Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:54 PM - Fat Ultralight (Sptom)
2. 06:10 PM - Re: Fat Ultralight (Bill Berle)
3. 06:11 PM - Re: Fat Ultralight (Bill Berle)
4. 06:49 PM - Re: Fat Ultralight (Charlie England)
5. 06:59 PM - Re: Fat Ultralight (Pfatchantz)
6. 07:02 PM - Re: Fat Ultralight (Pfatchantz)
7. 07:38 PM - Re: Fat Ultralight (Sptom)
8. 08:39 PM - Re: Fat Ultralight (Bill Berle)
9. 09:30 PM - Re: Fat Ultralight (Richard Girard)
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 |
|
Im considering purchasing a Firestar II with a 503. It doesnt have an N number.
Owner tells me it qualifies for part 103 but Im doubtful even with the added
weight allowance for a ballistic parachute. From what I understand it can be
registered as experimental light sport if I have documentation by the manufacturer
that it meets the 51 percent rule. Do I have that right? Is this doable
or is the airplane always going to be an illegal fat ultralight? Thanks in
advance for any advice you can give.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486671#486671
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: Fat Ultralight |
No Firestar 2 will meet the Part 103 restrictions. Even the Firestar 1 will be
very very difficult to do that with. If it was possible to build a Firestar that
genuinely meets Part 103, Kolb would not have had any reason to develop the
Firefly.
The FAA usually does NOTgo out looking to "bust" fat ultralights, they really try
to look the other way and not be bothered. BUT the minute one of them sees
the second seat behind the pilot seat they are going to have to do something.
They can't look the other way with the number of seats like they can with just
being "fat". With more than one seat they have to treat it like there could be
a passenger injured or killed, flying with an un-licensed "pilot". They just
cannot look the other way when thee "ultralight" has room for a passenger.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 1/2/19, Sptom <Tjweeks@cox.net> wrote:
Subject: Kolb-List: Fat Ultralight
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2019, 5:54 PM
<Tjweeks@cox.net>
Im considering purchasing a
Firestar II with a 503. It doesnt have an N
number. Owner tells me it qualifies for part 103 but
Im doubtful even with the added weight allowance for
a ballistic parachute. From what I understand it can
be registered as experimental light sport if I have
documentation by the manufacturer that it meets the 51
percent rule. Do I have that right? Is this
doable or is the airplane always going to be an illegal fat
ultralight? Thanks in advance for any advice you can
give.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486671#486671
Support Your Lists This Month --
(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
Fund Raiser. Click on
to find out more about
Incentive Gifts provided
www.mypilotstore.com
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
The Kolb-List Email Forum -
Navigator to browse
List Un/Subscription,
7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
via the Web Forums!
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
Email List Wiki!
- List Contribution Web Site -
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
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: Fat Ultralight |
No Firestar 2 will meet the Part 103 restrictions. Even the Firestar 1 will be
very very difficult to do that with. If it was possible to build a Firestar that
genuinely meets Part 103, Kolb would not have had any reason to develop the
Firefly.
The FAA usually does NOTgo out looking to "bust" fat ultralights, they really try
to look the other way and not be bothered. BUT the minute one of them sees
the second seat behind the pilot seat they are going to have to do something.
They can't look the other way with the number of seats like they can with just
being "fat". With more than one seat they have to treat it like there could be
a passenger injured or killed, flying with an un-licensed "pilot". They just
cannot look the other way when thee "ultralight" has room for a passenger.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 1/2/19, Sptom <Tjweeks@cox.net> wrote:
Subject: Kolb-List: Fat Ultralight
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2019, 5:54 PM
<Tjweeks@cox.net>
Im considering purchasing a
Firestar II with a 503. It doesnt have an N
number. Owner tells me it qualifies for part 103 but
Im doubtful even with the added weight allowance for
a ballistic parachute. From what I understand it can
be registered as experimental light sport if I have
documentation by the manufacturer that it meets the 51
percent rule. Do I have that right? Is this
doable or is the airplane always going to be an illegal fat
ultralight? Thanks in advance for any advice you can
give.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486671#486671
Support Your Lists This Month --
(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
Fund Raiser. Click on
to find out more about
Incentive Gifts provided
www.mypilotstore.com
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
The Kolb-List Email Forum -
Navigator to browse
List Un/Subscription,
7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
via the Web Forums!
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
Email List Wiki!
- List Contribution Web Site -
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fat Ultralight |
On 1/2/2019 7:54 PM, Sptom wrote:
>
> Im considering purchasing a Firestar II with a 503. It doesnt have an N number.
Owner tells me it qualifies for part 103 but Im doubtful even with the added
weight allowance for a ballistic parachute. From what I understand it can
be registered as experimental light sport if I have documentation by the manufacturer
that it meets the 51 percent rule. Do I have that right? Is this doable
or is the airplane always going to be an illegal fat ultralight? Thanks in
advance for any advice you can give.
>
No option for registering as light sport; that option for 'fat
ultralites' ended years ago. You *MIGHT* get away with registering as
experimental amateur built, if you can convince an inspector that it
wasn't factory built, and the actual builder built it for 'education and
recreation', without any build logs. (Good luck...)
The one legal path that *might* work (depends on how knowledgeable your
inspector is) is experimental exhibition. No option for a 'repairman's
certificate', but any a&p can sign off the annuals, and you can still do
your own maintenance.
Charlie
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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: Fat Ultralight |
I dug out the w/b for the James A. Tripp FSII...445 lbs empty... It is likely
a bit heavy(quite a bit??) ...I suspect that the std FSII should come in under
390...long way from 254 however... Herb
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
Original Message
On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 8:08 PM, Bill Berle <victorbravo@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> No Firestar 2 will meet the Part 103 restrictions. Even the Firestar 1 will be
very very difficult to do that with. If it was possible to build a Firestar
that genuinely meets Part 103, Kolb would not have had any reason to develop the
Firefly.
>
> The FAA usually does NOTgo out looking to "bust" fat ultralights, they really
try to look the other way and not be bothered. BUT the minute one of them sees
the second seat behind the pilot seat they are going to have to do something.
They can't look the other way with the number of seats like they can with just
being "fat". With more than one seat they have to treat it like there could
be a passenger injured or killed, flying with an un-licensed "pilot". They just
cannot look the other way when thee "ultralight" has room for a passenger.
>
> Bill Berle
> www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
> www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On Wed, 1/2/19, Sptom Tjweeks@cox.net wrote:
>
> Subject: Kolb-List: Fat Ultralight
> To: kolb-list@matronics.com
> Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2019, 5:54 PM
>
> Tjweeks@cox.net
>
> Im considering purchasing a
> Firestar II with a 503. It doesnt have an N
> number. Owner tells me it qualifies for part 103 but
> Im doubtful even with the added weight allowance for
> a ballistic parachute. From what I understand it can
> be registered as experimental light sport if I have
> documentation by the manufacturer that it meets the 51
> percent rule. Do I have that right? Is this
> doable or is the airplane always going to be an illegal fat
> ultralight? Thanks in advance for any advice you can
> give.
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486671#486671
>
> Support Your Lists This Month --
> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
> Fund Raiser. Click on
> to find out more about
> Incentive Gifts provided
> www.mypilotstore.com
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> The Kolb-List Email Forum -
> Navigator to browse
> List Un/Subscription,
> 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> via the Web Forums!
> - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
> Email List Wiki!
> - List Contribution Web Site -
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fat Ultralight |
obviously one can buy paper work from a wrecked plane.. Not sure about the legality
but it is done from time to time..Herb
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
Original Message
On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 8:51 PM, Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/2/2019 7:54 PM, Sptom wrote:
>
> > Im considering purchasing a Firestar II with a 503. It doesnt have an N number.
Owner tells me it qualifies for part 103 but Im doubtful even with the added
weight allowance for a ballistic parachute. From what I understand it can
be registered as experimental light sport if I have documentation by the manufacturer
that it meets the 51 percent rule. Do I have that right? Is this doable
or is the airplane always going to be an illegal fat ultralight? Thanks in advance
for any advice you can give.
>
> No option for registering as light sport; that option for 'fat
> ultralites' ended years ago. You MIGHT get away with registering as
> experimental amateur built, if you can convince an inspector that it
> wasn't factory built, and the actual builder built it for 'education and
> recreation', without any build logs. (Good luck...)
>
> The one legal path that might work (depends on how knowledgeable your
> inspector is) is experimental exhibition. No option for a 'repairman's
> certificate', but any a&p can sign off the annuals, and you can still do
> your own maintenance.
>
> Charlie
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
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: Fat Ultralight |
Thanks guys! So it must be flown as an ultralight unless one wants to jump through
a bunch of FAA hoops to get a N number which seems like a long shot. I
appreciate you input.
Steve
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486676#486676
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fat Ultralight |
Tom do you have any information that this Firestar was built by the Kolb factory?
Or was it built by a customer who bought the kit from Kolb? There may be hope
for you... read on...
The Kolb Firestar KITS sold by the factory have been shown to meet the FAA definition
of an Amateur Built Experimental. So a Kolb built from one of the factory
kits MEETS the FAA's "51%" rule.
If the Kolb factory will furnish you with a letter saying that your Kolb, serial
number XYZ, was sold as a KIT that meets the FAA's guidelines, then that aircraft
will meet the FAA requirements for an amateur built aircraft. The FAA would
very very likely be willing to issue an airworthiness certificate as an E-AB
(Experimental - Amateur Built).
The only added advantage that you would get by proving that YOU built it form that
kit is that you could apply for the "Repairman's Certificate" and do your
own annual Condition Inspection.
However, even if you do not have that repairman certificate, your airplane would
still qualify as an E-AB, get an N number, etc. But you would have to hire an
A&P Mechanic to do the condition inspection.
Now here's the big sand trap you would have to avoid: DO NOT present this to the
FAAA as a flying "Fat Ultralight" that you want to SWITCH over to an E-AB. That
window of opportunity closed many years ago, and trying to do THAT will put
you in regulatory quicksand.
What you need to do is present the situation to the FAA that you bought a Kolb
Firestar 2 project that had been halfway built by one person, and then another
person did some work on it, and then someone else, and then finally you bought
it when it was almost done and you finished it. THEN you basically say to the
FAA that you can NOT honestly claim that you built 51% of it, but that the Kolb
factory has verified that it was originally a 51% kit, so it was in fact "amateur
built". Just not by you. DO NOT EVER say that it flew at any time.
Under this circumstance, the FAA will allow an E-AB certificate of airworthiness
to be issued, and a new N number for it, but they will not allow you to apply
for the repairman certificate.
Without any doubt, the best way to do this is to use an FAA DAR (Designated Airworthiness
Representative) to do the inspections and issue the approval for the
AW certificate. It is well worth the $800-1500 to have a professional DAR do
this.
Once you have applied for an N number with the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch
in Oklahoma City, contact a local FAA-DAR that specializes in new E-AB certificates,
tell them the story about how you bought a project airplane, show them
the letter from Kolb verifying that this was not a factory built airplane, and
have them swim through all the FAA paperwork.
Bill Berle
www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and for-profit entities
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 1/2/19, Sptom <Tjweeks@cox.net> wrote:
Subject: Kolb-List: Fat Ultralight
To: kolb-list@matronics.com
Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2019, 5:54 PM
<Tjweeks@cox.net>
Im considering purchasing a
Firestar II with a 503. It doesnt have an N
number. Owner tells me it qualifies for part 103 but
Im doubtful even with the added weight allowance for
a ballistic parachute. From what I understand it can
be registered as experimental light sport if I have
documentation by the manufacturer that it meets the 51
percent rule. Do I have that right? Is this
doable or is the airplane always going to be an illegal fat
ultralight? Thanks in advance for any advice you can
give.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486671#486671
Support Your Lists This Month --
(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
Fund Raiser. Click on
to find out more about
Incentive Gifts provided
www.mypilotstore.com
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
The Kolb-List Email Forum -
Navigator to browse
List Un/Subscription,
7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
via the Web Forums!
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
Email List Wiki!
- List Contribution Web Site -
support!
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
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: Fat Ultralight |
The only option for registration open to you is Experimental Exhibition
which is a lot more restrictive than Experimental Amateur Built. Unless
the Kolb factory creates a Firestar II SLSA and sells a kit the way RV has
done with their model 12 there is no way you can register it as
Experimental Light Sport. That ship sailed in 2008.
Rick Girard
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:12 PM Bill Berle <victorbravo@sbcglobal.net> wrote
:
>
> No Firestar 2 will meet the Part 103 restrictions. Even the Firestar 1
> will be very very difficult to do that with. If it was possible to build
a
> Firestar that genuinely meets Part 103, Kolb would not have had any reaso
n
> to develop the Firefly.
>
> The FAA usually does NOTgo out looking to "bust" fat ultralights, they
> really try to look the other way and not be bothered. BUT the minute one
of
> them sees the second seat behind the pilot seat they are going to have to
> do something. They can't look the other way with the number of seats like
> they can with just being "fat". With more than one seat they have to trea
t
> it like there could be a passenger injured or killed, flying with an
> un-licensed "pilot". They just cannot look the other way when thee
> "ultralight" has room for a passenger.
>
> Bill Berle
> www.ezflaphandle.com - safety & performance upgrade for light aircraft
> www.grantstar.net - winning proposals for non-profit and
> for-profit entities
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Wed, 1/2/19, Sptom <Tjweeks@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Subject: Kolb-List: Fat Ultralight
> To: kolb-list@matronics.com
> Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2019, 5:54 PM
>
> <Tjweeks@cox.net>
>
> I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m considering purchasing a
> Firestar II with a 503. It doesn=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t have an N
> number. Owner tells me it qualifies for part 103 but
> I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m doubtful even with the added weight allowance
for
> a ballistic parachute. From what I understand it can
> be registered as experimental light sport if I have
> documentation by the manufacturer that it meets the 51
> percent rule. Do I have that right? Is this
> doable or is the airplane always going to be an illegal fat
> ultralight? Thanks in advance for any advice you can
> give.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486671#486671
>
>
> Support Your Lists This Month --
> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
> Fund Raiser. Click on
> to find out more about
> Incentive Gifts provided
> www.mypilotstore.com
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> The Kolb-List Email Forum -
> Navigator to browse
> List Un/Subscription,
> 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> via the Web Forums!
> - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
> Email List Wiki!
> - List Contribution Web Site -
> support!
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
--
=9CBlessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light.=9D
Groucho Marx
<http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/43244.Groucho_Marx>
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! --
|