Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:49 AM - Re: 51% Rule saga continues (Chris , Susie Darcy)
2. 03:43 AM - C Type Pneumatic Squeezer (Link McGarity)
3. 06:12 AM - Re: T-3A Firefly Aircraft Destroyed (John W. Cox)
4. 06:26 AM - Re: 51% Rule saga continues (John W. Cox)
5. 09:52 AM - Re: T-3A Firefly Aircraft Destroyed (John Gonzalez)
6. 10:16 AM - Re: 51% Rule saga continues (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
7. 11:43 AM - Re: 51% Rule saga continues (Pascal)
8. 11:49 AM - Re: 51% Rule saga continues (Ben Westfall)
9. 12:50 PM - Re: 51% Rule saga continues (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
10. 01:48 PM - Plexi Attach (Tom Gesele)
11. 02:18 PM - Re: Plexi Attach (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
12. 03:11 PM - Re: RV10 Window Junction Cracks - Any Advise? (Chris Johnston)
13. 05:44 PM - Re: 51% Rule saga continues (John W. Cox)
14. 07:56 PM - Re: Plexi Attach (zackrv8)
15. 08:12 PM - Piano Hinges (zackrv8)
16. 08:38 PM - Re: 51% Rule saga continues (like2loop@aol.com)
17. 08:53 PM - Re: Re: Plexi Attach (KiloPapa)
18. 08:55 PM - engine inspections? (Chris Johnston)
19. 10:26 PM - FW: [LML] 49% vs. 51% show of hands please (John W. Cox)
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: 51% Rule saga continues |
Let that one go to the keeper!!
Chris
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: RV Builder (Michael Sausen)
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:48 AM
Subject: RV10-List: 51% Rule saga continues
I do see a bit of irony that Van is a co chair of this committee and
he is knowingly selling kits to people that violate the rule...
http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/060914_rights.html
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage
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: | C Type Pneumatic Squeezer |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Link McGarity <wv4i@bellsouth.net>
Thanks to all who replied. You saved me a lot of time and probably money.
Rgds,
Link McGarity
RV-6/N42GF(bought flying)
RV-10/N41GF(Rsvd)/#40622/horiz stab
FD38/Wellington, FL
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: | T-3A Firefly Aircraft Destroyed |
When Congress balked at creating a third naval aircraft carrier task
force after WWII, The Navy decided to destroy all blimps, all
powerplants, all assets and close all hangar facilities to improve the
decision by Congress. At Tillamook NAS, they took torches to the metal
items, dug pits to bury the non metallic items and ensured Congress all
national assets were destroyed. I think we have an election coming up.
John Cox
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rhonda Bewley
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 2:17 PM
rv-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: T-3A Firefly Aircraft Destroyed
Sorry for the cross postings, but I felt this issue was worthwhile. See
below an email sent to several news agencies. In addition, a letter is
in the draft stages to Sen. Jim Inhofe, who is a member of the Senate
Arms Committee and a GA advocate. I encourage you to do the same.
"Please review the attached stories regarding the Air Force's disposal
of 110 T-3A Firefly airplanes that cost the American taxpayers
$33,000,000. These airplanes were grounded after three fatal accidents.
It was determined that the airplanes had fuel delivery problems.
http://www.txaa.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=1554
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123026857
Generally when aircraft are destroyed, they are disassembled and the
good components are then sold through auction or salvage. The Air
Force, however, has completely destroyed all components, including new
engines and propellers still in the crates from the factory.
My company is an engine overhaul facility which supports the general
aviation market. The engines associated with these aircraft are used in
a multitude of certified and experimental aircraft with very reliable
results and are highly sought after. In fact, we had already begun
inquiries with the GSA on how to bid on these components when these
stories came across our desk.
What a waste of the taxpayer's money!! I feel confident that even those
individuals who don't have a passion for flight would find this type of
activity deplorable. I hope you will give this story your
consideration."
Rhonda Barrett-Bewley
Barrett Precision Engines, Inc.
2870-B N. Sheridan Rd.
Tulsa, OK 74115
(918) 835-1089
www.barrettprecisionengines.com
<http://www.barrettprecisionengines.com/>
________________________________
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Speedy11@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 10:14 AM
Subject: Engines-List: FYI
The US Air Force has announced that it will scrap all 110 remaining
T-3A Firefly training aircraft in the fleet. The planes were grounded
in 1997 after numerous incidents and three crashes. While the Air Force
attributed two of the fatal mishaps to pilot error, all three accidents
involved problems with the engine, a six cylinder Textron Lycoming
AEIO-540-D4A5 generating 260 hp driving a three-bladed prop.
According to GlobalSecurity.org, the T-3A's engine had failed 66 times
during takeoffs or landings. The Air Force grounded 57 of the planes on
ten separate occasions due to problems with either engines, fuel
systems, or brakes.
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: | 51% Rule saga continues |
As long as the original purchaser can sell their interest along the path
to completion, and the purchaser fraudulently represents they built it,
the problem continues to exist. Hired guns can always find a way. Joe
Bartel (Lancair kits), also on the committee is in partnership with one
of the most expensive and finest hired guns over in Bend. Joe is also a
nice guy, hard working owner and an attorney to boot. Ethics are so
entertaining. Money talks loudly and clearly.
Who is the voice for the individual builders being hurt by the flood of
units for sale (20%)?
John Cox
#40600
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN STARN
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: 51% Rule saga continues
IF I were to buy an RV-10 kit to build for someone else I would buy in
their name not my own. Their check & signature. Shipping address..? ?
Have it delivered to a local dock in the 'builders/payers" name.
Why ? ? So he/she, the "buyer", could obtain the Repairman's
Certificate. Without a name & address of the "real builder" is Van now
to play cop too. Key word "KNOWINGLY", there is a big difference between
Thinking, believing, having a hunch and having proof & knowledge. Key
word "PROOF".
KABONG Ex-Det. Sgt & DA liaison for Fontana PD. Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: RV Builder (Michael Sausen) <mailto:rvbuilder@sausen.net>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 6:48 PM
Subject: RV10-List: 51% Rule saga continues
I do see a bit of irony that Van is a co chair of this committee
and he is knowingly selling kits to people that violate the rule.....
http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/060914_rights.html
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage
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: | T-3A Firefly Aircraft Destroyed |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
Yes, but can people believe they have been and are continuing to be lied to.
Does Zeus need to send lightening bolts down from the sky!!!!!
Lets get on it people.
John G. 409
>From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: T-3A Firefly Aircraft Destroyed
>Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 06:12:00 -0700
>
>When Congress balked at creating a third naval aircraft carrier task
>force after WWII, The Navy decided to destroy all blimps, all
>powerplants, all assets and close all hangar facilities to improve the
>decision by Congress. At Tillamook NAS, they took torches to the metal
>items, dug pits to bury the non metallic items and ensured Congress all
>national assets were destroyed. I think we have an election coming up.
>
>
>John Cox
>
>
>________________________________
>
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rhonda Bewley
>Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 2:17 PM
>To: engines-list@matronics.com; rv10-list@matronics.com;
>rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: T-3A Firefly Aircraft Destroyed
>
>
>Sorry for the cross postings, but I felt this issue was worthwhile. See
>below an email sent to several news agencies. In addition, a letter is
>in the draft stages to Sen. Jim Inhofe, who is a member of the Senate
>Arms Committee and a GA advocate. I encourage you to do the same.
>
>
>"Please review the attached stories regarding the Air Force's disposal
>of 110 T-3A Firefly airplanes that cost the American taxpayers
>$33,000,000. These airplanes were grounded after three fatal accidents.
>It was determined that the airplanes had fuel delivery problems.
>
>
>http://www.txaa.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=1554
>
>http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123026857
>
>
>Generally when aircraft are destroyed, they are disassembled and the
>good components are then sold through auction or salvage. The Air
>Force, however, has completely destroyed all components, including new
>engines and propellers still in the crates from the factory.
>
>
>My company is an engine overhaul facility which supports the general
>aviation market. The engines associated with these aircraft are used in
>a multitude of certified and experimental aircraft with very reliable
>results and are highly sought after. In fact, we had already begun
>inquiries with the GSA on how to bid on these components when these
>stories came across our desk.
>
>
>What a waste of the taxpayer's money!! I feel confident that even those
>individuals who don't have a passion for flight would find this type of
>activity deplorable. I hope you will give this story your
>consideration."
>
>
>Rhonda Barrett-Bewley
>
>Barrett Precision Engines, Inc.
>
>2870-B N. Sheridan Rd.
>
>Tulsa, OK 74115
>
>(918) 835-1089
>
>www.barrettprecisionengines.com
><http://www.barrettprecisionengines.com/>
>
>________________________________
>
>From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Speedy11@aol.com
>Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 10:14 AM
>To: engines-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Engines-List: FYI
>
>
>The US Air Force has announced that it will scrap all 110 remaining
>T-3A Firefly training aircraft in the fleet. The planes were grounded
>in 1997 after numerous incidents and three crashes. While the Air Force
>attributed two of the fatal mishaps to pilot error, all three accidents
>involved problems with the engine, a six cylinder Textron Lycoming
>AEIO-540-D4A5 generating 260 hp driving a three-bladed prop.
>
>According to GlobalSecurity.org, the T-3A's engine had failed 66 times
>during takeoffs or landings. The Air Force grounded 57 of the planes on
>ten separate occasions due to problems with either engines, fuel
>systems, or brakes.
>
>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 |
|
| Subject: | 51% Rule saga continues |
Guys, you are taking my comment a bit far. I just think it's funny.
There is NO rule that says he has to police who he sells kit's to and if
I was in his shoes I wouldn't forsake a sale if I didn't have to. He's
not in the wrong, just interesting he is a co chair of a committee to
stop something he is doing.
Now it's not a bad idea as he has firsthand knowledge of what is going
on out there and he can hopefully help craft the new rules so it doesn't
affect the rest of us.
Michael
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pascal
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 10:22 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: 51% Rule saga continues
There are many more than Van's to blame- does he have the right to not
sell to anyone? probably not worth a lawsuit, he has enough of those
already with the Harmon Rocket's, is it worth the loss of business? I
think not, how about those inspectors? The DAR and/or FAA that allow
these planes to get into the market, certainly they are aware who is a
builder for education/hobby and one in it for resale. Not saying that
N325HP @ $230K out there on Aerotrader for sale wasn't built for
education (truthfully it may very well have been ) but when I see "Prof
built, high-end. 320HP" with 20, yes, 20 hours total time I have to ask
myself what the motivation was for many of these low time planes that
are just finishing up the testing time, and for so high??
My point is, that certainly Van sold the kits but he is taking a stance
to assure he works with the EAA and FAA to protect those of us who have
a passion to build for our own education, entertainment and long term
enjoyment. As a Lancair convert I'll say that Van's, the builders, and
the flyers of RV aircraft have something special not seen elsewhere. By
Van's being in the leadership for this committee, I see it as he is
ready to take his time to assure we all (at least the one's doing it for
the reason Experimental category was created) benefit in the future
knowing he could lose a nice chunk of his business. It's a good thing!
Pascal
This is strictly my opinion and is subject to change without notice,
reason or logic
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: RV Builder (Michael Sausen) <mailto:rvbuilder@sausen.net>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 6:48 PM
Subject: RV10-List: 51% Rule saga continues
I do see a bit of irony that Van is a co chair of this committee
and he is knowingly selling kits to people that violate the rule.....
http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/060914_rights.html
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage
Do not archive
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
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: 51% Rule saga continues |
I am rather sensitive to this as a future builder who will have to deal
with the consequences of the few who are abusing the purpose of building
these planes. I think it's a step in the right direction for Van's, as
you mentioned, as well as because he understands the consequence of not
doing it and the possibility of the FAA making potential sales more
difficult for his company down the line, but I also think he has seen
too many cases of people messing with his designs, and blaming his
company for it, this to include build for profit outfits that crank out
examples like the pictures we saw a few months ago of outright lousy
work, including the rust spots. It is rare any of us building the RV-10
are doing anything less than the best we can knowing it will keep up in
the air and we have confidence in the work we did, not to mention
pride.. Somehow there are companies out there doing it right , maybe
even better than us, but there is no where near the pride we have
building and maintaining our own planes.
Van's is ready to be part of the leadership to assure it remains that
way- in the end we all gain from this.
----- Original Message -----
From: RV Builder (Michael Sausen)
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 10:15 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: 51% Rule saga continues
Guys, you are taking my comment a bit far. I just think it's funny.
There is NO rule that says he has to police who he sells kit's to and
if I was in his shoes I wouldn't forsake a sale if I didn't have to.
He's not in the wrong, just interesting he is a co chair of a committee
to stop something he is doing.
Now it's not a bad idea as he has firsthand knowledge of what is
going on out there and he can hopefully help craft the new rules so it
doesn't affect the rest of us.
Michael
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pascal
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 10:22 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: 51% Rule saga continues
There are many more than Van's to blame- does he have the right to not
sell to anyone? probably not worth a lawsuit, he has enough of those
already with the Harmon Rocket's, is it worth the loss of business? I
think not, how about those inspectors? The DAR and/or FAA that allow
these planes to get into the market, certainly they are aware who is a
builder for education/hobby and one in it for resale. Not saying that
N325HP @ $230K out there on Aerotrader for sale wasn't built for
education (truthfully it may very well have been ) but when I see "Prof
built, high-end. 320HP" with 20, yes, 20 hours total time I have to ask
myself what the motivation was for many of these low time planes that
are just finishing up the testing time, and for so high??
My point is, that certainly Van sold the kits but he is taking a
stance to assure he works with the EAA and FAA to protect those of us
who have a passion to build for our own education, entertainment and
long term enjoyment. As a Lancair convert I'll say that Van's, the
builders, and the flyers of RV aircraft have something special not seen
elsewhere. By Van's being in the leadership for this committee, I see it
as he is ready to take his time to assure we all (at least the one's
doing it for the reason Experimental category was created) benefit in
the future knowing he could lose a nice chunk of his business. It's a
good thing!
Pascal
This is strictly my opinion and is subject to change without notice,
reason or logic
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: RV Builder (Michael Sausen)
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 6:48 PM
Subject: RV10-List: 51% Rule saga continues
I do see a bit of irony that Van is a co chair of this committee and
he is knowingly selling kits to people that violate the rule...
http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/060914_rights.html
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage
Do not archive
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
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: | 51% Rule saga continues |
Why do you say "something he is doing"? Van's isn't responsible in any way.
Why would blame fall on them AT ALL? It is the action of a few individuals
that are allegedly abusing the intent of experimental aircraft building.
How is this "something he is doing"?
-Ben
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 10:16 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: 51% Rule saga continues
Guys, you are taking my comment a bit far. I just think it's funny.
There is NO rule that says he has to police who he sells kit's to and if I
was in his shoes I wouldn't forsake a sale if I didn't have to. He's not in
the wrong, just interesting he is a co chair of a committee to stop
something he is doing.
Now it's not a bad idea as he has firsthand knowledge of what is going on
out there and he can hopefully help craft the new rules so it doesn't affect
the rest of us.
Michael
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pascal
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 10:22 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: 51% Rule saga continues
There are many more than Van's to blame- does he have the right to not sell
to anyone? probably not worth a lawsuit, he has enough of those already with
the Harmon Rocket's, is it worth the loss of business? I think not, how
about those inspectors? The DAR and/or FAA that allow these planes to get
into the market, certainly they are aware who is a builder for
education/hobby and one in it for resale. Not saying that N325HP @ $230K out
there on Aerotrader for sale wasn't built for education (truthfully it may
very well have been ) but when I see "Prof built, high-end. 320HP" with 20,
yes, 20 hours total time I have to ask myself what the motivation was for
many of these low time planes that are just finishing up the testing time,
and for so high??
My point is, that certainly Van sold the kits but he is taking a stance to
assure he works with the EAA and FAA to protect those of us who have a
passion to build for our own education, entertainment and long term
enjoyment. As a Lancair convert I'll say that Van's, the builders, and the
flyers of RV aircraft have something special not seen elsewhere. By Van's
being in the leadership for this committee, I see it as he is ready to take
his time to assure we all (at least the one's doing it for the reason
Experimental category was created) benefit in the future knowing he could
lose a nice chunk of his business. It's a good thing!
Pascal
This is strictly my opinion and is subject to change without notice, reason
or logic
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: RV Builder <mailto:rvbuilder@sausen.net> (Michael Sausen)
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 6:48 PM
Subject: RV10-List: 51% Rule saga continues
I do see a bit of irony that Van is a co chair of this committee and he is
knowingly selling kits to people that violate the rule...
http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/060914_rights.html
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage
Do not archive
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
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: | 51% Rule saga continues |
Let's be real here. Van knows EXACTLY who is building the -10 and other
models for profit. He's not na=EFve to who is a repeat offend for
profit only. THAT is what I mean. But like I said, VAN isn't doing a
darn thing wrong, he is just selling a bunch of parts to a consumer and
there is no regulation that says he has to police the 51% rule. If the
person he sells it to decided to break the intent of the rule, that is
their problem, not Van's.
Michael
Do not archive
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ben Westfall
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 1:51 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: 51% Rule saga continues
Why do you say "something he is doing"? Van's isn't responsible in any
way. Why would blame fall on them AT ALL? It is the action of a few
individuals that are allegedly abusing the intent of experimental
aircraft building. How is this "something he is doing"?
-Ben
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 10:16 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: 51% Rule saga continues
Guys, you are taking my comment a bit far. I just think it's funny.
There is NO rule that says he has to police who he sells kit's to and if
I was in his shoes I wouldn't forsake a sale if I didn't have to. He's
not in the wrong, just interesting he is a co chair of a committee to
stop something he is doing.
Now it's not a bad idea as he has firsthand knowledge of what is going
on out there and he can hopefully help craft the new rules so it doesn't
affect the rest of us.
Michael
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pascal
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 10:22 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: 51% Rule saga continues
There are many more than Van's to blame- does he have the right to not
sell to anyone? probably not worth a lawsuit, he has enough of those
already with the Harmon Rocket's, is it worth the loss of business? I
think not, how about those inspectors? The DAR and/or FAA that allow
these planes to get into the market, certainly they are aware who is a
builder for education/hobby and one in it for resale. Not saying that
N325HP @ $230K out there on Aerotrader for sale wasn't built for
education (truthfully it may very well have been ) but when I see "Prof
built, high-end. 320HP" with 20, yes, 20 hours total time I have to ask
myself what the motivation was for many of these low time planes that
are just finishing up the testing time, and for so high??
My point is, that certainly Van sold the kits but he is taking a stance
to assure he works with the EAA and FAA to protect those of us who have
a passion to build for our own education, entertainment and long term
enjoyment. As a Lancair convert I'll say that Van's, the builders, and
the flyers of RV aircraft have something special not seen elsewhere. By
Van's being in the leadership for this committee, I see it as he is
ready to take his time to assure we all (at least the one's doing it for
the reason Experimental category was created) benefit in the future
knowing he could lose a nice chunk of his business. It's a good thing!
Pascal
This is strictly my opinion and is subject to change without notice,
reason or logic
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: RV Builder (Michael Sausen) <mailto:rvbuilder@sausen.net>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 6:48 PM
Subject: RV10-List: 51% Rule saga continues
I do see a bit of irony that Van is a co chair of this committee and he
is knowingly selling kits to people that violate the rule.....
http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/060914_rights.html
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage
Do not archive
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tom Gesele <tgesele@optonline.net>
Has anyone used an alternate method of attaching the windows/windscreen to
the cabin cover on the -10? Any comments pro/con specifically relating to
using epoxy for the bonding with an layer of cloth on top to try and prevent
the paint cracking issue would be greatly appreciated.
- Tom Gesele #473
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 |
|
--> RV10-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
I gave some serious thought to using Sikaflex which is very popular with
the canopy guys on the 2 seat models. For some reason I ordered the
Weldon when I was batch ordering though so I guess I'll probably go with
that.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom Gesele
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 3:47 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Plexi Attach
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tom Gesele <tgesele@optonline.net>
Has anyone used an alternate method of attaching the windows/windscreen
to the cabin cover on the -10? Any comments pro/con specifically
relating to using epoxy for the bonding with an layer of cloth on top to
try and prevent the paint cracking issue would be greatly appreciated.
- Tom Gesele #473
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: | RV10 Window Junction Cracks - Any Advise? |
this is a message about installing the windows that i had saved from
awhile ago. i think this is the way i'll go.
cj
#40410
fuse
www.perfectlygoodairplane.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of David McNeill
Sent: Wed 6/14/2006 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV10 Window Junction Cracks - Any Advise?
Several things I would add to the previous message. Glassing the windows
in requires at least two people. One on the inside to clear the excess
and one on the outside to clear the excess insert the clecoes.
Additionally it helps to have some Teflon release cloth to place over
the edges to create a nice matte finish, absorb excess and a nice smooth
surface for further sanding.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV10 Window Junction Cracks - Any Advise?
--> RV10-List message posted by: Rick
Mark,
Mat be too late for you but Davis McNeill provided this tidbit that is
uesed with grat sucess on Glasairs...hopefullu it will help others if
you can't use it.
Rick S.
40185
As provided by David:
Although the procedure takes only about an hour to accomplish per
window, setup and planning is substantially more.. I recommend that you
do one window to get the procs correct and plan to do the windshield on
a day by itself.
(0) tape off the inside and outside flange area of the window using 3M
Fineline (.5 width)
(1) then signstrip blue on the center areas to protect the inside and
outside of the window . Be generous when painting it on as this makes it
easy to pull off.
(2) sand the inside/outside edges of the window in the area of the
flange to roughen the glass for adhesion.
(3) sand the flanges of the lid; CLEAN ALL SANDED EDGES WITH ACETONE
(4) prepare a set of aluminum "fingers" . Strips of .080 1" by 3" ;
with a slight bend in the center. one end gets a #30 hole and the other
is adequately taped. each is numbered. See the picture.
(5) Trim the window to fit the frame and temporarily hold in place
with the NUMBERED "fingers". Clecoes should be place about .50" outside
the window. Drill #30 only through the external layer; NOT THROUGH THE
LID. RETAPE OFF THE EDGES 3M FINELINE TAPE .
(6) prepare a mixture of epoxy with chopped fibers and cabosil.
Consistency should be peanut butter. Potlife should plan to be 30-40
minutes. We refrigerated it to further slow the cure.
(7) putty the lid flanges, wet the window flanges with a small amount
of catalyzed epoxy and place window in frame; holding in place with
"fingers" at the preplanned locations.
(8) inside person should be wiping excess putty away with a 50-50
mixture of mineral spirirts and acetone; outside person should be
smoothing putty on outside flange. excess will be sanded off later. then
PULL THE TAPES BEFORE IT CURES.
(9) allow to cure 24 hours.
(10) Inside lid , flange should be finished . If rough, tape glass and
sand lightly.
(11) outside the lid, RETAPE the edge at the flange line, then cover
the flange with two 1" layers of glass (E-7782?). (Note this was the
Glastar procedure.) Remember to pull the tape before the layered glass
sets up. The windscreen on the RV10 requires a different layering of
glass on the aluminum.
(12) Retape the edge , then sand and fill external flange area for
paint. The sanding can feather into the edge of the tape.
(13) when painted , paint should cover the flange.
(14) MUST BE DONE BEFORE THE MIXTURE CURES. If you accidentally get
epoxy on the Plexiglas during the process, it can be safely removed
using a clean cloth and the 50-50 mixture of mineral spirits and
acetone. Have it handy.
(15) 50-50 mixture is also good for removing any signstrip that does
not come off when finally removing the protective covering before
flight.
http://wiki.matronics.com
===========
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: | 51% Rule saga continues |
Michael, I am trying to be REAL here, the problem is with the FAA who
will certificate multiple builds of the exact same model aircraft to the
same (slow learning / dim witted) OBAM aircraft owner. The DARs are to
blame, the system is flawed, the players know their respective roles and
relish in the cash flow. The DARs know who is producing multiple copies
and they willingly submit the paperwork over and over. Then the FAA
propagates the problem from OKC. Their credentials should be pulled.
No one is pulling any wool over anyone's eyes here. Why can't Jesse
provide the same service in Ecuador that Bonanza does in the
Philippines? The individuals who are whining the loudest are the kit
manufacturers who think they are losing sales and market share to those
kit builders who have a blind eye and tin ear. Remember we have more
than 630 kits in the pipeline.
How many RV-10s can I personally build for someone(s) before the system
says ENOUGH. 2-4-6-8? I am hopeful a whole new cadre of professional
build assist shops will arise from the rumble which require documented
training of their workers, periodic documented assistance photos and a
more stringent method for acquiring an Airworthiness Certificate. I
would like to see a more educated build community. If every builder was
doing as great a job as Tim Olson, who would complain... not me! The
late Dave Lewis set the record with 37 RV builds. VAN knew where the
kits were shipped and who was the builder. Dave, to his credit was
involved in putting retractable gear in one. His son, Dave Jr. was
instrumental in demonstrating four ship formation flights to the NW
airshow circuit (which by the way sold lots of kits) and created lots of
builds for their operation.
The worst thing to happen is more whining and no change. That sounds
like the FAA I served for 23 years. The next worst thing is stringent
inspection procedures to physically document the renegade builders who
flaunt the loophole and let it continue. The unsuspecting builder with
the phony repairman certificate beware. The good news is VAN on the
committee, Joe Bartel on the committee, Dave Saylor on the committee....
If only Rick Schrameck was on that committee I could say "Fair and
Balanced".
Word from work is the FAA is now looking at the possibility of a whole
new category of maintenance tech certificate called Composite
Specialist. That would weed out the A & Ps with Airframe tickets who
could no more do a Hot build, ramp up prepregs with sophisticated matrix
and epoxy bond over a double compound curve surface. Wow... x-ray
certification too. And no one is talking about the 51% spaceship being
proto-typed at Composites Unlimited either. Ever heard the phrase "the
Skies are the Limit". Not Burt and Company.
These are Interesting Times. Build on and ignore the distant rumblings,
its just another election year in DC. It will all be over soon.
John Cox
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 12:49 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: 51% Rule saga continues
Let's be real here. Van knows EXACTLY who is building the -10 and other
models for profit. He's not na=EFve to who is a repeat offend for
profit only. THAT is what I mean. But like I said, VAN isn't doing a
darn thing wrong, he is just selling a bunch of parts to a consumer and
there is no regulation that says he has to police the 51% rule. If the
person he sells it to decided to break the intent of the rule, that is
their problem, not Van's.
Michael
Do not archive
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Plexi Attach |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "zackrv8" <zackrv8@verizon.net>
Tom,
Use this stuff. After it cures, it stays flexible somewhat. Kitfox uses this
stuff to bond the ribs onto the spar. I use it to bond my skins to the ribs
(and then rivet them the next day). Several of my friends have bonded their
RV8 canopy's to the frame with this product. I will use it to bond my windows
on my RV10. May be better than Sikaflex. Don't know for sure because I have
never used Sikaflex. Picture below.
You can get it at MSC.
Zack
--------
RV8 #80125
RV10 # 40512
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=61899#61899
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc05931_117.jpg
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: "zackrv8" <zackrv8@verizon.net>
Guys,
Here's another tip....
If you want less sag on your baggage door, use the extruded piano hinge instead
of the one supplied in the kit. The extruded version is 4 times the cost
but is much, much stronger! The supplied version in the kit has the eyelets rolled.
As you can see from the pics, the extrusion has the eyelets closed.
Also, notice in the pictures the gap between eyelets. The extrusion has less
than the rolled version.
I have almost 1000 hours on my RV8 and have replaced 3 eyelets on my cowl piano
hinge so far. Vibration does a number on them. I will install extruded hinges
on my RV10 cowl for sure!
Zack
--------
RV8 #80125
RV10 # 40512
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=61902#61902
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc05960_773.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc05959_381.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc05957_956.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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 51% Rule saga continues |
" I am trying to be REAL here, the problem is with the FAA who will certificate
multiple builds of the exact same model aircraft to the same (slow learning
/ dim witted) OBAM aircraft owner. The DARs are to blame, the system is flawed,
"
The real problem is people on this "Builders List" complaining about a non-building
issue day after day and clogging my e-mail box full of their mistaken
opinions!!! We are not the FAA and can not change anything by e-mail. Sorry
for beating around the bush.
If the "Professional Builder" is using his brain, he will NEVER buy the kit
or register it in his own name. I know a few guys that do this for a living
for various different kits, and they prefer to think of themselves as "builder
Assist programs", and usually have their client sign paperwork that states that
they are assisting and not being contracted to do all the work in accorardance
with the 51% rule. The actual owner still needs to be present and do some
work..... WHO CARES??? I could care less about who builds what, as long as
the finished plane is airworthy and safe.
They (builder assistants) certainly in most cases will be much better then
i am at building, you have to get better if you assist in the same project over
and over. For many builders this can be very good, as they may lack some
abilities that i may have yet they have enough cash to pay someone to assit them.
Good for them!!! That is a sign of financial success. As for complaining
about the "intent" of the rule, WHO cares? As long as they are NOT violating
the rule and building MY entire plane when i am not looking, it will never
effect me. I like building, some people don't, but yet they value the resulting
plane. I congratulate them for not stuping so low and buying a plane with
dome rivets from Cessna and Piper. Some of you even buy quick build kits...
SO WHAT? I plan to build mine myself and will not bother judging you for hiring
Phillipinos to do your work... even though your cash is going off shore when
there are Americans here that are willing to help
you with your project!!! How's that for a spin on the situation???
Please stop clogging the list with NON building stuff that if it lands in the
hands of the FAA can only serve to light a fire of some beaurocrat that is bored
and may jeopardize all homebuilders if the FAA decides a policy re-write
is needed. I have never seen the FAA do anything helpful to me. Please dont
call the FAA and complain about any issue related to homebuilt builder assitance.
I would suggest you build more and type less.
Repectfully - Steve
Port St. Lucie, FL
RV-10 Builder #40499 Finishing the Elevators....
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools,
free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL
Mail and more.
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Plexi Attach |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "KiloPapa" <kilopapa@antelecom.net>
FYI: Attached is the info sheet from 3M on the Scotch-Weld 2216 mentioned
below.
Kevin
40494
tail/empennage
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 7:55 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Plexi Attach
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "zackrv8" <zackrv8@verizon.net>
>
> Tom,
>
> Use this stuff. After it cures, it stays flexible somewhat. Kitfox uses
> this stuff to bond the ribs onto the spar. I use it to bond my skins to
> the ribs (and then rivet them the next day). Several of my friends have
> bonded their RV8 canopy's to the frame with this product. I will use it
> to bond my windows on my RV10. May be better than Sikaflex. Don't know
> for sure because I have never used Sikaflex. Picture below.
>
> You can get it at MSC.
>
> Zack
>
> --------
> RV8 #80125
> RV10 # 40512
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc05931_117.jpg
>
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: | engine inspections? |
hey all -
i'm looking into buying an overhauled engine from a private seller, and
wondered what cost is usually associated with having an engine shop
disassemble and inspect the engine? i'm looking at an 0-540 E4B5 that i
want to change over to fuel injection, and also install electronic
ignition instead of mags. as an ex-drag race engine builder, i have a
pretty good handle on engines in general, but i've never dealt with an
aircraft engine, and would rather have a professional make sure all is
good. any and all advice would be GREATLY appreciated. also the engine
is an O-540 E4B5, which i think is appropriate for the RV-10 from the
research that i did, but if somehow i've misread or misunderstood the
engine identifiers that are comparable, please, someone let me know
before i waste a bunch of money!
thanks in advance!
cj
#40410
fuse
www.perfectlygoodairplane.net
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | FW: [LML] 49% vs. 51% show of hands please |
With respect to Steve Blank (from FL) and those who have no dog in this
hunt, Good luck with your future insurance rates. The gene pool is
only as strong as the contributors. If compelled, respond direct to
Dave, he is one of the Good Guys in this profession. Your consideration
on this issue is of value.
John Cox
Do not Archive
________________________________
From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of
Dave Saylor
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 10:01 PM
Subject: [LML] 49% vs. 51% show of hands please
You may have heard that the FAA is studying the current status of the
51% rule.
It is widely believed that there is systematic abuse of the rule by some
builders who employ businesses and individuals to complete much more
than 49% of their aircraft, then falsify FAA Form 8130-12, Eligibility
Statement for Amateur-Built Aircraft.
FAA has formed an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to study the
situation and make recommendations regarding the rule. You can read the
ARC charter here:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0
/efe4866385f304a0862571b800535d7a/$FILE/Order1110.143.pdf
As a builder's assistant and a member of the committee, I am interested
in your opinions. I am posting this message to a number of experimental
aircraft forums in the hope of developing some kind of consensus to
bring to the next meeting.
I would ask that you make whatever comments you feel are relevant to the
forums, but in an attempt to develop a consensus, I'm also asking for a
show of hands: please email me at Dave@AirCraftersLLC.com with your
comments, and if possible summarize your thinking in the subject line as
either "Keep 51% As Is" or "Allow More Builder Assistance". I
understand there is currently a HUGE gray area in between. Also, if you
care to post this note to other forums please feel free-I'll do my best
to keep up with the traffic.
I look forward to your responses.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
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! --
|