Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:27 AM - Re: Honda Piston Engine (mike humphrey)
2. 12:31 AM - Re: Honda Piston Engine (mike humphrey)
3. 03:49 AM - Re: Subaru down (Tracy Crook)
4. 04:47 AM - Re: Subaru down (Ed Anderson)
5. 07:29 AM - Alternative engines ()
6. 08:06 AM - Re: RV-4 Question (rsipp@earthlink.net)
7. 08:56 AM - Re: Alternative engines (John W. Cox)
8. 09:20 AM - Sealing RV-4 front and side canopy edges? (DCS317@aol.com)
9. 09:24 AM - Re: Alternative engines (Greg Young)
10. 09:28 AM - Re: Sealing RV-4 front and side canopy edges? (Konrad L. Werner)
11. 09:28 AM - Alternative engines ()
12. 09:43 AM - Re: Alternative engines (Ron Lee)
13. 10:20 AM - Re: Sealing RV-4 front and side canopy edges? (Acepilot)
14. 04:38 PM - Death of the RV-12] ()
15. 06:44 PM - Re: Alternative engines (Kelly McMullen)
16. 07:17 PM - Re: Death of the RV-12] (Sam Buchanan)
17. 11:30 PM - Death of the RV-12] ()
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: Honda Piston Engine |
Then why did Honda buy 53% of Continental stock? I believe that is the last
% that I saw. According to Honda's own press release they were going to use
the Continental as their springboard. The release of the 'Honda engine' was
going to be in three phases: 1. conventional engine based on the Continental
but with Honda manufacturing techniques, ie improved metals, air cooling,
etc. 2. was to be still Continental based but with EFI, EI, better pistons,
higher TBO, 3. was to be 'The Honda Engine', flat 4 and 6, all the above
improvements, even better manufacturing techniques-more like auto engines,
and the biggie, water cooled, and VERY extended TBO, no more air cooled
engines, improved cabin heating ability, no CO threat at all, noise
reduction, interchangeable auto parts right off of the shelf. Doesn't that
sound like exactly what all of us want and have complained about Lyco's
forever? They anticipated the TBO to be in excess of 10k hrs. Instead they
go after an even smaller market - The Honda Jet.
Mike H 9A/8A
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Prior" <rv7@b4.ca>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Honda Piston Engine
>
> On 9:23 2008-03-06 Jerry2DT@aol.com wrote:
>> Great question. I suspect with the best engineering team in the
>> world, they couldn't get the weight with all the cooling apparatus
>> down enough. Or, they'd have to get $50K for it. Would be good to
>> know, for sure. After all, Honda is now manufacturing complete jet
>> aircraft, race engines, all kinds of auto engines, motorcycles,
>> scooters, lawn mowers, etc... Any Honda engineers out there? Pls
>> tell us!!!
>
> I suspect it's even simpler than that. I recall that the engine was
> built,
> and flying, on a test aircraft, wasn't it? So they were clearly able to
> surpass any technical hurdles.
>
> No, I suspect the real problem was the business side of the equation. The
> sales volume just isn't there to support Honda building aircraft engines.
> The market is too fragmented, and us down at the 200HP and lower range are
> probably not the market to target if you're looking for high volume and
> profitable returns. Homebuilders are a notoriously thrifty group.
>
> And really, a new Honda powerplant would also be "unproven", and carry
> with
> it many, if not all, of the same risks as a current popular automotive
> conversion. How do you justify choosing a Honda engine over a Rotary
> conversion?
>
> -Rob
>
>
>
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: Honda Piston Engine |
Forgot to add that they were planning on releasing both certified and
experimental versions of the 'Honda engine'. Wonder if that's what made
Lycoming FINALLY realize that it was missing the boat with only producing
certified engines?
Mike H
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Prior" <rv7@b4.ca>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Honda Piston Engine
>
> On 9:23 2008-03-06 Jerry2DT@aol.com wrote:
>> Great question. I suspect with the best engineering team in the
>> world, they couldn't get the weight with all the cooling apparatus
>> down enough. Or, they'd have to get $50K for it. Would be good to
>> know, for sure. After all, Honda is now manufacturing complete jet
>> aircraft, race engines, all kinds of auto engines, motorcycles,
>> scooters, lawn mowers, etc... Any Honda engineers out there? Pls
>> tell us!!!
>
> I suspect it's even simpler than that. I recall that the engine was
> built,
> and flying, on a test aircraft, wasn't it? So they were clearly able to
> surpass any technical hurdles.
>
> No, I suspect the real problem was the business side of the equation. The
> sales volume just isn't there to support Honda building aircraft engines.
> The market is too fragmented, and us down at the 200HP and lower range are
> probably not the market to target if you're looking for high volume and
> profitable returns. Homebuilders are a notoriously thrifty group.
>
> And really, a new Honda powerplant would also be "unproven", and carry
> with
> it many, if not all, of the same risks as a current popular automotive
> conversion. How do you justify choosing a Honda engine over a Rotary
> conversion?
>
> -Rob
>
>
>
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 |
|
Good points Jim. I plan to be buried with my rotary powered RVs so it
wasn't a factor <GGG>
Tracy
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:51 PM, <JFLEISC@aol.com> wrote:
> I have no issue with the highly subjective concept of "risk" when it
> comes to using automotive engines in experimental aircraft. My experience
> with an automotive powered aircraft, however, was not what I expected. I
> owned a Sonerai, (VW powered) and admittedly it was the least expensive
> dollar per hour plane I ever flew. I was not the original builder so I could
> not get a repairman's certificate. Issue 1; I had a difficult time trying to
> find an A&P who would sign it off each year only because they weren't
> "familiar" with anything not Cont or Lyc. The ones that would sign seemed
> more like rapists. Issue 2; Some insurance people I talked to back then
> didn't want to hear about airplanes without "airplane" engines. Issue 3;
> When I eventually went to sell it I found I had a limited customer base
> because of Issues 1 and 2. Issue 4; A builder can save a chunk of money by
> using alternative power plants however "building" can be addictive and
> eventually you have to face the fact that some day you may want something
> "newer", "faster", etc and will be looking at selling. Odds are that what
> you saved in the beginning will be lost at sale due to Issues 1, 2, and 3.
>
> Considering the investment I now have in my Lyc RV-4 I prefer
> to have something I can liquidate quickly and equitably now that I am at an
> age where each class III (God forbid) may be my last.
>
>
> Jim
>
>
> ------------------------------
> It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.<http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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 |
|
Your right, Jim. No question (in my mind) that an RV powered by a
alternative engine would have less resale value. However, keep in mind
that there could be a $10,000- $20,000 cost difference in the engine
cost alone - so, I would not expect to get as high a resale value (even
if the alternative engine installation is perfect) as I simply do not
have as much engine money in it.
I think more to the point might be the difficulty of selling it due to
perception of risks, difficulty of acquiring insurance (I've had none,
but others have), and perhaps not being able to find an A&E to sign off
on the conditional inspections if you are not the original builder.
I think most if not all alternative engine enthusiasts are aware of
these factors - resale value is simply not a major factor - the
challenge of the project is probably what appeals to most.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: JFLEISC@aol.com
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Subaru down
I have no issue with the highly subjective concept of
=9Crisk=9D when it comes to using automotive engines in
experimental aircraft. My experience with an automotive powered
aircraft, however, was not what I expected. I owned a Sonerai, (VW
powered) and admittedly it was the least expensive dollar per hour plane
I ever flew. I was not the original builder so I could not get a
repairman=99s certificate. Issue 1; I had a difficult time trying
to find an A&P who would sign it off each year only because they
weren=99t =9Cfamiliar=9D with anything not Cont or
Lyc. The ones that would sign seemed more like rapists. Issue 2; Some
insurance people I talked to back then didn=99t want to hear about
airplanes without =9Cairplane=9D engines. Issue 3; When I
eventually went to sell it I found I had a limited customer base because
of Issues 1 and 2. Issue 4; A builder can save a chunk of money by using
alternative power plants however =9Cbuilding=9D can be
addictive and eventually you have to face the fact that some day you may
want something =9Cnewer=9D, =9Cfaster=9D, etc
and will be looking at selling. Odds are that what you saved in the
beginning will be lost at sale due to Issues 1, 2, and 3.
Considering the investment I now have in my Lyc RV-4 I
prefer to have something I can liquidate quickly and equitably now that
I am at an age where each class III (God forbid) may be my last.
Jim
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.
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: | Alternative engines |
I changed the post subject as it seems to have drifted away form Subaru. I am
completing and expecting to fly my Eggenfellner H-4 Subaru on my RV-6A this year.
I took delivery of it in 2004 and my observations have been any problems
with these engines are generally self inflicted because of a serious deviation
from the installation manual.
Check out his website and I believe you'll be impressed with the package he sells
and the crafted workmanship and design he offers.
The advantages of autogas, even with ethanol, pricewise will allow me to fly more
hours per year than 100LL for the forseeable future. I believe the future
in affordable flying, and true technology improvement is with viable alternative
engines like Jan offers.
Do Not Archieve.
Ron Burnett
St. Charles, MO
---- Tracy Crook <tracy@rotaryaviation.com> wrote:
============
Good points Jim. I plan to be buried with my rotary powered RVs so it
wasn't a factor <GGG>
Tracy
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:51 PM, <JFLEISC@aol.com> wrote:
> I have no issue with the highly subjective concept of "risk" when it
> comes to using automotive engines in experimental aircraft. My experience
> with an automotive powered aircraft, however, was not what I expected. I
> owned a Sonerai, (VW powered) and admittedly it was the least expensive
> dollar per hour plane I ever flew. I was not the original builder so I could
> not get a repairman's certificate. Issue 1; I had a difficult time trying to
> find an A&P who would sign it off each year only because they weren't
> "familiar" with anything not Cont or Lyc. The ones that would sign seemed
> more like rapists. Issue 2; Some insurance people I talked to back then
> didn't want to hear about airplanes without "airplane" engines. Issue 3;
> When I eventually went to sell it I found I had a limited customer base
> because of Issues 1 and 2. Issue 4; A builder can save a chunk of money by
> using alternative power plants however "building" can be addictive and
> eventually you have to face the fact that some day you may want something
> "newer", "faster", etc and will be looking at selling. Odds are that what
> you saved in the beginning will be lost at sale due to Issues 1, 2, and 3.
>
> Considering the investment I now have in my Lyc RV-4 I prefer
> to have something I can liquidate quickly and equitably now that I am at an
> age where each class III (God forbid) may be my last.
> Jim
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: RV-4 Question |
1025LB
IO-320 CS two radios full instrumentation
Dick Sipp
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: | Alternative engines |
Ron, my experience from the fiasco here in Oregon is that the FAA does
not allow any amount of ethanol in Mogas placed into aircraft for
flight. Do you have some reference that refutes the ASTM standard for
fuel in aircraft?
That means not even 1% Ethanol. Rotax mentions no harm will be dune up
to 6%, Oregon is going 10% and the Fed says Zero. Set me straight.
John Cox
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
ronburnett@charter.net
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 7:23 AM
Subject: RV-List: Alternative engines
I changed the post subject as it seems to have drifted away form Subaru.
I am completing and expecting to fly my Eggenfellner H-4 Subaru on my
RV-6A this year. I took delivery of it in 2004 and my observations have
been any problems with these engines are generally self inflicted
because of a serious deviation from the installation manual.
Check out his website and I believe you'll be impressed with the package
he sells and the crafted workmanship and design he offers.
The advantages of autogas, even with ethanol, pricewise will allow me to
fly more hours per year than 100LL for the forseeable future. I believe
the future in affordable flying, and true technology improvement is with
viable alternative engines like Jan offers.
Do Not Archieve.
Ron Burnett
St. Charles, MO
---- Tracy Crook <tracy@rotaryaviation.com> wrote:
============
Good points Jim. I plan to be buried with my rotary powered RVs so it
wasn't a factor <GGG>
Tracy
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:51 PM, <JFLEISC@aol.com> wrote:
> I have no issue with the highly subjective concept of "risk" when it
> comes to using automotive engines in experimental aircraft. My
experience
> with an automotive powered aircraft, however, was not what I expected.
I
> owned a Sonerai, (VW powered) and admittedly it was the least
expensive
> dollar per hour plane I ever flew. I was not the original builder so I
could
> not get a repairman's certificate. Issue 1; I had a difficult time
trying to
> find an A&P who would sign it off each year only because they weren't
> "familiar" with anything not Cont or Lyc. The ones that would sign
seemed
> more like rapists. Issue 2; Some insurance people I talked to back
then
> didn't want to hear about airplanes without "airplane" engines. Issue
3;
> When I eventually went to sell it I found I had a limited customer
base
> because of Issues 1 and 2. Issue 4; A builder can save a chunk of
money by
> using alternative power plants however "building" can be addictive and
> eventually you have to face the fact that some day you may want
something
> "newer", "faster", etc and will be looking at selling. Odds are that
what
> you saved in the beginning will be lost at sale due to Issues 1, 2,
and 3.
>
> Considering the investment I now have in my Lyc RV-4 I
prefer
> to have something I can liquidate quickly and equitably now that I am
at an
> age where each class III (God forbid) may be my last.
> Jim
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: | Sealing RV-4 front and side canopy edges? |
Any recommendations for sealing RV-4 front and side canopy edges against
rain? It rains in Seattle!
Don Schmiesing
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
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: | Alternative engines |
The FAA only cares about ethanol for certified aircraft with a mogas STC.
You can run your experimental on chicken fat or cow pies if you want.
Whether you can or should is up to you.
Regards,
Greg Young
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 10:52 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Alternative engines
>
>
> Ron, my experience from the fiasco here in Oregon is that the
> FAA does not allow any amount of ethanol in Mogas placed into
> aircraft for flight. Do you have some reference that refutes
> the ASTM standard for fuel in aircraft?
>
> That means not even 1% Ethanol. Rotax mentions no harm will
> be dune up to 6%, Oregon is going 10% and the Fed says Zero.
> Set me straight.
>
> John Cox
>
> -----Original Message-----
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: Sealing RV-4 front and side canopy edges? |
Get out of Seattle... ;-)
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: DCS317@aol.com
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 10:16 AM
Subject: RV-List: Sealing RV-4 front and side canopy edges?
Any recommendations for sealing RV-4 front and side canopy edges
against rain? It rains in Seattle!
Don Schmiesing
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.
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: | Alternative engines |
John,
Do not claim to be an expert in this subject but I cannot burn ethanol fuel in
our Luscombe as the FAA approved STC prohibits it. I do know most of the Subaru
drivers burn autogas which contains ethanol. Our seals are nitron instead
of rubber. As to ethanols effect on alum. tanks, fittings, there seems to be
no adverse effects so far.
Ron Burnett
Do not archieve
---- "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> wrote:
============
Ron, my experience from the fiasco here in Oregon is that the FAA does
not allow any amount of ethanol in Mogas placed into aircraft for
flight. Do you have some reference that refutes the ASTM standard for
fuel in aircraft?
That means not even 1% Ethanol. Rotax mentions no harm will be dune up
to 6%, Oregon is going 10% and the Fed says Zero. Set me straight.
John Cox
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: Alternative engines |
> Ron, my experience from the fiasco here in Oregon is that the FAA does
> not allow any amount of ethanol in Mogas placed into aircraft for
> flight. Do you have some reference that refutes the ASTM standard for
> fuel in aircraft?
>
> That means not even 1% Ethanol. Rotax mentions no harm will be dune up
> to 6%, Oregon is going 10% and the Fed says Zero. Set me straight.
I heard a radio report that some folks (corn growers?) may lobby for up to
20% ethanol in auro fuel.
Ron Lee
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: Sealing RV-4 front and side canopy edges? |
Ya, but don't come to Wisconsin. We now have a pile of FROZEN rain
that's been in the yard since last November and the temps are in the
single digits again. I thought it was March...hope it's gone by Oshkosh
;) do not archive this one either. Could one use a thin self-stick
rubber weatherstrip material that can be "crushed" by the canopy when it
is closed?
Scott
Konrad L. Werner wrote:
> Get out of Seattle... ;-)
>
> do not archive
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* DCS317@aol.com <mailto:DCS317@aol.com>
> *To:* rv-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 07, 2008 10:16 AM
> *Subject:* RV-List: Sealing RV-4 front and side canopy edges?
>
> Any recommendations for sealing RV-4 front and side canopy edges
> against rain? It rains in Seattle!
>
> Don Schmiesing
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.
> <http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001>
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com
Building RV-4
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die!
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: | Death of the RV-12] |
Subject: Death of the RV-12
If you have not yet read the the RVator on line you should. The 51% rule, quickbuild
kits and the REAL fate of the RV-12 are in the balance. Van attempts to
put on a "happy face" about the FAA latest train wreck but if you read pages 3
thru 7 you get a clearer picture. To me it reads as step number one in getting
rid of the 51% violators by eliminating everyone involved, including those who
play by the rules. RV-12 ? ?, now only to be built as a "clone". No choice
of engines, radios, gauges or seat belts AND no repairmans certificate either.
You get one ONLY by attending the classes. I guess I'll take the class so I can
qualify IF & WHEN I build another airplane.
Where did I put all that stuff I had on the S-19 and 601XL ? KABONG
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: Alternative engines |
IMHO you NEED to do some long term testing of your PRC covered with your
favorite varieties of mogas, with and without ethanol.
I don't know with the current PRC, but what was used back 30 years is
turned to goooo by mogas.
Greg Young wrote:
>
> The FAA only cares about ethanol for certified aircraft with a mogas STC.
> You can run your experimental on chicken fat or cow pies if you want.
> Whether you can or should is up to you.
>
> Regards,
> Greg Young
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
>> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 10:52 AM
>> To: rv-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: RV-List: Alternative engines
>>
>>
>> Ron, my experience from the fiasco here in Oregon is that the
>> FAA does not allow any amount of ethanol in Mogas placed into
>> aircraft for flight. Do you have some reference that refutes
>> the ASTM standard for fuel in aircraft?
>>
>> That means not even 1% Ethanol. Rotax mentions no harm will
>> be dune up to 6%, Oregon is going 10% and the Fed says Zero.
>> Set me straight.
>>
>> John Cox
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>
>
>
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: Death of the RV-12] |
jhstarn@verizon.net wrote:
>
> Subject: Death of the RV-12
>
> If you have not yet read the the RVator on line you should. The 51%
> rule, quickbuild kits and the REAL fate of the RV-12 are in the
> balance. Van attempts to put on a "happy face" about the FAA latest
> train wreck but if you read pages 3 thru 7 you get a clearer picture.
> To me it reads as step number one in getting rid of the 51% violators
> by eliminating everyone involved, including those who play by the
> rules. RV-12 ? ?, now only to be built as a "clone". No choice of
> engines, radios, gauges or seat belts AND no repairmans certificate
> either. You get one ONLY by attending the classes. I guess I'll take
> the class so I can qualify IF & WHEN I build another airplane. Where
> did I put all that stuff I had on the S-19 and 601XL ? KABONG
Let's not be too hasty to sign the death warrant of the amateur-built
RV-12. ;-)
Vans is in a holding pattern until the FAA gets their act together and
releases the new evaluation process of the 51% rule. Until that new
process is released, Vans has no choice other than to offer the RV-12 as
a S-LSA since at this point in time......there is no way for ANYONE to
get a new kit classified as experimental amateur built. As soon as the
FAA releases the new process, you can rest assured Vans will make a
serious effort to offer an E-AB RV-12.
The concern is the FAA may make the new evaluation process so
restrictive that it will be difficult to classify a kit that is as
advanced as the RV-12 as experimental amateur built. Nobody knows at
this point how this will play out. But even if Vans can't achieve this
goal, an individual builder could register an RV-12 as E-AB provided he
can demonstrate to a DAR that he built as least 51% of the plane, and
provided Vans offers the RV-12 as an E-AB kit.
We need to sit tight while this matter is resolved and not panic...yet.
There was an interesting article in one of the Oregon newspapers about
how the FAA had bungled this process by not considering the impact on
some of Oregon's aircraft revenue (Lancair and Epic).
http://tinyurl.com/3a85ch
The article states that the FAA may be taking an expedited look at this
situation with the intent of clarifying things somewhat.
But......we're talking about the FAA.........
Sam Buchanan
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: | Death of the RV-12] |
I guess that I may jumped a little quick BUT I have been waiting for more than
two years to start an RV-12. But what really gets me is that the FAA will still
allow the 51% violators to continue to build the RV-12 S-LSA for paying customers...the
very thing this whole change was to prevent. Why should Vans continue
to fight for an E-AB when there will be those who set up their "factory" and
produce RV-12 S-LSA's with Vans supplying the parts. After all he is in the
business of selling kits. KABONG
>From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
>Date: 2008/03/07 Fri PM 09:14:08 CST
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Death of the RV-12]
>
>jhstarn@verizon.net wrote:
>>
>> Subject: Death of the RV-12
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! --
|