Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:57 AM - From Aero News Net- 51% rule (Jeff Point)
2. 08:29 AM - Re: Trutrak ADI (Andrew Barker)
3. 08:30 AM - Re: From Aero News Net- 51% rule (J.T. Helms)
4. 08:43 AM - Barnstormer MT propeller (CustomACProp@aol.com)
5. 08:51 AM - Re: From Aero News Net- 51% rule (Joseph Larson)
6. 09:02 AM - glide angle (EMAproducts@aol.com)
7. 09:18 AM - Re: From Aero News Net- 51% rule (Finn Lassen)
8. 12:57 PM - Re: From Aero News Net- 51% rule (Chuck Jensen)
9. 12:58 PM - Re: Cowl Flap (Bob)
10. 01:05 PM - Exit air smoothing (Jerry2DT@aol.com)
11. 01:40 PM - Re: From Aero News Net- 51% rule (JOHN STARN)
12. 02:20 PM - Re: From Aero News Net- 51% rule (Jeff Point)
13. 02:32 PM - Re: From Aero News Net- 51% rule (RobHickman@aol.com)
14. 02:34 PM - Re: glide angle (Ron Lee)
15. 03:04 PM - Re: From Aero News Net- 51% rule (PJ Seipel)
16. 04:13 PM - Re: From Aero News Net- 51% rule (linn walters)
17. 04:23 PM - Re: From Aero News Net- 51% rule (Walter Tondu)
18. 05:59 PM - Re: From Aero News Net- 51% rule (Jeff Point)
19. 06:02 PM - Re: From Aero News Net- 51% rule (Chuck Jensen)
20. 06:33 PM - Re: Cowl Flap (dick martin)
21. 06:45 PM - Epic ()
22. 06:50 PM - Re: From Aero News Net- 51% rule (Walter Tondu)
23. 07:40 PM - Re: Epic (Jeff Point)
24. 08:27 PM - ventilated wheel fairing? (sarg314)
25. 09:40 PM - From Aero News Net- 51% rule (JOHN STARN)
26. 09:46 PM - Re: From Aero News Net- 51% rule (Finn Lassen)
27. 10:28 PM - Re: From Aero News Net- 51% rule (Greg Young)
28. 11:00 PM - Nose vs. Tail (Robin Marks)
29. 11:36 PM - Re: Nose vs. Tail (David Leonard)
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: | From Aero News Net- 51% rule |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
For those who don't follow Aero News Net, take a look at this:
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=29e2f893-7c0b-4033-9840-f70e6769d2f8&
Briefly, the new Epic 6 pax turboprop "homebuilt" has hit a snag when
the FAA refused to license a customers airplane. They felt it did not
meet the 51% rule.
Very interesting, with lots of implications for the rest of us.
Jeff Point
RV-6
Milwaukee
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Andrew Barker" <Andrew@trutrakap.com>
Let's see if I can't get all of the answers in one message.
> Am I correct in understanding that in Roll - the little airplane remains
> stationary and only the
> horizon line rotates left/right? While for Pitch - only the little
> airplane moves up for pitch up
> and down for a pitch down, while the horizon line remains stationary.
Yes, that is correct. I am going to see if I can't get a few action
pictures and get them out today.
> I suspect now that your 'pictorial T&B' has the background moving against
> a stationary
> little airplane.
Correct once again.
> If the GPS input is lost what happenns to the numeric display of track?
If the GPS signal is lost, the track display goes away, and you are left
with dashes indicating that the unit is powered up, but no GPS signal is
present. The attitude portion is not affected.
> I note LED (or perhaps VF) displays, are these high intensity and how well
> do they perform in direct
> sunlight?
The LED display is custom built, and performs very well in direct sunlight.
The unit has built in lighting, and wants to be hooked into the dimmer
circuit.
> Will the 'ADI pilot' be any deeper (more room required behind the panel)
> than the ADI?
The ADI pilot will not be any deeper, the dimensions for ADI and ADI Pilot
are 3.45" x 3.45" x 4.6"
> What do the white "pitch" index lines (two above the horizon line, two
> below) on the ADI represent?
> Are they simply a VSI scalar (perhaps the first pitch line is 500 fpm, the
> second 1000 fpm)...
You are correct, first line is 500 fpm, and second is 1000 fpm.
> I was just thinking of the capabilities of your ADI as a horizon backup
> instead of another EFIS or steam
> gauges. I would suppose your ADI would function fine as just a backup
> w/out the AP.
This is also correct, ADI is a wonderful backup with or without the
autopilot.
Andrew Barker
General Manager
TruTrak Flight Systems
PH: 479-751-0250 Ext.222
Toll Free: 1-866-TruTrak
www.trutrakap.com
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: | From Aero News Net- 51% rule |
--> RV-List message posted by: "J.T. Helms" <jhelms@i1.net>
Luckily, they specifically seemed to want to avoid coming down hard on
smaller homebuilt aircraft builder assist by creating a new definition
("complex amateur built planes").
I think they specifically wanted to stop Epic without saying it in so many
words while still allowing builders assist centers to help small
homebuilders.
JT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Point
Subject: RV-List: From Aero News Net- 51% rule
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
For those who don't follow Aero News Net, take a look at this:
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=29e2f893-7c0b-4033-9840-f7
0e6769d2f8&
Briefly, the new Epic 6 pax turboprop "homebuilt" has hit a snag when the
FAA refused to license a customers airplane. They felt it did not meet the
51% rule.
Very interesting, with lots of implications for the rest of us.
Jeff Point
RV-6
Milwaukee
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: | Barnstormer MT propeller |
--> RV-List message posted by: CustomACProp@aol.com
Hi All,
There is an MTV-12-B/180-17 3 blade MT Propeller for sale on Barnstormer.
This propeller will bolt onto any standard SAE2 propeller flange with 1/2"
diameter bolts.
However, the 180-17 blade is designed for an aircraft with a 130 mph cruise
speed.
MT Propeller custom designs their propellers for the engine, airframe and
expected performance.
For the RV series aircraft with a Lyc. 360 engine, you'll want the MTV-12-B
propeller with the 183-59b blades.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
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: From Aero News Net- 51% rule |
--> RV-List message posted by: Joseph Larson <jpl@showpage.org>
This was an interesting article.
I went out to the company website http://www.epicaircraft.com. It
doesn't have ANY of the sort of information those of us on this list
are used to seeing when evaluating a kitplane. It's a very slick
website with some amazing photos of very high performance aircraft,
but absolutely no data on the building process.
I'm guessing that the "building" process is nothing that any of us
here would recognize. Did the guy hang the engines himself? Run
some fuel lines? Get remotely near the electrical system?
Unless the FAA starts looking at APs who build an airplane or so a
year and sell them soon after first flight, I don't think there is
any effect on us. Clearly when building an RV, we're fulfilling the
letter and spirit of the law. Even a QB kit leaves the builder with
all the basic operations (just not every instance of the basic
operations) as well as firewall forward, electrical system, etc.
I'm betting guys "building" an Epic don't do any of those things.
I'd be surprised if the guy even learned how to fiberglass, and it's
a composite aircraft.
-Joe
do not archive
On Aug 26, 2005, at 9:51 AM, Jeff Point wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
>
> For those who don't follow Aero News Net, take a look at this:
>
> http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?
> ContentBlockID=29e2f893-7c0b-4033-9840-f70e6769d2f8&
>
> Briefly, the new Epic 6 pax turboprop "homebuilt" has hit a snag when
> the FAA refused to license a customers airplane. They felt it did not
> meet the 51% rule.
>
> Very interesting, with lots of implications for the rest of us.
>
> Jeff Point
> RV-6
> Milwaukee
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: EMAproducts@aol.com
In a message dated 8/26/05 12:03:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
rv-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
I agree that knowing the correct AOA for best glide
with prop windmilling and with prop stopped would be very useful.
I'm betting not one in one hundred flyers with an AOA system have
done the flight testing to determine best glide AOA in both those
conditions.
As always sadly, people are more interested in 1 mph gain in speed than
safety. They will make dozens of flights trying to get that elusive small gain
in
speed that might someday save enough fuel to pay for one of the test flights.
Speed seems to be the #1 bragging right, Safety doesn't even make the list.
Safety should always be paramount in aviation, however when it comes to
spending the $$ it comes in last for the average homebuilder.
Elbie
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: From Aero News Net- 51% rule |
--> RV-List message posted by: Finn Lassen <finn.lassen@verizon.net>
Why? Aren't you building your own aircraft or are you farming our all
the tasks to others?
Big difference between just pluncking down the cash and having someone
else do all the work and actually doing each type of task yourself.
Doesn't mean you have the set all 15,000 (?) rivits yourself, but you
should at least have set enough to be competent at it and be able to
recognize an acceptable rivit and an unacceptable one. And so on.
Finn
Jeff Point wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
>
>For those who don't follow Aero News Net, take a look at this:
>
>http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=29e2f893-7c0b-4033-9840-f70e6769d2f8&
>
>Briefly, the new Epic 6 pax turboprop "homebuilt" has hit a snag when
>the FAA refused to license a customers airplane. They felt it did not
>meet the 51% rule.
>
>Very interesting, with lots of implications for the rest of us.
>
>Jeff Point
>RV-6
>Milwaukee
>
>
>
>
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: | From Aero News Net- 51% rule |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Hey, I'm sure the Dentist, owner of the EPIC, wrote lots of high dollar
checks. Everyone knows that's 50% of the painful experience of building
an experimental aircraft. Given another 1% credit for picking out the
interior colors, that's 51% right there--no problem. FAA opinion may
vary.
Chuck
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Bob <panamared3@brier.net>
>Has anyone had the thought of installing cowl flaps in the engine cowling
>for cooling in an RV with fuel injection?
I have an RV 6 with fuel injection. No need for additional cooling. Now
if cowl flaps added additional heating I might be interested.
In winter I have the oil cooler 90% blocked off, in the summer it is about
40%. Now cowl flaps maybe useful if you reduced the cowl intake by about
50% (a rough guess).
There is considerable info and debate in the achieves on this subject.
Bob
RV6 NightFighter
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: | Exit air smoothing |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com
Listers:
I'm building a -6a, but trying to incorporate as many new mods as possible
from the -7a's. I understand there is an air-smoothing roll-type thing at the
bottom of the firewall where the cowling air exits above the stacks. Does
anyone know the part number and plan # that shows this? If so, would be much
appreciated...
Jerry Cochran
Wilsonville, OR
RV6a one flying, one *finishing*
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: From Aero News Net- 51% rule |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
I think Chuck has his tongue stuck so far in his cheek that it wraps around
his eye teeth and he can't see what he's saying. 8*)
My most painful experiences were the hundreds of tiny cuts you didn't know
you had until you washed your hands, blood blisters from cleco clamps etc.
and the holes drilled into fingertips. KABONG HRII Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: From Aero News Net- 51% rule
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
>
> Hey, I'm sure the Dentist, owner of the EPIC, wrote lots of high dollar
> checks. Everyone knows that's 50% of the painful experience of building
> an experimental aircraft. Given another 1% credit for picking out the
> interior colors, that's 51% right there--no problem. FAA opinion may
> vary.
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
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: From Aero News Net- 51% rule |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
Why? Aren't you building your own aircraft or are you farming our all
the tasks to others?
Actually, I already built it: drilled every hole, pounded every rivet,
except for some bucking bar help, wired, plumbed, etc etc. Did the
whole thing myself. And it shows;)
What I am afraid of is that the people who do just write a check to a
professional builder, are going to screw it up for the rest of us. When
the government reacts to a problem, they often over react, and the
results could be bad for the rest of us.
And I disagree with the idea that once you learn how to set a rivet,
you've completed that "task." If you didn't set all 15K rivets (or at
least 51% of them) then you are not the builder, per the spirit of the
law. Many of the "builder's assist" shops, in which you drink coffee
and watch them build your airplane, use this sort of reasoning as a
rationalization. There is not much difference between making one layup
and watching the rest of the airplane built, and just staying home and
writing a check. I have always felt it was just a matter of time
before the FAA comes down on this kind of outfit.
This whole issue has been a bugaboo of mine since I've been involved in
homebuilding. I will admit that it was with some satisfaction that I
read the Aero News story. I do feel some sympathy for the owner of the
now useless Epic, but only to the extent that he was decieved about the
process by the company. If he knew what he was getting into, then it
serves him right.
Jeff Point
RV-6
Milwaukee WI
>
>
>
>
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: From Aero News Net- 51% rule |
--> RV-List message posted by: RobHickman@aol.com
I would hate to have him as a Dentist! After telling his wife that our new
$1M++ traveling machine can only be used to Taxi around the Bend Airport. I
wonder how long it takes until you and 5 friends have seen the whole airport?
On a positive note, a tank of fuel will last a long long time.
Sounds to me like a lot of people in Washington are going to be getting root
canals.
Rob Hickman
RV-4 N401RH
Do Not Archive
PS. If you live in Washington and are going to the Dentist don't tell him
that work for the FAA.
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>As always sadly, people are more interested in 1 mph gain in speed than
>safety.
Of course reality is that I have beaucoup safety (mainly attitude) and the
extra mph is fun to pursue.
Ron Lee
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: From Aero News Net- 51% rule |
--> RV-List message posted by: PJ Seipel <seipel@seznam.cz>
The implication would be that if the FAA decides the 51% rule isn't
working, they might come up with something a lot harder for the rest of
us to stomach. There seem to be a few people out there who've forgotten
that the purpose of amateur built experimental aircraft is for the
builder's recreation and education, not so that we can save money by
avoiding going through the certification process on an airframe. There
are a few more who define "builders assist" as building the plane for
someone else. And yet a few more who are building multiple aircraft for
profit.
I think that last category is the one that's really going to get us in
trouble. I read somewhere that the FAA is already concerned about the
number of aircraft being sold immediately after being built. It's not
too hard to imagine some bonehead coming up with a reg that would make
it hard to sell a completed aircraft.
PJ
Finn Lassen wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Finn Lassen <finn.lassen@verizon.net>
>
>Why? Aren't you building your own aircraft or are you farming our all
>the tasks to others?
>
>Big difference between just pluncking down the cash and having someone
>else do all the work and actually doing each type of task yourself.
>Doesn't mean you have the set all 15,000 (?) rivits yourself, but you
>should at least have set enough to be competent at it and be able to
>recognize an acceptable rivit and an unacceptable one. And so on.
>
>Finn
>
>Jeff Point wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
>>
>>For those who don't follow Aero News Net, take a look at this:
>>
>>http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=29e2f893-7c0b-4033-9840-f70e6769d2f8&
>>
>>Briefly, the new Epic 6 pax turboprop "homebuilt" has hit a snag when
>>the FAA refused to license a customers airplane. They felt it did not
>>meet the 51% rule.
>>
>>Very interesting, with lots of implications for the rest of us.
>>
>>Jeff Point
>>RV-6
>>Milwaukee
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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: From Aero News Net- 51% rule |
--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
It seems that folks missed the part about Epic NOT asking the FAA up
front if their KIT AND PROCESS fit the 51% rule. I don't see any
whiplash from this ..... unless you've invested heavily in Epic. They
pushed the envelope too far, and the FAA sealed it up. Simple as that.
My Humble Opinion only.
Can't wait 'till I can start building again!!!
do not archive
PJ Seipel wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: PJ Seipel <seipel@seznam.cz>
>
>The implication would be that if the FAA decides the 51% rule isn't
>working, they might come up with something a lot harder for the rest of
>us to stomach. There seem to be a few people out there who've forgotten
>that the purpose of amateur built experimental aircraft is for the
>builder's recreation and education, not so that we can save money by
>avoiding going through the certification process on an airframe. There
>are a few more who define "builders assist" as building the plane for
>someone else. And yet a few more who are building multiple aircraft for
>profit.
>
>I think that last category is the one that's really going to get us in
>trouble. I read somewhere that the FAA is already concerned about the
>number of aircraft being sold immediately after being built. It's not
>too hard to imagine some bonehead coming up with a reg that would make
>it hard to sell a completed aircraft.
>
>PJ
>
>Finn Lassen wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Finn Lassen <finn.lassen@verizon.net>
>>
>>Why? Aren't you building your own aircraft or are you farming our all
>>the tasks to others?
>>
>>Big difference between just pluncking down the cash and having someone
>>else do all the work and actually doing each type of task yourself.
>>Doesn't mean you have the set all 15,000 (?) rivits yourself, but you
>>should at least have set enough to be competent at it and be able to
>>recognize an acceptable rivit and an unacceptable one. And so on.
>>
>>Finn
>>
>>Jeff Point wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
>>>
>>>For those who don't follow Aero News Net, take a look at this:
>>>
>>>http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=29e2f893-7c0b-4033-9840-f70e6769d2f8&
>>>
>>>Briefly, the new Epic 6 pax turboprop "homebuilt" has hit a snag when
>>>the FAA refused to license a customers airplane. They felt it did not
>>>meet the 51% rule.
>>>
>>>Very interesting, with lots of implications for the rest of us.
>>>
>>>Jeff Point
>>>RV-6
>>>Milwaukee
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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: From Aero News Net- 51% rule |
--> RV-List message posted by: Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com>
On 08/26 4:17, Jeff Point wrote:
> And I disagree with the idea that once you learn how to set a rivet,
> you've completed that "task." If you didn't set all 15K rivets (or at
> least 51% of them) then you are not the builder, per the spirit of the
> law.
Uhhh, if you order a complete QB (wings & fuse) from vans, you aren't
setting 51% of the rivets, not even close.
Part of my reasoning for building, and doing it myself, is so that
I could obtain my Repairman's Certificate. That's the pot of gold
under the rainbow that might evaporate. That scares me, as well as
those folks who just buy it.
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
Flying!
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: From Aero News Net- 51% rule |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
Good point on the QB. That's not really what I was getting at though.
Although I do admit, that I've never been able to believe that the QB
kits really represent doing 51% of the work, and I know I'm not alone.
The FAA sprinkled holy water on them and that's good enough though.
Van's QBs are still a far cry from what EPIC and the like are doing.
Jeff Point
do not archive
Walter Tondu wrote:
>Uhhh, if you order a complete QB (wings & fuse) from vans, you aren't
>setting 51% of the rivets, not even close.
>
>
>
>
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: | From Aero News Net- 51% rule |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Linn,
I think you're about spot on with your assessment. It seems the FAA
response was actually quite measured and focused on this specific
instance (though it's apparent they had a side purpose of sending a
message that some degree of respect must be shown for the 51% rule and
that failure to participate in their program is at your own peril).
As for the dentist--well, now he knows what it feels like when he drills
before the Novocain takes effect. A million bucks is a lot of money,
even for a dentist.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn walters
Subject: Re: RV-List: From Aero News Net- 51% rule
--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
It seems that folks missed the part about Epic NOT asking the FAA up
front if their KIT AND PROCESS fit the 51% rule. I don't see any
whiplash from this ..... unless you've invested heavily in Epic. They
pushed the envelope too far, and the FAA sealed it up. Simple as that.
My Humble Opinion only.
Can't wait 'till I can start building again!!!
do not archive
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "dick martin" <martin@gbonline.com>
Walter,
I have a Niagra/Harrison 10 row cooler.
Dick Martin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Tondu" <walter@tondu.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Cowl Flap
> --> RV-List message posted by: Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com>
>
> On 08/25 8:34, dick martin wrote:
>
> > I have 1175 hours in my RV8 equiped with an IO-390 engine and a James
> > cowl &
> > Plenum. I have never been able to overheat this engine, long climbs,
> > air
> > races at 100%power etc. If anything it over cools and I have made up a
> > set
> > of smaller size inlets for it for winter flying etc. I don't think that
> > cowl flaps are the answer. Also, my airplane goes quite a bit faster
> > (about
> > 10 mph) due to the cowl and plenum.
>
> What oil cooler do you have?
>
> --
> Walter Tondu
> http://www.rv7-a.com
> Flying, HA!
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: <n1cxo320@peoplepc.com>
I somehow missed the original story regarding Epic and the dentist...can
someone please give me the web address of the article? Thank you.
John
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: From Aero News Net- 51% rule |
--> RV-List message posted by: Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com>
On 08/26 7:55, Jeff Point wrote:
> Good point on the QB. That's not really what I was getting at though.
> Although I do admit, that I've never been able to believe that the QB
> kits really represent doing 51% of the work, and I know I'm not alone.
> The FAA sprinkled holy water on them and that's good enough though.
> Vans QBs are still a far cry from what EPIC and the like are doing.
Yep. I think that "systems" work (fuel, electrical, power plant, etc)
is just as important, maybe more, than setting rivets. I think the
FAA gives us a buy on Vans fuselage and wings, being that the kit
is long proven to be sturdy and even though there are many types of
builders out there with varying degrees of analness (is that a word?)
the planes generally are very well built, structurally. System's work
is definitely the part where each builder takes his/her own path.
I agree too that the FAA is definitely pointed towards the fact that
the planes by epic are essentially "not blessed" by the FAA. You
definitely don't want to rub you nose in the FAA's face. Very
bad. Someone is going to pay for that, I doubt that it will affect
Vans aircraft builders.
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
Flying!
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=29e2f893-7c0b-4033-9840-f70e6769d2f8&
n1cxo320@peoplepc.com wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: <n1cxo320@peoplepc.com>
>
>I somehow missed the original story regarding Epic and the dentist...can
>someone please give me the web address of the article? Thank you.
>
>John
>
>
>
>
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: | ventilated wheel fairing? |
--> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
A friend of mine who is building a Varieze made a comment today about
ventilating a wheel fairing to aid in cooling the brakes. The idea
would be to cut a few horizontal slits an inch or two long in the top of
the fairing aft of the wheel. I've never heard of this being done.
Sounds like it might work, though.
Has any one ever seen or heard of a ventilated wheel fairing?
--
Tom Sargent
RV-6A, cowling.
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: | From Aero News Net- 51% rule |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
Just a comment. If you plan on building a Van's RV I think you will find
that YOU must complete the tail section. No Quick Build here. I would think
that both Van's & FAA could understand that if you are able to build the
tail section pieces, you have gained the expertise & skills to do the rest.
The QB is say 49% BUT it's not the first 49% nor the last of the work
required. We could argue where the QB fits in the time line of construction.
The point is YOU start it, QB fills A gap, and YOU finish it. That
apparently is not the case in the doctors Epic. Below is a excerpt from
Van's Web site, Quick Build notes. Note "Standard Empennage" NO QB here,
"Van's QuickBuild Kits will cut building time for the RV-7/7A, RV-8/8A, or
RV-9A by 35-40%. The QuickBuild Kit consists of a Standard Empennage and
Finish kit, but the big difference is that the Wings and Fuselage arrive
largely complete!"
Do Not Archive KABONG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Tondu" <walter@tondu.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: From Aero News Net- 51% rule
> --> RV-List message posted by: Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com>
>
> On 08/26 7:55, Jeff Point wrote:
>
> > Good point on the QB. That's not really what I was getting at though.
> > Although I do admit, that I've never been able to believe that the QB
> > kits really represent doing 51% of the work, > Yep. I think that
> > "systems" work (fuel, electrical, power plant, etc)
>> FAA gives us a buy on Vans fuselage and wings, being that the kit
> is long proven
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: From Aero News Net- 51% rule |
--> RV-List message posted by: Finn Lassen <finn.lassen@verizon.net>
Seems we are in agreement.
However, you and some other posters expressing doubts about the QBs and
51% rule need to look at the checklist the FAA or DAR uses to determine
if the major portion of the OPERATIONS (not work) were done by the
builder (Form 8000-38). The QBs are very much in compliance with the
spirit and letter of the rule. You do not have to repeat every
operation endlessly to be in compliance.
Have a look at Kitplanes September page 54 (Helping Hands article).
Now, in terms of pride and accomplishment, yes, I would very much prefer
to have done everything myself.
And yes, I can imagine a FAA inspector or DAR having reservations
issuing a Repairman's cert if the builder never touched the engine or
avionics, or any other part of the airplane he'll be authorized to
inspect and maintain if he gets that cert.
Finn
Jeff Point wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
>
>Why? Aren't you building your own aircraft or are you farming our all
>the tasks to others?
>
>
>Actually, I already built it: drilled every hole, pounded every rivet,
>except for some bucking bar help, wired, plumbed, etc etc. Did the
>whole thing myself. And it shows;)
>
>What I am afraid of is that the people who do just write a check to a
>professional builder, are going to screw it up for the rest of us. When
>the government reacts to a problem, they often over react, and the
>results could be bad for the rest of us.
>
>And I disagree with the idea that once you learn how to set a rivet,
>you've completed that "task." If you didn't set all 15K rivets (or at
>least 51% of them) then you are not the builder, per the spirit of the
>law. Many of the "builder's assist" shops, in which you drink coffee
>and watch them build your airplane, use this sort of reasoning as a
>rationalization. There is not much difference between making one layup
>and watching the rest of the airplane built, and just staying home and
>writing a check. I have always felt it was just a matter of time
>before the FAA comes down on this kind of outfit.
>
>This whole issue has been a bugaboo of mine since I've been involved in
>homebuilding. I will admit that it was with some satisfaction that I
>read the Aero News story. I do feel some sympathy for the owner of the
>now useless Epic, but only to the extent that he was decieved about the
>process by the company. If he knew what he was getting into, then it
>serves him right.
>
>Jeff Point
>RV-6
>Milwaukee WI
>
>
>
Message 27
| 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: | From Aero News Net- 51% rule |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
The FAA is not giving Vans a pass on anything, you just have to
understand their measuring methodology. They calculate the percentage of
operations rather than the effort. They have a checklist of operations
that could occur to complete the airframe and tally the checkmarks in
the builder vs kit mfg columns. Operations are things like forming a
wing rib, making gussets, mounting hinges, riveting, balancing controls,
etc. Repetition doesn't matter - one rib or rivet counts the same as 20
or 12,000. That's why the old QB kits left off one of the outer wing
ribs and had you form it (yes, with a form block) from blank sheet
metal. That allowed you to get a QB empanage. The new QB kits force you
to build the tail so the QB can complete more of the fuselage and wings.
It's a game of shifting the checkmarks around. The FAA's checklist
focuses on the airframe and specifically allows paid help for the panel,
interior, paint, etc. as well as purchase of commercial off the shelf
components. Their methodology is so liberal it makes it all the worse
for the industry when a company like Epic just ignores it.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY - project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
> > Vans QBs are still a far cry from what EPIC and the like are doing.
>
> Yep. I think that "systems" work (fuel, electrical, power
> plant, etc) is just as important, maybe more, than setting
> rivets. I think the FAA gives us a buy on Vans fuselage and
> wings, being that the kit is long proven to be sturdy and
> even though there are many types of builders out there with
> varying degrees of analness (is that a word?) the planes
> generally are very well built, structurally. System's work
> is definitely the part where each builder takes his/her own path.
>
> I agree too that the FAA is definitely pointed towards the
> fact that the planes by epic are essentially "not blessed" by
> the FAA. You definitely don't want to rub you nose in the
> FAA's face. Very bad. Someone is going to pay for that, I
> doubt that it will affect Vans aircraft builders.
> --
Message 28
| 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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Robin Marks" <robin@mrmoisture.com>
RV-List,
I am considering an 8A vs. an 8 and am conflicted about the
direction I should take. I know a fair amount about the tail dragger
-4's however I would like some input about the tri-gear offered by Vans,
especially in relation to the 8A. I have a small amount of time in a 7A
and found it to be typical; is there anything I should be considering
when choosing between the two (8/8A). Let me add that the tail wheel
version definitely looks sexier (IMO) however I see no need to
complicate flying by going for the tail wheel version when there is a
perfectly good solution available. I ask because recently someone
mentioned that the nose wheel is easy to bend out of shape on the vans.
Not sure what data supports that but hitting something hard is always a
good way to do that in any plane.
Thanks in advance for your contribution.
Mr. Moisture
RV-4
200 hours
Message 29
| 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: Nose vs. Tail |
--> RV-List message posted by: David Leonard <wdleonard@gmail.com>
Everyone has an opinion on this one - and they are all WRONG unless they
endorse the real airplane/conventional/tail wheel :-)
But if you want everyone else's opinion anyway, there are hundreds of posts
in the archives.
Do not archive
--
Dave Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/index.html
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/vp4skydoc/index.html
On 8/26/05, Robin Marks <robin@mrmoisture.com> wrote:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Robin Marks" <robin@mrmoisture.com>
>
> RV-List,
>
> I am considering an 8A vs. an 8 and am conflicted about the
> direction I should take. I know a fair amount about the tail dragger
> -4's however I would like some input about the tri-gear offered by Vans,
> especially in relation to the 8A. I have a small amount of time in a 7A
> and found it to be typical; is there anything I should be considering
> when choosing between the two (8/8A). Let me add that the tail wheel
> version definitely looks sexier (IMO) however I see no need to
> complicate flying by going for the tail wheel version when there is a
> perfectly good solution available. I ask because recently someone
> mentioned that the nose wheel is easy to bend out of shape on the vans.
> Not sure what data supports that but hitting something hard is always a
> good way to do that in any plane.
>
> Thanks in advance for your contribution.
>
>
> Mr. Moisture
>
> RV-4
>
> 200 hours
>
>
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! --
|