
nd was supposedly airworthy when shoved > > into> > a dark corner.> >> > Bu
t my DAR says it better have full paperwork - or it will never fly > > agai
n!> > He (the DAR) says he owns the paperwork and title to a rare aircraft
(I> > forget which) and has *one spar*(!) from that airplane. He says he ca
n> > rebuild the plane *around* that spar (or more likely install it in a m
ore> > complete model) and claim it was a restoration of the original=2C wi
th> > paperwork.> >> > You can build a legal airplane around a documented s
par=2C but an > > undocumented> > complete flyable airplane cannot fly lega
lly ever again. Go figure...> >> > Bob Brennan> > 1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox> >
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop> > Wrightsville Pa> >> -----------------------
-----------------------------------------------------> > -------------> > I
'm curious=2C couldn't you hypothetically buy a totalled Kitfox and attach>
> all of your good parts to it except for the ID plate?> >> > Pete> >> > -
---- Original Message ----- > > From: Marco Menezes <mailto:msm_9949@yahoo.
com>> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> > Sent: Friday=2C July 25=2C 2008 10
:49 AM> > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox=2C Airworthiness> >
Certificate=2C and DARs> >> > Bob:> >> >> >> > I agree with Jim. DAR's are
=2C afterall paid by the hour. Any such system of> > private contractors do
ing the government's work for a fee is ripe for > > abuse.> > Some contract
ors are more knowledgable=2C some more honest than others. The> > governmen
t=2C i.e. the FAA=2C on the other hand=2C is the ultimate source of all> >
knowledge regarding things regulatory. It's employees are paid the same> >
salary regardless of how many hours they spend doing the government's work>
> (or=2C apparently=2C playing golf). You may have to wait longer=2C but t
hey will> > help you find a way to license your airplane.> >> >> >> > Some
words of caution . . . keep your questions hypothetical and don't > > file>
> anything until you are certain of the procedure that will get you where
> > you> > want to go. Otherwise=2C "incorrect" statements made in governme
nt filings > > can> > come back to bite you in the a** and may prove diffic
ult to undo.> >> >> >> > Good luck.> >> >> >> > Marco Menezes N99KX> >> > M
odel 2 582-90 C-Box> >> > --- On Fri=2C 7/25/08=2C Jim_and_Lucy Chuk <thesu
pe@hotmail.com> wrote:> >> >> > From: Jim_and_Lucy Chuk <thesupe@hotmail.co
m>> > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox=2C Airworthiness> > Cert
ificate=2C and DARs> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com> > Date: Friday=2C Jul
y 25=2C 2008=2C 11:04 AM> >> >> > I'm trying to remember if you allready tr
yed this=2C but I would> > contact the FAA directly. I've delt with the Min
neapolis FSDO several > > times> > on 2 different planes=2C and they were q
uite helpfull. If you don't get> > answers from one FSDO=2C try another. If
that doesn't work=2C there should be> > someone who you can talk to in the
FAA headquarters in Oklahoma. As I> > understand it=2C the exhibition cata
gory is very limiting and I wouldn't > > want> > it. If you were close to M
N I know a DAR from Duluth that charged $450 > > for> > an Avid that had no
build log or original bill of sale due to the death of> > the originial bu
ilder (it was sold by his widow to a friend of mine who> > finished up the
last 20 percent or so of the plane) This DAR worked with> > the new owner a
nd the FAA and got it inspected and registered. It seems > > we> > often ha
ve a hard time useing the phone=2C I know I do=2C but persistence can> > pa
yoff. Jim Chuk Kitfox 4 Mn> >> > > From: matronics@bob.brennan.name> > > To
: kitfox-list@matronics.com> > > Subject: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox
=2C Airworthiness> > Certificate=2C and DARs> > > Date: Fri=2C 25 Jul 2008
> <matronics@bob.brennan.name>> > >> > > Hi all - it's the guy with the gro
unded UK Model II again:> > >> > > I met with my local DAR and handed over
my box of documentation=2C> > and asked> > > for an Airworthiness Certifica
te. The airplane was built in 1991> > and flown> > > in the UK as a "microl
ight".> > >> > > He said I could not get Light Sport because it specificall
y> > excludes foreign> > > aircraft with previous Airworthiness Certificati
on although he> > stated he> > > could not find the Certificate in my docum
entation. Further> > research on my> > > part shows it was flown with a Per
mit To Fly=2C which according to> > the CAA is> > > only issued to aircraft
that are ineligible for an ICAO C of A. I> > have yet> > > to present this
info to the DAR.> > >> > > He also said I cannot apply for Experimental-Am
ateur Homebuilt> > because I do> > > not have build logs from the original
builder=2C who I believe is> > deceased.> > > Specifically he says I need t
o prove the 51% rule even though at> > the time> > > Denney did not offer a
fast-build option or completed aircraft=2C> > only kits.> > >> > > He sugg
ested I apply as Exhibition but I would have to re-apply> > each year> > >
and supply a list of events I intend to fly to "exhibit" the> > airplane an
d> > > would be restricted to only those flights and "preparation" flying>
> within 1> > > tank of my home airport. My feeling about this suggestion i
s that> > it *sucks*> > > and even though it would get me in the air this s
eason it would> > limit if not> > > eliminate the chance of going Light Spo
rt or Experimental in the> > future=2C> > > even though he says I can.> > >
> > > He also stated at the end of the last meeting that he "gets $600"> >
for the AC> > > and that he has already accrued 2 hours of chargeable time
so far.> > >> > > So my question to listers is - what do you think of the s
uggestion> > to apply> > > for an Exhibition AC and the possibilities and e
xpense of getting> > a proper> > > AC after? And are the suggested fees sta
ndard and/or reasonable? I> > plan to> > > argue the rejections but am hesi
tant if I am going to be charged> > by the hour> > > to educate a DAR in is
suing a CA to an imported aircraft.> > >> > > Thanks in advance for opinion
s/advice/similar experiences=2C> > >> > > Bob Brennan> > > 1991 UK Model 2
Kitfox> > > Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop> > > Wrightsville Pa> > >> > &=
==============> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >
==========> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Time for vacation? WIN what you need- enter now!
http://www.gowindowslive.com/summergiveaway/?ocid=tag_jlyhm
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: Flying in the rain |
> From: Noel Loveys [noelloveys@yahoo.ca]
> My preference would be to torque the bolts when the
> temperature is around 20C.
Thanks, Noel. 20C is what we have right now, in the middle of the summer. In the
winter it goes down to -10C on an average day.
I am fortunate to have a hangar with a second floor on the top. This is where the
sky divers are living when they are ... not jumping from perfectly flyable
aircraft! :-) So it is pretty well isolated from the heat and the cold. Air temperature
and humidity is very little varying. Of course, when I fly somewhere
else and the plane is left outside for the night, it is another matter.
> The idea of loosening bolts to check the torque is the recommended
> procedure.
Okay, I have learnt something today. But, you see, I am then afraid that the following
happens: I torque when the weather is cold and dry. Then I torque when
the weather is hot and humid, then I torque again when the weather is again cold
and dry and, in the process of repeating that, I slowly dig more and more
in the wood. Does it make sense to you or am I missing something? You see, the
Jabiru propeller is not bolted in the body of the flange itself but in some nuts
that are penetrating inside the propeller as hollowed tubes. That is the reason
we can't use lockwire because it wouldn't prevent those nuts to spin. We
use belleville washers that are supposed to take the slack when it happens.
Another question, when flying somewhere where the plane is left outside for the
night, would it make sense to make watertight 'gloves' for the propeller so that
they don't get wet from the humidity of the night or an eventual rain fall?
Cheers,
Michel Verheughe
Norway
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: Kitfox serial number |
Thanks Jim, I will check the N number on that link as soon as I know it. As
I understand it though the most important thing is the paperwork trail since
it was built, and that trail runs right through the wartime (WW2)
military... I still find it astounding that the paperwork trail is more
important than the airplane itself!
Bob Brennan
1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
_____
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim_and_Lucy
Chuk
Sent: 25 July 2008 4:17 pm
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox serial number
If it has a registered N # it would take about 20 seconds to see who the
listed owner is if you are on the FAA inquiry site.
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_inquiry.asp Just type in the
# and hit the button. This will even show what plane used to have that N #
if it has been derigistered. Jim Chuk Kitfox4 Mn
> From: matronics@bob.brennan.name
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox serial number
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:58:59 -0400
>
<matronics@bob.brennan.name>
>
> Excellent point Pete. The wings have the fabric mostly off but the
fuselage
> is still completely covered. I haven't totally convinced my old friend to
> sell it to me yet but next time I'm there I will take note of the N number
> which is hopefully on the tail. As far as I know he did a J3 conversion on
> it at some point because it is currently yellow. I plan to restore it (if
I
> get it!) to its original drab green, much easier to spray than gloss
yellow!
>
> Bob Brennan
> 1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox
> Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
> Wrightsville Pa
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pete
> Christensen
> Sent: 25 July 2008 2:32 pm
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox serial number
>
> <apeterchristensen@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Did it have an N-Number in 1995? If so maybe the faa has paperwork on it
on
> file.
>
> Pete
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Brennan" <matronics@bob.brennan.name>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 11:48 AM
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox serial number
>
>
> > <matronics@bob.brennan.name>
> >
> > Besides my Kitfox I am also interested in buying and restoring a 1943
L2,
> > which is the military version of the Taylorcraft Cub; which is a
redesign
> > of
> > the original "Cub" designed by C Gilbert Taylor which was sold to his
> > business partner William Piper who bought him out and began making the
> > Piper
> > J3 Cub. I have found every restorer's dream - an intact L2 in a local
> > garage
> > whose original owner is now 94 - he bought it as military surplus just
> > after
> > the war. It last flew in 1995 and was supposedly airworthy when shoved
> > into
> > a dark corner.
> >
> > But my DAR says it better have full paperwork - or it will never fly
> > again!
> > He (the DAR) says he owns the paperwork and title to a rare aircraft (I
> > forget which) and has *one spar*(!) from that airplane. He says he can
> > rebuild the plane *around* that spar (or more likely install it in a
more
> > complete model) and claim it was a restoration of the original, with
> > paperwork.
> >
> > You can build a legal airplane around a documented spar, but an
> > undocumented
> > complete flyable airplane cannot fly legally ever again. Go figure...
> >
> > Bob Brennan
> > 1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox
> > Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
> > Wrightsville Pa
> >
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------------
> > I'm curious, couldn't you hypothetically buy a totalled Kitfox and
attach
> > all of your good parts to it except for the ID plate?
> >
> > Pete
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Marco Menezes <mailto:msm_9949@yahoo.com>
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:49 AM
> > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness
> > Certificate, and DARs
> >
> > Bob:
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree with Jim. DAR's are, afterall paid by the hour. Any such system
of
> > private contractors doing the government's work for a fee is ripe for
> > abuse.
> > Some contractors are more knowledgable, some more honest than others.
The
> > government, i.e. the FAA, on the other hand, is the ultimate source of
all
> > knowledge regarding things regulatory. It's employees are paid the same
> > salary regardless of how many hours they spend doing the government's
work
> > (or, apparently, playing golf). You may have to wait longer, but they
will
> > help you find a way to license your airplane.
> >
> >
> >
> > Some words of caution . . . keep your questions hypothetical and don't
> > file
> > anything until you are certain of the procedure that will get you where
> > you
> > want to go. Otherwise, "incorrect" statements made in government filings
> > can
> > come back to bite you in the a** and may prove difficult to undo.
> >
> >
> >
> > Good luck.
> >
> >
> >
> > Marco Menezes N99KX
> >
> > Model 2 582-90 C-Box
> >
> > --- On Fri, 7/25/08, Jim_and_Lucy Chuk <thesupe@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Jim_and_Lucy Chuk <thesupe@hotmail.com>
> > Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness
> > Certificate, and DARs
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Date: Friday, July 25, 2008, 11:04 AM
> >
> >
> > I'm trying to remember if you allready tryed this, but I would
> > contact the FAA directly. I've delt with the Minneapolis FSDO several
> > times
> > on 2 different planes, and they were quite helpfull. If you don't get
> > answers from one FSDO, try another. If that doesn't work, there should
be
> > someone who you can talk to in the FAA headquarters in Oklahoma. As I
> > understand it, the exhibition catagory is very limiting and I wouldn't
> > want
> > it. If you were close to MN I know a DAR from Duluth that charged $450
> > for
> > an Avid that had no build log or original bill of sale due to the death
of
> > the originial builder (it was sold by his widow to a friend of mine who
> > finished up the last 20 percent or so of the plane) This DAR worked with
> > the new owner and the FAA and got it inspected and registered. It seems
> > we
> > often have a hard time useing the phone, I know I do, but persistence
can
> > payoff. Jim Chuk Kitfox 4 Mn
> >
> > > From: matronics@bob.brennan.name
> > > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > > Subject: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness
> > Certificate, and DARs
> > > Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:29:51 -0400
> > >
> > <matronics@bob.brennan.name>
> > >
> > > Hi all - it's the guy with the grounded UK Model II again:
> > >
> > > I met with my local DAR and handed over my box of documentation,
> > and asked
> > > for an Airworthiness Certificate. The airplane was built in 1991
> > and flown
> > > in the UK as a "microlight".
> > >
> > > He said I could not get Light Sport because it specifically
> > excludes foreign
> > > aircraft with previous Airworthiness Certification although he
> > stated he
> > > could not find the Certificate in my documentation. Further
> > research on my
> > > part shows it was flown with a Permit To Fly, which according to
> > the CAA is
> > > only issued to aircraft that are ineligible for an ICAO C of A. I
> > have yet
> > > to present this info to the DAR.
> > >
> > > He also said I cannot apply for Experimental-Amateur Homebuilt
> > because I do
> > > not have build logs from the original builder, who I believe is
> > deceased.
> > > Specifically he says I need to prove the 51% rule even though at
> > the time
> > > Denney did not offer a fast-build option or completed aircraft,
> > only kits.
> > >
> > > He suggested I apply as Exhibition but I would have to re-apply
> > each year
> > > and supply a list of events I intend to fly to "exhibit" the
> > airplane and
> > > would be restricted to only those flights and "preparation" flying
> > within 1
> > > tank of my home airport. My feeling about this suggestion is that
> > it *sucks*
> > > and even though it would get me in the air this season it would
> > limit if not
> > > eliminate the chance of going Light Sport or Experimental in the
> > future,
> > > even though he says I can.
> > >
> > > He also stated at the end of the last meeting that he "gets $600"
> > for the AC
> > > and that he has already accrued 2 hours of chargeable time so far.
> > >
> > > So my question to listers is - what do you think of the suggestion
> > to apply
> > > for an Exhibition AC and the possibilities and expense of getting
> > a proper
> > > AC after? And are the suggested fees standard and/or reasonable? I
> > plan to
> > > argue the rejections but am hesitant if I am going to be charged
> > by the hour
> > > to educate a DAR in issuing a CA to an imported aircraft.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance for opinions/advice/similar experiences,
> > >
> > > Bob Brennan
> > > 1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox
> > > Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
> > > Wrightsville Pa
> > >
> > &==============
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
&g=============
>
>
>
_____
Time for vacation? WIN what you need. Enter Now!
<http://www.gowindowslive.com/summergiveaway/?ocid=tag_jlyhm>
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: | Re: Kitfox serial number |
[quote="matronics(at)bob.brennan."]Besides my Kitfox I am also interested in buying
and restoring a 1943 L2,
which is the military version of the Taylorcraft Cub; which is a redesign of
the original "Cub" designed by C Gilbert Taylor which was sold to his
business partner William Piper who bought him out and began making the Piper J3
Cub.
Hi Bob, the Taylorcraft L2 is a D series "T"craft as you say CG Taylor designed
them after he and Bill Piper split up, the Cont powered versions were DC65's
by far the most popular version and I believe the only ones that the military
bought.
I have found every restorer's dream - an intact L2 in a local garage whose original
owner is now 94 - he bought it as military surplus just after
the war. It last flew in 1995 and was supposedly airworthy when shoved into a dark
corner.
But my DAR says it better have full paperwork - or it will never fly again!
He (the DAR) says he owns the paperwork and title to a rare aircraft (I
forget which) and has *one spar*(!) from that airplane. He says he can
rebuild the plane *around* that spar (or more likely install it in a more
complete model) and claim it was a restoration of the original, with
paperwork.
Personally I think you should be looking for a new DAR. If the Data plate is still
attached to the aircraft and it has a "N" number you can get a history of
the plane from the FAA, it costs a mere $10.00 also the military may still have
records of its history when it was in the military.
Heres a great site to learn more about Taylorcrafts, A word of advice DON"T call
"T"crafts Cubs or Pipers the "T" craft guys don't take kindly to that.
http://vb.taylorcraft.org/forumdisplay.php?s=&f=26&page=1&pp=25&sort=lastpost&order=desc&daysprune=-1
You can build a legal airplane around a documented spar, but an undocumented
complete flyable airplane cannot fly legally ever again. Go figure...
Bob Brennan
1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
[Evil or Very Mad]
--------
GB
MNFlyer
Flying a HKS Kitfox III
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194950#194950
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: Belly Stringer |
You may want to make sure before you glue that stringer in place that you
have clearance for the bellcrank once the fabric is attached. If not you
will have to put a patch there when it starts rubbing. Jeff Classic IV KTZR
----- Original Message -----
From: <l.morris@tx.rr.com>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Belly Stringer
>
> Thanks Lowell, I'll safety wire mine there too.Lynn also thought that
> his was safetied there too, but was using flashlight and mirrors to check.
> Leon
> ---- Lowell Fitt <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> Leon,
>>
>> I just looked at mine. I inherited it from a previous builder and he
>> sucked
>> it up and safety wired it there. I am going to leave it. As I recall
>> looking at lots of Model IVs, that part of the fueseage is sort of wasp
>> waisted there due to the stringer being safety wired to that tube. Keep
>> in
>> mind that after shrinking the fabric, the stringer won't be going
>> anywhere
>> and safety wire is simply to hold everything in place until that time.
>> My
>> concern in not tightening it down (up) would be that after shrinking, the
>> fabric won't have a solid base in that area if the stringer is not backed
>> by
>> the tube.
>>
>> Lowell
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <l.morris@tx.rr.com>
>> To: "Kitfox" <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:28 AM
>> Subject: Kitfox-List: Belly Stringer
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Iv'e already talked to Lynn off list about this, but would like to
>> > hear
>> > from someone to confirm his or my opnion on this. The instructions say
>> > to
>> > epoxy the front end, then safety wire the stringer where it crosses the
>> > bottom tubes of the fuselage except the last one at the tow bar cross
>> > tube. I did this, but there is a tube below the elevator push/pull tube
>> > carry thru bearing that does not tough the stinger and I was wondering
>> > if
>> > it should be pulled up and safety wired,or left alone to make a
>> > straight
>> > line down the belly? Leon Morris/Classic 4/want a Jab/65%/ Flower
>> > Mound,Tx
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 22
| 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: Kitfox serial number |
In fact the only part of the plane he really needs is the data plate to go
along with the paperwork. Around that 2X3 in piece of metal he can build a
complete new airplane... This is often done to revive old DHC beavers,
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Brennan
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 3:19 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox serial number
<matronics@bob.brennan.name>
Besides my Kitfox I am also interested in buying and restoring a 1943 L2,
which is the military version of the Taylorcraft Cub; which is a redesign of
the original "Cub" designed by C Gilbert Taylor which was sold to his
business partner William Piper who bought him out and began making the Piper
J3 Cub. I have found every restorer's dream - an intact L2 in a local garage
whose original owner is now 94 - he bought it as military surplus just after
the war. It last flew in 1995 and was supposedly airworthy when shoved into
a dark corner.
But my DAR says it better have full paperwork - or it will never fly again!
He (the DAR) says he owns the paperwork and title to a rare aircraft (I
forget which) and has *one spar*(!) from that airplane. He says he can
rebuild the plane *around* that spar (or more likely install it in a more
complete model) and claim it was a restoration of the original, with
paperwork.
You can build a legal airplane around a documented spar, but an undocumented
complete flyable airplane cannot fly legally ever again. Go figure...
Bob Brennan
1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox
Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
Wrightsville Pa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
I'm curious, couldn't you hypothetically buy a totalled Kitfox and attach
all of your good parts to it except for the ID plate?
Pete
----- Original Message -----
From: Marco Menezes <mailto:msm_9949@yahoo.com>
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:49 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness
Certificate, and DARs
Bob:
I agree with Jim. DAR's are, afterall paid by the hour. Any such system of
private contractors doing the government's work for a fee is ripe for abuse.
Some contractors are more knowledgable, some more honest than others. The
government, i.e. the FAA, on the other hand, is the ultimate source of all
knowledge regarding things regulatory. It's employees are paid the same
salary regardless of how many hours they spend doing the government's work
(or, apparently, playing golf). You may have to wait longer, but they will
help you find a way to license your airplane.
Some words of caution . . . keep your questions hypothetical and don't file
anything until you are certain of the procedure that will get you where you
want to go. Otherwise, "incorrect" statements made in government filings can
come back to bite you in the a** and may prove difficult to undo.
Good luck.
Marco Menezes N99KX
Model 2 582-90 C-Box
--- On Fri, 7/25/08, Jim_and_Lucy Chuk <thesupe@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Jim_and_Lucy Chuk <thesupe@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness
Certificate, and DARs
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Date: Friday, July 25, 2008, 11:04 AM
I'm trying to remember if you allready tryed this, but I would
contact the FAA directly. I've delt with the Minneapolis FSDO several times
on 2 different planes, and they were quite helpfull. If you don't get
answers from one FSDO, try another. If that doesn't work, there should be
someone who you can talk to in the FAA headquarters in Oklahoma. As I
understand it, the exhibition catagory is very limiting and I wouldn't want
it. If you were close to MN I know a DAR from Duluth that charged $450 for
an Avid that had no build log or original bill of sale due to the death of
the originial builder (it was sold by his widow to a friend of mine who
finished up the last 20 percent or so of the plane) This DAR worked with
the new owner and the FAA and got it inspected and registered. It seems we
often have a hard time useing the phone, I know I do, but persistence can
payoff. Jim Chuk Kitfox 4 Mn
> From: matronics@bob.brennan.name
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness
Certificate, and DARs
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:29:51 -0400
>
<matronics@bob.brennan.name>
>
> Hi all - it's the guy with the grounded UK Model II again:
>
> I met with my local DAR and handed over my box of documentation,
and asked
> for an Airworthiness Certificate. The airplane was built in 1991
and flown
> in the UK as a "microlight".
>
> He said I could not get Light Sport because it specifically
excludes foreign
> aircraft with previous Airworthiness Certification although he
stated he
> could not find the Certificate in my documentation. Further
research on my
> part shows it was flown with a Permit To Fly, which according to
the CAA is
> only issued to aircraft that are ineligible for an ICAO C of A. I
have yet
> to present this info to the DAR.
>
> He also said I cannot apply for Experimental-Amateur Homebuilt
because I do
> not have build logs from the original builder, who I believe is
deceased.
> Specifically he says I need to prove the 51% rule even though at
the time
> Denney did not offer a fast-build option or completed aircraft,
only kits.
>
> He suggested I apply as Exhibition but I would have to re-apply
each year
> and supply a list of events I intend to fly to "exhibit" the
airplane and
> would be restricted to only those flights and "preparation" flying
within 1
> tank of my home airport. My feeling about this suggestion is that
it *sucks*
> and even though it would get me in the air this season it would
limit if not
> eliminate the chance of going Light Sport or Experimental in the
future,
> even though he says I can.
>
> He also stated at the end of the last meeting that he "gets $600"
for the AC
> and that he has already accrued 2 hours of chargeable time so far.
>
> So my question to listers is - what do you think of the suggestion
to apply
> for an Exhibition AC and the possibilities and expense of getting
a proper
> AC after? And are the suggested fees standard and/or reasonable? I
plan to
> argue the rejections but am hesitant if I am going to be charged
by the hour
> to educate a DAR in issuing a CA to an imported aircraft.
>
> Thanks in advance for opinions/advice/similar experiences,
>
> Bob Brennan
> 1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox
> Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
> Wrightsville Pa
>
&==============
>
>
>
Message 23
| 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: Kitfox serial number |
You may also need the airframe logs.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pete
Christensen
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox serial number
<apeterchristensen@sbcglobal.net>
Did it have an N-Number in 1995? If so maybe the faa has paperwork on it on
file.
Pete
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Brennan" <matronics@bob.brennan.name>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 11:48 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox serial number
> <matronics@bob.brennan.name>
>
> Besides my Kitfox I am also interested in buying and restoring a 1943 L2,
> which is the military version of the Taylorcraft Cub; which is a redesign
> of
> the original "Cub" designed by C Gilbert Taylor which was sold to his
> business partner William Piper who bought him out and began making the
> Piper
> J3 Cub. I have found every restorer's dream - an intact L2 in a local
> garage
> whose original owner is now 94 - he bought it as military surplus just
> after
> the war. It last flew in 1995 and was supposedly airworthy when shoved
> into
> a dark corner.
>
> But my DAR says it better have full paperwork - or it will never fly
> again!
> He (the DAR) says he owns the paperwork and title to a rare aircraft (I
> forget which) and has *one spar*(!) from that airplane. He says he can
> rebuild the plane *around* that spar (or more likely install it in a more
> complete model) and claim it was a restoration of the original, with
> paperwork.
>
> You can build a legal airplane around a documented spar, but an
> undocumented
> complete flyable airplane cannot fly legally ever again. Go figure...
>
> Bob Brennan
> 1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox
> Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
> Wrightsville Pa
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> I'm curious, couldn't you hypothetically buy a totalled Kitfox and attach
> all of your good parts to it except for the ID plate?
>
> Pete
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marco Menezes <mailto:msm_9949@yahoo.com>
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:49 AM
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness
> Certificate, and DARs
>
> Bob:
>
>
> I agree with Jim. DAR's are, afterall paid by the hour. Any such system of
> private contractors doing the government's work for a fee is ripe for
> abuse.
> Some contractors are more knowledgable, some more honest than others. The
> government, i.e. the FAA, on the other hand, is the ultimate source of all
> knowledge regarding things regulatory. It's employees are paid the same
> salary regardless of how many hours they spend doing the government's work
> (or, apparently, playing golf). You may have to wait longer, but they will
> help you find a way to license your airplane.
>
>
> Some words of caution . . . keep your questions hypothetical and don't
> file
> anything until you are certain of the procedure that will get you where
> you
> want to go. Otherwise, "incorrect" statements made in government filings
> can
> come back to bite you in the a** and may prove difficult to undo.
>
>
> Good luck.
>
>
> Marco Menezes N99KX
>
> Model 2 582-90 C-Box
>
> --- On Fri, 7/25/08, Jim_and_Lucy Chuk <thesupe@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Jim_and_Lucy Chuk <thesupe@hotmail.com>
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness
> Certificate, and DARs
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Date: Friday, July 25, 2008, 11:04 AM
>
>
> I'm trying to remember if you allready tryed this, but I would
> contact the FAA directly. I've delt with the Minneapolis FSDO several
> times
> on 2 different planes, and they were quite helpfull. If you don't get
> answers from one FSDO, try another. If that doesn't work, there should be
> someone who you can talk to in the FAA headquarters in Oklahoma. As I
> understand it, the exhibition catagory is very limiting and I wouldn't
> want
> it. If you were close to MN I know a DAR from Duluth that charged $450
> for
> an Avid that had no build log or original bill of sale due to the death of
> the originial builder (it was sold by his widow to a friend of mine who
> finished up the last 20 percent or so of the plane) This DAR worked with
> the new owner and the FAA and got it inspected and registered. It seems
> we
> often have a hard time useing the phone, I know I do, but persistence can
> payoff. Jim Chuk Kitfox 4 Mn
>
> > From: matronics@bob.brennan.name
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness
> Certificate, and DARs
> > Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:29:51 -0400
> >
> <matronics@bob.brennan.name>
> >
> > Hi all - it's the guy with the grounded UK Model II again:
> >
> > I met with my local DAR and handed over my box of documentation,
> and asked
> > for an Airworthiness Certificate. The airplane was built in 1991
> and flown
> > in the UK as a "microlight".
> >
> > He said I could not get Light Sport because it specifically
> excludes foreign
> > aircraft with previous Airworthiness Certification although he
> stated he
> > could not find the Certificate in my documentation. Further
> research on my
> > part shows it was flown with a Permit To Fly, which according to
> the CAA is
> > only issued to aircraft that are ineligible for an ICAO C of A. I
> have yet
> > to present this info to the DAR.
> >
> > He also said I cannot apply for Experimental-Amateur Homebuilt
> because I do
> > not have build logs from the original builder, who I believe is
> deceased.
> > Specifically he says I need to prove the 51% rule even though at
> the time
> > Denney did not offer a fast-build option or completed aircraft,
> only kits.
> >
> > He suggested I apply as Exhibition but I would have to re-apply
> each year
> > and supply a list of events I intend to fly to "exhibit" the
> airplane and
> > would be restricted to only those flights and "preparation" flying
> within 1
> > tank of my home airport. My feeling about this suggestion is that
> it *sucks*
> > and even though it would get me in the air this season it would
> limit if not
> > eliminate the chance of going Light Sport or Experimental in the
> future,
> > even though he says I can.
> >
> > He also stated at the end of the last meeting that he "gets $600"
> for the AC
> > and that he has already accrued 2 hours of chargeable time so far.
> >
> > So my question to listers is - what do you think of the suggestion
> to apply
> > for an Exhibition AC and the possibilities and expense of getting
> a proper
> > AC after? And are the suggested fees standard and/or reasonable? I
> plan to
> > argue the rejections but am hesitant if I am going to be charged
> by the hour
> > to educate a DAR in issuing a CA to an imported aircraft.
> >
> > Thanks in advance for opinions/advice/similar experiences,
> >
> > Bob Brennan
> > 1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox
> > Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
> > Wrightsville Pa
> >
> &==============
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Message 24
| 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: Flying in the rain |
With a wood propeller I'd take what precautions I could to keep the prop as
dry as possible. Blade covers or "gloves" sound good to me.
Is there a time expiry on that prop? Say 500 hr or five years like on the
GSC props? If so yo9u will only check your torque a maximum of around ten
times in your climate ( early summer/early winter ) before the prop is
expired. One thing about wood is if it gets wet it will soak up some
water... the less the better. Wood has the ability to also soak up
vibrations but its life is finite and the clock starts running when the prop
comes off the shaper.
Just imagine... jumping out of perfectly good operating airplanes... not my
cup of tea!
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michel
Verheughe
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 6:16 PM
Subject: Kitfox-List: RE: Flying in the rain
> From: Noel Loveys [noelloveys@yahoo.ca]
> My preference would be to torque the bolts when the
> temperature is around 20C.
Thanks, Noel. 20C is what we have right now, in the middle of the summer. In
the winter it goes down to -10C on an average day.
I am fortunate to have a hangar with a second floor on the top. This is
where the sky divers are living when they are ... not jumping from perfectly
flyable aircraft! :-) So it is pretty well isolated from the heat and the
cold. Air temperature and humidity is very little varying. Of course, when I
fly somewhere else and the plane is left outside for the night, it is
another matter.
> The idea of loosening bolts to check the torque is the recommended
> procedure.
Okay, I have learnt something today. But, you see, I am then afraid that the
following happens: I torque when the weather is cold and dry. Then I torque
when the weather is hot and humid, then I torque again when the weather is
again cold and dry and, in the process of repeating that, I slowly dig more
and more in the wood. Does it make sense to you or am I missing something?
You see, the Jabiru propeller is not bolted in the body of the flange itself
but in some nuts that are penetrating inside the propeller as hollowed
tubes. That is the reason we can't use lockwire because it wouldn't prevent
those nuts to spin. We use belleville washers that are supposed to take the
slack when it happens.
Another question, when flying somewhere where the plane is left outside for
the night, would it make sense to make watertight 'gloves' for the propeller
so that they don't get wet from the humidity of the night or an eventual
rain fall?
Cheers,
Michel Verheughe
Norway
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List">http://www.matronics.c
om/Navigator?Kitfox-List</a>
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com</a>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contri
bution</a>
</b></font></pre>
Message 25
| 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: Kitfox serial number |
Noel Loveys wrote:
>
> In fact the only part of the plane he really needs is the data plate to go
> along with the paperwork. Around that 2X3 in piece of metal he can build a
> complete new airplane... This is often done to revive old DHC beavers,
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Brennan
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 3:19 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Kitfox serial number
>
> <matronics@bob.brennan.name>
>
> Besides my Kitfox I am also interested in buying and restoring a 1943 L2,
> which is the military version of the Taylorcraft Cub; which is a redesign of
> the original "Cub" designed by C Gilbert Taylor which was sold to his
> business partner William Piper who bought him out and began making the Piper
> J3 Cub. I have found every restorer's dream - an intact L2 in a local garage
> whose original owner is now 94 - he bought it as military surplus just after
> the war. It last flew in 1995 and was supposedly airworthy when shoved into
> a dark corner.
>
> But my DAR says it better have full paperwork - or it will never fly again!
> He (the DAR) says he owns the paperwork and title to a rare aircraft (I
> forget which) and has *one spar*(!) from that airplane. He says he can
> rebuild the plane *around* that spar (or more likely install it in a more
> complete model) and claim it was a restoration of the original, with
> paperwork.
>
> You can build a legal airplane around a documented spar, but an undocumented
> complete flyable airplane cannot fly legally ever again. Go figure...
>
> Bob Brennan
> 1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox
> Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
> Wrightsville Pa
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> I'm curious, couldn't you hypothetically buy a totalled Kitfox and attach
> all of your good parts to it except for the ID plate?
>
> Pete
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marco Menezes <mailto:msm_9949@yahoo.com>
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:49 AM
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness
> Certificate, and DARs
>
> Bob:
>
>
>
> I agree with Jim. DAR's are, afterall paid by the hour. Any such system of
> private contractors doing the government's work for a fee is ripe for abuse.
> Some contractors are more knowledgable, some more honest than others. The
> government, i.e. the FAA, on the other hand, is the ultimate source of all
> knowledge regarding things regulatory. It's employees are paid the same
> salary regardless of how many hours they spend doing the government's work
> (or, apparently, playing golf). You may have to wait longer, but they will
> help you find a way to license your airplane.
>
>
>
> Some words of caution . . . keep your questions hypothetical and don't file
> anything until you are certain of the procedure that will get you where you
> want to go. Otherwise, "incorrect" statements made in government filings can
> come back to bite you in the a** and may prove difficult to undo.
>
>
>
> Good luck.
>
>
>
> Marco Menezes N99KX
>
> Model 2 582-90 C-Box
>
> --- On Fri, 7/25/08, Jim_and_Lucy Chuk <thesupe@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Jim_and_Lucy Chuk <thesupe@hotmail.com>
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness
> Certificate, and DARs
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Date: Friday, July 25, 2008, 11:04 AM
>
>
> I'm trying to remember if you allready tryed this, but I would
> contact the FAA directly. I've delt with the Minneapolis FSDO several times
> on 2 different planes, and they were quite helpfull. If you don't get
> answers from one FSDO, try another. If that doesn't work, there should be
> someone who you can talk to in the FAA headquarters in Oklahoma. As I
> understand it, the exhibition catagory is very limiting and I wouldn't want
> it. If you were close to MN I know a DAR from Duluth that charged $450 for
> an Avid that had no build log or original bill of sale due to the death of
> the originial builder (it was sold by his widow to a friend of mine who
> finished up the last 20 percent or so of the plane) This DAR worked with
> the new owner and the FAA and got it inspected and registered. It seems we
> often have a hard time useing the phone, I know I do, but persistence can
> payoff. Jim Chuk Kitfox 4 Mn
>
> > From: matronics@bob.brennan.name
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Kitfox-List: Imported UK Kitfox, Airworthiness
> Certificate, and DARs
> > Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:29:51 -0400
> >
> <matronics@bob.brennan.name>
> >
> > Hi all - it's the guy with the grounded UK Model II again:
> >
> > I met with my local DAR and handed over my box of documentation,
> and asked
> > for an Airworthiness Certificate. The airplane was built in 1991
> and flown
> > in the UK as a "microlight".
> >
> > He said I could not get Light Sport because it specifically
> excludes foreign
> > aircraft with previous Airworthiness Certification although he
> stated he
> > could not find the Certificate in my documentation. Further
> research on my
> > part shows it was flown with a Permit To Fly, which according to
> the CAA is
> > only issued to aircraft that are ineligible for an ICAO C of A. I
> have yet
> > to present this info to the DAR.
> >
> > He also said I cannot apply for Experimental-Amateur Homebuilt
> because I do
> > not have build logs from the original builder, who I believe is
> deceased.
> > Specifically he says I need to prove the 51% rule even though at
> the time
> > Denney did not offer a fast-build option or completed aircraft,
> only kits.
> >
> > He suggested I apply as Exhibition but I would have to re-apply
> each year
> > and supply a list of events I intend to fly to "exhibit" the
> airplane and
> > would be restricted to only those flights and "preparation" flying
> within 1
> > tank of my home airport. My feeling about this suggestion is that
> it *sucks*
> > and even though it would get me in the air this season it would
> limit if not
> > eliminate the chance of going Light Sport or Experimental in the
> future,
> > even though he says I can.
> >
> > He also stated at the end of the last meeting that he "gets $600"
> for the AC
> > and that he has already accrued 2 hours of chargeable time so far.
> >
> > So my question to listers is - what do you think of the suggestion
> to apply
> > for an Exhibition AC and the possibilities and expense of getting
> a proper
> > AC after? And are the suggested fees standard and/or reasonable? I
> plan to
> > argue the rejections but am hesitant if I am going to be charged
> by the hour
> > to educate a DAR in issuing a CA to an imported aircraft.
> >
> > Thanks in advance for opinions/advice/similar experiences,
> >
> > Bob Brennan
> > 1991 UK Model 2 Kitfox
> > Rotax 582 with 3 blade prop
> > Wrightsville Pa
> >
> &==============
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>
>
>
My Friend has a 1943 L2 TaylorCraft for sale asking $25,000.00 I think
you could get it for $22,500.00..it is a nice flying airplane..if any
one interested in it call cell 419-305-3676 west central OHIO... it
is not no KITFOX though...Steve Shinabery N554KF KF2
Message 26
| 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 |
|
Michel Verheughe asked:
say that the WX is for rain showers. Do you take a chance to fly then if you meet
a shower, you fly around it?
I have flown in rain many times. With showers you should be ble to see them and
fly around the heavier ones, and should. Rain does not come inside.
What kind of rain intensity makes you do a 180 and go home? Avoid the heavy showers,
bad visibility, low ragged clouds in mountains, obscured passes, icing
and T-Storms. If in doubt stay on the ground until it gets better.
Apart from losing sight, what can rain be a problem for? Wooden props. Ivoprops
with the brushes outside the cowl (mine are behind the gearbox). Carb ice.
Reduced visibility. Avoid getting into icing conditions and T-Storms. Rain
may leak into turtledeck and baggage when tied down, keep essentials in waterproof
bags and bring plastic garbage bags and a sponge. Kitfox is too low under
the wing too small a wing, and too small inside for camping in the rain, bring
a small waterproof tent that is quick to set up and take down.
How does it affect an air-cooled engine like the Jabiru? Don't know, I have found
no problem on Rotax 912 UL or on 4 cylinder Continentals other than carb ice.
Is there any danger for the thin lexan windscreen? Don't know. Not on Speedster.
JA IV Speedster
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! --
|