Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:36 AM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (Wayne Edgerton)
2. 03:45 AM - Re: OSH Update 7/28/06 (Wayne Edgerton)
3. 04:05 AM - Oshkosh accident (James Hein)
4. 05:32 AM - Re: Delta Hawk engine for -10 (GRANSCOTT@aol.com)
5. 05:44 AM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (John Lenhardt)
6. 05:45 AM - Oshkosh reports (Rob Kermanj)
7. 06:25 AM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (James K Hovis)
8. 06:37 AM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (GRANSCOTT@aol.com)
9. 06:52 AM - Re: Oshkosh accident (Jesse Saint)
10. 06:52 AM - Re: OSH Update 7/28/06 (Jesse Saint)
11. 06:53 AM - Re: Elevator bucking bar (Rick)
12. 07:13 AM - Re: OSH Update 7/28/06 (James K Hovis)
13. 07:27 AM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (James K Hovis)
14. 07:53 AM - Re: Re: OSH / Subaru / Egg ? (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
15. 08:01 AM - Re: OSH Engine Info (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
16. 08:05 AM - Re: MT at OSH (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
17. 08:12 AM - Re: Re: MT at OSH (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
18. 08:27 AM - Re: RV-10 Quality @ OSH -w/ appoligies to John Cox (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
19. 08:37 AM - Re: Tunnel Temps (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
20. 08:54 AM - Re: MT at OSH (Mark Ritter)
21. 08:54 AM - Re: OSH Engine Info (Pascal)
22. 08:57 AM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (Pascal)
23. 09:13 AM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
24. 09:24 AM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
25. 09:30 AM - Re: OSH Engine Info (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
26. 09:33 AM - Re: MT at OSH (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
27. 09:39 AM - Re: Cowl (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
28. 09:47 AM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (Rene Felker)
29. 09:47 AM - 3 bld prop & lower cowl tip (Deems Davis)
30. 09:49 AM - Who from MT was at OSH (Ralph E. Capen)
31. 09:54 AM - Cowl vs MT prop (Ralph E. Capen)
32. 09:54 AM - Re: Cowl (GRANSCOTT@aol.com)
33. 09:55 AM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (Tim Olson)
34. 10:01 AM - 51% Rule (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
35. 10:10 AM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (James K Hovis)
36. 10:15 AM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (James K Hovis)
37. 10:26 AM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today - Now Insurance (Phillips, Jack)
38. 10:29 AM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (James K Hovis)
39. 10:29 AM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
40. 10:34 AM - Re: 51% Rule (James K Hovis)
41. 10:36 AM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (James Clark)
42. 10:42 AM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
43. 10:42 AM - Re: 51% Rule (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
44. 10:43 AM - Re: Cowl vs MT prop (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
45. 10:45 AM - Re: Cowl (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
46. 10:49 AM - Re: OSH Engine Info - Mistral and V330 + yet another OSH engine summary (Eric Panning)
47. 10:49 AM - Re: Cowl vs MT prop (Deems Davis)
48. 10:50 AM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (Schroeder, Bob (Parts Clerk))
49. 10:56 AM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (James K Hovis)
50. 11:25 AM - Cowl vs MT prop (Jim & Debbie lurking?) (Ralph E. Capen)
51. 11:29 AM - Re: RV-10 Quality @ OSH -w/ appoligies to John Cox (Vern W. Smith)
52. 11:58 AM - RV 10 Mike Seager training at (1m5) (John McMahon)
53. 12:09 PM - Re: 51% Rule (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
54. 12:10 PM - Re: OSH Engine Info - Mistral and V330 + yet another OSH engine summary (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
55. 12:19 PM - Re: 3 bld prop & lower cowl tip (Mark Ritter)
56. 12:20 PM - Re: RV-10 Quality @ OSH -w/ appoligies to John Cox (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
57. 12:26 PM - Re: RV-10 Quality @ OSH -w/ appoligies to John Cox (Rene Felker)
58. 12:30 PM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
59. 01:17 PM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (Schroeder, Bob (Parts Clerk))
60. 01:27 PM - Re: OSH Engine Info (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
61. 01:35 PM - Re: Tunnel Temps (KiloPapa)
62. 01:35 PM - Re: OSH Engine Info - Mistral and V330 + yet another OSH engine summary (KiloPapa)
63. 01:44 PM - Anyone read AC's Gear of the year? (Tim Olson)
64. 01:48 PM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (Tim Olson)
65. 01:52 PM - Re: OSH Engine Info (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
66. 01:57 PM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
67. 02:02 PM - Re: Anyone read AC's Gear of the year? (Kelly McMullen)
68. 02:04 PM - Aircraft Wiring for Smart People (Bill Reining)
69. 02:04 PM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (Kelly McMullen)
70. 02:11 PM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (John Lenhardt)
71. 02:17 PM - Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
72. 02:33 PM - F-1073 hole too large (John Jessen)
73. 02:44 PM - Re: F-1073 hole too large (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
74. 02:57 PM - Re: F-1073 hole too large (Rick)
75. 02:58 PM - Re: F-1073 hole too large (zackrv8)
76. 03:03 PM - Re: F-1073 hole too large (John Jessen)
77. 03:30 PM - Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People (Eric Ekberg)
78. 03:46 PM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (linn Walters)
79. 04:49 PM - Re: MT at OSH (Mike Kraus)
80. 05:09 PM - Re: MT at OSH (McGANN, Ron)
81. 05:15 PM - Matronics Email List Web Server Upgrade Tonight... (Matt Dralle)
82. 05:23 PM - Re: Oshkosh Alternative Engine Summary + 900x + RV12 (David McNeill)
83. 05:50 PM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (David McNeill)
84. 06:30 PM - Atrocious - Long Rant (John W. Cox)
85. 06:33 PM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (John W. Cox)
86. 06:37 PM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (Bruce Patton)
87. 06:37 PM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (John W. Cox)
88. 06:40 PM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (John W. Cox)
89. 06:44 PM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (John W. Cox)
90. 06:53 PM - Re: Anyone read AC's Gear of the year? (Tim Olson)
91. 06:55 PM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (John W. Cox)
92. 07:02 PM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (John W. Cox)
93. 07:21 PM - Re: -10's (John W. Cox)
94. 07:26 PM - Re: Re: F-1073 hole too large (KiloPapa)
95. 07:42 PM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (Kelly McMullen)
96. 08:06 PM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (linn Walters)
97. 08:06 PM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (Kelly McMullen)
98. 08:28 PM - conditional inspections (linn Walters)
99. 08:30 PM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (Kelly McMullen)
100. 08:53 PM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (Tim Dawson-Townsend)
101. 08:57 PM - more on conditionals (linn Walters)
102. 08:57 PM - HID (Robert G. Wright)
103. 09:19 PM - Re: more on conditionals (Kelly McMullen)
104. 09:19 PM - Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People (jdalton77)
105. 09:20 PM - Re: HID (Tim Olson)
106. 09:24 PM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (KiloPapa)
107. 09:27 PM - Re: Atrocious - Long Rant (Jeffery J. Morgan)
108. 09:38 PM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (linn Walters)
109. 09:41 PM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (James Clark)
110. 09:52 PM - STOP! Re: Atrocious - Long Rant (Robert G. Wright)
111. 09:54 PM - Re: Atrocious - Long Rant (KiloPapa)
112. 09:55 PM - Re: conditional inspections (John Gonzalez)
113. 10:05 PM - Re: Atrocious - Long Rant (John Gonzalez)
114. 10:21 PM - Re: -10's for sale in quantity, available today (JOHN STARN)
115. 10:22 PM - Re: Atrocious - Long Rant (linn Walters)
116. 10:23 PM - Re: HID (don wentz)
117. 10:47 PM - Re: Atrocious - Long Rant (KiloPapa)
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: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
One way that the FAA might possible be able to curb the "build to sell"
crowd would be to put a time line on when a newly built plane could be
sold or owners changed. As an example lets say the plane couldn't be
sold to a new owner until 6 or 12 months after the hours are flown off
or until it has so many hours on it like 300 hours. Then allow a waiver
to this in the case of certain conditions such as death of the builder
or maybe hell freezing over, something along those lines.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
Engine work
do not archive
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: OSH Update 7/28/06 |
Hello Jessie,
Why do you say not to put proseal around the window to seal the gap
there? I've had several people tell me they thought that's a good idea
to stop the cracking that RV10 people are experiencing. One was a good
painter who uses proseal to fill any gaps he finds on the plane.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
engine work
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: | Oshkosh accident |
--> RV10-List message posted by: James Hein <n8vim@arrl.net>
Anybody know any more info about this?
*O*SHKOSH, Wis. - The propeller of a Navy warbird sliced into a
home-built airplane on a taxiway during an airshow yesterday, killing a
passenger, officials said. The victim in the home-built Vans RV was
pronounced dead at the scene at Wittman Regional Airport, but the pilot
was unhurt, said Tom Poberezny, president of the Experimental Aircraft
Association, which puts on the annual AirVenture show.
The fatality was the airports third since people began arriving for
AirVenture. A couple died July 23 in a plane crash.
do not archive
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Delta Hawk engine for -10 |
Dave,
FYI for you , I've a friend that is tied up with Delta Hawk and has been
promised an engine for well over a year...new technology is difficult at best,
before I'd consider going the DH route, I'd make sure they are delivering
engines and that they are working well...JMHO...
I"m really hopeful that they make it...another engine choice would be
terrific, but to date they have made lots of claims and very little performance.
Start up companies that seems to be under capitalized can have difficulties
pulling off the final phase of development actually delivering the product.
Imagine Van wanting your adddress so that they could pass it along to a
builder to contact you...just seems odd to me.
It's my understanding talking to them over the years and again this year
that they have not delivered a single engine to anyone builder but they have
several in test beds at OEM's and one in a test bed at their facillity but
having difficulty with a cooling tower test bed.
Talking to them they seem to be working very hard, but are a bit from the
finish line on having a finished product...at last years OSH they said they
would be delivering engines in the 3rd Qt of 05...its now 06 and they say they
will be shipping by late 06. I found their talk this year more forth right
than last year...will be delivering in 06 if something else negative does not
develop.
Sort of reminds me of someone else that popped on asking us to become
unsecured investors in their engine company by depositing at OSH for a small
discount. Tough financial sell in the aircraft business.
For me I don't believe I would trust my life on a new engine until it has a
few thousand hours flown behind the machine and I was sure the engine company
was here for the long haul. We've seen a lot of small start up companies
come and go.
As I said I hope they make it and come up with a great product but start
up's in a newish technology are difficult. I don't know how a Velocity test bed
product will equate to your Van's project, but I do wish them the best and
hope they make it.
Patrick
Do not archive
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: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
But again, how will that be enforced? We already have the laws, let's
find a way to enforce them.
John
#40262
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne Edgerton
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 6:31 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: -10's for sale in quantity, available today
One way that the FAA might possible be able to curb the "build to
sell" crowd would be to put a time line on when a newly built plane
could be sold or owners changed. As an example lets say the plane
couldn't be sold to a new owner until 6 or 12 months after the hours are
flown off or until it has so many hours on it like 300 hours. Then allow
a waiver to this in the case of certain conditions such as death of the
builder or maybe hell freezing over, something along those lines.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
Engine work
do not archive
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 |
|
I wanted to thank everyone for reporting the Oshkosh events to the
list, especially those who pounded the words on their Blackberry. It
kept us connected to the fortunate folks who could attend the show!
do not archive
Rob Kermanj
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: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
I have to ask a question about the "build to order" aircraft: Who's
flying off the 25 hrs? I think it boils down to who it is applying for the
initial airworthiness certificate, is it the "owner"-the guy who ordered the
"build to order" or is it the builder? As it is now, my interpretation of
the 51% rule leads me to believe the owner-builder has to be the one
who makes the original application for the airworthiness cert and he/she
should be the one who flies off the test period hours. And the initial
registration named owner should match to builder-owner on the airworthiness
cert. I think looking at these things would probably identify those who are
violating the 51% rule fairly quickly, if a "complete" aircraft is sold
before the test period is over raises a real red flag to me. But, what's to
limit some guy from building an airplane, flying off the test period
quickly, and then selling the airplane? Does this "qualify" as a "build to
order" shop? I think the sale of complete RV-10's especially makes it rather
lucrative to cheat the system. Yes, I know I asked about value before, but
my motive wasn't for a quick sale, but to see if future market would support
re-couping my investment should I decide to build/buy something else a few
years down the road.
The Feds can pretty well see who it is that's "building to order". As
quoted somewhere in this thread someone was saying he could turn around an
airplane in three months. That's a major red flag the Feds should be looking
for. A raid on that person's operation may be in order. I think turning over
four or more kit airplanes a year would definitely qualify a person as a
"professional" aircraft builder requiring full conformity to Part 23 and
Part 21. Perhaps that's the solution, only one or two airworthiness certs
can be issued to any one individual unless they hold or are also applying
for a production cert under Part 21 within a year.
As Tim points out, keeping a good builder's log and when asked by your
DAR is your BEST (and probably ONLY) proof that YOU did the work to put your
dream together. Those yayhoos paying some guy to build their airplane and
then telling the Feds they built them is only hurting the rest of us who
want to do it right. What I'm afraid of is the typical knee-jerk reaction
the Feds typically have and we'll end up with a draconian rule that totally
hurts the aviation homebuilder/experimenter.
James K. Hovis
On 7/31/06, Wayne Edgerton <wayne.e@grandecom.net> wrote:
>
> One way that the FAA might possible be able to curb the "build to sell"
> crowd would be to put a time line on when a newly built plane could be sold
> or owners changed. As an example lets say the plane couldn't be sold to a
> new owner until 6 or 12 months after the hours are flown off or until it has
> so many hours on it like 300 hours. Then allow a waiver to this in the case
> of certain conditions such as death of the builder or maybe hell freezing
> over, something along those lines.
>
> Wayne Edgerton #40336
>
> Engine work
>
> do not archive
>
>
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: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
Do you think the question of the 51% rule is for the RV crowd or some of the
overseas kits where one shows up for a "builder" session then less than 2
weeks later the completed kit ships to the US with all the paperwork saying the
"owner" has completed the 51% rule?
Patrick
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: | Oshkosh accident |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Jesse Saint" <jesse@itecusa.org>
I don't know a lot of details, but I think it was an RV-8 that stopped
taxiing and got run into from the back by a warbird, which couldn't see
them. This is just what I heard, so don't quote me please.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Hein
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 7:04 AM
--> RV10-List message posted by: James Hein <n8vim@arrl.net>
Anybody know any more info about this?
*O*SHKOSH, Wis. - The propeller of a Navy warbird sliced into a
home-built airplane on a taxiway during an airshow yesterday, killing a
passenger, officials said. The victim in the home-built Vans RV was
pronounced dead at the scene at Wittman Regional Airport, but the pilot
was unhurt, said Tom Poberezny, president of the Experimental Aircraft
Association, which puts on the annual AirVenture show.
The fatality was the airports third since people began arriving for
AirVenture. A couple died July 23 in a plane crash.
do not archive
--
No virus found in this incoming 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: | OSH Update 7/28/06 |
I don=92t have a problem with Proseal being used, but when you have a
bead of
it around the windows on top of the paint (or instead of it) that looks
like
you smeared around with your fingers, it takes away from the appearance
of
quality.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
HYPERLINK "mailto:jesse@itecusa.org"jesse@itecusa.org
HYPERLINK "http://www.itecusa.org"www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
_____
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne
Edgerton
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 6:44 AM
Hello Jessie,
Why do you say not to put proseal around the window to seal the gap
there?
I've had several people tell me they thought that's a good idea to stop
the
cracking that RV10 people are experiencing. One was a good painter who
uses
proseal to fill any gaps he finds on the plane.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
engine work
do not archive
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
7/28/2006
--
7/28/2006
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: | Elevator bucking bar |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
Cleaveland tools sells one, you'll need it for the fuselage as well.
Rick S.
40185
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: OSH Update 7/28/06 |
Proseal should take paint, so seal before you paint for a better looking
job?
On 7/31/06, Jesse Saint <jesse@itecusa.org> wrote:
>
> I don't have a problem with Proseal being used, but when you have a bead
> of it around the windows on top of the paint (or instead of it) that looks
> like you smeared around with your fingers, it takes away from the appearance
> of quality.
>
>
> Do not archive.
>
>
> Jesse Saint
>
> I-TEC, Inc.
>
> jesse@itecusa.org
>
> www.itecusa.org
>
> W: 352-465-4545
>
> C: 352-427-0285
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Wayne Edgerton
> *Sent:* Monday, July 31, 2006 6:44 AM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: OSH Update 7/28/06
>
>
> Hello Jessie,
>
>
> Why do you say not to put proseal around the window to seal the gap there?
> I've had several people tell me they thought that's a good idea to stop the
> cracking that RV10 people are experiencing. One was a good painter who uses
> proseal to fill any gaps he finds on the plane.
>
>
> Wayne Edgerton #40336
>
>
> engine work
>
>
> do not archive
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> 7/28/2006
>
> --
> 7/28/2006
>
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: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
Could be. But I'm looking more at the quote from someone on this list
saying a guy at OSH quoted a three-month turn around from kit to complete
airplane. Assuming using a QB RV-10, I think 1200 hrs of construction time
for the average builder. Now assume the "build to order" guy has some
experience and can build in 800 hrs, he's getting close to a three month
build, but that's working 60 hrs a week. I guess retired folks or those who
do this work full time can devote that kind of effort, but I seriously doubt
it. This "build to order" example has to have a helper IMHO. Is his "helper"
listed as a co-builder? This leads me to a side bar, if I can con my Dad
into helping or partnering me on an RV-10 project, I can cut my build time
quite a bit. He's a retired aircraft assembler with 35 years experience
banging rivets.
JKH
On 7/31/06, GRANSCOTT@aol.com <GRANSCOTT@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Do you think the question of the 51% rule is for the RV crowd or some of
> the overseas kits where one shows up for a "builder" session then less than
> 2 weeks later the completed kit ships to the US with all the paperwork
> saying the "owner" has completed the 51% rule?
>
> Patrick
>
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: OSH / Subaru / Egg ? |
As long as we are on the subject *ehem*, I did also stop by and listen
to Jan a little bit and took a look at his lack of a display. Actually
he had an example of an older 4 cylinder install there in a customer
aircraft. Not that does a lot of good as it is now an old model that he
no longer sells, but it is at least representative of his engineering.
I won't go into my perception of the quality of the customer aircraft as
that can't be reflected back on Jan. ;)
I will note a couple of other things. The design on the H6 has once
again changed from a supercharger to a turbocharger, although I don't
know when this happened. There was no other display of an engine at his
booth and Jan claimed the weather kept anyone from flying in that would
have allowed him to display it (I'm still trying to figure out where
they were coming from as no one else seemed to have a problem getting
in. His older customer display was gone by Saturday leaving him with a
big bus and an empty booth for a display. His seminar on Friday looked
full but I didn't have the time to stop in and listen.
As I am 140 messages behind I will wait to post anything on the
Mistral which looked very promising.
Michael
-10 #352 Fuselage
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of bcondrey
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:16 PM
--> RV10-List message posted by: "bcondrey" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
I walked by the Eggenfellner booth and the only thing in it was the 2
seat RV with a Subie installed. There was no static display of their
FWF package as in years past and nothing at all about something for the
RV-10. I did not go talk with them but there were certainly not doing
anything to attract anybody.
Bob
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=50069#50069
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
One thing I will add about the Mistral is that they did tell me that the
smaller two rotor engines are available now and their current goal is
certification. Three rotor model was probably next year. YMMV. The
smaller two rotor turbocharged 230HP would probably be a good fit for
the -10.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of bcondrey
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:15 PM
--> RV10-List message posted by: "bcondrey" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
As I noted in a prior post there really is very little here in the way
of engine news. Several people have expressed interest in pictures so
I've attached a collection.
At the risk of repeating myself, here are a few comments about what I've
seen so far.
EMag/PMag: Hoping to flight test 6 cylinder version in the spring and
have them at OSH next year. No other info available but they appear to
be getting tired of being asked about it.
Mistral: Engines look good but no real delivery info. Big thing they
were pushing is that each cylinder has dual injectors "in case one
fails". Pictures attached of both models along with their rotor
display.
Innodyne: Don't even have their own booth this year - they seem to be
doubled up with one of the bush plane kit manufacturers. Picture
attached of their entire display along with a closeup of the nose
section of the engine with rust on the prop flange.
Deltahawk: They are displaying inside and talking about deliveries "next
year". No picture attached.
Suburu: Only engine is the one in the demo plane. I asked about the
RV-10 setup and they said "next year". Picture attached of their
display space.
I also took a picture of yet another possibility but you might have to
extend the cowl a bit. Engine is compression ignition and generates 350
HP.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=50201#50201
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/alt_eng_718.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/innodyne_2_113.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/innodyne_1_168.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/egg_378.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/mistral_4_762.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/mistral_3_171.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/mistral_2_152.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/mistral_1_211.jpg
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 |
|
This really is a "mission profile" decision. If you want top end speed
go with the Hartzell. If you want climb out performance and a little
smoother engine go with an MT. If you want both just combine the cost
of each and get an Aerocomposite. None of them are a bad prop, just
depends on what you are looking for. I want climb performance and will
be going with an MT.
Michael
________________________________
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris , Susie
Darcy
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:18 PM
Yes but isnt it wonderful we have a choice!
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert G. Wright <mailto:armywrights@adelphia.net>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 8:05 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: MT at OSH
Hmmm, 2-blade Hartzell for 6050 from Van's.
Jim,
Maybe throw in the assembled shipping to make up for more price
difference and 2-3 knots of airspeed loss? Ramp appeal and a lighter
weight only get you so far for that much extra $$.
Rob Wright
#392 QB Wings
Ordering Prop by September
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
LessDragProd@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 6:56 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: MT at OSH
MT has a 10% discount for orders placed at Oshkosh.
List price - $9,380. Oshkosh discount price - $8,442. (Plus
shipping.)
Van's Aircraft price - $8,060. (shipped to the closed assembly
facility.)
Less Drag Products, Inc. group buy price - $7,500
(Plus Option A: Shipped disassembled to the closest assembly
facility, or
Plus Option B: Shipped assembled to the closest international
airport.)
Regards,
Jim Ayers
If you object to this kind of SPAM, then you aren't listening to
your wallet. :-)
In a message dated 7/23/2006 7:30:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wayne.e@grandecom.net writes:
I am giving strong consideration to switching from the
Hartzell 2 bladed blended foil prop to the 3 bladed MT Prop. If there is
any RV10 people at OSH checking their e-mails and you happen to go past
the MT booth could you please see if they are having any show specials?
Also if there is anyone that might be interested in buying a new
Hartzell Blended Foil prop let me know. I live near Dallas.
Thanks for any help on this.
Wayne Edgerton # 40336
working on O2 system
do not archive
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
One thing I would like to say about MT @ OSH, it would be nice if they
had US distributors man their booth. I went in there asking questions
and was basically given the model number and shoved out of the booth by
a little annoying German guy. If they didn't have a good history I
would have changed my mind on the spot. Something to take back to them
Jim.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of bcondrey
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 10:44 AM
--> RV10-List message posted by: "bcondrey" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
No show special on MT that I'm aware of.
Bob
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=50333#50333
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: | RV-10 Quality @ OSH -w/ appoligies to John Cox |
Let me just put some pictures to these statements. Some items are
bubble wrap for a heat shield, beat to hell skins, some finish work that
would make an amateur blush, rusted door hinges, paint bubbling from
rust on steps, screws falling out and fairings improperly fitted and
falling off. Of course pictures don't show the detail but you get the
idea.
Michael
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems Davis
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 12:50 PM
--> RV10-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
I know this was directed to John but let me take a crack at it. My son
and I just returned from OSH. BTW a MIGHTY THANKS to Bob Condrey, Gary
Spectater, and Tim Olsen for organizing RV10 HQ. The highlight of the
trip for me was being able to meet all of the RV-10 builders and to put
names with faces. 3-4 times each day, through the contact with you guys,
I learned something, valuable, that I wouldn't have learned if I hadn't
been there, THANKS again to all who so willingly shared their knowledge
and time.
Re. the quality issue, There is no one or two specific things, that you
can point to, but the quality of the workmanship is easily apparent to
any builder. Seams that don't match, wrinkled metal, pop rivets holding
windows to their frames, surfaces not prepared, sanded smooth/filled
before painting.finishing. Wings skins not 'scarfed' per the plans,
these are just a few that come to mind quickly. When looking at these
planes, they scream that they were put together with speed to completion
as the primary goal, pride of workmanship obviously took a holiday, and
one immediately begins to ask oneself, " If these readily visible
shortcuts were taken, what shortcuts that aren't so apparent were also
taken?" Van makes a GREAT kit, the RV-10 plans are the best and most
complete in the industry, 99.9% of the parts will almost 'put them
selves together (NOT applicable to the fiberglass pieces!!!!!). I'm
confident that any INDIVIDUAL OWNER/BUILDER who takes a modicum of pride
in their work, and who keeps safety in front of timelines can produce
planes with the quality that we saw in Tim's, Vic's and Debby's, and
Mike's examples. All of the foregoing examples showed wide differences
in the individuals preferences and choices, but NONE of them showed any
signs of carelessness. This list is an EXTREMELY valuable source of
information and knowledge regarding anything that you are not certain
of. John Cox has been an outspoken proponent on this site about NOT
taking shortcuts, and he is quick to call attention to anything that
infringes on Safety. Seeing these quality completions @ OSH inspired me
to come back home 'stay the course' and do the best job I'm capable of.
THANKS again to those of you who have led the way and established the
standard!
Deems Davis # 406
Fuse/Finishing/Panel
http://deemsrv10.com/
Simon Barber wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Simon Barber <simon@superduper.net>
>
> hi john,
>
> I too would like to know what to avoid ending up doing - since I am a
> first time builder. Would very much like to have a few pointers to "if
> it comes out like this you're doing it wrong".
>
> Simon
>
>
> Jeff Carpenter wrote:
>
>> Ok John... without naming names... what specifically are you seeing
>> that constitutes a low "quality build"... as I certainly don't want
>> to wind up on that list when I take to the sky.
>>
>> Jeff Carpenter
>> 40304
>> Finishing Fuel Tanks
>>
>>
>> On Jul 29, 2006, at 6:00 AM, John W. Cox wrote:
>>
>>> Bob send me the attendance list from last night and the tab. My
>>> Paypal account is in good shape and I clearly missed the mark. With
>>> the lowered expectations in quality builds this year, I am actually
>>> glad not to have seen my 20 RV-10s. Would rather have the quality,
>>> safer aircraft and smarter builders.
>>>
>>> Rushing to class.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
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 |
|
I spent a little time talking to the guy from EPM.AV at OSH. We were
discussing the heat problem and he is going to send me prototype heater
boxes that are two part separated by a ceramic gasket for a full thermal
break. I'll send some pictures when I get it in a couple weeks.
Michael
________________________________
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Russell Daves
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 8:11 PM
Second flight today in N710RV. Checked the forward tunnel area for high
temps. Used the bare leg method. Stuck my bare left leg up against the
tunnel wall and held it there for at least five minutes. No problem,
even confirmed after landing that I still had hair on my leg (just in
case my 33 month build had killed the nerves in the leg and I didn't
feel the heat).
After hearing all the tunnel heat issues raised in the posts I did the
following:
1. Bought a roll of engine gasket material at NAPA and cut out
gaskets to install between the firewall and the heat vent boxes. (Don't
remember for sure but I think this tip came from Tim Olson as 90% of the
my help tips have - Thanks Tim).
2. Installed an RTV gasket around the inside of the heat vent doors
after install by beading the RVT around the opening, placing a piece of
wax paper over the RTV and closing the door with the cable. After setup
of the RTV I removed the wax paper and re-closed the door. (Install tip
from Jesse Saint - Thanks Jesse).
3. RTV'ed around the outside of each heat vent box.
4. Installed foil faced insulation on the bottom of the tunnel floor
and over the inside of the firewall (used this method on my RV-6A
firewall after it was built and it made a huge difference). I did not
build a false floor in the tunnel, only put the insulation up to the
edge of the fuel flow transducer and fuel pump.
5. Installed sound proofing foam insulation under the floor and on
the sidewalls.
Hope these tips help.
By the way N710RV flies like a dream. Working on wheel pants and gear
leg fairings between flights.
Russ Daves
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 |
|
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OSH Engine Info |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Pascal" <pascalreid@verizon.net>
There is already one person in Denmark putting the 230 in his RV-10. If you
look at engine it gives his opinion of the factory tour, if you look at
"updates" you'll get the engine delivery status.
http://www.rv10.dk/rv10/rv/defaulte.htm
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:00 AM
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>
> One thing I will add about the Mistral is that they did tell me that the
> smaller two rotor engines are available now and their current goal is
> certification. Three rotor model was probably next year. YMMV. The
> smaller two rotor turbocharged 230HP would probably be a good fit for
> the -10.
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of bcondrey
> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:15 PM
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "bcondrey" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
>
> As I noted in a prior post there really is very little here in the way
> of engine news. Several people have expressed interest in pictures so
> I've attached a collection.
>
> At the risk of repeating myself, here are a few comments about what I've
> seen so far.
>
> EMag/PMag: Hoping to flight test 6 cylinder version in the spring and
> have them at OSH next year. No other info available but they appear to
> be getting tired of being asked about it.
>
> Mistral: Engines look good but no real delivery info. Big thing they
> were pushing is that each cylinder has dual injectors "in case one
> fails". Pictures attached of both models along with their rotor
> display.
>
> Innodyne: Don't even have their own booth this year - they seem to be
> doubled up with one of the bush plane kit manufacturers. Picture
> attached of their entire display along with a closeup of the nose
> section of the engine with rust on the prop flange.
>
> Deltahawk: They are displaying inside and talking about deliveries "next
> year". No picture attached.
>
> Suburu: Only engine is the one in the demo plane. I asked about the
> RV-10 setup and they said "next year". Picture attached of their
> display space.
>
> I also took a picture of yet another possibility but you might have to
> extend the cowl a bit. Engine is compression ignition and generates 350
> HP.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=50201#50201
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/alt_eng_718.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/innodyne_2_113.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/innodyne_1_168.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/egg_378.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/mistral_4_762.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/mistral_3_171.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/mistral_2_152.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/mistral_1_211.jpg
>
>
>
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: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
This "build to order" example has to have a helper IMHO. Is his "helper"
listed as a co-builder?
Not if the "builder" hires a few guys from the local Home depot parking
lot, or maybe even the super QB from the Phillipines. I figure you buy
all 4 kits at once and have everyone work on the kits at the same time
it will be 4 times faster and can be done rather quickly.
----- Original Message -----
From: James K Hovis
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 7:08 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: -10's for sale in quantity, available today
Could be. But I'm looking more at the quote from someone on this
list saying a guy at OSH quoted a three-month turn around from kit to
complete airplane. Assuming using a QB RV-10, I think 1200 hrs of
construction time for the average builder. Now assume the "build to
order" guy has some experience and can build in 800 hrs, he's getting
close to a three month build, but that's working 60 hrs a week. I guess
retired folks or those who do this work full time can devote that kind
of effort, but I seriously doubt it. This "build to order" example has
to have a helper IMHO. Is his "helper" listed as a co-builder? This
leads me to a side bar, if I can con my Dad into helping or partnering
me on an RV-10 project, I can cut my build time quite a bit. He's a
retired aircraft assembler with 35 years experience banging rivets.
JKH
On 7/31/06, GRANSCOTT@aol.com <GRANSCOTT@aol.com> wrote:
Do you think the question of the 51% rule is for the RV crowd or
some of the overseas kits where one shows up for a "builder" session
then less than 2 weeks later the completed kit ships to the US with all
the paperwork saying the "owner" has completed the 51% rule?
Patrick
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
We are kind of side stepping the real problem. It's not that they are
not building 51%, it's how do you prove that they are not doing it for
their own education or enjoyment?
Yes, it's painfully clear that some of the guys like John Nys and
Jessie are doing it at least partially for the financial aspects of
resale. The difference is at least Jessie is teaching the people
working on it a skill so I think it still meets the intent of the rule.
I would like to see them registered out of the US though but that's my
opinion. John is a little different story as he is clearly motivated by
profit. But there is nothing in that fact that directly violated the
rule as long as he is doing it primarily for his education or enjoyment.
So how do you prove it?
Many people on these lists are repeat offenders and I can guaranty
that most of them have sold their original aircraft. I myself may build
more aircraft after the -10 because I enjoy the building process. I'm
certainly not going to keep more than one aircraft but does that mean I
am violating the rule? I don't think so because I am doing it for
education and enjoyment and not profit. Will I make a profit? I hope so
as I certainly don't want to loose money and it would be nice to get
something for my time.
Sorry Jessie, not trying to pick on you but the only immediate
examples I know of are you and John Nys. Feel free to correct me
anywhere above.
Now to Van being on this committee. Keep in mind that Van runs a
business and I seriously doubt he is on the committee to help curb this
activity but rather to find a compromise that won't kill his business.
After all Van's Aircraft knows exactly how many kit's they are shipping
to the repeat offenders. I did see Van over by Jessie's and the other
-10's parked there making notes. What does that mean? Got me, he might
have just been a proud papa.
I'm not trying to raise any backsides but the outcome of a new rule
interpretation won't be good for any of us. The FAA just has no good
way to set a precedent without killing a good number of us that really
are not financially motivated. We saw this last year with the EpicLT.
The FAA tried to interpret the rule to the disadvantage of the builder
and lost. And in that case the builder was doing it for himself and not
for immediate resale. We need to be careful.
I have nothing against someone mass producing kitplanes, just do it
out of the country so it doesn't screw up the already fragile laws for
the other 99.5% of us.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 3:25 PM
--> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
There already is a rule..51%. If you can't prove it, no amateur built
certificate is supposed to be issued. The FAA has come down on one or
two operations that were building turbine type planes with little
owner/builder involvement. Having $150K invested in something the FAA
refuses to certify/register should be enforcement enough to discourage
pro-built for hire machines.
jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: <jim@combsfive.com>
>
> A couple of possible solutions come to mind:
>
> (1) The FAA could limit the availability of N numbers to one number
every two years (or some other resonable time) and require the person
applying for the N-number to be the 51% builder.
>
> (2) Not allow the N-Number to be transferred for some period of time
(18 months?) after the initial assignment. The exception being if the
builder / owner of the N-number has deceased, this rule would not apply.
>
> Do not archive.
>
> Jim Combs
> N312F
> #40192 - Fuselage
> ===========================================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
James,
Nothing in the rule says it has to be the builder to fly off the
hours, To the contrary lot's of people hire a "test pilot" to fly off
several of the hours. Another misnomer is that only one person can be
in the aircraft during flyoff but it is actually "required crew".
Michael
________________________________
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:23 AM
I have to ask a question about the "build to order" aircraft: Who's
flying off the 25 hrs? I think it boils down to who it is applying for
the initial airworthiness certificate, is it the "owner"-the guy who
ordered the "build to order" or is it the builder? As it is now, my
interpretation of the 51% rule leads me to believe the owner-builder has
to be the one who makes the original application for the airworthiness
cert and he/she should be the one who flies off the test period hours.
And the initial registration named owner should match to builder-owner
on the airworthiness cert. I think looking at these things would
probably identify those who are violating the 51% rule fairly quickly,
if a "complete" aircraft is sold before the test period is over raises a
real red flag to me. But, what's to limit some guy from building an
airplane, flying off the test period quickly, and then selling the
airplane? Does this "qualify" as a "build to order" shop? I think the
sale of complete RV-10's especially makes it rather lucrative to cheat
the system. Yes, I know I asked about value before, but my motive wasn't
for a quick sale, but to see if future market would support re-couping
my investment should I decide to build/buy something else a few years
down the road.
The Feds can pretty well see who it is that's "building to order". As
quoted somewhere in this thread someone was saying he could turn around
an airplane in three months. That's a major red flag the Feds should be
looking for. A raid on that person's operation may be in order. I think
turning over four or more kit airplanes a year would definitely qualify
a person as a "professional" aircraft builder requiring full conformity
to Part 23 and Part 21. Perhaps that's the solution, only one or two
airworthiness certs can be issued to any one individual unless they hold
or are also applying for a production cert under Part 21 within a year.
As Tim points out, keeping a good builder's log and when asked by
your DAR is your BEST (and probably ONLY) proof that YOU did the work to
put your dream together. Those yayhoos paying some guy to build their
airplane and then telling the Feds they built them is only hurting the
rest of us who want to do it right. What I'm afraid of is the typical
knee-jerk reaction the Feds typically have and we'll end up with a
draconian rule that totally hurts the aviation homebuilder/experimenter.
James K. Hovis
On 7/31/06, Wayne Edgerton <wayne.e@grandecom.net> wrote:
One way that the FAA might possible be able to curb the "build
to sell" crowd would be to put a time line on when a newly built plane
could be sold or owners changed. As an example lets say the plane
couldn't be sold to a new owner until 6 or 12 months after the hours are
flown off or until it has so many hours on it like 300 hours. Then allow
a waiver to this in the case of certain conditions such as death of the
builder or maybe hell freezing over, something along those lines.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
Engine work
do not archive
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Interesting read. Update is a little old so I wonder if he has received
an engine yet? Based on some of the comments from other guys that
visited their tent, I must have got lucky as the guy I talked to was
fairly chatty.
Michael
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pascal
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 10:52 AM
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Pascal" <pascalreid@verizon.net>
There is already one person in Denmark putting the 230 in his RV-10. If
you look at engine it gives his opinion of the factory tour, if you look
at "updates" you'll get the engine delivery status.
http://www.rv10.dk/rv10/rv/defaulte.htm
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:00 AM
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>
> One thing I will add about the Mistral is that they did tell me that
> the smaller two rotor engines are available now and their current goal
> is certification. Three rotor model was probably next year. YMMV.
> The smaller two rotor turbocharged 230HP would probably be a good fit
> for the -10.
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of bcondrey
> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:15 PM
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "bcondrey"
> --> <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
>
> As I noted in a prior post there really is very little here in the way
> of engine news. Several people have expressed interest in pictures so
> I've attached a collection.
>
> At the risk of repeating myself, here are a few comments about what
> I've seen so far.
>
> EMag/PMag: Hoping to flight test 6 cylinder version in the spring and
> have them at OSH next year. No other info available but they appear
> to be getting tired of being asked about it.
>
> Mistral: Engines look good but no real delivery info. Big thing they
> were pushing is that each cylinder has dual injectors "in case one
> fails". Pictures attached of both models along with their rotor
> display.
>
> Innodyne: Don't even have their own booth this year - they seem to be
> doubled up with one of the bush plane kit manufacturers. Picture
> attached of their entire display along with a closeup of the nose
> section of the engine with rust on the prop flange.
>
> Deltahawk: They are displaying inside and talking about deliveries
> "next year". No picture attached.
>
> Suburu: Only engine is the one in the demo plane. I asked about the
> RV-10 setup and they said "next year". Picture attached of their
> display space.
>
> I also took a picture of yet another possibility but you might have to
> extend the cowl a bit. Engine is compression ignition and generates
> 350 HP.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=50201#50201
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/alt_eng_718.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/innodyne_2_113.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/innodyne_1_168.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/egg_378.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/mistral_4_762.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/mistral_3_171.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/mistral_2_152.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/mistral_1_211.jpg
>
>
>
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 |
|
Jim Erslick has a neat little mod for this problem. For those of you
that don't know, it was Jim and Debbie that built her -10 together. Jim
cut a removable panel out of the scoop to allow the cowl to drop lower
and aid in getting it past the 3blade prop. He has started building
another -10 for himself and is looking at just making the entire scoop
removable. I'm not sure what my options will be yet on the James cowl.
Michael
________________________________
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Ritter
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 10:51 AM
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Mark Ritter"
Be careful putting your lower cowl on an off with the MT prop. Wrap the
prop packing cover with duck tape - the piano henges can do some serious
damage. Don't ask me how I know.
Mark (N410MR Flying)
________________________________
This really is a "mission profile" decision. If you want top
end speed go with the Hartzell. If you want climb out performance and a
little smoother engine go with an MT. If you want both just combine the
cost of each and get an Aerocomposite. None of them are a bad prop,
just depends on what you are looking for. I want climb performance and
will be going with an MT.
Michael
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris , Susie
Darcy
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:18 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: MT at OSH
Yes but isnt it wonderful we have a choice!
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert G. Wright <mailto:armywrights@adelphia.net>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 8:05 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: MT at OSH
Hmmm, 2-blade Hartzell for 6050 from Van's.
Jim,
Maybe throw in the assembled shipping to make up for
more price difference and 2-3 knots of airspeed loss? Ramp appeal and a
lighter weight only get you so far for that much extra $$.
Rob Wright
#392 QB Wings
Ordering Prop by September
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
LessDragProd@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 6:56 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: MT at OSH
MT has a 10% discount for orders placed at Oshkosh.
List price - $9,380. Oshkosh discount price - $8,442.
(Plus shipping.)
Van's Aircraft price - $8,060. (shipped to the closed
assembly facility.)
Less Drag Products, Inc. group buy price - $7,500
(Plus Option A: Shipped disassembled to the closest
assembly facility, or
Plus Option B: Shipped assembled to the closest
international airport.)
Regards,
Jim Ayers
If you object to this kind of SPAM, then you aren't
listening to your wallet. :-)
In a message dated 7/23/2006 7:30:10 PM Pacific Standard
Time, wayne.e@grandecom.net writes:
I am giving strong consideration to switching
from the Hartzell 2 bladed blended foil prop to the 3 bladed MT Prop. If
there is any RV10 people at OSH checking their e-mails and you happen to
go past the MT booth could you please see if they are having any show
specials? Also if there is anyone that might be interested in buying a
new Hartzell Blended Foil prop let me know. I live near Dallas.
Thanks for any help on this.
Wayne Edgerton # 40336
working on O2 system
do not archive
=========================
to
and
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
=========================
=========================
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=========================
===========
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 |
|
I was told that Will James doesn't have the prototype cowl ready yet for
the Barrett Cold Air System because he reprioritized the Egg cowl ahead
of it. >:[
He also didn't make OSH because he had surgery. No detail on it so I
don't know if it was emergency or scheduled. I'll probably give him a
call in a couple weeks.
Michael
________________________________
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Walter
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:35 PM
Just wondering if any of the after market exhibits have on display nose
cowling for the Rv 10. Or indeed variation options to the composite
cabin and door structure.
Have a good time guys
Paul Walter
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 |
|
| Subject: | -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
The local FSDO made it very clear to me that my airplane has a required crew
of 1 and only 1 and to not try and use the required crew excuse. He warned
not to get caught trying it...
Rene' Felker
_____
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 10:24 AM
James,
Nothing in the rule says it has to be the builder to fly off the hours,
To the contrary lot's of people hire a "test pilot" to fly off several of
the hours. Another misnomer is that only one person can be in the aircraft
during flyoff but it is actually "required crew".
Michael
_____
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:23 AM
I have to ask a question about the "build to order" aircraft: Who's
flying off the 25 hrs? I think it boils down to who it is applying for the
initial airworthiness certificate, is it the "owner"-the guy who ordered the
"build to order" or is it the builder? As it is now, my interpretation of
the 51% rule leads me to believe the owner-builder has to be the one who
makes the original application for the airworthiness cert and he/she should
be the one who flies off the test period hours. And the initial registration
named owner should match to builder-owner on the airworthiness cert. I think
looking at these things would probably identify those who are violating the
51% rule fairly quickly, if a "complete" aircraft is sold before the test
period is over raises a real red flag to me. But, what's to limit some guy
from building an airplane, flying off the test period quickly, and then
selling the airplane? Does this "qualify" as a "build to order" shop? I
think the sale of complete RV-10's especially makes it rather lucrative to
cheat the system. Yes, I know I asked about value before, but my motive
wasn't for a quick sale, but to see if future market would support
re-couping my investment should I decide to build/buy something else a few
years down the road.
The Feds can pretty well see who it is that's "building to order". As
quoted somewhere in this thread someone was saying he could turn around an
airplane in three months. That's a major red flag the Feds should be looking
for. A raid on that person's operation may be in order. I think turning over
four or more kit airplanes a year would definitely qualify a person as a
"professional" aircraft builder requiring full conformity to Part 23 and
Part 21. Perhaps that's the solution, only one or two airworthiness certs
can be issued to any one individual unless they hold or are also applying
for a production cert under Part 21 within a year.
As Tim points out, keeping a good builder's log and when asked by your
DAR is your BEST (and probably ONLY) proof that YOU did the work to put your
dream together. Those yayhoos paying some guy to build their airplane and
then telling the Feds they built them is only hurting the rest of us who
want to do it right. What I'm afraid of is the typical knee-jerk reaction
the Feds typically have and we'll end up with a draconian rule that totally
hurts the aviation homebuilder/experimenter.
James K. Hovis
On 7/31/06, Wayne Edgerton <wayne.e@grandecom.net> wrote:
One way that the FAA might possible be able to curb the "build to sell"
crowd would be to put a time line on when a newly built plane could be sold
or owners changed. As an example lets say the plane couldn't be sold to a
new owner until 6 or 12 months after the hours are flown off or until it has
so many hours on it like 300 hours. Then allow a waiver to this in the case
of certain conditions such as death of the builder or maybe hell freezing
over, something along those lines.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
Engine work
do not archive
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: | 3 bld prop & lower cowl tip |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
One of the things that I picked up @ OSH was a tip from a builder who
had installed a 3 bld on their RV-10. Attached is a link to a photo I
took of his installation, I made a removable plate @ the bottom of the
induction air intake. In talking to him he said this helped but if he
had it to do over again he would have cut the entire intake scoop away
from the lower cowl and then attached it with nutplates, etc. I believe
his quote was. the time it would take to do that modification would
still be less than the time it takes to get the lower cowl off w a 3bld.
http://deemsrv10.com/album/OSHKOSH%202006/slides/DSC03088.html
The pic was taken lying on my back so sorry about the angle
Deems Davis # 406
Fuse/Finishing/Panel
http://deemsrv10.com/
Mark Ritter wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Mark Ritter"
>
> Be careful putting your lower cowl on an off with the MT prop. Wrap
> the prop packing cover with duck tape - the piano henges can do some
> serious damage. Don't ask me how I know.
>
> =================================
Message 30
| 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: | Who from MT was at OSH |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net>
Just lookig to find out who from MT was there.
I'm expecting my prop back from MT in FL - getting the correct length hub/spinner
to fit my SamJames cowl.
Ralph Capen
Message 31
| 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 |
|
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
Message 32
| 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 |
|
Michael,
NICE engine!!!
Patrick
Message 33
| 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: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Well, one catch is that if you're building it for money, then
it no longer is "amateur" built experimental. Here's
Webster's definition: (or one of them)
2 (a): participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or
field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs <a professional
golfer>
2 (c) : engaged in by persons receiving financial return
<professional football>
It would seem to me that one doesn't even need to build more
than one aircraft to fit into this category, if the intention
is the financial gain.
As a side note, and this is more related to the forced landing
topic than this one, so please don't think I'm implying that
in that case it was not owned/flown/built by the kit builder,
I did hear from someone (so it's just rumor) that the forced
landing incident involved an RV-10 that was being flown outside
of it's flyoff area, and happened during the flyoff period.
It would just be nice to see all of the rules being followed
not only for the sake of the people who want to comply
and enjoy the hobby, but for the sake of our insurance.
In fact, much of the discussion about the poor workmanship
we talked about in the evenings was canted towards worry
about how it would affect our insurance rates and abilities...
seeing as though with only 41 listed flying right now, and
already having one damaged plane, it won't take long to
gather a track record....especially if there are quality
of work issues, and related to mass production.
To some people, these issues mean nothing. To others, they
are critical.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>
> We are kind of side stepping the real problem. It's not that they are
> not building 51%, it's how do you prove that they are not doing it for
> their own education or enjoyment?
>
> Yes, it's painfully clear that some of the guys like John Nys and
> Jessie are doing it at least partially for the financial aspects of
> resale. The difference is at least Jessie is teaching the people
> working on it a skill so I think it still meets the intent of the rule.
> I would like to see them registered out of the US though but that's my
> opinion. John is a little different story as he is clearly motivated by
> profit. But there is nothing in that fact that directly violated the
> rule as long as he is doing it primarily for his education or enjoyment.
> So how do you prove it?
>
> Many people on these lists are repeat offenders and I can guaranty
> that most of them have sold their original aircraft. I myself may build
> more aircraft after the -10 because I enjoy the building process. I'm
> certainly not going to keep more than one aircraft but does that mean I
> am violating the rule? I don't think so because I am doing it for
> education and enjoyment and not profit. Will I make a profit? I hope so
> as I certainly don't want to loose money and it would be nice to get
> something for my time.
>
> Sorry Jessie, not trying to pick on you but the only immediate
> examples I know of are you and John Nys. Feel free to correct me
> anywhere above.
>
> Now to Van being on this committee. Keep in mind that Van runs a
> business and I seriously doubt he is on the committee to help curb this
> activity but rather to find a compromise that won't kill his business.
> After all Van's Aircraft knows exactly how many kit's they are shipping
> to the repeat offenders. I did see Van over by Jessie's and the other
> -10's parked there making notes. What does that mean? Got me, he might
> have just been a proud papa.
>
> I'm not trying to raise any backsides but the outcome of a new rule
> interpretation won't be good for any of us. The FAA just has no good
> way to set a precedent without killing a good number of us that really
> are not financially motivated. We saw this last year with the EpicLT.
> The FAA tried to interpret the rule to the disadvantage of the builder
> and lost. And in that case the builder was doing it for himself and not
> for immediate resale. We need to be careful.
>
> I have nothing against someone mass producing kitplanes, just do it
> out of the country so it doesn't screw up the already fragile laws for
> the other 99.5% of us.
>
> Michael Sausen
> -10 #352 Fuselage
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
> McMullen
> Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 3:25 PM
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
>
> There already is a rule..51%. If you can't prove it, no amateur built
> certificate is supposed to be issued. The FAA has come down on one or
> two operations that were building turbine type planes with little
> owner/builder involvement. Having $150K invested in something the FAA
> refuses to certify/register should be enforcement enough to discourage
> pro-built for hire machines.
>
> jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: <jim@combsfive.com>
>>
>> A couple of possible solutions come to mind:
>>
>> (1) The FAA could limit the availability of N numbers to one number
> every two years (or some other resonable time) and require the person
> applying for the N-number to be the 51% builder.
>> (2) Not allow the N-Number to be transferred for some period of time
> (18 months?) after the initial assignment. The exception being if the
> builder / owner of the N-number has deceased, this rule would not apply.
>> Do not archive.
>>
>> Jim Combs
>> N312F
>> #40192 - Fuselage
>> ===========================================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 34
| 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 |
|
Here is something I ran across from EAA's newsletter:
http://www.airventure.org/2006/frijuly28/51rule.html
Michael
Message 35
| 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: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
Michael,
I agree, but if there is going to be a change in the rules then maybe a
further refinement such as what I allude to could be a good compromise and
not bring down some draconian rule that hurts guys building now and those of
us who wish to start in the near future. Something like 80 - 90% of the test
flight time has to be done by the builder/owner (or one of them in case of a
partnership). This still allows a poeriod when you hire a free-lance pilot
for initial tests if you aren't comfortable doing it. Therefore once the
test period is done, the airplane is an "airplane" in every sense. Actually
flying your creation is a sure sign to me that you are doing the effort to
build for your personal education and enjoyment.
I hope the committee looking at this will agree on a solution that has
the least impact to homebuilding. I think, and as was noted by others in
this discussion, that the current rules can be applied to cure this problem.
I'm just afraid some rule will come down like homebuilders can no longer
sell completed airplanes. If that were to happen, then when the builder is
no longer interested or able to fly his bird or has passed away, this large
investment and asset now becomes nothing more than scrap metal with about
that much value. I'd hope a less onerous solution will come about.
As a side line, what's your opinion of this scenario: A guy building an
RV that has his DAR inspection scheduled for a few days later suddenly dies,
let's call him Joe Deadguy. Joe's wife sells the completed and ready to fly
airplane to Jerry Builder for a song to get it out of the hanger at the
house in the airpark Joe and wife lived in and now wife wants to sell.
Luckily, Joe kept a very detailed builder's log. Now, can Jerry complete the
DAR inspection and claim he is the builder since Joe is now dead and Jerry
has the bill of sale and the builder's log from Joe's wife?
JKH
On 7/31/06, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) <rvbuilder@sausen.net> wrote:
>
> James,
>
> Nothing in the rule says it has to be the builder to fly off the hours,
> To the contrary lot's of people hire a "test pilot" to fly off several of
> the hours. Another misnomer is that only one person can be in the aircraft
> during flyoff but it is actually "required crew".
>
> Michael
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *James K Hovis
> *Sent:* Monday, July 31, 2006 8:23 AM
>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: -10's for sale in quantity, available today
>
>
> I have to ask a question about the "build to order" aircraft: Who's
> flying off the 25 hrs? I think it boils down to who it is applying for the
> initial airworthiness certificate, is it the "owner"-the guy who ordered the
> "build to order" or is it the builder? As it is now, my interpretation of
> the 51% rule leads me to believe the owner-builder has to be the one
> who makes the original application for the airworthiness cert and he/she
> should be the one who flies off the test period hours. And the initial
> registration named owner should match to builder-owner on the airworthiness
> cert. I think looking at these things would probably identify those who are
> violating the 51% rule fairly quickly, if a "complete" aircraft is sold
> before the test period is over raises a real red flag to me. But, what's to
> limit some guy from building an airplane, flying off the test period
> quickly, and then selling the airplane? Does this "qualify" as a "build to
> order" shop? I think the sale of complete RV-10's especially makes it rather
> lucrative to cheat the system. Yes, I know I asked about value before, but
> my motive wasn't for a quick sale, but to see if future market would support
> re-couping my investment should I decide to build/buy something else a few
> years down the road.
> The Feds can pretty well see who it is that's "building to order". As
> quoted somewhere in this thread someone was saying he could turn around an
> airplane in three months. That's a major red flag the Feds should be looking
> for. A raid on that person's operation may be in order. I think turning over
> four or more kit airplanes a year would definitely qualify a person as a
> "professional" aircraft builder requiring full conformity to Part 23 and
> Part 21. Perhaps that's the solution, only one or two airworthiness certs
> can be issued to any one individual unless they hold or are also applying
> for a production cert under Part 21 within a year.
> As Tim points out, keeping a good builder's log and when asked by your
> DAR is your BEST (and probably ONLY) proof that YOU did the work to put your
> dream together. Those yayhoos paying some guy to build their airplane and
> then telling the Feds they built them is only hurting the rest of us who
> want to do it right. What I'm afraid of is the typical knee-jerk reaction
> the Feds typically have and we'll end up with a draconian rule that totally
> hurts the aviation homebuilder/experimenter.
>
> James K. Hovis
>
>
> On 7/31/06, Wayne Edgerton <wayne.e@grandecom.net> wrote:
> >
> > One way that the FAA might possible be able to curb the "build to sell"
> > crowd would be to put a time line on when a newly built plane could be sold
> > or owners changed. As an example lets say the plane couldn't be sold to a
> > new owner until 6 or 12 months after the hours are flown off or until it has
> > so many hours on it like 300 hours. Then allow a waiver to this in the case
> > of certain conditions such as death of the builder or maybe hell freezing
> > over, something along those lines.
> >
> > Wayne Edgerton #40336
> >
> > Engine work
> >
> > do not archive
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 36
| 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: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
Pascal,
Interesting. How much of the 51% of aircraft assembly under the rules
can a builder farm-out? You are basically farming out a portion of the
assembly to the kit company by buying a quick build kit. But, in the case of
Van's, there's an agreement between the kit company and the FAA that the 51%
rule isn't violated by the QB kits. But what's used as a "standard"? Is the
bending of metal count towards the total time too?
JKH
On 7/31/06, Pascal <pascalreid@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> This "build to order" example has to have a helper IMHO. Is his "helper"
> listed as a co-builder?
>
> Not if the "builder" hires a few guys from the local Home depot parking
> lot, or maybe even the super QB from the Phillipines. I figure you buy all 4
> kits at once and have everyone work on the kits at the same time it will be
> 4 times faster and can be done rather quickly.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* James K Hovis <james.k.hovis@gmail.com>
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Monday, July 31, 2006 7:08 AM
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: -10's for sale in quantity, available today
>
>
> Could be. But I'm looking more at the quote from someone on this list
> saying a guy at OSH quoted a three-month turn around from kit to complete
> airplane. Assuming using a QB RV-10, I think 1200 hrs of construction time
> for the average builder. Now assume the "build to order" guy has some
> experience and can build in 800 hrs, he's getting close to a three month
> build, but that's working 60 hrs a week. I guess retired folks or those who
> do this work full time can devote that kind of effort, but I seriously doubt
> it. This "build to order" example has to have a helper IMHO. Is his "helper"
> listed as a co-builder? This leads me to a side bar, if I can con my Dad
> into helping or partnering me on an RV-10 project, I can cut my build time
> quite a bit. He's a retired aircraft assembler with 35 years experience
> banging rivets.
>
> JKH
>
>
> On 7/31/06, GRANSCOTT@aol.com <GRANSCOTT@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > Do you think the question of the 51% rule is for the RV crowd or some
> > of the overseas kits where one shows up for a "builder" session then less
> > than 2 weeks later the completed kit ships to the US with all the paperwork
> > saying the "owner" has completed the 51% rule?
> >
> > Patrick
> >
>
>
Message 37
| 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: | -10's for sale in quantity, available today - Now Insurance |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips@cardinal.com>
The big issue for me is insurance. Last month I happened to meet the
guy that underwites the insurance on my RV-4 and my Pietenpol (Falcon
Insurance). I told him I was building an RV-10 and expected to insure
it with him and he looked at me over the rims of his glasses and started
asking questions like "how much total time do you have?" and "are you
instrument rated?" I told him 1200 hours and yes, respectively, and
asked him why? He told me the insurance industry is very concerned
about the RV-10 - much more so than the other RV's. When I asked why,
he said because in general they are much more valuable, and have higher
performance (which I disagree with) than the other RV's, and there
simply is no track record with them. Having one get damaged in a forced
landing will be the first tick mark on the insurance company's ledger
against the airplane. And the surest way to have this get to the notice
of an insurance company is to have it run afoul of FAA regs.
Right after I finished building my Pietenpol (while in the test flying
phase), I had a forced landing due to an engine failure and set the
plane down on a highway. In avoiding hitting a pickup truck I ran it
off the road and into a ditch, breaking an axle in the process. The FAA
immediately wanted to know:
a. Was I alone? (I was)
b. Was I within my flyoff box? (yes)
c. Was my medical current? (it was)
d. When was my last BFR? (I had just gotten my instrument rating 5
months earlier, which qualified)
e. Was anyone hurt? (nothing but my pride)
Once those questions were answered to their satisfaction, I was free.
The insurance was not notified, and I repaired the plane for a couple
hundred dollars.
Had I been out of compliance with the regs, I know the insurance company
would have been notified, and my premiums (and all other Pietenpols
premiums) would have gone up.
Jack Phillips
#40610
-----Original Message-----
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
... As a side note, and this is more related to the forced landing
topic than this one, so please don't think I'm implying that
in that case it was not owned/flown/built by the kit builder,
I did hear from someone (so it's just rumor) that the forced
landing incident involved an RV-10 that was being flown outside
of it's flyoff area, and happened during the flyoff period.
It would just be nice to see all of the rules being followed
not only for the sake of the people who want to comply
and enjoy the hobby, but for the sake of our insurance.
In fact, much of the discussion about the poor workmanship
we talked about in the evenings was canted towards worry
about how it would affect our insurance rates and abilities...
seeing as though with only 41 listed flying right now, and
already having one damaged plane, it won't take long to
gather a track record....especially if there are quality
of work issues, and related to mass production.
To some people, these issues mean nothing. To others, they
are critical.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
_________________________________________________
Message 38
| 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: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
Problem is Tim under a strict interpretation of "don't do it for money"
anyone who sells a completed kitplane for $.01 more than they paid for the
kit and all associated extra parts and equipment qualifies. I don't want to
see a perfectly good airplane suddenly become a worthless pile of aluminum
and other metals because someone can't sell an experimental bird anymore
when they are done with it. I really don't believe it will come to that, but
if there are serious issues in the eys of the Feds, this would be one way to
take the profit motive out of the equation. I'd prefer something more
like limiting the number of registrations or airworthiness certificates an
individual can apply for unless they also apply for a production cert.
Enforcing the current rules would go a long way too, and as you note, it
appears the word is getting out to the DAR's.
As is typical in this world, it is a few bad apples that could spoil it
all for the rest of us...
JKH
On 7/31/06, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> Well, one catch is that if you're building it for money, then
> it no longer is "amateur" built experimental. Here's
> Webster's definition: (or one of them)
> 2 (a): participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or
> field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs <a professional
> golfer>
> 2 (c) : engaged in by persons receiving financial return
> <professional football>
> It would seem to me that one doesn't even need to build more
> than one aircraft to fit into this category, if the intention
> is the financial gain.
>
> As a side note, and this is more related to the forced landing
> topic than this one, so please don't think I'm implying that
> in that case it was not owned/flown/built by the kit builder,
> I did hear from someone (so it's just rumor) that the forced
> landing incident involved an RV-10 that was being flown outside
> of it's flyoff area, and happened during the flyoff period.
>
> It would just be nice to see all of the rules being followed
> not only for the sake of the people who want to comply
> and enjoy the hobby, but for the sake of our insurance.
> In fact, much of the discussion about the poor workmanship
> we talked about in the evenings was canted towards worry
> about how it would affect our insurance rates and abilities...
> seeing as though with only 41 listed flying right now, and
> already having one damaged plane, it won't take long to
> gather a track record....especially if there are quality
> of work issues, and related to mass production.
>
> To some people, these issues mean nothing. To others, they
> are critical.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
> > --> RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <
> rvbuilder@sausen.net>
> >
> > We are kind of side stepping the real problem. It's not that they are
> > not building 51%, it's how do you prove that they are not doing it for
> > their own education or enjoyment?
> >
> > Yes, it's painfully clear that some of the guys like John Nys and
> > Jessie are doing it at least partially for the financial aspects of
> > resale. The difference is at least Jessie is teaching the people
> > working on it a skill so I think it still meets the intent of the rule.
> > I would like to see them registered out of the US though but that's my
> > opinion. John is a little different story as he is clearly motivated by
> > profit. But there is nothing in that fact that directly violated the
> > rule as long as he is doing it primarily for his education or enjoyment.
> > So how do you prove it?
> >
> > Many people on these lists are repeat offenders and I can guaranty
> > that most of them have sold their original aircraft. I myself may build
> > more aircraft after the -10 because I enjoy the building process. I'm
> > certainly not going to keep more than one aircraft but does that mean I
> > am violating the rule? I don't think so because I am doing it for
> > education and enjoyment and not profit. Will I make a profit? I hope so
> > as I certainly don't want to loose money and it would be nice to get
> > something for my time.
> >
> > Sorry Jessie, not trying to pick on you but the only immediate
> > examples I know of are you and John Nys. Feel free to correct me
> > anywhere above.
> >
> > Now to Van being on this committee. Keep in mind that Van runs a
> > business and I seriously doubt he is on the committee to help curb this
> > activity but rather to find a compromise that won't kill his business.
> > After all Van's Aircraft knows exactly how many kit's they are shipping
> > to the repeat offenders. I did see Van over by Jessie's and the other
> > -10's parked there making notes. What does that mean? Got me, he might
> > have just been a proud papa.
> >
> > I'm not trying to raise any backsides but the outcome of a new rule
> > interpretation won't be good for any of us. The FAA just has no good
> > way to set a precedent without killing a good number of us that really
> > are not financially motivated. We saw this last year with the EpicLT.
> > The FAA tried to interpret the rule to the disadvantage of the builder
> > and lost. And in that case the builder was doing it for himself and not
> > for immediate resale. We need to be careful.
> >
> > I have nothing against someone mass producing kitplanes, just do it
> > out of the country so it doesn't screw up the already fragile laws for
> > the other 99.5% of us.
> >
> > Michael Sausen
> > -10 #352 Fuselage
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
> > McMullen
> > Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 3:25 PM
> >
> > --> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
> >
> > There already is a rule..51%. If you can't prove it, no amateur built
> > certificate is supposed to be issued. The FAA has come down on one or
> > two operations that were building turbine type planes with little
> > owner/builder involvement. Having $150K invested in something the FAA
> > refuses to certify/register should be enforcement enough to discourage
> > pro-built for hire machines.
> >
> > jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
> >> --> RV10-List message posted by: <jim@combsfive.com>
> >>
> >> A couple of possible solutions come to mind:
> >>
> >> (1) The FAA could limit the availability of N numbers to one number
> > every two years (or some other resonable time) and require the person
> > applying for the N-number to be the 51% builder.
> >> (2) Not allow the N-Number to be transferred for some period of time
> > (18 months?) after the initial assignment. The exception being if the
> > builder / owner of the N-number has deceased, this rule would not apply.
> >> Do not archive.
> >>
> >> Jim Combs
> >> N312F
> >> #40192 - Fuselage
> >> ===========================================================
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 39
| 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: | -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
Ah yes, FSDO interpretation. Listen to them as they hold the ruler to
slap your knuckles. Realistically, the RV's never need more than a crew
of one but my point was the rules don't say it can be only one.
Michael
________________________________
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rene Felker
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 11:47 AM
The local FSDO made it very clear to me that my airplane has a required
crew of 1 and only 1 and to not try and use the required crew excuse.
He warned not to get caught trying it.....
Rene' Felker
________________________________
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 10:24 AM
James,
Nothing in the rule says it has to be the builder to fly off the
hours, To the contrary lot's of people hire a "test pilot" to fly off
several of the hours. Another misnomer is that only one person can be
in the aircraft during flyoff but it is actually "required crew".
Michael
________________________________
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:23 AM
I have to ask a question about the "build to order" aircraft: Who's
flying off the 25 hrs? I think it boils down to who it is applying for
the initial airworthiness certificate, is it the "owner"-the guy who
ordered the "build to order" or is it the builder? As it is now, my
interpretation of the 51% rule leads me to believe the owner-builder has
to be the one who makes the original application for the airworthiness
cert and he/she should be the one who flies off the test period hours.
And the initial registration named owner should match to builder-owner
on the airworthiness cert. I think looking at these things would
probably identify those who are violating the 51% rule fairly quickly,
if a "complete" aircraft is sold before the test period is over raises a
real red flag to me. But, what's to limit some guy from building an
airplane, flying off the test period quickly, and then selling the
airplane? Does this "qualify" as a "build to order" shop? I think the
sale of complete RV-10's especially makes it rather lucrative to cheat
the system. Yes, I know I asked about value before, but my motive wasn't
for a quick sale, but to see if future market would support re-couping
my investment should I decide to build/buy something else a few years
down the road.
The Feds can pretty well see who it is that's "building to order". As
quoted somewhere in this thread someone was saying he could turn around
an airplane in three months. That's a major red flag the Feds should be
looking for. A raid on that person's operation may be in order. I think
turning over four or more kit airplanes a year would definitely qualify
a person as a "professional" aircraft builder requiring full conformity
to Part 23 and Part 21. Perhaps that's the solution, only one or two
airworthiness certs can be issued to any one individual unless they hold
or are also applying for a production cert under Part 21 within a year.
As Tim points out, keeping a good builder's log and when asked by
your DAR is your BEST (and probably ONLY) proof that YOU did the work to
put your dream together. Those yayhoos paying some guy to build their
airplane and then telling the Feds they built them is only hurting the
rest of us who want to do it right. What I'm afraid of is the typical
knee-jerk reaction the Feds typically have and we'll end up with a
draconian rule that totally hurts the aviation homebuilder/experimenter.
James K. Hovis
On 7/31/06, Wayne Edgerton <wayne.e@grandecom.net> wrote:
One way that the FAA might possible be able to curb the "build to sell"
crowd would be to put a time line on when a newly built plane could be
sold or owners changed. As an example lets say the plane couldn't be
sold to a new owner until 6 or 12 months after the hours are flown off
or until it has so many hours on it like 300 hours. Then allow a waiver
to this in the case of certain conditions such as death of the builder
or maybe hell freezing over, something along those lines.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
Engine work
do not archive
Message 40
| 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 article!
On 7/31/06, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) <rvbuilder@sausen.net> wrote:
>
> Here is something I ran across from EAA's newsletter:
>
> http://www.airventure.org/2006/frijuly28/51rule.html
>
> Michael
>
Message 41
| 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: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
I would suggest that we want to keep separate the building vs testing.
One may wish to build an airplane and follow **ALL** the rules to the letter
but NOT be confident in flying skills at the moment. No problem getting
someone to fly some or ALL of the test time in my opinion. Actually the
builder does note even have to be a pilot if I recall correctly. So let's
not mix apples and watermelons.
An example:
A local builder built an RV6A some years ago. He and his 2 other partners
flew it for years. One partner dies and the other stops flying so they sell
it clear up the estate matters I think. This builder later decides to build
again so he can fly! He does every last rivet in the plane himself and even
though he was a WWII flight instructor in "Stearman's" and T-6's and a whole
bunch of other stuff, he asks me to help in flying some of his test time. I
was honored to do it for him as although he is in his mid eighties (85+), he
can still fly CIRCLES around me in the RV. He just did not have the time or
energy after (non threatening, elective) surgery of some sorts. He is now
all healed and good to go.
It would have been a BAD thing if this guy would get caught up in something
as proposed.
James
p.s. Please correct me if I mis-interpreted what you were saying.
On 7/31/06, James K Hovis <james.k.hovis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Michael,
> I agree, but if there is going to be a change in the rules then maybe a
> further refinement such as what I allude to could be a good compromise and
> not bring down some draconian rule that hurts guys building now and those of
> us who wish to start in the near future. Something like 80 - 90% of the test
> flight time has to be done by the builder/owner (or one of them in case of a
> partnership). This still allows a poeriod when you hire a free-lance pilot
> for initial tests if you aren't comfortable doing it. Therefore once the
> test period is done, the airplane is an "airplane" in every sense. Actually
> flying your creation is a sure sign to me that you are doing the effort to
> build for your personal education and enjoyment.
>
<<SNIP>>
Message 42
| 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: | -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
That is the true worry. We already have some goofy rules out there
because people take too much liberty with the fuzziness of the regs and,
even worse, each FAA district tends to have their own interpretation of
the regs. As someone who is in the building aspect for my enjoyment, I
would have no problem holding on to an aircraft that I built for a year
past certification date. I couldn't think of a better excuse! "But
honey, I have to go fly it so the engine stays in good condition. It's
not my fault I have to wait a year to sell it." :-)
As for your example below, that's a tough one. My opinion would be that
it can be inspected and certificated as amateur built (it was after all)
but no one would be able to hold the repairman's certificate. We see
projects change hands all the time right up to certification without
much of a problem. This would be an extreme case and I couldn't venture
to guess what the DAR or AB-DAR would say.
Michael
________________________________
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 12:06 PM
Michael,
I agree, but if there is going to be a change in the rules then maybe
a further refinement such as what I allude to could be a good compromise
and not bring down some draconian rule that hurts guys building now and
those of us who wish to start in the near future. Something like 80 -
90% of the test flight time has to be done by the builder/owner (or one
of them in case of a partnership). This still allows a poeriod when you
hire a free-lance pilot for initial tests if you aren't comfortable
doing it. Therefore once the test period is done, the airplane is an
"airplane" in every sense. Actually flying your creation is a sure sign
to me that you are doing the effort to build for your personal education
and enjoyment.
I hope the committee looking at this will agree on a solution that
has the least impact to homebuilding. I think, and as was noted by
others in this discussion, that the current rules can be applied to cure
this problem. I'm just afraid some rule will come down like homebuilders
can no longer sell completed airplanes. If that were to happen, then
when the builder is no longer interested or able to fly his bird or has
passed away, this large investment and asset now becomes nothing more
than scrap metal with about that much value. I'd hope a less onerous
solution will come about.
As a side line, what's your opinion of this scenario: A guy building
an RV that has his DAR inspection scheduled for a few days later
suddenly dies, let's call him Joe Deadguy. Joe's wife sells the
completed and ready to fly airplane to Jerry Builder for a song to get
it out of the hanger at the house in the airpark Joe and wife lived in
and now wife wants to sell. Luckily, Joe kept a very detailed builder's
log. Now, can Jerry complete the DAR inspection and claim he is the
builder since Joe is now dead and Jerry has the bill of sale and the
builder's log from Joe's wife?
JKH
On 7/31/06, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) <rvbuilder@sausen.net> wrote:
James,
Nothing in the rule says it has to be the builder to fly off
the hours, To the contrary lot's of people hire a "test pilot" to fly
off several of the hours. Another misnomer is that only one person can
be in the aircraft during flyoff but it is actually "required crew".
Michael
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:
owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
<mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com> ] On Behalf Of James K
Hovis
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:23 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: -10's for sale in quantity, available
today
I have to ask a question about the "build to order" aircraft:
Who's flying off the 25 hrs? I think it boils down to who it is applying
for the initial airworthiness certificate, is it the "owner"-the guy who
ordered the "build to order" or is it the builder? As it is now, my
interpretation of the 51% rule leads me to believe the owner-builder has
to be the one who makes the original application for the airworthiness
cert and he/she should be the one who flies off the test period hours.
And the initial registration named owner should match to builder-owner
on the airworthiness cert. I think looking at these things would
probably identify those who are violating the 51% rule fairly quickly,
if a "complete" aircraft is sold before the test period is over raises a
real red flag to me. But, what's to limit some guy from building an
airplane, flying off the test period quickly, and then selling the
airplane? Does this "qualify" as a "build to order" shop? I think the
sale of complete RV-10's especially makes it rather lucrative to cheat
the system. Yes, I know I asked about value before, but my motive wasn't
for a quick sale, but to see if future market would support re-couping
my investment should I decide to build/buy something else a few years
down the road.
The Feds can pretty well see who it is that's "building to
order". As quoted somewhere in this thread someone was saying he could
turn around an airplane in three months. That's a major red flag the
Feds should be looking for. A raid on that person's operation may be in
order. I think turning over four or more kit airplanes a year would
definitely qualify a person as a "professional" aircraft builder
requiring full conformity to Part 23 and Part 21. Perhaps that's the
solution, only one or two airworthiness certs can be issued to any one
individual unless they hold or are also applying for a production cert
under Part 21 within a year.
As Tim points out, keeping a good builder's log and when
asked by your DAR is your BEST (and probably ONLY) proof that YOU did
the work to put your dream together. Those yayhoos paying some guy to
build their airplane and then telling the Feds they built them is only
hurting the rest of us who want to do it right. What I'm afraid of is
the typical knee-jerk reaction the Feds typically have and we'll end up
with a draconian rule that totally hurts the aviation
homebuilder/experimenter.
James K. Hovis
On 7/31/06, Wayne Edgerton <wayne.e@grandecom.net > wrote:
One way that the FAA might possible be able to curb the
"build to sell" crowd would be to put a time line on when a newly built
plane could be sold or owners changed. As an example lets say the plane
couldn't be sold to a new owner until 6 or 12 months after the hours are
flown off or until it has so many hours on it like 300 hours. Then allow
a waiver to this in the case of certain conditions such as death of the
builder or maybe hell freezing over, something along those lines.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
Engine work
do not archive
Message 43
| 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 |
|
Do not archive
________________________________
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 1:34 PM
Good article!
On 7/31/06, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) <rvbuilder@sausen.net> wrote:
Here is something I ran across from EAA's newsletter:
http://www.airventure.org/2006/frijuly28/51rule.html
Michael
Message 44
| 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 |
|
Unfortunately they don't have a builder site so we only have various
pictures from the fly-in and what I took when I visit them. Deems
probably had the best picture of it. I know Debbie lurks on this list
from time to time so maybe she can send you some pictures directly.
Michael
do not archive
________________________________
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E.
Capen
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 11:53 AM
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen"
Any links to Jim and Debbie's -10 would be appreciated.
I don't want to mess up my prop with the cowl hinges either....I'm
guessing we're talking about the horizontal row joining the
upper/lower.....
=========================
to
and
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
=========================
=========================
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=========================
===========
Message 45
| 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 |
|
Thanks! Allen already has another builder, forgot what kind, that
wants the same color. I'm happy with it and they had a lot of
compliments at the both from what I heard and I had several in person.
BPE does some very nice work!
Michael
do not archive
________________________________
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
GRANSCOTT@aol.com
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 11:52 AM
Michael,
NICE engine!!!
Patrick
Message 46
| 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: OSH Engine Info - Mistral and V330 + yet another OSH engine |
summary
--> RV10-List message posted by: Eric Panning <ericmpmail-rv10@yahoo.com>
Mistral:
All injected Mazda's use dual injectors. The smaller
injector is for idle to mid-power. The secondary comes
on for higher power. Reason for two is single injector
does not have the dynamic range for idle to full
power. Downside, is if you loose one, the other cannot
take up the slack as duty cycles above 80%. The other
reason for two injectors per rotor is there are two
side intakes per rotor.
Dual ignition is also stock Mazda. The leading plug
does the majority of the work and the trailing plug is
mostly for emissions (it is shielded). If you set
timing equal for power, it is still not a full backup
due to the shielded spark and location.
2 rotors with turbo charging is not as attractive as 3
rotors and no-turbo charging. Normally aspirated
3-rotor block weight is ~ 240 lbs and with accessories
should be comparable to IO-540 for ~ 230-250 HP.
Rotary exhaust is ~ 1700+ deg and is very hard on
turbo's. Car systems use massive cast iron manifolds
to manage heat.
V330: This is the rotax water cooled engine spin off.
I may have the name wrong. Talked with them for
awhile, they are focusing on OEM applications and
won't look at experimental market for 4-5 years. For
RV-10, V330 and V220 engines (non turbo charged) are
going to be too heavy as weight is ~500+ without
exhaust, cooling, etc. Price is more than 50k and less
than 100k. (Didn't disagree when I said 80k).
BSFC a respectable 0.445
For 80k you could build up the world's best IO-540
with full FADEC, flow matched, dyno tested, etc. and
still have 10's of thousands for avgas....
Eggenfellner and H6: I looked at H6 for RV-10
previously, but did not see Jan's talk. Max HP is near
lower range of RV-10 requirement. Supercharger's tend
to lower efficiency than turbo. Both would require
aggressive intercooling for an H-6 as stock compresion
ratio is ~ 10.5:1. By most measures, this is not a
good candiate engine for turbo charging and I believe
subaru has also never turbocharged it. Better target
would be their low compression 4-cylinders.
After further review, my OSH assessment is:
- Want to fly in 2006? Lycoming new or rebuilt
- Willing to wait to 2007? ECi IO-540 clone or
Superior XP-540 might be options.
- Do it yourself: Mazda 3-rotor conversion with Tracy
drive and controller, Conversion concepts mount and ~
14K (3K engine, 1.2 rebuild, 2.8 drive, 1.8
controller, 1.7 mount, 3 intake/exhaust/rad)
- Hanger flying: Innodyn, Eggenfellner, Mistral, etc.
Reason for hanger flying for some of those packages is
although they might work, the cost to benefit ratio is
not compelling (IMHO).
Eric
Message 47
| 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: Cowl vs MT prop |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
There are several pics of their plane in this folder:
http://deemsrv10.com/album/OSHKOSH%202006/index.html
the beginning (grey/beigh interior) shots are of their plane and then
after the red plane shots (Vic's) theres some others.
Deems Davis # 406
Fuse
http://deemsrv10.com/
Ralph E. Capen wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen"
> Any links to Jim and Debbie's -10 would be appreciated.
>
> I don't want to mess up my prop with the cowl hinges either....I'm
> guessing we're talking about the horizontal row joining the
> upper/lower.....
> < ="==================================="
> Navigator?RV10-List="=================================================-Matt"
> www.matronics.com http: much and Photoshare, Navigator Features>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Message 48
| 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: | -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
Isn't the point of the 51% rule for the sole purpose of who does the
maintenance on the plane? I build a plane for the enjoyment and because
I can't otherwise afford to own my own plane. That said, if I were in a
position to afford to have someone else build it and maintain it after
then so be it. With the van's line of aircraft you get a superior
airframe and an excellent safety record. As long as the buyer is willing
to pay for the services what difference does it make to me when I build
my own? Just a thought.
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 11:15 AM
Pascal,
Interesting. How much of the 51% of aircraft assembly under the
rules can a builder farm-out? You are basically farming out a portion of
the assembly to the kit company by buying a quick build kit. But, in the
case of Van's, there's an agreement between the kit company and the FAA
that the 51% rule isn't violated by the QB kits. But what's used as a
"standard"? Is the bending of metal count towards the total time too?
JKH
On 7/31/06, Pascal <pascalreid@verizon.net> wrote:
This "build to order" example has to have a helper IMHO. Is his "helper"
listed as a co-builder?
Not if the "builder" hires a few guys from the local Home depot parking
lot, or maybe even the super QB from the Phillipines. I figure you buy
all 4 kits at once and have everyone work on the kits at the same time
it will be 4 times faster and can be done rather quickly.
----- Original Message -----
From: James K Hovis <mailto:james.k.hovis@gmail.com>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 7:08 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: -10's for sale in quantity, available
today
Could be. But I'm looking more at the quote from someone on
this list saying a guy at OSH quoted a three-month turn around from kit
to complete airplane. Assuming using a QB RV-10, I think 1200 hrs of
construction time for the average builder. Now assume the "build to
order" guy has some experience and can build in 800 hrs, he's getting
close to a three month build, but that's working 60 hrs a week. I guess
retired folks or those who do this work full time can devote that kind
of effort, but I seriously doubt it. This "build to order" example has
to have a helper IMHO. Is his "helper" listed as a co-builder? This
leads me to a side bar, if I can con my Dad into helping or partnering
me on an RV-10 project, I can cut my build time quite a bit. He's a
retired aircraft assembler with 35 years experience banging rivets.
JKH
On 7/31/06, GRANSCOTT@aol.com < GRANSCOTT@aol.com
<mailto:GRANSCOTT@aol.com> > wrote:
Do you think the question of the 51% rule is for the RV crowd or
some of the overseas kits where one shows up for a "builder" session
then less than 2 weeks later the completed kit ships to the US with all
the paperwork saying the "owner" has completed the 51% rule?
Patrick
Message 49
| 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: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
I don't think you mis-interpreted me at all. I'm sure there are those out
there who enjoy the building and not the flying part of the homebuilding
hobby kind of like it is in another hobby I'm involved in. But it does seem
to me that flying your creation goes a long way to showing you aren't doing
it for profit. However, there are always exceptions to the rule and there is
a waiver process that could help in situations like you cite. What I hate
more is this has to be discussed at all because a few bad apples stretching
the rules.
JKH
On 7/31/06, James Clark <jclarkmail@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would suggest that we want to keep separate the building vs testing.
>
> One may wish to build an airplane and follow **ALL** the rules to the
> letter but NOT be confident in flying skills at the moment. No problem
> getting someone to fly some or ALL of the test time in my opinion. Actually
> the builder does note even have to be a pilot if I recall correctly. So
> let's not mix apples and watermelons.
>
> An example:
>
> A local builder built an RV6A some years ago. He and his 2 other partners
> flew it for years. One partner dies and the other stops flying so they sell
> it clear up the estate matters I think. This builder later decides to build
> again so he can fly! He does every last rivet in the plane himself and even
> though he was a WWII flight instructor in "Stearman's" and T-6's and a whole
> bunch of other stuff, he asks me to help in flying some of his test time. I
> was honored to do it for him as although he is in his mid eighties (85+), he
> can still fly CIRCLES around me in the RV. He just did not have the time or
> energy after (non threatening, elective) surgery of some sorts. He is now
> all healed and good to go.
>
> It would have been a BAD thing if this guy would get caught up in
> something as proposed.
>
> James
>
> p.s. Please correct me if I mis-interpreted what you were saying.
>
>
> On 7/31/06, James K Hovis <james.k.hovis@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Michael,
> > I agree, but if there is going to be a change in the rules then maybe
> > a further refinement such as what I allude to could be a good compromise and
> > not bring down some draconian rule that hurts guys building now and those of
> > us who wish to start in the near future. Something like 80 - 90% of the test
> > flight time has to be done by the builder/owner (or one of them in case of
a
> > partnership). This still allows a poeriod when you hire a free-lance pilot
> > for initial tests if you aren't comfortable doing it. Therefore once the
> > test period is done, the airplane is an "airplane" in every sense. Actually
> > flying your creation is a sure sign to me that you are doing the effort to
> > build for your personal education and enjoyment.
> >
>
>
> <<SNIP>>
>
>
Message 50
| 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: | Cowl vs MT prop (Jim & Debbie lurking?) |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
Message 51
| 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: | RV-10 Quality @ OSH -w/ appoligies to John Cox |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Vern W. Smith" <Vern@teclabsinc.com>
Michael,
Thanks for the pictures they sum up the discussion well. I guess the old
saying holds true "If you don't have time to do it right the first time,
when are you going to have time to do it again?"
On a lighter note my fuel tanks and control surfaces are done:) I'm
trying to decide wither to finish the bottom wing skins or jump into the
fuselage and leave the wings open until later for easy of wiring and
autopilot installation. Any thoughts guys?
Vern (#40324)
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:27 AM
Let me just put some pictures to these statements. Some items are
bubble wrap for a heat shield, beat to hell skins, some finish work that
would make an amateur blush, rusted door hinges, paint bubbling from
rust on steps, screws falling out and fairings improperly fitted and
falling off. Of course pictures don't show the detail but you get the
idea.
Michael
Do not archive
Message 52
| 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: | RV 10 Mike Seager training at (1m5) |
Mike Saeger will be in Portland,Tn (1M5) 50 miles north of Nashville,Tn
Sept 13,14,15..He will be giving
flight training in the factory RV-10..The cost is $155.00 per Hr.If you
are interested in flying with Mike,
please E-Mail me at (rv6@earthlink.net) or call me at 615-452-8742..When
I get a feel for who is interested
I will set up a schedule to accommodate you..First come first serve!!
There is a Motel in Franklin,Ky $98.00 nite,270-598-8001 Hampton Inn..
John McMahon (RV6
180/CS) Flying
Gallatin,Tn
Message 53
| 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 |
|
Thought it was worth archiving. ;-P hehe
see below.....
________________________________
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 12:41 PM
Do not archive
________________________________
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 1:34 PM
Good article!
On 7/31/06, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) <rvbuilder@sausen.net> wrote:
Here is something I ran across from EAA's newsletter:
http://www.airventure.org/2006/frijuly28/51rule.html
Michael
Message 54
| 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: | OSH Engine Info - Mistral and V330 + yet another OSH engine |
summary
--> RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Looks like we have our Wankle expert for the list! SWEET!
Michael
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric Panning
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 12:49 PM
OSH engine summary
--> RV10-List message posted by: Eric Panning
--> <ericmpmail-rv10@yahoo.com>
Mistral:
All injected Mazda's use dual injectors. The smaller injector is for
idle to mid-power. The secondary comes on for higher power. Reason for
two is single injector does not have the dynamic range for idle to full
power. Downside, is if you loose one, the other cannot take up the slack
as duty cycles above 80%. The other reason for two injectors per rotor
is there are two side intakes per rotor.
Dual ignition is also stock Mazda. The leading plug does the majority of
the work and the trailing plug is mostly for emissions (it is shielded).
If you set timing equal for power, it is still not a full backup due to
the shielded spark and location.
2 rotors with turbo charging is not as attractive as 3 rotors and
no-turbo charging. Normally aspirated 3-rotor block weight is ~ 240 lbs
and with accessories should be comparable to IO-540 for ~ 230-250 HP.
Rotary exhaust is ~ 1700+ deg and is very hard on turbo's. Car systems
use massive cast iron manifolds to manage heat.
V330: This is the rotax water cooled engine spin off.
I may have the name wrong. Talked with them for awhile, they are
focusing on OEM applications and won't look at experimental market for
4-5 years. For RV-10, V330 and V220 engines (non turbo charged) are
going to be too heavy as weight is ~500+ without exhaust, cooling, etc.
Price is more than 50k and less than 100k. (Didn't disagree when I said
80k).
BSFC a respectable 0.445
For 80k you could build up the world's best IO-540 with full FADEC, flow
matched, dyno tested, etc. and still have 10's of thousands for
avgas....
Eggenfellner and H6: I looked at H6 for RV-10 previously, but did not
see Jan's talk. Max HP is near lower range of RV-10 requirement.
Supercharger's tend to lower efficiency than turbo. Both would require
aggressive intercooling for an H-6 as stock compresion ratio is ~
10.5:1. By most measures, this is not a good candiate engine for turbo
charging and I believe subaru has also never turbocharged it. Better
target would be their low compression 4-cylinders.
After further review, my OSH assessment is:
- Want to fly in 2006? Lycoming new or rebuilt
- Willing to wait to 2007? ECi IO-540 clone or Superior XP-540 might be
options.
- Do it yourself: Mazda 3-rotor conversion with Tracy drive and
controller, Conversion concepts mount and ~ 14K (3K engine, 1.2 rebuild,
2.8 drive, 1.8 controller, 1.7 mount, 3 intake/exhaust/rad)
- Hanger flying: Innodyn, Eggenfellner, Mistral, etc.
Reason for hanger flying for some of those packages is although they
might work, the cost to benefit ratio is not compelling (IMHO).
Eric
Message 55
| 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: | 3 bld prop & lower cowl tip |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
Message 56
| 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: | RV-10 Quality @ OSH -w/ appoligies to John Cox |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Tough one. Might be better to leave the skins open but you will hate
going back to it later. Pretty mindless riveting in the wings.
Something I want to say about the bubble wrap and HVAC tape comment I
had, in reading some of the 500 or so emails I had waiting for me today
(I did go straight for this list though) I also found that the bubble
wrap and tape is only temporary to test the theory of insulating. The
owner plans to replace it with a SS heat shield. Doesn't make up for
the rest of the quality but to each his own. One of the things John
Forsling is going to do to my pipes is add a 30 degree or so downturn
right at the end. This should make a good dent in noise and heat.
With all this talk about quality I can say nothing stood out that
screams fall out of the sky. Structurally speaking I think all of the
aircraft were probably sound even if they were fugly. :D At least I
hope so or we are going to be facing a insurance crisis on par with the
Lancairs in the past.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vern W. Smith
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 1:28 PM
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Vern W. Smith" <Vern@teclabsinc.com>
Michael,
Thanks for the pictures they sum up the discussion well. I guess the old
saying holds true "If you don't have time to do it right the first time,
when are you going to have time to do it again?"
On a lighter note my fuel tanks and control surfaces are done:) I'm
trying to decide wither to finish the bottom wing skins or jump into the
fuselage and leave the wings open until later for easy of wiring and
autopilot installation. Any thoughts guys?
Vern (#40324)
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:27 AM
Let me just put some pictures to these statements. Some items are
bubble wrap for a heat shield, beat to hell skins, some finish work that
would make an amateur blush, rusted door hinges, paint bubbling from
rust on steps, screws falling out and fairings improperly fitted and
falling off. Of course pictures don't show the detail but you get the
idea.
Michael
Do not archive
Message 57
| 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: | RV-10 Quality @ OSH -w/ appoligies to John Cox |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Rene Felker" <rene@felker.com>
I waited on the bottom wing skins and don't think it helped much. I have
conduit in the wings for wire. I found riveting the bottom skin a real
pain........if I did it again, I would not put it off. Get the wings done
and out of the way...
Rene' Felker
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vern W. Smith
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 12:28 PM
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Vern W. Smith" <Vern@teclabsinc.com>
Michael,
Thanks for the pictures they sum up the discussion well. I guess the old
saying holds true "If you don't have time to do it right the first time,
when are you going to have time to do it again?"
On a lighter note my fuel tanks and control surfaces are done:) I'm
trying to decide wither to finish the bottom wing skins or jump into the
fuselage and leave the wings open until later for easy of wiring and
autopilot installation. Any thoughts guys?
Vern (#40324)
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:27 AM
Let me just put some pictures to these statements. Some items are
bubble wrap for a heat shield, beat to hell skins, some finish work that
would make an amateur blush, rusted door hinges, paint bubbling from
rust on steps, screws falling out and fairings improperly fitted and
falling off. Of course pictures don't show the detail but you get the
idea.
Michael
Do not archive
Message 58
| 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: | -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
Actually no. The purpose of the 51% rule is about defining 51% of the
tasks to be completed by someone other than the kit manufacturer for an
experimental kit. Notice I said tasks, it's not necessarily 51% of the
construction as some things such as painting are usually considered
exempt. The rule also goes on to define what is acceptable under the
experimental certification and production is not one of them.
For the repairman's certificate it is more about being geared to the
one person that did the majority of the work but again is open to
interpretation by the FAA. There are plenty examples of 2, 3, or even 5
guys getting together to build an airplane but only one can apply for
the repairman's certificate. Again, notice I said apply for it, it
isn't something automatically granted to the builder, you need to
request it. If 5 guys equally perform 51% of the tasks no one person
would have performed more than 10.2% of the actual work but any one of
them could still get the repairman's certificate.
Or at least that is how it's always been 'splained to me.
Michael
________________________________
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Schroeder,
Bob (Parts Clerk)
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 12:50 PM
Isn't the point of the 51% rule for the sole purpose of who does the
maintenance on the plane? I build a plane for the enjoyment and because
I can't otherwise afford to own my own plane. That said, if I were in a
position to afford to have someone else build it and maintain it after
then so be it. With the van's line of aircraft you get a superior
airframe and an excellent safety record. As long as the buyer is willing
to pay for the services what difference does it make to me when I build
my own? Just a thought.
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 11:15 AM
Pascal,
Interesting. How much of the 51% of aircraft assembly under the
rules can a builder farm-out? You are basically farming out a portion of
the assembly to the kit company by buying a quick build kit. But, in the
case of Van's, there's an agreement between the kit company and the FAA
that the 51% rule isn't violated by the QB kits. But what's used as a
"standard"? Is the bending of metal count towards the total time too?
JKH
On 7/31/06, Pascal <pascalreid@verizon.net> wrote:
This "build to order" example has to have a helper IMHO. Is his "helper"
listed as a co-builder?
Not if the "builder" hires a few guys from the local Home depot parking
lot, or maybe even the super QB from the Phillipines. I figure you buy
all 4 kits at once and have everyone work on the kits at the same time
it will be 4 times faster and can be done rather quickly.
----- Original Message -----
From: James K Hovis <mailto:james.k.hovis@gmail.com>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 7:08 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: -10's for sale in quantity, available
today
Could be. But I'm looking more at the quote from someone on
this list saying a guy at OSH quoted a three-month turn around from kit
to complete airplane. Assuming using a QB RV-10, I think 1200 hrs of
construction time for the average builder. Now assume the "build to
order" guy has some experience and can build in 800 hrs, he's getting
close to a three month build, but that's working 60 hrs a week. I guess
retired folks or those who do this work full time can devote that kind
of effort, but I seriously doubt it. This "build to order" example has
to have a helper IMHO. Is his "helper" listed as a co-builder? This
leads me to a side bar, if I can con my Dad into helping or partnering
me on an RV-10 project, I can cut my build time quite a bit. He's a
retired aircraft assembler with 35 years experience banging rivets.
JKH
On 7/31/06, GRANSCOTT@aol.com < GRANSCOTT@aol.com
<mailto:GRANSCOTT@aol.com> > wrote:
Do you think the question of the 51% rule is for the RV crowd or
some of the overseas kits where one shows up for a "builder" session
then less than 2 weeks later the completed kit ships to the US with all
the paperwork saying the "owner" has completed the 51% rule?
Patrick
Message 59
| 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: | -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
Michael, what does someone do that had no hand in the building of the
aircraft and purchased it second hand. The people that built it are no
where to be found. It was 'splained to me that in order to even qualify
as the repairman for a particular experimental aircraft that (he,she)
needs to be able to document 51% of the build. If on the other hand I
just have lots of money and don't care if the local FBO rakes me over
the coals to work on my "experimental aircraft" then why would anyone
care except for the people involved? It seems to me that some people are
upset because someone else can do something that they cannot do (jealous
or some other feeling) so lets put a spot light on the situation. If
someone can sell their RV-10 for 300 G, go for it. It just makes the
market better for those that may want sell theirs later? It seems to me.
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 1:30 PM
Actually no. The purpose of the 51% rule is about defining 51% of the
tasks to be completed by someone other than the kit manufacturer for an
experimental kit. Notice I said tasks, it's not necessarily 51% of the
construction as some things such as painting are usually considered
exempt. The rule also goes on to define what is acceptable under the
experimental certification and production is not one of them.
For the repairman's certificate it is more about being geared to the
one person that did the majority of the work but again is open to
interpretation by the FAA. There are plenty examples of 2, 3, or even 5
guys getting together to build an airplane but only one can apply for
the repairman's certificate. Again, notice I said apply for it, it
isn't something automatically granted to the builder, you need to
request it. If 5 guys equally perform 51% of the tasks no one person
would have performed more than 10.2% of the actual work but any one of
them could still get the repairman's certificate.
Or at least that is how it's always been 'splained to me.
Michael
_____
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Schroeder,
Bob (Parts Clerk)
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 12:50 PM
Isn't the point of the 51% rule for the sole purpose of who does the
maintenance on the plane? I build a plane for the enjoyment and because
I can't otherwise afford to own my own plane. That said, if I were in a
position to afford to have someone else build it and maintain it after
then so be it. With the van's line of aircraft you get a superior
airframe and an excellent safety record. As long as the buyer is willing
to pay for the services what difference does it make to me when I build
my own? Just a thought.
Message 60
| 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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
Did they have the Dyno reports and fuel flow proof that you have asked
for from others?
Dan Lloyd
40269 (N289DT)
Tongue in cheek comment
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 11:01 AM
--> RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
<rvbuilder@sausen.net>
One thing I will add about the Mistral is that they did tell me that the
smaller two rotor engines are available now and their current goal is
certification. Three rotor model was probably next year. YMMV. The
smaller two rotor turbocharged 230HP would probably be a good fit for
the -10.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of bcondrey
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:15 PM
--> RV10-List message posted by: "bcondrey" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
As I noted in a prior post there really is very little here in the way
of engine news. Several people have expressed interest in pictures so
I've attached a collection.
At the risk of repeating myself, here are a few comments about what I've
seen so far.
EMag/PMag: Hoping to flight test 6 cylinder version in the spring and
have them at OSH next year. No other info available but they appear to
be getting tired of being asked about it.
Mistral: Engines look good but no real delivery info. Big thing they
were pushing is that each cylinder has dual injectors "in case one
fails". Pictures attached of both models along with their rotor
display.
Innodyne: Don't even have their own booth this year - they seem to be
doubled up with one of the bush plane kit manufacturers. Picture
attached of their entire display along with a closeup of the nose
section of the engine with rust on the prop flange.
Deltahawk: They are displaying inside and talking about deliveries "next
year". No picture attached.
Suburu: Only engine is the one in the demo plane. I asked about the
RV-10 setup and they said "next year". Picture attached of their
display space.
I also took a picture of yet another possibility but you might have to
extend the cowl a bit. Engine is compression ignition and generates 350
HP.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=50201#50201
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/alt_eng_718.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/innodyne_2_113.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/innodyne_1_168.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/egg_378.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/mistral_4_762.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/mistral_3_171.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/mistral_2_152.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/mistral_1_211.jpg
Message 61
| 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: Tunnel Temps |
Thanks for the info.
Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: Russell Daves
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 2:18 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tunnel Temps
Used Super Soundproofing Thermal Aluminum faced fire retardant foil
one side insulator blanket from "The Super Soundproofing Company"
http://www.soundproofing.org/cgi-bin/cart.pl?
I bought six feet and had enough.
I also bought twelve feet of 1/2" soundproofing for the floors and
side panels from Wicks
http://www.wicksaircraft.com/catalog/product_search_results.php/search=
c3AtNTAw
Russ Daves
40044 - N710RV Flying
----- Original Message -----
From: KiloPapa
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 12:55 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tunnel Temps
Russ,
What kind of foil faced insulation did you use? What was the actual
insulating material? Where did you buy it?
Thanks,
Kevin
40494
Message 62
| 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: OSH Engine Info - Mistral and V330 + yet another OSH engine |
summary
--> RV10-List message posted by: "KiloPapa" <kilopapa@antelecom.net>
Nice technical information and assessment.
Kevin
40494
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 10:48 AM
engine summary
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Eric Panning <ericmpmail-rv10@yahoo.com>
>
> Mistral:
> All injected Mazda's use dual injectors. The smaller
> injector is for idle to mid-power. The secondary comes
> on for higher power. Reason for two is single injector
> does not have the dynamic range for idle to full
> power. Downside, is if you loose one, the other cannot
> take up the slack as duty cycles above 80%. The other
> reason for two injectors per rotor is there are two
> side intakes per rotor.
>
> Dual ignition is also stock Mazda. The leading plug
> does the majority of the work and the trailing plug is
> mostly for emissions (it is shielded). If you set
> timing equal for power, it is still not a full backup
> due to the shielded spark and location.
>
> 2 rotors with turbo charging is not as attractive as 3
> rotors and no-turbo charging. Normally aspirated
> 3-rotor block weight is ~ 240 lbs and with accessories
> should be comparable to IO-540 for ~ 230-250 HP.
> Rotary exhaust is ~ 1700+ deg and is very hard on
> turbo's. Car systems use massive cast iron manifolds
> to manage heat.
>
> V330: This is the rotax water cooled engine spin off.
> I may have the name wrong. Talked with them for
> awhile, they are focusing on OEM applications and
> won't look at experimental market for 4-5 years. For
> RV-10, V330 and V220 engines (non turbo charged) are
> going to be too heavy as weight is ~500+ without
> exhaust, cooling, etc. Price is more than 50k and less
> than 100k. (Didn't disagree when I said 80k).
> BSFC a respectable 0.445
>
> For 80k you could build up the world's best IO-540
> with full FADEC, flow matched, dyno tested, etc. and
> still have 10's of thousands for avgas....
>
> Eggenfellner and H6: I looked at H6 for RV-10
> previously, but did not see Jan's talk. Max HP is near
> lower range of RV-10 requirement. Supercharger's tend
> to lower efficiency than turbo. Both would require
> aggressive intercooling for an H-6 as stock compresion
> ratio is ~ 10.5:1. By most measures, this is not a
> good candiate engine for turbo charging and I believe
> subaru has also never turbocharged it. Better target
> would be their low compression 4-cylinders.
>
> After further review, my OSH assessment is:
>
> - Want to fly in 2006? Lycoming new or rebuilt
> - Willing to wait to 2007? ECi IO-540 clone or
> Superior XP-540 might be options.
> - Do it yourself: Mazda 3-rotor conversion with Tracy
> drive and controller, Conversion concepts mount and ~
> 14K (3K engine, 1.2 rebuild, 2.8 drive, 1.8
> controller, 1.7 mount, 3 intake/exhaust/rad)
> - Hanger flying: Innodyn, Eggenfellner, Mistral, etc.
>
> Reason for hanger flying for some of those packages is
> although they might work, the cost to benefit ratio is
> not compelling (IMHO).
>
> Eric
>
>
>
Message 63
| 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: | Anyone read AC's Gear of the year? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
If anyone reads Aviation Consumer and could shoot me
the latest article on the Gear of the Year EFIS stuff,
I'd appreciate it.
I just read this today in a newsletter, and want to
see more:
"Chelton Flight Systems: Gear of the Year 2006 EFIS Display
According to Paul Bertorelli, Editor of Aviation Consumer, the Chelton
EFIS has been named "Gear of the Year 2006" EFIS Display. Aviation
Consumer has published several articles recently comparing Garmin,
Avidyne and Chelton's EFIS. The July 2006 edition states: "if any OEM
offered new airplane customers the choice of all three systems - Garmin,
Avidyne and Chelton - a significant number would pick the Chelton. We
think its display logic and design is the best of the three by a
significant margin." In a follow-on article, they note that the Chelton
EFIS "gives the pilot a direct visual representation of position rather
than relying on an electrical abstraction of steam gauges, as the Garmin
and Avidyne do.""
--
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Message 64
| 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: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I think all that the buyer would need to do is have a real
A&P do all of the work on the airplane. It would still be
an experimental just the same. For someone who's not
planning to take advantage of the repairman certificate
though, it's really losing value if you don't get it. There
comes a point where it then makes more sense just to buy
a used Bonanza or something. Getting an A&P to work on
the RV-10 may be tough depending on who's in your area.
I'm not saying they wouldn't, but there are probably a
number of A&P's who don't want to touch experimentals, lest
they be responsible....after all, they do have a statistically
higher fatal rate.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Schroeder, Bob (Parts Clerk) wrote:
> Michael, what does someone do that had no hand in the building of the
> aircraft and purchased it second hand. The people that built it are no
> where to be found. It was splained to me that in order to even qualify
> as the repairman for a particular experimental aircraft that (he,she)
> needs to be able to document 51% of the build. If on the other hand I
> just have lots of money and dont care if the local FBO rakes me over
> the coals to work on my experimental aircraft then why would anyone
> care except for the people involved? It seems to me that some people are
> upset because someone else can do something that they cannot do (jealous
> or some other feeling) so lets put a spot light on the situation. If
> someone can sell their RV-10 for 300 G, go for it. It just makes the
> market better for those that may want sell theirs later? It seems to me.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *RV Builder
> (Michael Sausen)
> *Sent:* Monday, July 31, 2006 1:30 PM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: -10's for sale in quantity, available today
>
>
>
>
>
> Actually no. The purpose of the 51% rule is about defining 51% of the
> tasks to be completed by someone other than the kit manufacturer for an
> experimental kit. Notice I said tasks, it's not necessarily 51% of the
> construction as some things such as painting are usually considered
> exempt. The rule also goes on to define what is acceptable under the
> experimental certification and production is not one of them.
>
>
>
> For the repairman's certificate it is more about being geared to the
> one person that did the majority of the work but again is open to
> interpretation by the FAA. There are plenty examples of 2, 3, or even 5
> guys getting together to build an airplane but only one can apply for
> the repairman's certificate. Again, notice I said apply for it, it
> isn't something automatically granted to the builder, you need to
> request it. If 5 guys equally perform 51% of the tasks no one person
> would have performed more than 10.2% of the actual work but any one of
> them could still get the repairman's certificate.
>
>
>
> Or at least that is how it's always been 'splained to me.
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Schroeder,
> Bob (Parts Clerk)
> *Sent:* Monday, July 31, 2006 12:50 PM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: -10's for sale in quantity, available today
>
> Isnt the point of the 51% rule for the sole purpose of who does the
> maintenance on the plane? I build a plane for the enjoyment and because
> I cant otherwise afford to own my own plane. That said, if I were in a
> position to afford to have someone else build it and maintain it after
> then so be it. With the vans line of aircraft you get a superior
> airframe and an excellent safety record. As long as the buyer is willing
> to pay for the services what difference does it make to me when I build
> my own? Just a thought.
>
>
>
>
>
Message 65
| 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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Dunno, already paid for my engine so I was just collecting data for
the other guys. :-)
One thing to note as long as this came back up is Mistral has no FWF
for a -10.
Stopped by the campsite a couple times but kept missing you. Should
have swapped numbers, next year we will just have to double up on the
drinking!
Michael
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel
R.
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 3:07 PM
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Lloyd, Daniel R."
--> <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
Did they have the Dyno reports and fuel flow proof that you have asked
for from others?
Dan Lloyd
40269 (N289DT)
Tongue in cheek comment
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 11:01 AM
--> RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
<rvbuilder@sausen.net>
One thing I will add about the Mistral is that they did tell me that the
smaller two rotor engines are available now and their current goal is
certification. Three rotor model was probably next year. YMMV. The
smaller two rotor turbocharged 230HP would probably be a good fit for
the -10.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of bcondrey
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:15 PM
--> RV10-List message posted by: "bcondrey" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
As I noted in a prior post there really is very little here in the way
of engine news. Several people have expressed interest in pictures so
I've attached a collection.
At the risk of repeating myself, here are a few comments about what I've
seen so far.
EMag/PMag: Hoping to flight test 6 cylinder version in the spring and
have them at OSH next year. No other info available but they appear to
be getting tired of being asked about it.
Mistral: Engines look good but no real delivery info. Big thing they
were pushing is that each cylinder has dual injectors "in case one
fails". Pictures attached of both models along with their rotor
display.
Innodyne: Don't even have their own booth this year - they seem to be
doubled up with one of the bush plane kit manufacturers. Picture
attached of their entire display along with a closeup of the nose
section of the engine with rust on the prop flange.
Deltahawk: They are displaying inside and talking about deliveries "next
year". No picture attached.
Suburu: Only engine is the one in the demo plane. I asked about the
RV-10 setup and they said "next year". Picture attached of their
display space.
I also took a picture of yet another possibility but you might have to
extend the cowl a bit. Engine is compression ignition and generates 350
HP.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=50201#50201
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/alt_eng_718.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/innodyne_2_113.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/innodyne_1_168.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/egg_378.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/mistral_4_762.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/mistral_3_171.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/mistral_2_152.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/mistral_1_211.jpg
Message 66
| 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: | -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
My concerns with the whole building for profit thing is a couple fold.
If the quality of these mass produced -10's are low, the fleet value
will be forced down. So far it appears to be running 50/50 for the
quality of "for sale" -10's. You can fairly quickly tell who are doing
it for profit by the quality of the end product. Take John Stewart's or
Jessie's -10's for instance. They are good quality and look very nice.
While others that are shoved out the door also look like they were.
Another factor is the "personal" factor that someone has with something
they built. They will usually take better care of it and keep it
looking nice which will also help the fleet prices in the long run.
The other thing I am worried about is the insurance aspect. If
quality goes way down and we start seeing accidents for whatever reason,
we will either have a serious problem getting insurance or we can
completely forget it.
There are ton's of examples out there of 2 or more guys that build an
aircraft and one of them receives the repairman's certificate so YMMV
with the local MIDO/FSDO (can't remember which gives that out) but it
happens often. For the people that buy a homebuilt they just loose that
advantage and have to revert to the local A&P just like the rest of the
production certified fleet. If you have a fairly stock aircraft it
won't be a problem but buy something with an auto conversion or lot's of
mods and you might have some difficulties. Of course if the original
holder of the repairman's certificate is around he can always do the
condition inspection for the new owner.
Michael
________________________________
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Schroeder,
Bob (Parts Clerk)
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 3:15 PM
Michael, what does someone do that had no hand in the building of the
aircraft and purchased it second hand. The people that built it are no
where to be found. It was 'splained to me that in order to even qualify
as the repairman for a particular experimental aircraft that (he,she)
needs to be able to document 51% of the build. If on the other hand I
just have lots of money and don't care if the local FBO rakes me over
the coals to work on my "experimental aircraft" then why would anyone
care except for the people involved? It seems to me that some people are
upset because someone else can do something that they cannot do (jealous
or some other feeling) so lets put a spot light on the situation. If
someone can sell their RV-10 for 300 G, go for it. It just makes the
market better for those that may want sell theirs later? It seems to me.
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 1:30 PM
Actually no. The purpose of the 51% rule is about defining 51% of the
tasks to be completed by someone other than the kit manufacturer for an
experimental kit. Notice I said tasks, it's not necessarily 51% of the
construction as some things such as painting are usually considered
exempt. The rule also goes on to define what is acceptable under the
experimental certification and production is not one of them.
For the repairman's certificate it is more about being geared to the
one person that did the majority of the work but again is open to
interpretation by the FAA. There are plenty examples of 2, 3, or even 5
guys getting together to build an airplane but only one can apply for
the repairman's certificate. Again, notice I said apply for it, it
isn't something automatically granted to the builder, you need to
request it. If 5 guys equally perform 51% of the tasks no one person
would have performed more than 10.2% of the actual work but any one of
them could still get the repairman's certificate.
Or at least that is how it's always been 'splained to me.
Michael
________________________________
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Schroeder,
Bob (Parts Clerk)
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 12:50 PM
Isn't the point of the 51% rule for the sole purpose of who does the
maintenance on the plane? I build a plane for the enjoyment and because
I can't otherwise afford to own my own plane. That said, if I were in a
position to afford to have someone else build it and maintain it after
then so be it. With the van's line of aircraft you get a superior
airframe and an excellent safety record. As long as the buyer is willing
to pay for the services what difference does it make to me when I build
my own? Just a thought.
Message 67
| 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: Anyone read AC's Gear of the year? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
Directly copied from the artical. That is the full extent of their mention.
Best EFIS Display:
Chelton Flight Logic
Not too long after our eyeballs had been rolled around by EFIS
displays for the umpteenth time, we realized something: All they do is
present a pretty picture of conventional flight instruments. Hey, it?s
2006. Shouldn?t there be a better way?
Chelton thinks so and it delivers in its FlightLogic EFIS system,
which we think has the most practical, imaginative and innovative
display design of all the EFIS systems we have seen. The FlightLogic
was born of military ethos and is thus rich with aircraft path and
vector information and a unique three-dimensional feel that makes the
other systems look like cardboard cutouts.
Although its screens are on the small side, we found the FlightLogic
easy to master and?this is the best part?really fun to use. The screen
has a constant, dynamic flow of information that?s engaging and
useful. Check out Chelton at www.chelton.com/.
Quoting Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> If anyone reads Aviation Consumer and could shoot me
> the latest article on the Gear of the Year EFIS stuff,
> I'd appreciate it.
>
> I just read this today in a newsletter, and want to
> see more:
>
> "Chelton Flight Systems: Gear of the Year 2006 EFIS Display
> According to Paul Bertorelli, Editor of Aviation Consumer, the Chelton
> EFIS has been named "Gear of the Year 2006" EFIS Display. Aviation
> Consumer has published several articles recently comparing Garmin,
> Avidyne and Chelton's EFIS. The July 2006 edition states: "if any OEM
> offered new airplane customers the choice of all three systems -
> Garmin, Avidyne and Chelton - a significant number would pick the
> Chelton. We think its display logic and design is the best of the three
> by a significant margin." In a follow-on article, they note that the
> Chelton EFIS "gives the pilot a direct visual representation of
> position rather than relying on an electrical abstraction of steam
> gauges, as the Garmin and Avidyne do.""
>
> --
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
Message 68
| 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: | Aircraft Wiring for Smart People |
I attended a workshop given by Greg Richter of Blue Mountain Avionics on
Saturday at Oshkosh entitled "Aircraft Wiring for Smart People". It was
excellent. Each member of the audience was given a 39 page handout at the
start of the forum, which served as the basis for the lecture. While you
may not agree on all the recommendations it contains (such as using a 28V
system), it sure does provide good information for planning and implementing
your system. For those of you who missed this forum, here's the link to the
same handout, available as a PDF file on the Blue Mountain Avionics website.
http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/pdf/aircraft_wiring_04december2004.pdf
By the way, be sure to also visit the AeroElectic website:
http://www.aeroelectric.com <http://www.aeroelectric.com/> , and purchase
their excellent book on the same subject: "The AeroElectric Connection".
Bill Reining
RV-10 40514
Tail Cone
Message 69
| 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: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
Yup, unless you find A&P that has been involved in building of an RV,
preferably a 10, they aren't going to want to touch it. They are
supposed to have the manuf. manuals just to work on it, so that
purchase best come with a full builder's log and plans for the A&P to
refer to. JMHO. Other A&P's may see it differently.
KM
A&P/IA
Quoting Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> I think all that the buyer would need to do is have a real
> A&P do all of the work on the airplane. It would still be
> an experimental just the same. For someone who's not
> planning to take advantage of the repairman certificate
> though, it's really losing value if you don't get it. There
> comes a point where it then makes more sense just to buy
> a used Bonanza or something. Getting an A&P to work on
> the RV-10 may be tough depending on who's in your area.
> I'm not saying they wouldn't, but there are probably a
> number of A&P's who don't want to touch experimentals, lest
> they be responsible....after all, they do have a statistically
> higher fatal rate.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
Message 70
| 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: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
The point of the "51% Rule" is to permit you, the amateur, to design and
build your own airplane that you can fly in the National Airspace system
without having to go the "certified" route because it is for your own
education and enjoyment. The intent is not to manufacture airplanes.
That's what we're talking about here.
If you want to build and sell airplanes, become an aircraft manufacturer
like Piper or Cessna and get the your aircraft certified to Part 23
standards.
John
#40262
----- Original Message -----
From: Schroeder, Bob (Parts Clerk)
If on the other hand I just have lots of money and don't care if the
local FBO rakes me over the coals to work on my "experimental aircraft"
then why would anyone care except for the people involved? It seems to
me that some people are upset because someone else can do something that
they cannot do (jealous or some other feeling) so lets put a spot light
on the situation.
Message 71
| 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: | Aircraft Wiring for Smart People |
Not to be blasphemous, but has anyone else found "The AeroElectric
Connection" somewhat anti-climatic, compared to the way it is often
talked about as a document right up there with the Bible, the
Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence? It seems to have
some areas in need of an update, and a lot of focus on plastic
airplanes. Certainly there's some good information in there, but you'd
think the thing could walk on water . . .
TDT
40025
________________________________
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Reining
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 5:04 PM
I attended a workshop given by Greg Richter of Blue Mountain Avionics on
Saturday at Oshkosh entitled "Aircraft Wiring for Smart People". It was
excellent. Each member of the audience was given a 39 page handout at
the start of the forum, which served as the basis for the lecture.
While you may not agree on all the recommendations it contains (such as
using a 28V system), it sure does provide good information for planning
and implementing your system. For those of you who missed this forum,
here's the link to the same handout, available as a PDF file on the Blue
Mountain Avionics website.
http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/pdf/aircraft_wiring_04december2004.p
df
By the way, be sure to also visit the AeroElectic website:
http://www.aeroelectric.com <http://www.aeroelectric.com/> , and
purchase their excellent book on the same subject: "The AeroElectric
Connection".
Bill Reining
RV-10 40514
Tail Cone
Message 72
| 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: | F-1073 hole too large |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Say someone made their static hole too large on one of the F-1073 side
skins. Say someone wanted to devise a fix for said hole so that the
Cleveland static port would still reside in the same place. Would someone
make a backing plate that had riveted to it a piece of aluminum the same
thickness as the side skin onto which the aforementioned static port was
attached so that the backing plate and the new piece of aluminum/static port
was flush with the original skin?
Or, would one simply go buy another F-1073 and ream out the holes, deburr
everything, and call it a learning experience? Wise thoughts, please.
John J
do not archive
Message 73
| 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: | F-1073 hole too large |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson@Avidyne.com>
I think one would stop talking about themselves in the third person! :
)
TDT
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 5:30 PM
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Say someone made their static hole too large on one of the F-1073 side
skins. Say someone wanted to devise a fix for said hole so that the
Cleveland static port would still reside in the same place. Would
someone
make a backing plate that had riveted to it a piece of aluminum the same
thickness as the side skin onto which the aforementioned static port was
attached so that the backing plate and the new piece of aluminum/static
port
was flush with the original skin?
Or, would one simply go buy another F-1073 and ream out the holes,
deburr
everything, and call it a learning experience? Wise thoughts, please.
John J
do not archive
Message 74
| 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: F-1073 hole too large |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick <ricksked@earthlink.net>
John,
For me it would be...How much too big? Your scab patch on the inside my look sorta
OK, but as I understand it the Cleavland ports need to be installed so the
flat portion that extends out through the skin by a certain degree of thousands
of an inch, I don't recall the exact measurment to insure the ports don't siphon
air like a venturi, the small amount of protrusion makes the air "burble"
around the port so you get a true static pressure. You would not get this by
patching from behind then installing through the patch.
So I would imagine you would have to mount that port in another hole then patch
your skins, which if you scab on a patch behind the existing hole you could build
up with epoxy filler and make a flush repair. Your call.....but deep down
it's more of a cosmetic thing....and if you want to buy new skins.
Rick S.
40185
Message 75
| 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: F-1073 hole too large |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "zackrv8" <zackrv8@verizon.net>
John,
Contact Dave at rvsilverbullet@verizon.net . He can make you up a custom static
port to any size you want.
Zack
--------
RV8 #80125
RV10 # 40512
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=51208#51208
Message 76
| 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: | F-1073 hole too large |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Wise thought, this is not. Embarrassed, I may be.
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 2:43 PM
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend"
--> <Tdawson@Avidyne.com>
I think one would stop talking about themselves in the third person! :
)
TDT
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 5:30 PM
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Jessen" <jjessen@rcn.com>
Say someone made their static hole too large on one of the F-1073 side
skins. Say someone wanted to devise a fix for said hole so that the
Cleveland static port would still reside in the same place. Would someone
make a backing plate that had riveted to it a piece of aluminum the same
thickness as the side skin onto which the aforementioned static port was
attached so that the backing plate and the new piece of aluminum/static port
was flush with the original skin?
Or, would one simply go buy another F-1073 and ream out the holes, deburr
everything, and call it a learning experience? Wise thoughts, please.
John J
do not archive
Message 77
| 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: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People |
I attended that also. That guy was funny. As an EE I didn't agree with
everything he said, but nothing major. The handout was very good also, I
wish more of the forums did the handout.
Eric
do not archive
On 7/31/06, Bill Reining <wreining@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I attended a workshop given by Greg Richter of Blue Mountain Avionics on
> Saturday at Oshkosh entitled "Aircraft Wiring for Smart People". It was
> excellent. Each member of the audience was given a 39 page handout at the
> start of the forum, which served as the basis for the lecture. While you
> may not agree on all the recommendations it contains (such as using a 28V
> system), it sure does provide good information for planning and implementing
> your system. For those of you who missed this forum, here's the link to the
> same handout, available as a PDF file on the Blue Mountain Avionics
> website.
> http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/pdf/aircraft_wiring_04december2004.pdf
>
>
> By the way, be sure to also visit the AeroElectic website:
> http://www.aeroelectric.com, and purchase their excellent book on the same
> subject: "The AeroElectric Connection".
>
>
> Bill Reining
>
> RV-10 40514
>
> Tail Cone
>
Message 78
| 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: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
--> RV10-List message posted by: linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
Kelly McMullen wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
>
> Yup, unless you find A&P that has been involved in building of an RV,
> preferably a 10, they aren't going to want to touch it. They are
> supposed to have the manuf. manuals just to work on it, so that
> purchase best come with a full builder's log and plans for the A&P to
> refer to. JMHO. Other A&P's may see it differently.
> KM
> A&P/IA
I'm no A&P. nor do I play one on TV ...... but I do my own conditional
inspection on my Pitts since I am the builder. It's been my experience
that the manufacturers manual and stuff applies only to certified
aircraft that have a type certificate to inspect to. There is no such
'standard' to be applied to amateur built experimental aircraft, so none
is required. Certified aircraft require signature by an AI for the
annual inspection. An A&P, however, can sign off an experimental for
it's conditional inspection.
Hope this muddies the water a little more.
Linn
do not archive
>
> Quoting Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>:
>
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>>
>> I think all that the buyer would need to do is have a real
>> A&P do all of the work on the airplane. It would still be
>> an experimental just the same. For someone who's not
>> planning to take advantage of the repairman certificate
>> though, it's really losing value if you don't get it. There
>> comes a point where it then makes more sense just to buy
>> a used Bonanza or something. Getting an A&P to work on
>> the RV-10 may be tough depending on who's in your area.
>> I'm not saying they wouldn't, but there are probably a
>> number of A&P's who don't want to touch experimentals, lest
>> they be responsible....after all, they do have a statistically
>> higher fatal rate.
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
Message 79
| 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 |
|
Just keep this in mind.... I don't know what happens when you buy
directly from a US supplier, but on the props my buddy and I ordered
from MT at OSH last year, we were hit with a $1000 shipping and import
charge, then in April Mr. Michigan Taxman shipped us a bill for an
additional 6% for Michigan sales tax..... $10,000 * .06 = $600.....
I'm guessing you would not have to pay all this if it was already in the
US and shipped from a US address.....
-Mike
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
LessDragProd@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 7:56 AM
MT has a 10% discount for orders placed at Oshkosh.
List price - $9,380. Oshkosh discount price - $8,442. (Plus shipping.)
Van's Aircraft price - $8,060. (shipped to the closed assembly
facility.)
Less Drag Products, Inc. group buy price - $7,500
(Plus Option A: Shipped disassembled to the closest assembly facility,
or
Plus Option B: Shipped assembled to the closest international airport.)
Regards,
Jim Ayers
If you object to this kind of SPAM, then you aren't listening to your
wallet. :-)
In a message dated 7/23/2006 7:30:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wayne.e@grandecom.net writes:
I am giving strong consideration to switching from the Hartzell 2 bladed
blended foil prop to the 3 bladed MT Prop. If there is any RV10 people
at OSH checking their e-mails and you happen to go past the MT booth
could you please see if they are having any show specials? Also if there
is anyone that might be interested in buying a new Hartzell Blended Foil
prop let me know. I live near Dallas.
Thanks for any help on this.
Wayne Edgerton # 40336
working on O2 system
do not archive
Message 80
| 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 |
|
Geez, welcome to our world. Try an exchange rate as low as 65 cents to
the Ozzie dollar, 10% GST and overseas freight charges. Your $150K RV10
could cost us as much as $275K.
cheers,
Ron in South Australia
187 finishing
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mike Kraus
Sent: Tuesday, 1 August 2006 9:17 AM
Just keep this in mind.... I don't know what happens when you buy
directly from a US supplier, but on the props my buddy and I ordered
from MT at OSH last year, we were hit with a $1000 shipping and import
charge, then in April Mr. Michigan Taxman shipped us a bill for an
additional 6% for Michigan sales tax..... $10,000 * .06 = $600.....
I'm guessing you would not have to pay all this if it was already in the
US and shipped from a US address.....
-Mike
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
LessDragProd@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 7:56 AM
MT has a 10% discount for orders placed at Oshkosh.
List price - $9,380. Oshkosh discount price - $8,442. (Plus shipping.)
Van's Aircraft price - $8,060. (shipped to the closed assembly
facility.)
Less Drag Products, Inc. group buy price - $7,500
(Plus Option A: Shipped disassembled to the closest assembly facility,
or
Plus Option B: Shipped assembled to the closest international airport.)
Regards,
Jim Ayers
If you object to this kind of SPAM, then you aren't listening to your
wallet. :-)
In a message dated 7/23/2006 7:30:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wayne.e@grandecom.net writes:
I am giving strong consideration to switching from the Hartzell 2 bladed
blended foil prop to the 3 bladed MT Prop. If there is any RV10 people
at OSH checking their e-mails and you happen to go past the MT booth
could you please see if they are having any show specials? Also if there
is anyone that might be interested in buying a new Hartzell Blended Foil
prop let me know. I live near Dallas.
Thanks for any help on this.
Wayne Edgerton # 40336
working on O2 system
do not archive
Message 81
| 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: | Matronics Email List Web Server Upgrade Tonight... |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Listers,
This evening I will be upgrading the Matronics Web Server hardware to a new Quad-processor
2.8Ghz Xeon system (yes, 4-physical CPUs!) with an Ultra 320 SCSI
Raid 5 disk system and 5GB of DDR2 RAM.
As with the older system, the new system will be running the latest version of
Redhat Linux. Most of the software configuration work is already done for the
migration, but I still have to sync all of the archive and forum data from the
old system to the new system. I am anticipating about 2 to 3 hours of downtime
for me to fully make the transition, although it could be considerable less
if everything goes according to plan.
The Matronics Webserver will be *UNavailable* from the Internet during the work,
and you will receive a time-out if you try to connect during the upgrade.
Email List Distribution will be *available* during the upgrade of the Web Server,
and List message distribution will function as normal.
This represents a significant performance upgrade for the Matronics Web Server
and you should notice nicely improved searching and surfing performance following
the upgrade!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
Message 82
| 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: Oshkosh Alternative Engine Summary + 900x + RV12 |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "David McNeill" <dlm46007@cox.net>
Also stopped by Mistral. Same stuff as two years ago. Apparently they never
got any takers on their "discounted engine" to fly a 10 to OSH. In summer of
2004, my building partner went home to Switzerland to visit and visited the
engineers at the factory. They were unable to fly the two rotor version in
the Piper Arrow more than 30 minutes without redlining the coolant. I
watched the start of their Arrow at OSH but you should nave seen the cooling
ducts , two very large openings on the lower front cowl and two normally
size cowl openings on the top front cowl. There were two or four sets of
louvers on the aft surfaces of the cowl. The original Arrow did not have
cowl flaps but this Arrow did as well as a muffler hanging below the
aircraft. After a few computer strokes the pilot got the engine going. Also
there response to the mount problem was "we will provide a list of our
partners and send them the specs and they can build you a mount". It appears
the cowl mods would be builders problem.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 10:26 PM
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Brian Douglas" <bsponcil@belinblank.org>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric Panning
>> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:49 PM
>>
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Eric Panning
>> <ericmpmail-rv10@yahoo.com>
>>
>> Subaru:
>> Eggenfellner is supposed to give a talk about RV-10
>> suburu engines on Friday. I will report back what I
>> learn from it. His booth was empty when I went by and
>> looked like an older installed engine on display.
>
> I have to say that I was disappointed in the Eggenfellner display. No H6
> (as far as I could tell) let alone a RV-10 FWF package. Just a couple of
> older subies on rather sad looking planes.
>
>> Deltahawk:
>> Had a big presence with 2 engines on static display
>> and the velocity install. Claim is 180 HP version
>> putting out ~ 195 hp. Suggested 200 HP model might not
>> be needed for RV-10 since turbo normalized. BSFC ~
>> 0.38 [Very good].
>
> I never got close enough to ask any questions but I did overhear them say
> their focus right now is on certification. That BSFC is eye catching. Is
> that mostly due to the inherently high compression ratios in diesels? Or
> is diesel fuel just really light ;-)
>
>> Mistral:
>> Two engines on display, a 2 rotor and a 3 rotor. Not
>> impressed with staff, they essentially kicked me out
>> when I started asking about intermediate housing
>> availability since Mazda is no longer making it.
>>
>> Company rubbed me the wrong way and I would not deal
>> with them personally. Your mileage may vary....
>
> Agreed. They didn't seem too interested in even being there let alone
> answering customer questions. Just my impression though.
>
>> SMA:
>> didn't take a good look. As I recall they want 50K +
>> for the Cessna 182. Seemed to be focusing on europe
>> market (where diesel is a bigger advantage)
>
> I talked to them a bit and they have little/no interest in the
> experimental market. They said it's just too much work supporting home
> builders. Looks like a great product though. What I don't get is why
> they're so expensive? I thought one of the advantages of buying Mercedes
> blocks was economy of scale....
>
>>
>> E85 Ethanol:
>> Nutty display by the corn lobby. Didn't get any real
>> info. But I hear 10% ethanol is ok for cured proseal
>> but I wonder about 85%... Vapor lock is big issue too.
>> Need a ratio of 9:1 vs 14:1 for gas. Less energy per
>> lb too so you are going to burn up more.. tip tanks?
>
> I went to their forum and found it pretty interesting. A few years ago
> they took a stock mooney 201(?) and did nothing to it but increase the
> fuel flow. With only an altered bendix they flew 800 (presumably trouble
> free) hours on 88% ethanol and some additives (isopentane?). They were
> getting a BSFC of .58 or so (not so good. Typical avgas engine is
> .42-.45). At TBO, they rebuilt the engine and made some additional
> modifications (10:1 pistons, electronic ignition, vetterman exhaust, etc)
> and are now seeing BSFC of around .48-.50. I guess the main thing I took
> from it was that if they ever do get rid of 100LL, it won't take a lot of
> modification to run the ol lycosaur on ethanol.
>
>>
>> RV-12:
>> Lot's of grass stomped around the plane. Wings
>> attached and fuselage, tail largely complete. Engine
>> mounted and hidden under a quck and dirty cowl layup.
>> Say final will be pre-preg. Hand brakes.
>
> I'm not a big fan of the removable wings. I suppose it seperates them from
> the other LSAs but I wonder how many people would actually trailer their
> plane home regularly. Man, I love the idea of the holes being the final
> size. Why can't they do that for all of the prepunched kits?
>
>
> -Brian
>
> #40497
> N211BD
> Iowa City, IA
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
Message 83
| 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: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
Ask your insurance agent who is required crew for the 10? Unless you
like going bare I would ask the agent not the FAA.
----- Original Message -----
From: RV Builder (Michael Sausen)
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 9:23 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: -10's for sale in quantity, available today
James,
Nothing in the rule says it has to be the builder to fly off the
hours, To the contrary lot's of people hire a "test pilot" to fly off
several of the hours. Another misnomer is that only one person can be
in the aircraft during flyoff but it is actually "required crew".
Michael
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:23 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: -10's for sale in quantity, available today
I have to ask a question about the "build to order" aircraft: Who's
flying off the 25 hrs? I think it boils down to who it is applying for
the initial airworthiness certificate, is it the "owner"-the guy who
ordered the "build to order" or is it the builder? As it is now, my
interpretation of the 51% rule leads me to believe the owner-builder has
to be the one who makes the original application for the airworthiness
cert and he/she should be the one who flies off the test period hours.
And the initial registration named owner should match to builder-owner
on the airworthiness cert. I think looking at these things would
probably identify those who are violating the 51% rule fairly quickly,
if a "complete" aircraft is sold before the test period is over raises a
real red flag to me. But, what's to limit some guy from building an
airplane, flying off the test period quickly, and then selling the
airplane? Does this "qualify" as a "build to order" shop? I think the
sale of complete RV-10's especially makes it rather lucrative to cheat
the system. Yes, I know I asked about value before, but my motive wasn't
for a quick sale, but to see if future market would support re-couping
my investment should I decide to build/buy something else a few years
down the road.
The Feds can pretty well see who it is that's "building to order".
As quoted somewhere in this thread someone was saying he could turn
around an airplane in three months. That's a major red flag the Feds
should be looking for. A raid on that person's operation may be in
order. I think turning over four or more kit airplanes a year would
definitely qualify a person as a "professional" aircraft builder
requiring full conformity to Part 23 and Part 21. Perhaps that's the
solution, only one or two airworthiness certs can be issued to any one
individual unless they hold or are also applying for a production cert
under Part 21 within a year.
As Tim points out, keeping a good builder's log and when asked by
your DAR is your BEST (and probably ONLY) proof that YOU did the work to
put your dream together. Those yayhoos paying some guy to build their
airplane and then telling the Feds they built them is only hurting the
rest of us who want to do it right. What I'm afraid of is the typical
knee-jerk reaction the Feds typically have and we'll end up with a
draconian rule that totally hurts the aviation homebuilder/experimenter.
James K. Hovis
On 7/31/06, Wayne Edgerton <wayne.e@grandecom.net> wrote:
One way that the FAA might possible be able to curb the "build to
sell" crowd would be to put a time line on when a newly built plane
could be sold or owners changed. As an example lets say the plane
couldn't be sold to a new owner until 6 or 12 months after the hours are
flown off or until it has so many hours on it like 300 hours. Then allow
a waiver to this in the case of certain conditions such as death of the
builder or maybe hell freezing over, something along those lines.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
Engine work
do not archive
Message 84
| 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: | Atrocious - Long Rant |
Yes, I started this so let's bring it full circle with complete
disclosure. For many builders, Please except my apologies here.
I did post that friends die in aviation so be careful coming home. We
lost an EAA chapter president this weekend. I am strongly safety
oriented. Here is my history. I have been directly in aviation since
1973, as a pilot, instructor, FAA pilot examiner, repairman and now an A
& P mechanic. For years I did mechanic related work (often but not
always under the direct/indirect supervision of an A & P). In 1996, I
became passionately involved in kit building, first as a lurker, then a
student, then a builder. In 2002, I was amazed at the money non A & Ps
were getting to build kit-built aircraft under the guise of the 51% rule
for people with money. I am talking about many former, untrained
workers of kit manufacturing companies building 51% aircraft.
Specifically the money is in excess of 6 digits per FAA approved flying
kit. These guys were getting rich. The attraction was the MONEY.
Suddenly one owner of a kit company noticed the money was not going in
his pocket but rather the non A & P - for hire builder. This action is
now casually called Builder Assist. It directly effects the intent and
interpretation of the archaic 51% rule. I began my RV-10 journey long
before the first RV-10 kit was released.
The rule is that the builder (only one individual) builds the project
for their sole education and enjoyment. Upon request, that individual
obtains a Repairman Certificate for that exact and passionate pursuit
and only that one bird. The thought was that learning would have taken
place and that individual would need to maintain that safe aircraft.
Many have bastardized that concept. Many are building more than One or
Two flying aircraft of a specific model. How does building Three or Ten
sound. The pursuit involves completing and becoming educated on the
appropriate tasks involved in a specific make and model. Obviously for
this discussion, Wood and Fabric do not apply to the RV-10. The FAA has
allowed the Engine, Firewall Forward, Avionics, Paint and Interior to be
removed from the 51% evaluation. One manufacturer has gone as far as to
ship the economic advantage outside the US of A to help builders defray
cost and time to completion. The FAA carefully evaluated that the
intent of the 51% rule was not violated.
Enter 2005, Dr. Carl Cadwell of Washington state (builder of a
beautiful Lancair IVP), he chose to purchase Rick Schrameck's first
Epic LT (made in Oregon) for his education and enjoyment (six passenger,
composite with the Beech Starship turbo-prop). Political forces,
competitive kit builders and bureaucrats became concerned at the
complexity and consequence of such an audacious build. Dr. Cadwell and
his team of friends carefully completed the project, under the watchful
eye of the factory. He carefully documented the journey. Several
competitors cried fowl and the FAA chose to block, delay and threaten to
not approve his educational pursuit. Did I mention he invested Seven
digits in this journey. Now digressing. I still coveted all that money
and envisioned a chance to build a company to assist builder's in their
dreams. Dave Saylor of Aircrafters - Watsonville, CA
http://www.aircraftersllc.com/projects/rsl4p/ is representative of a
true Builder ASSIST Shop. This does not mean to write a check, lie on
the application that education was the motivation and falsely claim the
check writer was the actual builder. I saw a value in bringing Part 23
Certification knowledge to Kit Builders. I still see value in calling
marginal or shoddy quality to the attention of builders.
Joe Bartels of Lancair Kits has done a lot to correct the corruption and
bastardization of the 51% violators with his Factory Assist program
($4,000 per week) of assistance.
Here is the rub. I took a two year sabbatical, attended FAA Approved
Part 147 school, became an A & P and took a job at a significant pay cut
to work for one of the nation's most successful regional airlines just
to get the experience and to assemble a team of professional mechanics
like Dave Saylor to assist other First Time Kit Builders. The violators
are still operating. Some of them do shoddy work. No level of quality
work can justify the willful bastardization of this unique 51% rule.
This is a US of A regulation for US citizens and foreign nationals to
come into the US of A and build the kit to Our standards. When those
kits are shipped overseas, they are intended to be certified by the
nation where manufacture takes place. Here is where all of you should
be passionately interested. When poor flight planning, poor flight
training and poor mechanical construction or mechanical difficulty come
together people die. Insurance rates are nothing more than a mirror -
those guys are in business for the money. As a result, the Lancair
builders, many who were in their third or fourth year of an expensive
education were faced with No Insurance or ridiculously high insurance
rates (back in 2003, 2004). Now who is going to gamble on the first
statistics on the RV-10. I have not yet built my Builder Assist
facilities. It will not build an aircraft for anyone. It was intended
to Assist those already pursuing the dream with additional assistance.
Now Van has been clear and he won't do Factory Assist. And yes, I asked
the first question at his Forum at OSH. "What is your company's
position and what do you hear regarding changes in the 51% rule?". Not
being shy, I bite bullets for safety every day. Now Russ you're an
attorney. All of this is on the web for any attorney to find. I am
prepared to give Expert testimony if called upon in any US of A court of
law. These violators need to be stopped before the rule is modified
which hurts individual kit builders.
John Nys, Jesse Saint, and other hired guns...the building of aircraft
with the intent of sale to third parties is an ethical violation of the
intent and it is a direct violation of this unique rule. It is time for
the FAA to clean up this dirty practice. In the memory of George
Bogardus, I call upon both of you to cease the pursuit or obtain
Certification for Production Aircraft. I personally think the 51% rule
should be enforced after the second production of any specific Make, or
Model. If you can't get the Education down by then... go to school and
become a career mechanic. Let the individual builders learn.
Many builders of the RV-10 kit do not understand the rule, may be in a
foreign country or actually want to obtain the direct education.
Writing the check is just a mater of money - education is not part of
that equation. The rest of you should know the task list, comply with
the 51% rule. http://www.aircraftersllc.com/51percent.htm And don't hire
someone else to assemble the key components of the rule for you. Buying
someone else's education does not allow the acquisition of a Repairman
Certificate. Most A & Ps won't touch home builds. Sole Occupant during
the required fly off means just that... ONE SOLE ON BOARD.
I am concerned as Tim posted that such a high percentage of the original
aircraft are being quickly sold to the untrained public. Supply and
Demand is alive and well in the Home Ownership Industry... Ouch.
John Cox - $00.02
Holder of the FAA Diamond AMT Award
My apologies to our friends across the pond with string and tin can.
P.S. I am thankful for the watchful eye of the many who pointed out the
flaws and have posted pictures and descriptions of OSH '06. Build Safe,
Learn Much, don't hire professional guns masking themselves behind the
51% rule. Let me toast to your efforts next year at OSH '07
Message 85
| 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: | -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
There are a number of highly skilled For Hire Pilots who will make the
initial flight and help establish the OCF quack list. Operational Check
Flight. Make sure they know both your make of airframe and your
specific model. Test Pilots are a bold breed.
Fly within the FAA designated restricted OCF area until you know it is
working fine. You might lose power and have to land before you planned.
Get frequent EAA Tech Advisor inspections along the build process.
John $00.02
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McNeill
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 5:49 PM
Ask your insurance agent who is required crew for the 10? Unless you
like going bare I would ask the agent not the FAA.
----- Original Message -----
From: RV Builder (Michael Sausen) <mailto:rvbuilder@sausen.net>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 9:23 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: -10's for sale in quantity, available
today
James,
Nothing in the rule says it has to be the builder to fly off
the hours, To the contrary lot's of people hire a "test pilot" to fly
off several of the hours. Another misnomer is that only one person can
be in the aircraft during flyoff but it is actually "required crew".
Michael
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:23 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: -10's for sale in quantity, available
today
I have to ask a question about the "build to order" aircraft:
Who's flying off the 25 hrs? I think it boils down to who it is applying
for the initial airworthiness certificate, is it the "owner"-the guy who
ordered the "build to order" or is it the builder? As it is now, my
interpretation of the 51% rule leads me to believe the owner-builder has
to be the one who makes the original application for the airworthiness
cert and he/she should be the one who flies off the test period hours.
And the initial registration named owner should match to builder-owner
on the airworthiness cert. I think looking at these things would
probably identify those who are violating the 51% rule fairly quickly,
if a "complete" aircraft is sold before the test period is over raises a
real red flag to me. But, what's to limit some guy from building an
airplane, flying off the test period quickly, and then selling the
airplane? Does this "qualify" as a "build to order" shop? I think the
sale of complete RV-10's especially makes it rather lucrative to cheat
the system. Yes, I know I asked about value before, but my motive wasn't
for a quick sale, but to see if future market would support re-couping
my investment should I decide to build/buy something else a few years
down the road.
The Feds can pretty well see who it is that's "building to
order". As quoted somewhere in this thread someone was saying he could
turn around an airplane in three months. That's a major red flag the
Feds should be looking for. A raid on that person's operation may be in
order. I think turning over four or more kit airplanes a year would
definitely qualify a person as a "professional" aircraft builder
requiring full conformity to Part 23 and Part 21. Perhaps that's the
solution, only one or two airworthiness certs can be issued to any one
individual unless they hold or are also applying for a production cert
under Part 21 within a year.
As Tim points out, keeping a good builder's log and when
asked by your DAR is your BEST (and probably ONLY) proof that YOU did
the work to put your dream together. Those yayhoos paying some guy to
build their airplane and then telling the Feds they built them is only
hurting the rest of us who want to do it right. What I'm afraid of is
the typical knee-jerk reaction the Feds typically have and we'll end up
with a draconian rule that totally hurts the aviation
homebuilder/experimenter.
James K. Hovis
On 7/31/06, Wayne Edgerton <wayne.e@grandecom.net> wrote:
One way that the FAA might possible be able to curb the
"build to sell" crowd would be to put a time line on when a newly built
plane could be sold or owners changed. As an example lets say the plane
couldn't be sold to a new owner until 6 or 12 months after the hours are
flown off or until it has so many hours on it like 300 hours. Then allow
a waiver to this in the case of certain conditions such as death of the
builder or maybe hell freezing over, something along those lines.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
Engine work
do not archive
Message 86
| 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: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
When I flew off my -6A hours, there were two times when crew was required, and
defensible, at least in my opinion.
The first was when testing a "low" altitude. Full throttle 500 feet above the
ocean is not the time to be recording numbers on a data sheet.
The second was the gross weight tests. 75 lbs of sandbags in the baggage compartment
is OK, but having 250 lbs of them in the second seat is a little risky.
I used a 250 lb pilot.
Both tests were done the same day, the very last of the test flights. By then,
the aircraft was well tested , but there were data points not available for completion
of the test log.
Bruce Patton
----- Original Message ----
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 5:48:56 PM
Ask your insurance agent who is required crew for the 10? Unless you like going
bare I would ask the agent not the FAA.
Message 87
| 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: | -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Russ it is the DAR's who are helping bastardize the gene pool of flying
RV-10s. It was just last year that the Plastic builders where looking
for names of liberal DARs to bump their Gross Weight into the
stratosphere to compensate for heavy construction. Maybe we should each
post who is our DAR to shed light on this condition. Van is firm at
2700 GVW. Did anyone catch the new 2800# weight. It was sure Purty!
Do I hear 2900 or 3,000 cause it's a nice round number?
John Cox
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Russell Daves
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 7:17 AM
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Russell Daves" <dav1111@cox.net>
I agree with Tim whole heartedly. My builder's log runs to over a
thousand
pictures (all on computer), along with my Kitlog Pro cost sheet. I had
my
laptop computer at the hanger for the DAR to look at in case he had
questions, along with all of my builders plans. When I received my
first
set of plans I made a full size copy so I could have a work set at the
hanger and have an original at the office that had not been marked up.
My plans at the hanger are in four different notebooks and are well worn
and
marked up with notes and check marks.
I figured if the DAR had any questions about whether or not I built
N710RV
he would be able to see not only photos but also working plans. He
never
asked or questioned me about it at all.
I was real straight forward with the DAR explaining to him at the start
who
I had do the engine overhaul and who build my panel.
The DAR found the following items that needed to be corrected:
1. Replace 4 rivets (slightly bent over);
2. Change out two bolts on the door struts so they show a couple more
threads;
3. Taking off a washer on three bolts so more threads show;
4. Putting some RTV around one bushing in the wing where the heated
pitot
line goes through a rib (I guess I drilled the hole a little two big and
the
bushing had snapped out or the bushing side clamps were bad).
5. And I had one screw loose, pitot mounting bracket the DAR claimed,
but
everyone that knows me has always claimed I had a screw loose, even
before I
started my RV-10 building project.
Maybe the DAR didn't think he needed to question me much about the build
based on the squawks he found.
Russ Daves
Lubbock, Texas
N710RV #40044 - Flying (every day so far)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 8:42 AM
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> One thing that took a lot of people's "campfire" discussion time
> up at OSH this year is the amazing amount of -10's at OSH that were
> for sale. Out of 11, we know of at least 4 of them that were for
> sale. We also know that of the remaining ones, at least a couple
> were built more on a "build-to-order" basis than built a
> "build-myself-a-plane for recreation" basis. So probably 50% of the
> planes there were seemingly built with the idea of selling them
> upon completion. There was also a rumor that in one case, claims
> were made that, and I apologize if the number is wrong as it's
> secondhand info, the builder was on his 10th RV-10 already and
> could build one in 3 months. You can see why, in this age of
> demand for performance 4-seaters, the RV-10 would be an attractive
> kit for such an operation. The problem is, it just isn't LEGAL.
BALANCE OF MESSAGE CUT - SEE ORIGINAL MESSAGE
> --
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
Message 88
| 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: | -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
The FAA could just screen the DAR submittals and look for the crooks
that are allowing the problem into the system.
With Mechanics it's called O's and P's. Orals and Practicals. There is
just no way to get the ticket without bleeding along the road to
success.
John Cox
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jim@combsfive.com
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 8:53 AM
--> RV10-List message posted by: <jim@combsfive.com>
A couple of possible solutions come to mind:
(1) The FAA could limit the availability of N numbers to one number
every two years (or some other resonable time) and require the person
applying for the N-number to be the 51% builder.
(2) Not allow the N-Number to be transferred for some period of time (18
months?) after the initial assignment. The exception being if the
builder / owner of the N-number has deceased, this rule would not apply.
Do not archive.
Jim Combs
N312F
#40192 - Fuselage
===========================================================
Message 89
| 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: | -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Stay away from Apples on hot summer and fall nights. It could be an
Adam and Eve thing.
John Cox
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 10:30 AM
Problem is Tim under a strict interpretation of "don't do it for
money" anyone who sells a completed kitplane for $.01 more than they
paid for the kit and all associated extra parts and equipment qualifies.
I don't want to see a perfectly good airplane suddenly become a
worthless pile of aluminum and other metals because someone can't sell
an experimental bird anymore when they are done with it. I really don't
believe it will come to that, but if there are serious issues in the eys
of the Feds, this would be one way to take the profit motive out of the
equation. I'd prefer something more like limiting the number of
registrations or airworthiness certificates an individual can apply for
unless they also apply for a production cert. Enforcing the current
rules would go a long way too, and as you note, it appears the word is
getting out to the DAR's.
As is typical in this world, it is a few bad apples that could spoil
it all for the rest of us...
JKH
Message 90
| 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: Anyone read AC's Gear of the year? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
That wasn't quite the one that had the same wording, but another builder
pointed me in the right direction. I put the article here:
http://www.myrv10.com/files/kitplanes/chelton/Chelton_EFIS_AC.html
It's not too bad, although it describes the certified unit which lacks
some of the features, and it describes installation as a retrofit,
which would be a huge chore compared to what us homebuilders would
do. It does make it sound pretty favorable from a useability
standpoint when compared to the G1000/Avidyne though. Too bad they
didn't do one of the Experimental unit.
Tim
Kelly McMullen wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
>
> Directly copied from the artical. That is the full extent of their mention.
>
> Best EFIS Display:
> Chelton Flight Logic
> Not too long after our eyeballs had been rolled around by EFIS displays
> for the umpteenth time, we realized something: All they do is present a
> pretty picture of conventional flight instruments. Hey, it?s 2006.
> Shouldn?t there be a better way?
>
> Chelton thinks so and it delivers in its FlightLogic EFIS system, which
> we think has the most practical, imaginative and innovative display
> design of all the EFIS systems we have seen. The FlightLogic was born of
> military ethos and is thus rich with aircraft path and vector
> information and a unique three-dimensional feel that makes the other
> systems look like cardboard cutouts.
>
> Although its screens are on the small side, we found the FlightLogic
> easy to master and?this is the best part?really fun to use. The screen
> has a constant, dynamic flow of information that?s engaging and useful.
> Check out Chelton at www.chelton.com/.
>
>
>
Message 91
| 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: | -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
I do play one in real life. And several friends who are current IAs are
giving it up due to insurance (>$8,000 per year). At OSH, there was a
great seminar on financial liabilities of A & Ps touching kit built
aircraft.
Don't bet on having one help in a pinch. Select one, cultivate a
relationship. Share your knowledge. Help. Learn. Fly Safe. Fly into
old age gracefully. That Repairman Certificate evaporates when you stop
working on the exact aircraft it was issued on. It is non-transferable.
An A & P is only good while you maintain education, proficiency and have
the appropriate tools and manuals.
Seek guidance on the construction and maintenance of a great POH and
Conditional Maintenance Manual. It can save big bucks down the road.
John Cox
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 3:49 PM
--> RV10-List message posted by: linn Walters
<pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
Kelly McMullen wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
>
> Yup, unless you find A&P that has been involved in building of an RV,
> preferably a 10, they aren't going to want to touch it. They are
> supposed to have the manuf. manuals just to work on it, so that
> purchase best come with a full builder's log and plans for the A&P to
> refer to. JMHO. Other A&P's may see it differently.
> KM
> A&P/IA
I'm no A&P. nor do I play one on TV ...... but I do my own conditional
inspection on my Pitts since I am the builder. It's been my experience
that the manufacturers manual and stuff applies only to certified
aircraft that have a type certificate to inspect to. There is no such
'standard' to be applied to amateur built experimental aircraft, so none
is required. Certified aircraft require signature by an AI for the
annual inspection. An A&P, however, can sign off an experimental for
it's conditional inspection.
Hope this muddies the water a little more.
Linn
do not archive
Message 92
| 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: | -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Ask your insurance agent. Required crew is listed in the Operations
Manual and is an ALWAYS kind of thing. FAA Wavered Airspace (at OSH) is
a great example. No GIB (guy in back) unless always required 100% of
the time and without exception - in writing. Your pilot's certificate
does not empower you to interpret that rule. Your Letter of
Authorization during Fly Off does from the DAR.
Your interpretation and that of your written voidable insurance policy
may well be at odds.
Don't bet on your assumption buying a get out of violation card. A 250#
fool does not make for a proper ballast. Oh and tongue in check, I am
down from 243# during Tim's Transitional training in N220RV to 230#.
John
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Patton
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 6:36 PM
When I flew off my -6A hours, there were two times when crew was
required, and defensible, at least in my opinion.
The first was when testing a "low" altitude. Full throttle 500 feet
above the ocean is not the time to be recording numbers on a data sheet.
The second was the gross weight tests. 75 lbs of sandbags in the
baggage compartment is OK, but having 250 lbs of them in the second seat
is a little risky. I used a 250 lb pilot.
Both tests were done the same day, the very last of the test flights.
By then, the aircraft was well tested , but there were data points not
available for completion of the test log.
Bruce Patton
Message 93
| 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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
I'm saddened to announce the death of our local EAA Chapter 245
> President in an accident at Oshkosh this past Sunday. Gary Palmer, 63,
> of Ottawa Ontario was a passenger in an RV homebuilt piloted by our
> local RAA President, Bill Reed. While holding on the ground for
> instructions, they were overtaken by a Grumman Avenger. Gary died of
> prop strike injuries on the scene and Bill escaped unscathed.
> Take care lads...this is supposed to be fun.
John Cox
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 7:01 PM
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Ask your insurance agent. Required crew is listed in the Operations
Manual and is an ALWAYS kind of thing. FAA Wavered Airspace (at OSH) is
a great example. No GIB (guy in back) unless always required 100% of
the time and without exception - in writing.
Message 94
| 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: F-1073 hole too large |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "KiloPapa" <kilopapa@antelecom.net>
FYI - I ordered static ports and the trim cable mounts from Dave and found
him to do excellent work and he was a pleasure to deal with.
Kevin
40494
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 2:57 PM
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "zackrv8" <zackrv8@verizon.net>
>
> John,
>
> Contact Dave at rvsilverbullet@verizon.net . He can make you up a
> custom static port to any size you want.
>
> Zack
>
> --------
> RV8 #80125
> RV10 # 40512
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=51208#51208
>
>
>
Message 95
| 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: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
What you say is a literal interpretation of the rules. While Part 43.13
does not apply to amateur built experimental, any A&P that doesn't abide
by it is leaving themselves wide open in terms of risk and liability. Do
you really want a condition inspection done by an A&P that knows nothing
about your airplane? Especially a plane used for aerobatics and inverted
flight? An A&P used to inspecting flight school Cherokees and 172's
won't have a clue what to look for and would be a fool to do an
inspection on your aircraft. JMHO.
linn Walters wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
>
> I'm no A&P. nor do I play one on TV ...... but I do my own conditional
> inspection on my Pitts since I am the builder. It's been my experience
> that the manufacturers manual and stuff applies only to certified
> aircraft that have a type certificate to inspect to. There is no such
> 'standard' to be applied to amateur built experimental aircraft, so none
> is required. Certified aircraft require signature by an AI for the
> annual inspection. An A&P, however, can sign off an experimental for
> it's conditional inspection.
> Hope this muddies the water a little more.
> Linn
> do not archive
Message 96
| 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: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
--> RV10-List message posted by: linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
Sorry Kelly, but I respectfully disagree. If I was an A&P, I'd be
rather put out with your characterization. An airplane is an airplane,
and the training that an A&P has applies to systems and construction no
matter if it's assembled by an amateur or an airplane company. I would
expect that an A&P would apply the same basic inspection technique for a
Piper 100 hr. or annual inspection to an experimental ...... which would
check all the basic systems. It's what he's trained to do. It's what
he's paid to do. There are a lot of experimentals at my airport that
aren't owned by the builder, and the A&Ps that inspect my certificated
aircraft, also inspect those experimentals. I don't think of them as
ignorant, without a clue, or fools. I think of them as professionals
that they are, and am open minded enouth to learn from them.
Linn
do not archive
Kelly McMullen wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
>
> What you say is a literal interpretation of the rules. While Part
> 43.13 does not apply to amateur built experimental, any A&P that
> doesn't abide by it is leaving themselves wide open in terms of risk
> and liability. Do you really want a condition inspection done by an
> A&P that knows nothing about your airplane? Especially a plane used
> for aerobatics and inverted flight? An A&P used to inspecting flight
> school Cherokees and 172's won't have a clue what to look for and
> would be a fool to do an inspection on your aircraft. JMHO.
>
> linn Walters wrote:
>
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: linn Walters
>> <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
>>
>> I'm no A&P. nor do I play one on TV ...... but I do my own
>> conditional inspection on my Pitts since I am the builder. It's been
>> my experience that the manufacturers manual and stuff applies only to
>> certified aircraft that have a type certificate to inspect to. There
>> is no such 'standard' to be applied to amateur built experimental
>> aircraft, so none is required. Certified aircraft require signature
>> by an AI for the annual inspection. An A&P, however, can sign off an
>> experimental for it's conditional inspection.
>> Hope this muddies the water a little more.
>> Linn
>> do not archive
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
Message 97
| 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: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
Yup, I won't sign for an aircraft other than my own, because I refuse to
pay the $12,000 other IA's in the area are paying for liability insurance.
KM
A&P/IA
John W. Cox wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>
> I do play one in real life. And several friends who are current IAs are
> giving it up due to insurance (>$8,000 per year). At OSH, there was a
> great seminar on financial liabilities of A & Ps touching kit built
> aircraft.
>
> Don't bet on having one help in a pinch. Select one, cultivate a
> relationship. Share your knowledge. Help. Learn. Fly Safe. Fly into
> old age gracefully. That Repairman Certificate evaporates when you stop
> working on the exact aircraft it was issued on. It is non-transferable.
> An A & P is only good while you maintain education, proficiency and have
> the appropriate tools and manuals.
>
> Seek guidance on the construction and maintenance of a great POH and
> Conditional Maintenance Manual. It can save big bucks down the road.
>
> John Cox
>
Message 98
| 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: | conditional inspections |
--> RV10-List message posted by: linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
Ah, now we get down to the reall nitty gritty. It boils down to
liability insurance ...... which would only kick in if there was a
mistake made, something important overlooked ...... the fear of making a
mistake???? You made a PERSONAL decision not to use your training, and
yet you bashed those that don't feel PERSONALLY as you do. That's a
shame, in my book. But I do see your point. Lousy A&Ps are why I do
all my own work ..... supervised by knowledgeable A&Ps of course when
required ..... on my factory builts. I've been had by lousy A&P
attention to detail, and had an off-field landing due to an incompetent
A&P. There are good A&P/IAs ...... and bad ones, but that's no
different than doctors, lawyers or car mechanics. The pain comes in
finding out which ones are which.
Linn
do not archive.
Kelly McMullen wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
>
> Yup, I won't sign for an aircraft other than my own, because I refuse
> to pay the $12,000 other IA's in the area are paying for liability
> insurance.
> KM
> A&P/IA
>
> John W. Cox wrote:
>
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>>
>> I do play one in real life. And several friends who are current IAs are
>> giving it up due to insurance (>$8,000 per year). At OSH, there was a
>> great seminar on financial liabilities of A & Ps touching kit built
>> aircraft.
>>
>> Don't bet on having one help in a pinch. Select one, cultivate a
>> relationship. Share your knowledge. Help. Learn. Fly Safe. Fly into
>> old age gracefully. That Repairman Certificate evaporates when you stop
>> working on the exact aircraft it was issued on. It is non-transferable.
>> An A & P is only good while you maintain education, proficiency and have
>> the appropriate tools and manuals.
>>
>> Seek guidance on the construction and maintenance of a great POH and
>> Conditional Maintenance Manual. It can save big bucks down the road.
>>
>> John Cox
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
Message 99
| 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: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
I am in no way insulting their knowledge of aircraft. But there is no
way in hell they can understand what the design stresses are on a
one-off experimental aircraft, what the designer intended, and whether
it has been properly maintained. A&P's have no training to evaluate your
non-aviation grade hardware commonly found in many homebuilts, other
than to think bad things about it. What looks perfectly normal and safe
on a Cherokee can kill you on a Pitts. If you don't have the plans or
equally good manual to reference, you have no way of judging whether
something is good for -1.5Gs or -4.0 Gs. If you knew the level of
instruction at Part147 schools and the content of A&P tests like I do,
you wouldn't be so trusting. I didn't say what they are doing isn't
legal, just that they are sticking their necks out so far they will need
binoculars to see their shoulders. I doubt you will find many non-A&Ps
that will have a clue on the risks, how repairs that missed 1 item or 1
step come back to bite you real hard.
linn Walters wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
>
> Sorry Kelly, but I respectfully disagree. If I was an A&P, I'd be
> rather put out with your characterization. An airplane is an airplane,
> and the training that an A&P has applies to systems and construction no
> matter if it's assembled by an amateur or an airplane company. I would
> expect that an A&P would apply the same basic inspection technique for a
> Piper 100 hr. or annual inspection to an experimental ...... which would
> check all the basic systems. It's what he's trained to do. It's what
> he's paid to do. There are a lot of experimentals at my airport that
> aren't owned by the builder, and the A&Ps that inspect my certificated
> aircraft, also inspect those experimentals. I don't think of them as
> ignorant, without a clue, or fools. I think of them as professionals
> that they are, and am open minded enouth to learn from them.
> Linn
> do not archive
>
> Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
>>
>> What you say is a literal interpretation of the rules. While Part
>> 43.13 does not apply to amateur built experimental, any A&P that
>> doesn't abide by it is leaving themselves wide open in terms of risk
>> and liability. Do you really want a condition inspection done by an
>> A&P that knows nothing about your airplane? Especially a plane used
>> for aerobatics and inverted flight? An A&P used to inspecting flight
>> school Cherokees and 172's won't have a clue what to look for and
>> would be a fool to do an inspection on your aircraft. JMHO.
>>
>> linn Walters wrote:
>>
>>> --> RV10-List message posted by: linn Walters
>>> <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
>>>
>>> I'm no A&P. nor do I play one on TV ...... but I do my own
>>> conditional inspection on my Pitts since I am the builder. It's been
>>> my experience that the manufacturers manual and stuff applies only to
>>> certified aircraft that have a type certificate to inspect to. There
>>> is no such 'standard' to be applied to amateur built experimental
>>> aircraft, so none is required. Certified aircraft require signature
>>> by an AI for the annual inspection. An A&P, however, can sign off an
>>> experimental for it's conditional inspection.
>>> Hope this muddies the water a little more.
>>> Linn
>>> do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> http://wiki.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 100
| 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: | -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
Choices for test pilot:
1) me, 260 hour pilot, instrument rating. Only real experience in C-172
and Warrior. Ten hours transition training in RV-10.
2) one of a few professional test pilots I know. Hours in the
thousands. Types in the dozens. Conceptually, zero hours in the RV-10.
The irony is that option 1) would be covered by our insurance. Option
2) would not be covered, unless I pay the test pilot to fly down to TX
and then pay for him to fly with Alex for 10 hours. That's probably
$2000 and having to fine someone who doesn't mind using one of their
weekends to go to TX . . .
TDT
40025
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Mon 7/31/2006 9:32 PM
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
There are a number of highly skilled For Hire Pilots who will make the
initial flight and help establish the OCF quack list. Operational Check
Flight. Make sure they know both your make of airframe and your
specific model. Test Pilots are a bold breed.
Fly within the FAA designated restricted OCF area until you know it is
working fine. You might lose power and have to land before you planned.
Get frequent EAA Tech Advisor inspections along the build process.
John $00.02
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McNeill
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 5:49 PM
Ask your insurance agent who is required crew for the 10? Unless you
like going bare I would ask the agent not the FAA.
----- Original Message -----
From: RV Builder (Michael Sausen) <mailto:rvbuilder@sausen.net>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 9:23 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: -10's for sale in quantity, available
today
James,
Nothing in the rule says it has to be the builder to fly off
the hours, To the contrary lot's of people hire a "test pilot" to fly
off several of the hours. Another misnomer is that only one person can
be in the aircraft during flyoff but it is actually "required crew".
Michael
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James K Hovis
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:23 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: -10's for sale in quantity, available
today
I have to ask a question about the "build to order" aircraft:
Who's flying off the 25 hrs? I think it boils down to who it is applying
for the initial airworthiness certificate, is it the "owner"-the guy who
ordered the "build to order" or is it the builder? As it is now, my
interpretation of the 51% rule leads me to believe the owner-builder has
to be the one who makes the original application for the airworthiness
cert and he/she should be the one who flies off the test period hours.
And the initial registration named owner should match to builder-owner
on the airworthiness cert. I think looking at these things would
probably identify those who are violating the 51% rule fairly quickly,
if a "complete" aircraft is sold before the test period is over raises a
real red flag to me. But, what's to limit some guy from building an
airplane, flying off the test period quickly, and then selling the
airplane? Does this "qualify" as a "build to order" shop? I think the
sale of complete RV-10's especially makes it rather lucrative to cheat
the system. Yes, I know I asked about value before, but my motive wasn't
for a quick sale, but to see if future market would support re-couping
my investment should I decide to build/buy something else a few years
down the road.
The Feds can pretty well see who it is that's "building to
order". As quoted somewhere in this thread someone was saying he could
turn around an airplane in three months. That's a major red flag the
Feds should be looking for. A raid on that person's operation may be in
order. I think turning over four or more kit airplanes a year would
definitely qualify a person as a "professional" aircraft builder
requiring full conformity to Part 23 and Part 21. Perhaps that's the
solution, only one or two airworthiness certs can be issued to any one
individual unless they hold or are also applying for a production cert
under Part 21 within a year.
As Tim points out, keeping a good builder's log and when
asked by your DAR is your BEST (and probably ONLY) proof that YOU did
the work to put your dream together. Those yayhoos paying some guy to
build their airplane and then telling the Feds they built them is only
hurting the rest of us who want to do it right. What I'm afraid of is
the typical knee-jerk reaction the Feds typically have and we'll end up
with a draconian rule that totally hurts the aviation
homebuilder/experimenter.
James K. Hovis
On 7/31/06, Wayne Edgerton <wayne.e@grandecom.net> wrote:
One way that the FAA might possible be able to curb the
"build to sell" crowd would be to put a time line on when a newly built
plane could be sold or owners changed. As an example lets say the plane
couldn't be sold to a new owner until 6 or 12 months after the hours are
flown off or until it has so many hours on it like 300 hours. Then allow
a waiver to this in the case of certain conditions such as death of the
builder or maybe hell freezing over, something along those lines.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
Engine work
do not archive
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
Message 101
| 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: | more on conditionals |
--> RV10-List message posted by: linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
Well, I don't think an A&P is going to judge a factory built during an
annual as you describe, but since you are on and I'm not, I'll give you
the benefit of the doubt. I don't think a conditional inspection is
supposed to be a design critique. My conditional inspection on my Pitts
certainly isn't. I'm not an aeronautical engineer, nor do I think of my
A&Ps that way either. I guess I'm glad that there are those out there
that will stick their necks out and allow thse that don't build to
experience some of the benefits of owning a homebuilt. The fears you
have apply to any airplane, certified or homebuilt. You're faced with
following behind someone elses work ..... some you can't see ...... yet
you still sign off on the airplane. I think that's going to be a
judgement call ..... if you see crummy workmanship I bet you look closer
than you may otherwise. Just my thoughts. I've seen a few examples of
homebuilts that I absolutely won't get in. In my lowly opinion they
shouldn't have airworthy certificates, but they do. An A&P, when asked
to do a conditional inspection, would probably just decline. While
we're on the subject, there are two distinct parts of this annual
(yearly) activity ..... the inspection, and the taking care of the
squawks. You know that, but a lot of owners do not. It all boils down
to that statement you put into the logbook ...... or not.
Linn
do not archive
Kelly McMullen wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
>
> I am in no way insulting their knowledge of aircraft. But there is no
> way in hell they can understand what the design stresses are on a
> one-off experimental aircraft, what the designer intended, and whether
> it has been properly maintained. A&P's have no training to evaluate
> your non-aviation grade hardware commonly found in many homebuilts,
> other than to think bad things about it. What looks perfectly normal
> and safe on a Cherokee can kill you on a Pitts. If you don't have the
> plans or equally good manual to reference, you have no way of judging
> whether something is good for -1.5Gs or -4.0 Gs. If you knew the level
> of instruction at Part147 schools and the content of A&P tests like I
> do, you wouldn't be so trusting. I didn't say what they are doing
> isn't legal, just that they are sticking their necks out so far they
> will need binoculars to see their shoulders. I doubt you will find
> many non-A&Ps that will have a clue on the risks, how repairs that
> missed 1 item or 1 step come back to bite you real hard.
>
> linn Walters wrote:
>
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: linn Walters
>> <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
>>
>> Sorry Kelly, but I respectfully disagree. If I was an A&P, I'd be
>> rather put out with your characterization. An airplane is an
>> airplane, and the training that an A&P has applies to systems and
>> construction no matter if it's assembled by an amateur or an airplane
>> company. I would expect that an A&P would apply the same basic
>> inspection technique for a Piper 100 hr. or annual inspection to an
>> experimental ...... which would check all the basic systems. It's
>> what he's trained to do. It's what he's paid to do. There are a lot
>> of experimentals at my airport that aren't owned by the builder, and
>> the A&Ps that inspect my certificated aircraft, also inspect those
>> experimentals. I don't think of them as ignorant, without a clue, or
>> fools. I think of them as professionals that they are, and am open
>> minded enouth to learn from them.
>> Linn
>> do not archive
>>
>> Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>
>>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
>>>
>>> What you say is a literal interpretation of the rules. While Part
>>> 43.13 does not apply to amateur built experimental, any A&P that
>>> doesn't abide by it is leaving themselves wide open in terms of risk
>>> and liability. Do you really want a condition inspection done by an
>>> A&P that knows nothing about your airplane? Especially a plane used
>>> for aerobatics and inverted flight? An A&P used to inspecting flight
>>> school Cherokees and 172's won't have a clue what to look for and
>>> would be a fool to do an inspection on your aircraft. JMHO.
>>>
>>> linn Walters wrote:
>>>
>>>> --> RV10-List message posted by: linn Walters
>>>> <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
>>>>
>>>> I'm no A&P. nor do I play one on TV ...... but I do my own
>>>> conditional inspection on my Pitts since I am the builder. It's
>>>> been my experience that the manufacturers manual and stuff applies
>>>> only to certified aircraft that have a type certificate to inspect
>>>> to. There is no such 'standard' to be applied to amateur built
>>>> experimental aircraft, so none is required. Certified aircraft
>>>> require signature by an AI for the annual inspection. An A&P,
>>>> however, can sign off an experimental for it's conditional inspection.
>>>> Hope this muddies the water a little more.
>>>> Linn
>>>> do not archive
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> http://wiki.matronics.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> http://wiki.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
Message 102
| 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 |
|
Tim,
Did you use the foam tape for moisture barrier in your HID installs? Looks
like it'd keep the lens from fitting flush and letting wet in, as opposed to
keeping moisture out.
Anyone else?
Rob Wright
#392
QB Wings
Message 103
| 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: more on conditionals |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
There is the rub. On a certified aircraft you have an approved parts
manual and an approved maintenance manual and an equipment list. On
amateur built you have what you see, what the owner tells you and not
much else to go on. You don't know what the designer specified, vs what
the builder used, vs what current owner substituted, for each and every
part of the aircraft. The unknowns on a certified airplane mostly
pertain to how the pilots handle the aircraft and whether previous
mechanics have adhered to the TC and the STCs. You have a standard to
compare to..the type certificate. Plenty of expertise available from
thousands of inspections. On amateur built the unknowns are infinite, so
you have to deal with that in the condition inspection. Sure, you can
limit the inspection to wear, corrosion and signs of damage/stress. But
you won't know what is approaching its fatigue limit where there is no
database of reported difficulties, typical problems found, unlike
certified planes. You really are flying blind. So at best you get
opinion of A&P doing inspection and differing one from A&P correcting
the discrepancies, and neither one may be correct.
linn Walters wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
>
> Well, I don't think an A&P is going to judge a factory built during an
> annual as you describe, but since you are on and I'm not, I'll give you
> the benefit of the doubt. I don't think a conditional inspection is
> supposed to be a design critique. My conditional inspection on my Pitts
> certainly isn't.
Message 104
| 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: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People |
I had the same reaction. I'm glad to hear I wasn't totally crazy (maybe
not though!)
It does have some good stuff - but nothing earth shattering.
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Dawson-Townsend
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 5:15 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People
Not to be blasphemous, but has anyone else found "The AeroElectric
Connection" somewhat anti-climatic, compared to the way it is often
talked about as a document right up there with the Bible, the
Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence? It seems to have
some areas in need of an update, and a lot of focus on plastic
airplanes. Certainly there's some good information in there, but you'd
think the thing could walk on water . . .
TDT
40025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Reining
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 5:04 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People
I attended a workshop given by Greg Richter of Blue Mountain Avionics
on Saturday at Oshkosh entitled "Aircraft Wiring for Smart People". It
was excellent. Each member of the audience was given a 39 page handout
at the start of the forum, which served as the basis for the lecture.
While you may not agree on all the recommendations it contains (such as
using a 28V system), it sure does provide good information for planning
and implementing your system. For those of you who missed this forum,
here's the link to the same handout, available as a PDF file on the Blue
Mountain Avionics website.
http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/pdf/aircraft_wiring_04december2004.pd
f
By the way, be sure to also visit the AeroElectic website:
http://www.aeroelectric.com, and purchase their excellent book on the
same subject: "The AeroElectric Connection".
Bill Reining
RV-10 40514
Tail Cone
Message 105
| 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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I did. It seems like it squishes down pretty well. I haven't noticed
any moisture in there, but in the wingtip lenses it definitely
does get moist. I may have to seal those some day. The foam seal is
on the wing side, so if I ever want to yank it, it would be easy.
I'd try RTV at that point, I think. But so far I'm happy.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Robert G. Wright wrote:
> Tim,
>
>
>
> Did you use the foam tape for moisture barrier in your HID installs?
> Looks like itd keep the lens from fitting flush and letting wet in, as
> opposed to keeping moisture out.
>
>
>
> Anyone else?
>
>
>
> Rob Wright
>
> #392
>
> QB Wings
>
Message 106
| 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: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "KiloPapa" <kilopapa@antelecom.net>
Respectfully:
It is not a perfect world and life is full of risks. We would be nowhere if
people throughout history had not taken risks and we are the beneficories
of those who did. All this legalistic scrutiny of inspections, kit
building, flying, etc. makes me think I should sell my kit (at a loss-don't
start in again),
my tools, and wait in my bomb shelter for the world to end.
Maybe we could start up another forum on Matronics called "Kitbuilding Gloom
and Doom".
Kevin
40494
afraid to continue my building ;)
Message 107
| 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: | Atrocious - Long Rant |
So, maybe just me and my cynical and critical eye reading all these
emails, but I find it ironically troubling (there are two words together
that you don't see too often), that so many builders would take such a
critical eye (heavy on the criticism) about the folks with shoddy
workmanship, yet the same group blasts the folks that seek out the help
of professionals. How can you have your cake and eat it too?
Here is my take on this. I am a new builder and going to make new
builder mistakes. I am taking my time (way more than I would like at
times as I tend to be impatient), but it is for the good of the cause.
I want to build quality. However, that being said, there are many tasks
and skills that are new to me and lo and behold, I promise to the world
that I will have my blemishes as well! I might have more than a couple
too!
I will work to make the primarily safe and secondarily cosmetically
acceptable so that I don't get beat up once I fly my baby to OSH.... I
hope that I would not want to fly it to OSH for fear of the critics
walking around judging what they feel is good versus okay. In my life I
have learned through many experiences that good looking doesn't equate
to good deal. I would way rather have the good deal, rather than good
looking. After all we are talking about safety, which is the
cornerstone of our insurance rates. I would rather see some cracked
paint on an airplane than a cracked skin! Who wouldn't?
So back to my first paragraph, I am not trying to explain or defend what
has been posted. I think that we should all look to make things as
constructive as possible and look to share, which is what I like about
this group. I talked to the folks with the "shoddy looking foil" on the
plane. It was temporary so that they could fly to OSH. It was also an
experiment in learning to see what worked and what didn't. It isn't
right to try and judge that as a finish project, when we can all see
that the project never really ends as we update and change our minds.
Heck check out eBay and all kinds of avionics on there that were king of
the crop at one time.
Everyone gets to decided what is good and what is not when they walk up.
All I would ask is that if you have a suggestion, you share it in a
direct and polite manner. Heck I would love to have someone tell me all
the mistakes not to make and how to hide the ones I do. I would guess
that the folks that showed up at OSH and didn't pass the campfire test
where the folks that aren't working to end the 51% rule. Why must we
publicly flog them? Here is a thought, make a suggestion how to make
sure that paint doesn't crack, or say what you felt wasn't adequate with
the design when you suggest it isn't okay. Also talk about your time and
results so that we can all learn. After all this whole plan it to build
a plane so that you learn.......
I agree that some things need work, but at the same time, I have been
staring at things and just not been sure what to do. Here is how to fix
that so that we all benefit. The stuff I saw was little and most of it
didn't compromise safety. That is key, and at times, I think we loose
that. I don't want to too loose that, and want to bring in the best of
all worlds. The planes will only get better. I hate to think that
there would be a time that one person wouldn't feel comfortable to bring
up their mistakes and solicit suggestions without fear of being bashed
for not "doing it right".
As we fight to protect the 51% rule, we must also be willing to let
folks make mistakes. Not allowing that is what leads to the outsourcing
and violations that we are seeking to stop!
Sure I have made some mad. Hope I hear why I am not right, as I am
willing to have the discussion for the sake of learning!!!
Thanks
Jeff
________________________________
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:28 PM
Yes, I started this so let's bring it full circle with complete
disclosure. For many builders, Please except my apologies here.
Message 108
| 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: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
--> RV10-List message posted by: linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
Kevin, how much do you want for your kit??? Have you done more than 51%
yet? Do we need to make you MORE afraid??? :-P
Yeah, I agree. Sometimes I feel that insurance companies and lawyers
are taking all the fun out of life. When I'm in the shop, concentrating
on airplane stuff, or flying ..... I tend to forget about all that.
Aviation is my escape. I'm addicted, and when the Gov't finds out
..... there goes that too!
Linn
do not archive
KiloPapa wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "KiloPapa" <kilopapa@antelecom.net>
>
> Respectfully:
>
> It is not a perfect world and life is full of risks. We would be
> nowhere if people throughout history had not taken risks and we are
> the beneficories
> of those who did. All this legalistic scrutiny of inspections, kit
> building, flying, etc. makes me think I should sell my kit (at a
> loss-don't start in again),
> my tools, and wait in my bomb shelter for the world to end.
>
> Maybe we could start up another forum on Matronics called "Kitbuilding
> Gloom and Doom".
>
> Kevin
> 40494
> afraid to continue my building ;)
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
Message 109
| 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: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
Tim,
I think there is another option, slim though it may be at the moment.
Get another RV-10 pilot who DOES have time in type to do some or all of the
testing. Over time there will be more people with RV-10 time and the
insurance companies will be happy with them. You can get them covered
**probably** without anyincrease in policy as it appears your time would be
the guiding factor on the rate.
Of course there would need to be an undersanding between the two of you ..
"Save **my* SKIN, then *your* TIN".
I have two instances where I did this for friends and was FULLY covered by
their policies (by name). In one case I was much younger and the other I had
much more experience in type, so the rate did not increase.
Don't know how close you are to finishing or how close you are to someone
who could/would do it. Nor do I have any idea as to whether this is
something you would consider. I just wanted to note it for the record.
James
On 7/31/06, Tim Dawson-Townsend <Tdawson@avidyne.com> wrote:
>
>
> Choices for test pilot:
> 1) me, 260 hour pilot, instrument rating. Only real experience in C-172
> and Warrior. Ten hours transition training in RV-10.
> 2) one of a few professional test pilots I know. Hours in the
> thousands. Types in the dozens. Conceptually, zero hours in the RV-10.
>
> The irony is that option 1) would be covered by our insurance. Option 2)
> would not be covered, unless I pay the test pilot to fly down to TX and then
> pay for him to fly with Alex for 10 hours. That's probably $2000 and having
> to fine someone who doesn't mind using one of their weekends to go to TX . .
> .
>
> TDT
> 40025
>
>
Message 110
| 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: | Atrocious - Long Rant |
What these last two posts are saying to me are:
Thanks for having Oshkosh this year, it allowed everyone to get their dander
up about whatever soapbox they like. Now that Oshkosh is over for this
year, let's all get settled back down to building - something - and if your
aircraft is done, build the best pinewood derby racer that you can! Channel
those emotions into fabrication!
John, how's your buildus interruptus with the static port hole? What
mending did you choose?
I ordered a new Duckworks lens for the left wing today; I had to use it when
I messed up the right wing lens. So far my costliest replacement has been a
new bottom wing skin after trying in vain with my first attempts at
installing the Gretz Pitot bracket. It was canted too much to the left for
my liking, even though Mr. Gretz said it could be somewhere around 15
degrees off center and still give completely acceptable indications.
I noticed no one jumped on the thread about transition training near
Nashville. $150/hr I can get solo time in a Piper Apache around here, maybe
even an Aztec.
Rob Wright
#392
QB Wings
_____
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeffery J. Morgan
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 11:25 PM
So, maybe just me and my cynical and critical eye reading all these emails,
but I find it ironically troubling (there are two words together that you
don't see too often), that so many builders would take such a critical eye
(heavy on the criticism) about the folks with shoddy workmanship, yet the
same group blasts the folks that seek out the help of professionals. How
can you have your cake and eat it too?
Here is my take on this. I am a new builder and going to make new builder
mistakes. I am taking my time (way more than I would like at times as I tend
to be impatient), but it is for the good of the cause.
~snip~ *delete*
Message 111
| 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: Atrocious - Long Rant |
Atrocious - Long RantAmen.
Kevin
40494
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeffery J. Morgan
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 9:24 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Atrocious - Long Rant
So, maybe just me and my cynical and critical eye reading all these
emails, but I find it ironically troubling (there are two words together
that you don't see too often), that so many builders would take such a
critical eye (heavy on the criticism) about the folks with shoddy
workmanship, yet the same group blasts the folks that seek out the help
of professionals. How can you have your cake and eat it too?
Here is my take on this. I am a new builder and going to make new
builder mistakes. I am taking my time (way more than I would like at
times as I tend to be impatient), but it is for the good of the cause.
I want to build quality. However, that being said, there are many tasks
and skills that are new to me and lo and behold, I promise to the world
that I will have my blemishes as well! I might have more than a couple
too!
I will work to make the primarily safe and secondarily cosmetically
acceptable so that I don't get beat up once I fly my baby to OSH.... I
hope that I would not want to fly it to OSH for fear of the critics
walking around judging what they feel is good versus okay. In my life I
have learned through many experiences that good looking doesn't equate
to good deal. I would way rather have the good deal, rather than good
looking. After all we are talking about safety, which is the
cornerstone of our insurance rates. I would rather see some cracked
paint on an airplane than a cracked skin! Who wouldn't?
So back to my first paragraph, I am not trying to explain or defend
what has been posted. I think that we should all look to make things as
constructive as possible and look to share, which is what I like about
this group. I talked to the folks with the "shoddy looking foil" on the
plane. It was temporary so that they could fly to OSH. It was also an
experiment in learning to see what worked and what didn't. It isn't
right to try and judge that as a finish project, when we can all see
that the project never really ends as we update and change our minds.
Heck check out eBay and all kinds of avionics on there that were king of
the crop at one time.
Everyone gets to decided what is good and what is not when they walk
up. All I would ask is that if you have a suggestion, you share it in a
direct and polite manner. Heck I would love to have someone tell me all
the mistakes not to make and how to hide the ones I do. I would guess
that the folks that showed up at OSH and didn't pass the campfire test
where the folks that aren't working to end the 51% rule. Why must we
publicly flog them? Here is a thought, make a suggestion how to make
sure that paint doesn't crack, or say what you felt wasn't adequate with
the design when you suggest it isn't okay. Also talk about your time and
results so that we can all learn. After all this whole plan it to build
a plane so that you learn.......
I agree that some things need work, but at the same time, I have been
staring at things and just not been sure what to do. Here is how to fix
that so that we all benefit. The stuff I saw was little and most of it
didn't compromise safety. That is key, and at times, I think we loose
that. I don't want to too loose that, and want to bring in the best of
all worlds. The planes will only get better. I hate to think that
there would be a time that one person wouldn't feel comfortable to bring
up their mistakes and solicit suggestions without fear of being bashed
for not "doing it right".
As we fight to protect the 51% rule, we must also be willing to let
folks make mistakes. Not allowing that is what leads to the outsourcing
and violations that we are seeking to stop!
Sure I have made some mad. Hope I hear why I am not right, as I am
willing to have the discussion for the sake of learning!!!
Thanks
Jeff
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:28 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: Atrocious - Long Rant
Yes, I started this so let's bring it full circle with complete
disclosure. For many builders, Please except my apologies here.
Message 112
| 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: | conditional inspections |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
You forgot DENTISTS.
If a good Jetti you are, call attention to yourself you need not do.
When do we start having positive discussions on this forum. With worldly
events being what they are, I don't think my stomach can handle anymore
negativity.
How about we round up all them builders for hire and send them on a hunting
trip with Cheney. It seems to boils down to..."show me the money!"
DO not archive, but remember.
>From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: conditional inspections
>Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:31:46 -0400
>
>--> RV10-List message posted by: linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
>
>Ah, now we get down to the reall nitty gritty. It boils down to liability
>insurance ...... which would only kick in if there was a mistake made,
>something important overlooked ...... the fear of making a mistake???? You
>made a PERSONAL decision not to use your training, and yet you bashed those
>that don't feel PERSONALLY as you do. That's a shame, in my book. But I
>do see your point. Lousy A&Ps are why I do all my own work .....
>supervised by knowledgeable A&Ps of course when required ..... on my
>factory builts. I've been had by lousy A&P attention to detail, and had an
>off-field landing due to an incompetent A&P. There are good A&P/IAs ......
>and bad ones, but that's no different than doctors, lawyers or car
>mechanics. The pain comes in finding out which ones are which.
>Linn
>do not archive.
>
>
>Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>>--> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
>>
>>Yup, I won't sign for an aircraft other than my own, because I refuse to
>>pay the $12,000 other IA's in the area are paying for liability insurance.
>>KM
>>A&P/IA
>>
>>John W. Cox wrote:
>>
>>>--> RV10-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>>>
>>>I do play one in real life. And several friends who are current IAs are
>>>giving it up due to insurance (>$8,000 per year). At OSH, there was a
>>>great seminar on financial liabilities of A & Ps touching kit built
>>>aircraft.
>>>
>>>Don't bet on having one help in a pinch. Select one, cultivate a
>>>relationship. Share your knowledge. Help. Learn. Fly Safe. Fly into
>>>old age gracefully. That Repairman Certificate evaporates when you stop
>>>working on the exact aircraft it was issued on. It is non-transferable.
>>>An A & P is only good while you maintain education, proficiency and have
>>>the appropriate tools and manuals.
>>>
>>>Seek guidance on the construction and maintenance of a great POH and
>>>Conditional Maintenance Manual. It can save big bucks down the road.
>>>
>>>John Cox
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>http://wiki.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
Message 113
| 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: | Atrocious - Long Rant |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
VERY, VERY well said! Open mindedness is healthy.
Negativity eventually becomes positivety in a closed cirquit.
Need I turn the computer emails off along with the Television?
Do not archive
JG 409
>From: "Jeffery J. Morgan" <jmorgan@compnetconcepts.com>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: Atrocious - Long Rant
>Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:24:34 -0500
>
>So, maybe just me and my cynical and critical eye reading all these
>emails, but I find it ironically troubling (there are two words together
>that you don't see too often), that so many builders would take such a
>critical eye (heavy on the criticism) about the folks with shoddy
>workmanship, yet the same group blasts the folks that seek out the help
>of professionals. How can you have your cake and eat it too?
>
>Here is my take on this. I am a new builder and going to make new
>builder mistakes. I am taking my time (way more than I would like at
>times as I tend to be impatient), but it is for the good of the cause.
>I want to build quality. However, that being said, there are many tasks
>and skills that are new to me and lo and behold, I promise to the world
>that I will have my blemishes as well! I might have more than a couple
>too!
>
>I will work to make the primarily safe and secondarily cosmetically
>acceptable so that I don't get beat up once I fly my baby to OSH.... I
>hope that I would not want to fly it to OSH for fear of the critics
>walking around judging what they feel is good versus okay. In my life I
>have learned through many experiences that good looking doesn't equate
>to good deal. I would way rather have the good deal, rather than good
>looking. After all we are talking about safety, which is the
>cornerstone of our insurance rates. I would rather see some cracked
>paint on an airplane than a cracked skin! Who wouldn't?
>
>So back to my first paragraph, I am not trying to explain or defend what
>has been posted. I think that we should all look to make things as
>constructive as possible and look to share, which is what I like about
>this group. I talked to the folks with the "shoddy looking foil" on the
>plane. It was temporary so that they could fly to OSH. It was also an
>experiment in learning to see what worked and what didn't. It isn't
>right to try and judge that as a finish project, when we can all see
>that the project never really ends as we update and change our minds.
>Heck check out eBay and all kinds of avionics on there that were king of
>the crop at one time.
>
>Everyone gets to decided what is good and what is not when they walk up.
>All I would ask is that if you have a suggestion, you share it in a
>direct and polite manner. Heck I would love to have someone tell me all
>the mistakes not to make and how to hide the ones I do. I would guess
>that the folks that showed up at OSH and didn't pass the campfire test
>where the folks that aren't working to end the 51% rule. Why must we
>publicly flog them? Here is a thought, make a suggestion how to make
>sure that paint doesn't crack, or say what you felt wasn't adequate with
>the design when you suggest it isn't okay. Also talk about your time and
>results so that we can all learn. After all this whole plan it to build
>a plane so that you learn.......
>
>I agree that some things need work, but at the same time, I have been
>staring at things and just not been sure what to do. Here is how to fix
>that so that we all benefit. The stuff I saw was little and most of it
>didn't compromise safety. That is key, and at times, I think we loose
>that. I don't want to too loose that, and want to bring in the best of
>all worlds. The planes will only get better. I hate to think that
>there would be a time that one person wouldn't feel comfortable to bring
>up their mistakes and solicit suggestions without fear of being bashed
>for not "doing it right".
>
>As we fight to protect the 51% rule, we must also be willing to let
>folks make mistakes. Not allowing that is what leads to the outsourcing
>and violations that we are seeking to stop!
>
>Sure I have made some mad. Hope I hear why I am not right, as I am
>willing to have the discussion for the sake of learning!!!
>
>Thanks
>Jeff
>
>________________________________
>
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
>Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:28 PM
>
>
>Yes, I started this so let's bring it full circle with complete
>disclosure. For many builders, Please except my apologies here.
>
Message 114
| 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: -10's for sale in quantity, available today |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
Missed the point. "I should sell MY kit, MY tools", "afraid to continue MY
building" .
If YOU are building YOUR kit with YOUR tools, YOUR hands, YOUR blood,YOUR
sweat & tears YOU are part of the Solution.
The problem (IMNSHO) is the guy who pays someone else to spend time
building, pays for the use of someone's else's tools, pay the hanger rent
etc etc & then claims to have "built" it himself. I sure would not want to
go back to that guy & have him do the conditional inspection.
Can a RV-10 be built in three months, SURE, throw enough money at it...start
with a QB everything & a dozen or so hands (six-ten guys as needed for their
specialty), a fully equipped shop & unlimited money. No problem.
The first P-51 (without engine) was built in 102 days and nothing was
QuickBuilt, prepunched or ordered "off the shelf".
Old plumbers saying "With an 18" Ridged pipe wrench, a place to stand & a
long enough cheater bar I can turn the world". Key word: "CHEATER". Do Not
Achieve KABONG HRII N561FS (GBA& GWB)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 9:24 PM
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "KiloPapa" <kilopapa@antelecom.net>
>
> Respectfully:
>
> It is not a perfect world and life is full of risks. We would be nowhere
> if people throughout history had not taken risks and we are the
> beneficories
> of those who did. All this legalistic scrutiny of inspections, kit
> building, flying, etc. makes me think I should sell my kit (at a
> loss-don't start in again),
> my tools, and wait in my bomb shelter for the world to end.
>
> Maybe we could start up another forum on Matronics called "Kitbuilding
> Gloom and Doom".
>
> Kevin
> 40494
> afraid to continue my building ;)
Message 115
| 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: Atrocious - Long Rant |
Since I'm on a roll, lemme take a shot!!!
Jeffery J. Morgan wrote:
> So, maybe just me and my cynical and critical eye reading all these
> emails, but I find it ironically troubling (there are two words
> together that you don't see too often), that so many builders would
> take such a critical eye (heavy on the criticism) about the folks with
> shoddy workmanship, yet the same group blasts the folks that seek out
> the help of professionals. How can you have your cake and eat it too?
You missed a big point. Shoddy workmanship is a sign of indifference
.... and it could kill someone down the road. I don't think anyone
blasted those that seek the help of professionals ...... it was paying
professionals to build their airplane.
> Here is my take on this. I am a new builder and going to make new
> builder mistakes. I am taking my time (way more than I would like at
> times as I tend to be impatient), but it is for the good of the
> cause. I want to build quality. However, that being said, there are
> many tasks and skills that are new to me and lo and behold, I promise
> to the world that I will have my blemishes as well! I might have more
> than a couple too!
Blemishes can be found everywhere .... nobodys perfect. I've seen
really poor workmanship ..... and it was so obvious ...... crooked rivet
lines, bulges where they shouldn't be ..... boat lights for nav lights
..... nothing on this airplane was square ..... and both wings were
twisted .... in the same direction .... creating a roll moment. Far
from blemishes. Building a quality airplane means that you may toss out
a structure because you made an error or it doesn't fit correctly ....
and do it over.
> I will work to make the primarily safe and secondarily cosmetically
> acceptable so that I don't get beat up once I fly my baby to OSH.... I
> hope that I would not want to fly it to OSH for fear of the critics
> walking around judging what they feel is good versus okay. In my life
> I have learned through many experiences that good looking doesn't
> equate to good deal. I would way rather have the good deal, rather
> than good looking. After all we are talking about safety, which is
> the cornerstone of our insurance rates. I would rather see some
> cracked paint on an airplane than a cracked skin! Who wouldn't?
I think the criticism you're talking about was indicative of the rush to
get it done for sale ...... quality construction takes time and being
critical of your own work. It's the difference between having to do a
little bondo work ..... or slathering on most of the big can to hide a
goof. Quality is sanding out the runs in the paint, sanding and filling
fiberglas parts so they line up with their neighbor surfaces. It's
being able to recognize what the reflection is on a fiberglas airplane
as you sight down the wing. It's the attention to detail and pride in
what you do.
> So back to my first paragraph, I am not trying to explain or defend
> what has been posted. I think that we should all look to make things
> as constructive as possible and look to share, which is what I like
> about this group. I talked to the folks with the "shoddy looking
> foil" on the plane. It was temporary so that they could fly to OSH.
> It was also an experiment in learning to see what worked and what
> didn't. It isn't right to try and judge that as a finish project,
> when we can all see that the project never really ends as we update
> and change our minds. Heck check out eBay and all kinds of avionics
> on there that were king of the crop at one time.
I agree. It was just one data point among many.
> Everyone gets to decided what is good and what is not when they walk
> up. All I would ask is that if you have a suggestion, you share it in
> a direct and polite manner. Heck I would love to have someone tell me
> all the mistakes not to make and how to hide the ones I do. I would
> guess that the folks that showed up at OSH and didn't pass the
> campfire test where the folks that aren't working to end the 51%
> rule. Why must we publicly flog them? Here is a thought, make a
> suggestion how to make sure that paint doesn't crack, or say what you
> felt wasn't adequate with the design when you suggest it isn't okay.
> Also talk about your time and results so that we can all learn. After
> all this whole plan it to build a plane so that you learn.......
And building an airplane for education, not profit was the point. I
share the same fear that's been floated here. When you bend or break
the rules ..... those that can .... just change the rules ..... and
that may make it more difficult down the road. The FAA has become more
lenient in regard to homebuilt aircraft these last few years .... and
I'd hate to see us lose those benefits .... such as QB assemblies .....
or pre-punched parts ..... or .......
> I agree that some things need work, but at the same time, I have been
> staring at things and just not been sure what to do. Here is how to
> fix that so that we all benefit. The stuff I saw was little and most
> of it didn't compromise safety. That is key, and at times, I think we
> loose that. I don't want to too loose that, and want to bring in the
> best of all worlds. The planes will only get better. I hate to think
> that there would be a time that one person wouldn't feel comfortable
> to bring up their mistakes and solicit suggestions without fear of
> being bashed for not "doing it right".
Again, I agree to a point. There's a difference between common sense
and a glaring experiment or outright safety of flight issue. One of the
things that I really like about experimentals is the ability to make
improvements (in my mind) to an existing airplane, to make it safer,
more efficient, or faster. I can't do that with my certificated
airplanes! I really love my Grumman, and there's things I would like to
do to improve it. But I'll build an airplane to replace the Grumman.
I'll spend far more time and money taking this route ..... but I love
working with my hands and learning new stuff. I'm learning a whole lot
about riveting ..... haven't done much of that yet. And what I know
about tube and rag construction isn't going to help me out a whole lot
on the RV. But it's a pleasure and education thing with me.
> As we fight to protect the 51% rule, we must also be willing to let
> folks make mistakes. Not allowing that is what leads to the
> outsourcing and violations that we are seeking to stop!
Again, it's not the mistakes that was at issue. It was ignoring the
spirit and intent of the experimental aspect of aviation. It was the
pursuit of money, not education that was paramount. The 51% rule and
it's present interpretation is the cornerstone on which the whole
experimental category rests. There are very few rules that we have to
follow in this endeavor .... and ignoring or breaking them will only
bring more regulation. It has nothing to do with smileys, craters,
extra holes filled with rivets, to prime or not to prime .... the list
goes on.
> Sure I have made some mad. Hope I hear why I am not right, as I am
> willing to have the discussion for the sake of learning!!!
Nah, I doubt anyone went away mad. And the only thing I read that I
disagree with is the 'critical criticism' part. You will only be held
up to criticism if you REALLY screw up ..... but it will only be because
it's deserved. My Pitts won't win any awards except maybe 'ladies
choice' or 'best homebuilt' if nobody else shows up. But I built it.
And I learned a lot. And I have a lot more to learn. And when I park
my plane next to a georgeous example .... I have a real deep respect for
what that builder had to go through to make an award winning airplane.
Funny .... my aerobatics gets more criticism than the airplane does,
but it gives me the incentive to try and make the figures a little
better. I'm sure it'll be the same with my riveting.
Linn
do not archive
>
> Thanks
> Jeff
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
> Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:28 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Atrocious - Long Rant
>
> Yes, I started this so let's bring it full circle with complete
> disclosure. For many builders, Please except my apologies here.
>
Message 116
| 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 |
|
Robert,
That foam compresses to thinner than paper, so it shouldn't affect the fit
of the lens.
Dw
_____
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert G. Wright
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:57 PM
Tim,
Did you use the foam tape for moisture barrier in your HID installs? Looks
like it'd keep the lens from fitting flush and letting wet in, as opposed to
keeping moisture out.
Anyone else?
Rob Wright
#392
QB Wings
Message 117
| 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: Atrocious - Long Rant |
Holy cow! Will this rant ever end?
Kevin
40494
tail/empennage
do not archive
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! --
|