Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:55 AM - Re: Re: Dakotas (Jimmy Hill)
2. 05:55 AM - Re: Re: Dakotas (Jimmy Hill)
3. 11:46 AM - Re: Blended Airfoil 72" vs. 74" (LessDragProd@aol.com)
4. 02:51 PM - Sensenich prop data (james frierson)
5. 03:24 PM - Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?) (pcowper@webtv.net (Pete Cowper))
6. 03:58 PM - Re: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?) (Paul Trotter)
7. 04:15 PM - Re: Sensenich prop data (Ron Lee)
8. 04:23 PM - Re: Sensenich prop data (sportav8r@aol.com)
9. 04:29 PM - Re: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?) (Stein Bruch)
10. 05:05 PM - Re: Sensenich prop data (Jerry Springer)
11. 06:25 PM - Re: AOPA hates homebuilts? (was donation-solicitation phone call (bdjones1965)
12. 07:12 PM - Re: Sensenich prop data (Ron Lee)
13. 07:41 PM - Re: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?) (bertrv6@highstream.net)
14. 08:05 PM - Re: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?) (Jerry Springer)
15. 08:42 PM - Re: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?) (Rob Prior (rv7))
16. 10:33 PM - Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?) (Tom Gummo)
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jimmy Hill" <jimmy@jhill.biz>
Jerry:
Thanks for the reply re. Black Hills.
My son and I returned from Custer Airport yesterday. It is a real pretty
area, with a lot to see.
Jimmy
Stillwater RV8A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Calvert" <rv6@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Dakotas
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Jerry Calvert" <rv6@cox.net>
>
> My wife and I are planning a trip to South Dakota in July. Will be
> staying
> over at Custer County Airport http://www.airnav.com/airport/KCUT which is
> southwest of Rapid City.
>
> Plenty of places to stay, state parks with wild life, Mount Rushmore
> nearby,
> Black hills country, should be places to camp. Rental cars are available.
>
> Jerry Calvert
> RV 6 N296JC
> Edmond Ok
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jimmy Hill" <jimmy@jhill.biz>
> To: "rv-list" <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 7:07 PM
> Subject: RV-List: Dakotas
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Jimmy Hill" <jimmy@jhill.biz>
>>
>> Fellow RV'ers:
>>
>> My son and I plan a flight in our 8A this weekend from Okla. up to the
> Dakotas, and surrounding areas.
>> Would appreciate knowing of any RV friendly locations--good sightseeing,
> possibly airport camping spots, etc.
>>
>> Thanks.
>> Jimmy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: "Jimmy Hill" <jimmy@jhill.biz>
Ron:
Thanks for the advice. My son and I enjoyed seeing the Black Hills area.
We landed at Custer Airport, and rented a car.
Jimmy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Lee" <ronlee@pcisys.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Dakotas
> --> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>
> The Black Hills is a pretty area. In addition to Mt Rushmore you
> are not far from Devil's Tower (Close Encounters movie) in NE WY
> near Hulett (North of I-90) (Around 104 deg 42.9 min West and
> 44 deg 35.4 min North)
>
> Ron Lee
>
> Do not archive
>
>
>
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: Blended Airfoil 72" vs. 74" |
--> RV-List message posted by: LessDragProd@aol.com
Hi Jim,
I don't have any cruise performance flight test data yet.
By my calculation (with some very rough assumptions):
The 74" diameter requires 3% more power to turn at cruise than the 72" dia.
(Or about a 3 mph reduction in cruise speed.)
The 74" diameter could provide a slight increase in initial climb rate.
The advantage of the 74" dia. Hartzell propeller would be when the blade
tips are damaged.
>From what I understand from Hartzell, if the blades can be trimmed and
reformed to at least a 72" dia., they are still serviceable.
>From what I understand from Hartzell, if the 72" dia. Hartzell blade tips
are damaged, the complete propeller is scrap.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Thorne" <rv7a@cox.net>
>
> Does anyone have any information on pros and cons on choosing a 72" vs.
> 74" Hartzell blended airfoil prop? Have searched archives and was unable
> to find any specific information relative to propeller diameter.
>
> Jim Thorne
> 7A-QB CHD
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: | Sensenich prop data |
--> RV-List message posted by: "james frierson" <tn3639@hotmail.com>
I recently put a new 80 pitch Sensenich propeller on my 160HP RV6A. I made
a cross country trip and here are my initial results. At 8500 at
approximately 60 degrees F, I was indicating 158 mph, 2530 rpms at WOT and
1680 lbs. After doing the math that wound up being 185 mph TAS and the
ground speed according to my GPS was 195 mph which would be about right as
there should have been a slight 5-8 knot tail wind component according to
Dans web sites wind calculator. After climbing to 9500 the results were
still 158 mph indicated, 58deg F, 2500 rpm at WOT which works out to 188 mph
TAS, 197 mph GPS ground speed. Again with the expected tail winds this was
right on. This is the first time I have been able to fly at WOT and the CHTs
and the EGTs were much more uniform.
All in all the new prop is doing exactly as advertised. Note: These are not
super picky test pilot figures, just what was noted during a flight from a
fly-in with my lovely bride taking notes
__________________
Scott Frierson
N162RV
RV6A 160HP
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: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?) |
--> RV-List message posted by: pcowper@webtv.net (Pete Cowper)
A builder of a kit plane becomes a manufacturer of that aircraft. If the
builder is found to be negligent in the design or manufacture which
causes harm to another, they can be held liable for that victim's
damages.
A waiver of liability can be prepared and signed by the buyer and
spouse, however that is only an agreement between those individuals.
The agreement must not be found unconscionable and signed by both
parties after an arms-length negotiation with each party having an equal
bargaining position.
The new owner's minor children who lose their parent cannot legally
enter into a contract, nor can a parent enter into a contract on their
behalf, therefore the risk remains. The builder's negligent product has
taken away the minor children's parental love, support and college
tuition payments and someone gets to take over with their checkbook.
Likewise, if the negligently designed or manufactured airplane harms
someone or property on the ground the waiver between the buyer and
seller will not apply to their claims against the negligent builder.
The victims will all come after the negligent builder who must then file
a lawsuit against the buyer for indemnity and hope the buyer has enough
money to pay any judgments rendered against the builder. Lots of up
front legal expenses even with an an attorney's fee provision.
A few years ago AVEMCO announced that they were offering continuing
products liability for up to three years after sale for insured builders
who had been covered by an AVEMCO policy the previous three years. Each
year of insurance extended the after sale coverage for one year up to a
maximum of three years coverage after sale. This was a wonderful program
for we homebuilders who decided to sell our aircraft. Regardless of
the builder's ultimate liability or lack thereof, AVEMCO is paying for
an attorney to defend the builder.
AVEMCO's policy was the only economical products liability coverage
available . . . without getting in line with Detroit automakers,
passenger jet aircraft manufactures, cigarette manufacturers, makers of
Vioxx, etc. to try to purchase a major manufacturer's product liability
policy for your one single manufactured product. Hopefully after three
years the new owner would learn to fly it safely or as a true EAA member
make enough changes that none of your original work remains untampered
with.
John Denver's estate went after the manufacturer of the fuel valve that
failed leaving about 45 minutes of fuel in the tank the valve had been
switched to when the plane was pulled from the water. In expert
testimony it became apparent that the manufacturer knew of the corrosion
problem and failed to issue proper lubricants specifications for
periodic maintenance. Hundreds of the valves had failed from the same
problem that caused John Denver's to corrode. The maker of the fuel
valve was forced to finally issue proper lubrication maintenance
guidelines to prevent the continuing problem as part of the settlement.
The fuel valve had been mounted on the bulkhead over the pilot's
shoulder by the builder as a safety modification to eliminate having
fuel lines running in the front near the pilot's feet and crotch in the
plastic rear-engined aircraft.
John Denver was observed switching the tank valve by a line person at
the Monterey airport when he started his plane to takeoff to do some
touch and go practices. With the larger engine on his particular
aircraft he intentionally did not want full tanks for practice flights
remaining within the local pattern.
Please get the facts before throwing the term "frivolous litigation"
around.
Pete Cowper
RV8 #81139
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: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Trotter <ptrotter@acm.org>
Pete,
Do you think that there is any advantage from a liability perspective to
define the manufacturer of a homebuilt as a corporate entity of some kind,
such as an LLC? Theoretically the purpose of an LLC is to limit the
liability of the stockholders, although I don't know how it actually works
out in reality, if a lawsuit were to occur.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Cowper" <pcowper@webtv.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 6:21 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)
> --> RV-List message posted by: pcowper@webtv.net (Pete Cowper)
>
> A builder of a kit plane becomes a manufacturer of that aircraft. If the
> builder is found to be negligent in the design or manufacture which
> causes harm to another, they can be held liable for that victim's
> damages.
>
> ...........
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: Sensenich prop data |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>I recently put a new 80 pitch Sensenich propeller on my 160HP RV6A. I made
>a cross country trip and here are my initial results. At 8500 at
>approximately 60 degrees F, I was indicating 158 mph, 2530 rpms at WOT and
>1680 lbs.
Shouldn't you be able to turn around 2700 RPM at 8000' Density Altitude?
Does the possible low RPM suggest too much pitch?
Ron Lee
Do not archive The answer might be worth saving
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: Sensenich prop data |
--> RV-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
2600 rpm redline on this particular prop, Ron. :-(
Ask the man who owns one...
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
Sent: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:12:40 -0600
Subject: Re: RV-List: Sensenich prop data
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>I recently put a new 80 pitch Sensenich propeller on my 160HP RV6A. I made
>a cross country trip and here are my initial results. At 8500 at
>approximately 60 degrees F, I was indicating 158 mph, 2530 rpms at WOT and
>1680 lbs.
Shouldn't you be able to turn around 2700 RPM at 8000' Density Altitude?
Does the possible low RPM suggest too much pitch?
Ron Lee
Do not archive The answer might be worth saving
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: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Good idea, but you can't. You no longer can even define the "mfgr" as
multiple people like you used to. Has to be a single person now.
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Paul Trotter
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates
homebuilts?)
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Trotter <ptrotter@acm.org>
Pete,
Do you think that there is any advantage from a liability perspective to
define the manufacturer of a homebuilt as a corporate entity of some kind,
such as an LLC? Theoretically the purpose of an LLC is to limit the
liability of the stockholders, although I don't know how it actually works
out in reality, if a lawsuit were to occur.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Cowper" <pcowper@webtv.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 6:21 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)
> --> RV-List message posted by: pcowper@webtv.net (Pete Cowper)
>
> A builder of a kit plane becomes a manufacturer of that aircraft. If the
> builder is found to be negligent in the design or manufacture which
> causes harm to another, they can be held liable for that victim's
> damages.
>
> ...........
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sensenich prop data |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@comcast.net>
Ron Lee wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>
>
>
>
>>I recently put a new 80 pitch Sensenich propeller on my 160HP RV6A. I made
>>a cross country trip and here are my initial results. At 8500 at
>>approximately 60 degrees F, I was indicating 158 mph, 2530 rpms at WOT and
>>1680 lbs.
>>
>>
>
>
>Shouldn't you be able to turn around 2700 RPM at 8000' Density Altitude?
>
>Does the possible low RPM suggest too much pitch?
>
>Ron Lee
>
>Do not archive The answer might be worth saving
>
>
>
>
Ron, remember that this is a 160 hp and the prop is restricted to 2600 rpm
do not archive
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: AOPA hates homebuilts? (was donation-solicitation phone call |
--> RV-List message posted by: "bdjones1965" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
AOPA does 10 times more than the EAA ever dreamed about for GA. Heck, EAA doesn't
even do that much for the experimental group any more, really. They just
seem to care about the big-money warbirds. But that's another topic.
Anyone who flies any form of GA and doesn't support the AOPA is really missing
the boat. I would even go so far as to say they are essentially GA free-loaders.
So what if their magazine is about corporate aviation! 1. I don't pay
my dues for the magazine, and 2. I actually think it's a pretty decent magazine.
GA is a big, fat easy target for the pandering morons in Congress who like to make
useless laws in order to appear effective to their largely ignorant constituency.
The only way to fight the fire is with fire. Your annual membership
with AOPA does just that. It's by far the best bang for your buck in advocacy
for GA.
Unless you want US GA European-style, Join AOPA. Hopefully, before all our GA
rights are legislated/DHS'd away.
do not archive
Bryan Jones
Houston, Texas
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=30261#30261
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: Sensenich prop data |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
> >>I recently put a new 80 pitch Sensenich propeller on my 160HP RV6A. I made
> >>a cross country trip and here are my initial results. At 8500 at
> >>approximately 60 degrees F, I was indicating 158 mph, 2530 rpms at WOT and
> >>1680 lbs.
> >
> >
> >Shouldn't you be able to turn around 2700 RPM at 8000' Density Altitude?
> >
> >Does the possible low RPM suggest too much pitch?
> >
> >Ron Lee
I did not know that. Graci.
Ron
Do not archive
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: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?) |
--> RV-List message posted by: bertrv6@highstream.net
Quoting Pete Cowper <pcowper@webtv.net>:
> --> RV-List message posted by: pcowper@webtv.net (Pete Cowper)
>
> A builder of a kit plane becomes a manufacturer of that aircraft. If the
> builder is found to be negligent in the design or manufacture which
> causes harm to another, they can be held liable for that victim's
> damages.
>
> A waiver of liability can be prepared and signed by the buyer and
> spouse, however that is only an agreement between those individuals.
> The agreement must not be found unconscionable and signed by both
> parties after an arms-length negotiation with each party having an equal
> bargaining position.
>
> The new owner's minor children who lose their parent cannot legally
> enter into a contract, nor can a parent enter into a contract on their
> behalf, therefore the risk remains. The builder's negligent product has
> taken away the minor children's parental love, support and college
> tuition payments and someone gets to take over with their checkbook.
>
> Likewise, if the negligently designed or manufactured airplane harms
> someone or property on the ground the waiver between the buyer and
> seller will not apply to their claims against the negligent builder.
>
> The victims will all come after the negligent builder who must then file
> a lawsuit against the buyer for indemnity and hope the buyer has enough
> money to pay any judgments rendered against the builder. Lots of up
> front legal expenses even with an an attorney's fee provision.
>
> A few years ago AVEMCO announced that they were offering continuing
> products liability for up to three years after sale for insured builders
> who had been covered by an AVEMCO policy the previous three years. Each
> year of insurance extended the after sale coverage for one year up to a
> maximum of three years coverage after sale. This was a wonderful program
> for we homebuilders who decided to sell our aircraft. Regardless of
> the builder's ultimate liability or lack thereof, AVEMCO is paying for
> an attorney to defend the builder.
>
> AVEMCO's policy was the only economical products liability coverage
> available . . . without getting in line with Detroit automakers,
> passenger jet aircraft manufactures, cigarette manufacturers, makers of
> Vioxx, etc. to try to purchase a major manufacturer's product liability
> policy for your one single manufactured product. Hopefully after three
> years the new owner would learn to fly it safely or as a true EAA member
> make enough changes that none of your original work remains untampered
> with.
>
> John Denver's estate went after the manufacturer of the fuel valve that
> failed leaving about 45 minutes of fuel in the tank the valve had been
> switched to when the plane was pulled from the water. In expert
> testimony it became apparent that the manufacturer knew of the corrosion
> problem and failed to issue proper lubricants specifications for
> periodic maintenance. Hundreds of the valves had failed from the same
> problem that caused John Denver's to corrode. The maker of the fuel
> valve was forced to finally issue proper lubrication maintenance
> guidelines to prevent the continuing problem as part of the settlement.
>
> The fuel valve had been mounted on the bulkhead over the pilot's
> shoulder by the builder as a safety modification to eliminate having
> fuel lines running in the front near the pilot's feet and crotch in the
> plastic rear-engined aircraft.
>
> John Denver was observed switching the tank valve by a line person at
> the Monterey airport when he started his plane to takeoff to do some
> touch and go practices. With the larger engine on his particular
> aircraft he intentionally did not want full tanks for practice flights
> remaining within the local pattern.
>
> Please get the facts before throwing the term "frivolous litigation"
> around.
>
> Pete Cowper
> RV8 #81139
>
>
> Pete: And here I Thought I new all about his accident, I understood
that it was not failure of the fuel valve, but that the valve was installed
in an ackward position to reach it, and that was the reason of the accident
John, was trying to reach valve to switch tanks... I always wander why
any one do things like installing important, devices, in places one has
trouble reaching...
Now I really would like to know exactly what was the reason for the
accident.
Bert
rv6a
Do Not archive
>
>
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: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@comcast.net>
bertrv6@highstream.net wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: bertrv6@highstream.net
>
>Quoting Pete Cowper <pcowper@webtv.net>:
>
>
>
>>Please get the facts before throwing the term "frivolous litigation"
>>around.
>>
>>Pete Cowper
>>RV8 #81139
>>
>>
>>Pete: And here I Thought I new all about his accident, I understood
>>
>>
>that it was not failure of the fuel valve, but that the valve was installed
>in an ackward position to reach it, and that was the reason of the accident
>John, was trying to reach valve to switch tanks... I always wander why
>any one do things like installing important, devices, in places one has
>trouble reaching...
>
>Now I really would like to know exactly what was the reason for the
>accident.
>
>
>Bert
>
>
>rv6a
>
>Do Not archive
>
>
Of course leave it to bottom feeding lawyers to blame someone or
something except the person really at fault.
Here is an excerpt of the final findings by the NTSB.
======
the pilot's diversion of attention from the operation of the airplane
and his inadvertent application of right rudder that resulted in the
loss of airplane control while attempting to manipulate the fuel
selector handle. Also, the Board determined that the pilot's inadequate
preflight planning and preparation, specifically his failure to refuel
the airplane, was causal. The Board determined that the builder's
decision to locate the unmarked fuel selector handle in a hard-to-access
position, unmarked fuel quantity sight gauges, inadequate transition
training by the pilot, and his lack of total experience in this type of
airplane were factors in the accident.
=======
Just do a search of John Denver accident to find all the information you
would want to know.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7@b4.ca>
On 15:21:44 2006-04-23 pcowper@webtv.net (Pete Cowper) wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: pcowper@webtv.net (Pete Cowper)
> A builder of a kit plane becomes a manufacturer of that aircraft. If
> the builder is found to be negligent in the design or manufacture
> which causes harm to another, they can be held liable for that
> victim's damages.
>
[stuff deleted]
>
> Please get the facts before throwing the term "frivolous litigation"
> around.
That's all well and good, but it doesn't do anything to contradict the
claim in the previous post, which was that no builders, themselves, had
ever been sued. Manufacturers of parts, yes. But no builders.
I'm not saying that the claim was valid, just that it hasn't been done yet.
Or does someone have some citations of cases where it's happened?
-Rob
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: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
A quote from my Small Business for Dummies book:
Limited Liability Corporations
"LLC is hybrid entity. It combines the benefits of a corporation with those
of a partnership:
Like a corporation, investors in a LLC, do not face personal liability
for the debts or obligations of the LLC."
There is nothing about only one person, etc. etc.
Wish I understood, all I know about his subject but I will be doing some
more research on this matter.
Tom Gummo
Apple Valley, CA
Harmon Rocket-II
do not archive
http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
> Do you think that there is any advantage from a liability perspective to
> define the manufacturer of a homebuilt as a corporate entity of some kind,
> such as an LLC? Theoretically the purpose of an LLC is to limit the
> liability of the stockholders, although I don't know how it actually works
> out in reality, if a lawsuit were to occur.
>
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! --
|