Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:01 AM - Re: unbelievable!!! (William Condon)
2. 12:19 AM - Re: Pro seal (kilopapa@antelecom.net)
3. 12:49 AM - Re: unbelievable!!! (John W. Cox)
4. 12:55 AM - Re: N2733K (John W. Cox)
5. 03:03 AM - Re: Happy Anniversary Tim! (Mark Ritter)
6. 05:52 AM - Re: unbelievable!!! (Rene Felker)
7. 06:05 AM - Re: unbelievable!!! (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
8. 06:11 AM - Re: N2733K (Jesse Saint)
9. 06:13 AM - Re: Happy Anniversary Tim! (Tim Olson)
10. 06:28 AM - Re: Static Air System - Alternate Air Valve- REDUX (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
11. 06:29 AM - Re: N2733K (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
12. 06:40 AM - Re: unbelievable!!! (Jesse Saint)
13. 06:42 AM - Re: unbelievable!!! (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
14. 07:05 AM - Re: The RV Smile - continued (Phillips, Jack)
15. 07:29 AM - Re: unbelievable!!! (GRANSCOTT@aol.com)
16. 07:58 AM - Re: unbelievable!!! (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
17. 08:03 AM - Re: unbelievable!!! (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
18. 08:22 AM - Re: unbelievable!!! (GRANSCOTT@aol.com)
19. 08:30 AM - Re: unbelievable!!! (Bob Leffler)
20. 08:34 AM - factory built RVs (wasRe: unbelievable!!!) (linn Walters)
21. 08:40 AM - Re: unbelievable!!! (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
22. 09:27 AM - Re: unbelievable!!! (Dave Saylor)
23. 09:28 AM - Re: unbelievable!!! (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
24. 09:33 AM - Re: unbelievable!!! (JOHN STARN)
25. 09:34 AM - Re: factory built RVs (wasRe: unbelievable!!!) (Kelly McMullen)
26. 09:53 AM - Re: unbelievable!!! (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
27. 09:55 AM - Re: unbelievable!!! (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
28. 10:10 AM - Re: unbelievable!!! (Pascal)
29. 10:11 AM - Sec 12: Empennage Fairings (orchidman)
30. 10:30 AM - Fuel Tank Question (Michael Schipper)
31. 10:48 AM - Re: factory built RVs (wasRe: unbelievable!!!) (Pascal)
32. 11:04 AM - Re: Fuel Tank Question (Rob Kermanj)
33. 11:09 AM - Re: Fuel Tank Question (Scott Schmidt)
34. 11:43 AM - Doctors are no different than anyone else (Pascal)
35. 11:43 AM - Re: Fuel Tank Question (Niko)
36. 12:48 PM - Re: factory built RVs (wasRe: unbelievable!!!) (linn Walters)
37. 01:05 PM - Re: what do you call yourself to ATC? (Scott Schmidt)
38. 01:25 PM - Re: unbelievable!!! (Dave Saylor)
39. 02:07 PM - Re: factory built RVs (wasRe: unbelievable!!!) (Jesse Saint)
40. 02:22 PM - Re: unbelievable!!! (James Hein)
41. 02:35 PM - Re: unbelievable!!! (John W. Cox)
42. 02:39 PM - Milestones (Jeff Carpenter)
43. 02:44 PM - Conduit Runs (Jeff Carpenter)
44. 02:48 PM - Re: unbelievable!!! (John W. Cox)
45. 02:56 PM - Re: Conduit Runs (Tim Olson)
46. 03:02 PM - Re: unbelievable!!! (John W. Cox)
47. 03:11 PM - Re: Conduit Runs (Rick)
48. 03:12 PM - Re: unbelievable!!! (John W. Cox)
49. 03:13 PM - Re: Panel Lettering (Rick)
50. 03:16 PM - Re: unbelievable!!! (Dave Saylor)
51. 03:18 PM - Re: Panel Lettering (McGANN, Ron)
52. 03:22 PM - Re: Conduit Runs (JOHN STARN)
53. 03:26 PM - Re: unbelievable!!! (GRANSCOTT@aol.com)
54. 03:29 PM - Re: Panel Lettering (Rick)
55. 03:37 PM - Re: unbelievable!!! (John W. Cox)
56. 03:37 PM - Re: unbelievable!!! (GRANSCOTT@aol.com)
57. 03:55 PM - Re: unbelievable!!! (John W. Cox)
58. 04:06 PM - unbelievable (pilotdds@aol.com)
59. 04:18 PM - Re: Panel Lettering (McGANN, Ron)
60. 04:43 PM - Anyone have a photo/diagram of fuel routing? (James Hein)
61. 04:58 PM - Re: thanks Tim (Robert Woods)
62. 05:01 PM - Rudder Trim (Bob Leffler)
63. 05:13 PM - Re: unbelievable!!! (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
64. 05:16 PM - Re: unbelievable!!! (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
65. 06:04 PM - Re: unbelievable (Tim Olson)
66. 06:10 PM - Re: factory built RVs (wasRe: unbelievable!!!) (Dj Merrill)
67. 06:46 PM - Re: unbelievable (Dj Merrill)
68. 07:17 PM - Re: unbelievable!!! (JOHN STARN)
69. 07:17 PM - Re: unbelievable (Tim Olson)
70. 07:33 PM - Re: Rudder Trim (Tim Olson)
71. 07:47 PM - Re: Static Air System - Alternate Air Valve- REDUX (marcausman)
72. 08:14 PM - Re: unbelievable (John W. Cox)
73. 08:31 PM - A&P willing to do annual condition inspection, pre-buy (eagerlee)
74. 08:53 PM - Re: Fuel Tank Question (Jesse Saint)
75. 09:00 PM - Re: Conduit Runs (Jesse Saint)
76. 09:12 PM - Re: Rudder Trim (Jesse Saint)
77. 09:20 PM - Re: factory built RVs (wasRe: unbelievable!!!) (Jesse Saint)
78. 11:39 PM - Re: unbelievable!!! (William Condon)
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 |
|
Given that the below is all true, one cannot have any sympathy for the two
doctors involved or the former owner of the company. Not only did were the
doctors displaying an unbelievable level of foolishness (by giving away huge
sums of money to a possible crook), but they were directly threatening the
experimental building community, as a whole.
I say that because this apparently involved the 'for-hire' building of an
experimental aircraft - since the doctors didn't know anything about the
scam, they obviously hadn't invested any of their own labor in the building
of the aircraft. Of course, to get an airworthiness certificate for this
aircraft, the people would have to defraud the FAA. And, when people are
out there defrauding the FAA, this will eventual lead to them (the FAA)
eating away at the public's right to build its own airplanes.
Unless, of course, there is a loophole that I don't know about (where one
can pay to have kit airplanes professionally built) - if that is the case, I
respectfully withdraw my comments (except for the foolishness / crook part,
which still stands).
Bill C.
Dream - 100%, everything else - 0%
US military stationed overseas until 2009
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:34 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Predator, indeed.
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of SteinAir, Inc.
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 3:53 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Wow....I can't believe all the banter about these planes from literally
everyone who has little to NO knowledge themselves. It seems even Jims
"understanding" is just flat wrong. The facts are:
Predator Aviation was building a custom plane called the "Kymera 750" (aka
an RV-10 with a 700+somethingth hp engine) and also the Kymera 440.
They Kymera "750" was priced/sold around $300K and the "440" was around
$200K.
They had to call them a new plane, because Predator Aviation themselves got
in trouble selling/advertising turnkey RV-10's (The FAA got in the middle of
it some time ago).
Predator Aviation/Chris Opperman sold TWO "Kymera 750's or 440's" to
individuals who BOTH paid a LOT of money (we're talking hundreds of
thousands of $$'s here).
Incidentally, both of the buyers / customers are doctors - I know one of
them very well and just met the other after this whole debacle. I was
building the panel for one of the customers and the other was being built by
Predator (supposedly).
Chris ordered avionis from me for "both" planes.
Predator Aviation constantly send updates to both "customers" complete with
pictures, progress reports, etc.. on BOTH planes.
Both customers truly believed that each of them was having a plane built by
Opperman and relied on his "progress reports" of newly clecoed together
pieces as proof of progress.
Both customers previous to his "death" last year did not know each other.
Both customers didn't spend time on site.
Both customers found out after Oppermans death that in fact there was only
ONE airplane, and an incomplete one at that.
Both customers fought over who's plane it was (since both of them had paid a
LOT OF $$'s for their plane).
The "Kymera 750 or 440" was promised to be a super fast, super structurally
modified (Chris told me many times personally about all his "engineering"
modifications to the airplane that made it so different from an RV-10).
Quote from their sales brochure says "Airframe Reinforced for high payload".
This whole thing was/is a bloody mess with both guys losing a ton of money.
Look at the Predator Aviation website if you want the details. They claimed:
274mph cruise, 2400 nm range, 1850lb usefull load, 120gal fuel capacity and
750+ hp turbocharged engine.
The only sad thing here is that the current owner of the kit was so ignorant
(who in the world honestly thinks that plane is even remotely done). The
fact is there is about 2% of work done on that plane.....I don't think the
guy is stupid, just one of the most ignorant people I've ever met. Who
thinks they have 9" GRT displays, or a 92" prop, or an 80% completed
airplane that's barely unpacked from the crate?!?!?!? I feel bad for anyone
that now falls for those lies or plain ignorance (I don't know which), just
like the original two owners fell for Oppermans lies.
As far as picking on a Dead Guy, well.....it turns out he wasn't the most
ethical, moral, or honest person in the world when it came to customers and
business. We all may wonder how in the world people get involved in things
like that, and at the time of his supposed death when I found out all the
nasty details from both customers I thought - - "Who would send that much
money without getting anything back, etc.. or checking in constantly".
Then, I find myself losing hundreds of thousands of $$'s myself in the
middle of this D2A/Chelton debacle and I see how easy it is to end up on the
receiving end of bad deals.
Just my 2 cents as usual! Sorry if anyone gets offended, but it seems like
I've seen lots banter here with little to no first hand knowledge of the
situation.
Cheers,
Stein.
P.S., I've attached a copy of their sales brochure (if it makes it) for your
review. Chris actually thought I'd be crazy enough to try and "resell"
these things for him...!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
lessdragprod@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
I certainly like to see how easy it is for some people WITHOUT ANY APPARRENT
KNOWLWDGE OF A PROJECT to be critical of another persons dream.
It's my understanding that the builder who had this RV-10 dream machine died
of a sudden heart attack.
I like your style of picking on a dead guy. NOT.
Jim Ayers
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 |
|
I had a similar slow set time in the cold, dry high desert
of SoCal. I called the company and they said each 10
degrees cooler than listed specs would double the set time
if I recall correctly. The set time listed is at a specific
temp and humidity. Cooler and dryer would certainly affect
that. It did finally set for me but took much longer than
the listed specs. (It was fresh stock from Van's)
Kevin
40494
----- Original Message Follows -----
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
Subject: RV10-List: Pro seal
>I used some proseal from Van's which was sold in the
>caulking tube style system.
>
>I read the instructions several times and for the life of
>me without any pictures, the directions made aboslutley no
>sense to me. I ended up shooting the catalyst tube into
>the main product tube and then expelling it out and hand
>mixing.
>
>The question is how long does it take before a skin starts
>forming on the product. WHEN i DID THE trailing edges I
>left everthing for five days.
>
>Fortunately I am only glueing the SV vents to the fuse but
>after two days, it's like it is not setting.
>
>How much time is required for a tacky skin to form.
>
>John G
>
>Greatful for not doing the fuel tanks.
>
>
>==
>
>
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 |
|
Thank you for respectfully withdrawing your observation. The RV-10 is
being mass produced in South Africa, Russian, the P.I., Central America
and yes in Oklahoma. The loophole has a truck running through it and
the FAA has convened a committee to close the door or give approval on
those current actions. Your answer will be forthcoming quite soon.
Just a rhetorical question for the masses. Just how many RV-10s beyond
ONE should a builder be allowed to complete before the group yells
"Foul"? I guess the silence is a compelling answer.
The "For hire" boys are alive and well buying RV-10 kits.
Here is the final question. Who finds it inappropriate for a
manufacturer to ship a second, third, fourth or fifth kit to those
repeat builders?
Bill, you should be hearing soon from a few of those builders
(predators) about their product offering.
John Cox
#40600
Do not Archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Condon
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:00 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Given that the below is all true, one cannot have any sympathy for the
two doctors involved or the former owner of the company. Not only did
were the doctors displaying an unbelievable level of foolishness (by
giving away huge sums of money to a possible crook), but they were
directly threatening the experimental building community, as a whole.
I say that because this apparently involved the 'for-hire' building of
an experimental aircraft - since the doctors didn't know anything about
the scam, they obviously hadn't invested any of their own labor in the
building of the aircraft. Of course, to get an airworthiness
certificate for this aircraft, the people would have to defraud the FAA.
And, when people are out there defrauding the FAA, this will eventual
lead to them (the FAA) eating away at the public's right to build its
own airplanes.
Unless, of course, there is a loophole that I don't know about (where
one can pay to have kit airplanes professionally built) - if that is the
case, I respectfully withdraw my comments (except for the foolishness /
crook part, which still stands).
Bill C.
Dream - 100%, everything else - 0%
US military stationed overseas until 2009
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 |
|
Jesse could you fill me in on all of the ADs that are out on the RV-10
that were complied with? I was only aware of Service Bulletins.
John Cox
#40600
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 6:50 PM
Subject: RV10-List: N2733K
Anybody know any details of the -10 for sale on controller
(http://www.controller.com/listings/forsale/detail.asp?ohid=1115550)?
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
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: Happy Anniversary Tim! |
Tim,
Congratulations on completing the first year. Would you post your annual
condition inspection on your web site?
Thanks,
Mark
>From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Happy Anniversary Tim!
>Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:24:20 -0600
>
>
>Thanks guys, it's pretty cool that my online family would remember.
>My at-home family just kind of let it blow by....although it was
>on MY mind quite a bit today.
>
>Larry, I'll try to prove I can keep it to less than even 10 pages. ;)
>
>In the last year, I've come to basically realize my dreams of what I
>had hoped my RV-10 would be. It performs every bit as I had hoped,
>and actually better, because I "discovered" Lean-of-peak operation.
>(I knew a bunch about it before, but never had an acceptably smooth
>engine with which to fly that way) With the performance and economy,
>it really is the perfect plane for someone like me...a halfway
>limited budget, and a love for x/c travel.
>
>It's proved to have the space I needed to haul the family. It's
>proved to be fairly trouble free in operation with only minor
>exceptions. I'm about to embark on my first yearly inspection,
>and I'll report any out of the ordinary happenings as I get into that.
>With nearly 200 hours now, it's also been a real personally fulfilling
>time seeing the avionics all work the way they should. I know some
>people probably cringe to hear it because I talk about it so much, but
>I REALLY love those Chelton screens and basically the whole panel
>layout and function. I know it was a pretty crappy ending to 2006
>with the D2A debacle, but if it weren't for seeing so many people
>hurt by a couple of bast@ards I could say that I'm fully satisfied with
>that choice. As it stands, I'm very satisfied with how the
>equipment is working out, but I surely understand others who are
>left with some ill feelings. There is a lot of function there that
>I never dreamed I would/could own, and it amazes me every time I fly.
>
>As far as disappointments, one of the larger ones is that I wish I
>would have added rudder trim during original construction. I also
>wish I would have installed my CO monitor from the start, and
>would have put my 2 larger defrost fans in during initial
>construction. I know people recently were talking about how you
>should think about keeping your IFR panel trimmed down and build
>it up later, but I REALLY hate rework on things like that, and
>I find it very inconvenient. In my opinion, you should try to
>save and pay for the entire airframe and engine, and add up some
>extra bucks for all the trimmings and finishings....THEN start
>calculating your panel....and do it right the first time. Sure,
>you can cut $20,000 out in the initial build, but if your intention
>is to have that equipment some day, you're probably just going to
>feel disappointed that you didn't do it right away anyway. If
>someone can afford to throw $140K into a kit plane, then throwing
>$160K into it just means they have to save a little longer before
>they are done. Ain't no po-folk building RV-10's....but there's
>plenty po-folk who've built them. ;)
>
>Pascal, there's definitely a lot to learn once you start flying
>your plane, but I'd say that if there's one thing that stands
>out that I've learned through this, it's this:
>
>I've learned that the RV-10 is a very worth plane, which has
>attracted a very special and very friendly group of individuals.
>And I've learned that the individuals within this group, are
>a huge part of what makes the experience so wonderful. Hopefully
>everyone who's building will develop some of these long-term
>friendships, as it greatly enhances your life. Without the
>community, building the RV-10 would be a far less fulfilling
>experience.
>
>Thanks guys, it really is great to hear that someone besides
>me was thinking of the day today.
>
>Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>do not archive
>
>
>Larry Rosen wrote:
>>
>>Be careful what you ask for. Knowing Tim he will wright a 100 page
>>dissertation. :-)
>>
>>Happy Anniversary Tim. Someone remembered.
>>
>>Larry Rosen
>>do not archive
>>
>>Pascal wrote:
>>>Tim;
>>>Been a year since that first flight. Happy Anniversary!
>>>How about a year in review and what you've learned since that first
>>>flight?
>>>Pascal
>>>*
>>>*
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Valentines Day -- Shop for gifts that spell L-O-V-E at MSN Shopping
http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctId=8323,ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24095&tcode=wlmtagline
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 |
|
John Wrote
"Just a rhetorical question for the masses. Just how many RV-10s beyond ONE
should a builder be allowed to complete before the group yells "Foul"? I
guess the silence is a compelling answer."
Compelling answer? I don't think that the silence can be construed as any
thing but this being a very complex issue with many points of view. I am
one example, I have really enjoyed the building process, other than the
panel... :( ...., and I am sure I will build a second plane and will become
a repeat offender. Maybe it will be a RV-12, maybe a 10 or even something
else, but I do not want my options limited. If I build another RV-10 it
would be to make a better plane than I did the first time, and I would need
to sell my first RV-10 to finance the second one. I don't want the FAA to
limit my options. Thus I am a little timid to jump out there and point the
finger at the "factory" RV builders in the fear that the FAA will limit my
options when the go after the "true" offenders??????
Rene' Felker
40322
N423CF
801-721-6080
Do not Archive
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 |
|
You forgot Florida. As far as how many should someone be allowed to
build, there shouldn't be a limit as long as they are sticking to the
intent of the rule which clearly is against any type of productionizing
of a experimental aircraft. You want to produce the RV-10 as a aircraft
for profit, no problem. Take it through the same processes that every
other production aircraft company does. While you are at it develop
your own manufacturing facilities because there isn't a chance Van will
sell kit's to you at that point, even under the guise of "raw
materials".
Unfortunately there is no litmus test for determining what a builders
intent is. This is what the FAA has to struggle with. Sometimes they
get it right, sometimes they get it wrong. There are some limits that
make it pretty clear like building and selling an aircraft once a year,
especially the same model. The 51% rule requires some philosophical
debate and a little too much Carnac the Magnificent to determine who is
following the rule and who isn't. Some guys are just flat out breaking
the rule no matter how they rationalize it. Some are legitimate in
their pursuits. I think to things that would go a long way are to
reduce this problem are; make the builder sit on the aircraft for at
least 2 years and look at the builders employment history. If they have
been unemployed for several years but have built 5 aircraft it's a good
bet they are in it for the money.
I enjoy the building aspects as much as I enjoy flying. There is a good
chance I will build one or more aircraft in the future because I enjoy
that aspect. I sure don't need more than 2 or 3 aircraft :-) so I will
probably end up selling at least one or two. The difference is I have
absolutely no problem in keeping the aircraft for a few years after I
complete it.
Soap box off.
Michael
Do not archive
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 2:48 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Thank you for respectfully withdrawing your observation. The RV-10 is
being mass produced in South Africa, Russian, the P.I., Central America
and yes in Oklahoma. The loophole has a truck running through it and
the FAA has convened a committee to close the door or give approval on
those current actions. Your answer will be forthcoming quite soon.
Just a rhetorical question for the masses. Just how many RV-10s beyond
ONE should a builder be allowed to complete before the group yells
"Foul"? I guess the silence is a compelling answer.
The "For hire" boys are alive and well buying RV-10 kits.
Here is the final question. Who finds it inappropriate for a
manufacturer to ship a second, third, fourth or fifth kit to those
repeat builders?
Bill, you should be hearing soon from a few of those builders
(predators) about their product offering.
John Cox
#40600
Do not Archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Condon
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:00 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Given that the below is all true, one cannot have any sympathy for the
two doctors involved or the former owner of the company. Not only did
were the doctors displaying an unbelievable level of foolishness (by
giving away huge sums of money to a possible crook), but they were
directly threatening the experimental building community, as a whole.
I say that because this apparently involved the 'for-hire' building of
an experimental aircraft - since the doctors didn't know anything about
the scam, they obviously hadn't invested any of their own labor in the
building of the aircraft. Of course, to get an airworthiness
certificate for this aircraft, the people would have to defraud the FAA.
And, when people are out there defrauding the FAA, this will eventual
lead to them (the FAA) eating away at the public's right to build its
own airplanes.
Unless, of course, there is a loophole that I don't know about (where
one can pay to have kit airplanes professionally built) - if that is the
case, I respectfully withdraw my comments (except for the foolishness /
crook part, which still stands).
Bill C.
Dream - 100%, everything else - 0%
US military stationed overseas until 2009
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 |
|
I have no clue. The only SB that might apply to kit 40517 would be
06-09-20, and that is an optional fix, if I understand it correctly. So,
that seems to be a misleading ad.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:55 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: N2733K
Jesse could you fill me in on all of the ADs that are out on the RV-10 that
were complied with? I was only aware of Service Bulletins.
John Cox
#40600
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 6:50 PM
Subject: RV10-List: N2733K
Anybody know any details of the -10 for sale on controller
(http://www.controller.com/listings/forsale/detail.asp?ohid=1115550)?
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
<http://forums.matronics.com> http://forums.matronics.com
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Happy Anniversary Tim! |
I plan to. Within the next day or two I need to get my hands on
a starting base plan, and then sit down and work it into a good
RV-10 plan. Once I get done I'll be happy to share photos,
experiences, and the plan.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Mark Ritter wrote:
>
> Tim,
>
> Congratulations on completing the first year. Would you post your
> annual condition inspection on your web site?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
>
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: | Static Air System - Alternate Air Valve- REDUX |
Very nice, and eliminates the possibility of an accidental opening. I
wish I had known about these...I like the safe air method, but am
worried about where to put the streamer to make it accessible, but
reduce accidental pulling.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Werner
Schneider
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 1:13 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Static Air System - Alternate Air Valve- REDUX
Hi Daniel,
yes, the SafeAir one seems to have a plug with a streamer attached, my
DIY one has a CCA-1550 <http://curtissuperiorvalve.com/pipethread.html>
which you push and turn to lock open (not visible in my last picture as
it it protruding on the bottom of my panel (below the alum. angle
visible)).
br Werner
Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote:
<LloydDR@wernerco.com>
>
> It is basically the same thing, breaking the static air line, just one
> comes with a streamer to pull, or am I missing something?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> LarryRosen@comcast.net
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 12:32 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Static Air System - Alternate Air Valve- REDUX
>
> Safe Air 1 has a kit <www.safeair1.com>
> But, I like Werner's approach better.
>
> Larry Rosen
> #356
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: Werner Schneider <glastar@gmx.net>
>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> hopefully attached, what I did (on a Glastar) a Curtis Drain Valve
>> CCA-1550 together with a T and two elbows to fit the static line.
>>
>> And I did an inflight check, error is 4 KIAS to high indication.
>>
>> Werner
>>
>> Richard Reynolds wrote:
>>
>>> OK,I 'm sorry, apologize, etc.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have a source or suggestion for the alternate air valve
>>> for superior crafted OBAM planes?
>>>
>>> Does anyone have a source or suggestion for the alternate air valve
>>> like the "real" planes have?
>>>
>>> Richard Reynolds
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
I'm guessing he is referring to the engine and prop. Even though they
are now "experimental" I think it's safe to say everyone still refers to
problems as AD's on them.
Michael
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 8:11 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: N2733K
I have no clue. The only SB that might apply to kit 40517 would be
06-09-20, and that is an optional fix, if I understand it correctly.
So, that seems to be a misleading ad.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:55 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: N2733K
Jesse could you fill me in on all of the ADs that are out on the RV-10
that were complied with? I was only aware of Service Bulletins.
John Cox
#40600
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 6:50 PM
Subject: RV10-List: N2733K
Anybody know any details of the -10 for sale on controller
(http://www.controller.com/listings/forsale/detail.asp?ohid=1115550)?
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
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 |
|
To add to the mix, I have a friend who is retired and he had built 6 or 7
RV-6 and -7's because he enjoys doing it and needs something to do. He
doesn't make much on them, but he keeps building because he enjoys it. He
builds planes because he can, but I don't think he is abusing the rules. He
is doing it as recreation, which definitely fits within the intent and
letter of the law. The litmus test that you mention would obviously cause
him unjust problems.
I know some of you are pointing your finger at me without knowing what we
really are doing. That's fine.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:05 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
You forgot Florida. As far as how many should someone be allowed to build,
there shouldn't be a limit as long as they are sticking to the intent of the
rule which clearly is against any type of productionizing of a experimental
aircraft. You want to produce the RV-10 as a aircraft for profit, no
problem. Take it through the same processes that every other production
aircraft company does. While you are at it develop your own manufacturing
facilities because there isn't a chance Van will sell kit's to you at that
point, even under the guise of "raw materials".
Unfortunately there is no litmus test for determining what a builders intent
is. This is what the FAA has to struggle with. Sometimes they get it
right, sometimes they get it wrong. There are some limits that make it
pretty clear like building and selling an aircraft once a year, especially
the same model. The 51% rule requires some philosophical debate and a
little too much Carnac the Magnificent to determine who is following the
rule and who isn't. Some guys are just flat out breaking the rule no matter
how they rationalize it. Some are legitimate in their pursuits. I think to
things that would go a long way are to reduce this problem are; make the
builder sit on the aircraft for at least 2 years and look at the builders
employment history. If they have been unemployed for several years but have
built 5 aircraft it's a good bet they are in it for the money.
I enjoy the building aspects as much as I enjoy flying. There is a good
chance I will build one or more aircraft in the future because I enjoy that
aspect. I sure don't need more than 2 or 3 aircraft :-) so I will probably
end up selling at least one or two. The difference is I have absolutely no
problem in keeping the aircraft for a few years after I complete it.
Soap box off.
Michael
Do not archive
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 2:48 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Thank you for respectfully withdrawing your observation. The RV-10 is being
mass produced in South Africa, Russian, the P.I., Central America and yes in
Oklahoma. The loophole has a truck running through it and the FAA has
convened a committee to close the door or give approval on those current
actions. Your answer will be forthcoming quite soon.
Just a rhetorical question for the masses. Just how many RV-10s beyond ONE
should a builder be allowed to complete before the group yells "Foul"? I
guess the silence is a compelling answer.
The "For hire" boys are alive and well buying RV-10 kits.
Here is the final question. Who finds it inappropriate for a manufacturer
to ship a second, third, fourth or fifth kit to those repeat builders?
Bill, you should be hearing soon from a few of those builders (predators)
about their product offering.
John Cox
#40600
Do not Archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Condon
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:00 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Given that the below is all true, one cannot have any sympathy for the two
doctors involved or the former owner of the company. Not only did were the
doctors displaying an unbelievable level of foolishness (by giving away huge
sums of money to a possible crook), but they were directly threatening the
experimental building community, as a whole.
I say that because this apparently involved the 'for-hire' building of an
experimental aircraft - since the doctors didn't know anything about the
scam, they obviously hadn't invested any of their own labor in the building
of the aircraft. Of course, to get an airworthiness certificate for this
aircraft, the people would have to defraud the FAA. And, when people are
out there defrauding the FAA, this will eventual lead to them (the FAA)
eating away at the public's right to build its own airplanes.
Unless, of course, there is a loophole that I don't know about (where one
can pay to have kit airplanes professionally built) - if that is the case, I
respectfully withdraw my comments (except for the foolishness / crook part,
which still stands).
Bill C.
Dream - 100%, everything else - 0%
US military stationed overseas until 2009
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.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 |
|
SO here is a thought on this, how can the FAA be expected to review the
employment condition of every person that applies for an airworthiness
certificate? We all complain about how much oversight they have now, and
the associated costs. You want to see fee's go through the roof, add an
additional administrative overhead to the process and see how much more
money it costs us, and how much additional time will be added to the
review/paperwork process?
Not saying the system does not need to be re-worked, but we need to
figure out how to fix it, and I personally do not think that by having
vendors on the committee, we the builders are being looked out for.
I would like to ask John Cox who else is on the panel, and who is
representing "all of us?" those with the money who vote?
Dan
N289DT
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:05 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
You forgot Florida. As far as how many should someone be allowed to
build, there shouldn't be a limit as long as they are sticking to the
intent of the rule which clearly is against any type of productionizing
of a experimental aircraft. You want to produce the RV-10 as a aircraft
for profit, no problem. Take it through the same processes that every
other production aircraft company does. While you are at it develop
your own manufacturing facilities because there isn't a chance Van will
sell kit's to you at that point, even under the guise of "raw
materials".
Unfortunately there is no litmus test for determining what a builders
intent is. This is what the FAA has to struggle with. Sometimes they
get it right, sometimes they get it wrong. There are some limits that
make it pretty clear like building and selling an aircraft once a year,
especially the same model. The 51% rule requires some philosophical
debate and a little too much Carnac the Magnificent to determine who is
following the rule and who isn't. Some guys are just flat out breaking
the rule no matter how they rationalize it. Some are legitimate in
their pursuits. I think to things that would go a long way are to
reduce this problem are; make the builder sit on the aircraft for at
least 2 years and look at the builders employment history. If they have
been unemployed for several years but have built 5 aircraft it's a good
bet they are in it for the money.
I enjoy the building aspects as much as I enjoy flying. There is a good
chance I will build one or more aircraft in the future because I enjoy
that aspect. I sure don't need more than 2 or 3 aircraft :-) so I will
probably end up selling at least one or two. The difference is I have
absolutely no problem in keeping the aircraft for a few years after I
complete it.
Soap box off.
Michael
Do not archive
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 2:48 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Thank you for respectfully withdrawing your observation. The RV-10 is
being mass produced in South Africa, Russian, the P.I., Central America
and yes in Oklahoma. The loophole has a truck running through it and
the FAA has convened a committee to close the door or give approval on
those current actions. Your answer will be forthcoming quite soon.
Just a rhetorical question for the masses. Just how many RV-10s beyond
ONE should a builder be allowed to complete before the group yells
"Foul"? I guess the silence is a compelling answer.
The "For hire" boys are alive and well buying RV-10 kits.
Here is the final question. Who finds it inappropriate for a
manufacturer to ship a second, third, fourth or fifth kit to those
repeat builders?
Bill, you should be hearing soon from a few of those builders
(predators) about their product offering.
John Cox
#40600
Do not Archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Condon
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:00 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Given that the below is all true, one cannot have any sympathy for the
two doctors involved or the former owner of the company. Not only did
were the doctors displaying an unbelievable level of foolishness (by
giving away huge sums of money to a possible crook), but they were
directly threatening the experimental building community, as a whole.
I say that because this apparently involved the 'for-hire' building of
an experimental aircraft - since the doctors didn't know anything about
the scam, they obviously hadn't invested any of their own labor in the
building of the aircraft. Of course, to get an airworthiness
certificate for this aircraft, the people would have to defraud the FAA.
And, when people are out there defrauding the FAA, this will eventual
lead to them (the FAA) eating away at the public's right to build its
own airplanes.
Unless, of course, there is a loophole that I don't know about (where
one can pay to have kit airplanes professionally built) - if that is the
case, I respectfully withdraw my comments (except for the foolishness /
crook part, which still stands).
Bill C.
Dream - 100%, everything else - 0%
US military stationed overseas until 2009
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
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: | The RV Smile - continued |
Hi Bill,
Apparently my earlier reply was garbled (was using my wife's computer),
so I'll try again.
I was very happy to be able to produce the "RV Grin". I thoroughly
enjoy flying my RV-4 and will miss it when I sell it (can't afford to
own it and the RV-10 both). Now you understand why RV's are such
popular airplanes. The RV-10 doesn't fly like an RV-4, but it shouldn't
- you don't need or want a cross country cruising airplane to roll at
over 140 degrees per second. The RV-10 climbs as well or better than
the RV-4 and is faster. Most important it is MUCH more comfortable on a
trip. My wife is getting tired of staring at the back of my head
whenever we travel in the -4.
Now I've got to get cracking on the RV-10. You are way ahead of me -
much more so than you should be since your kit was just 5 before mine.
Jack Phillips
RV-4 N18LR
Pietenpol Air Camper NX899JP
RV-10 kit # 40610 (N142KW reserved)
Finishing the elevators
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of MauleDriver
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 9:24 PM
Subject: RV10-List: The RV Smile - continued
On Saturday, January 27th, RV4 pilot Jack Phillips took RV10 builder,
Bill Watson, for his first ride in an RV at Lake Ridge Airport, Durham
NC.
The aircraft performed as designed, the pilot flew the aircraft with a
high degree proficiency, and an RV smile was firmly planted on both the
face and mind of the passenger. A little stick time for the pedal-less
rear seat passenger only served to deepen the smile.
It has been noted that an RV10 doesn't fly like an RV4 (neither do
Maules or Pietenpols for that matter). Nonetheless, riveting has
resumed with increased vigor at the Lake Ridge birthplace of #40605.
Thank You Jack Phillips for passing on the Smile.
_________________________________________________
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privilege
d, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it i
n error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any
other use of the email by you is prohibited.
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - N
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: unbelievable!!! |
In a message dated 2/13/07 9:44:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jesse@saintaviation.com writes:
To add to the mix, I have a friend who is retired and he had built 6 or 7
RV-6 and -7=99s because he enjoys doing it and needs something to do.
He doesn=99
t make much on them, but he keeps building because he enjoys it. He builds
planes because he can, but I don=99t think he is abusing the rules.
He is doing
it as recreation, which definitely fits within the intent and letter of the
law. The litmus test that you mention would obviously cause him unjust
problems.
I'm guessing, the FAA may want to target peoples or companies that have set
up to "pretend" that individual builders have completed the project when th
ey
may only have just "supervised" the builder...yet the pretend builder files
for a repairman's certificate; not having truly completed the 51% rule.
Let's say, there is a kit in Europe that one can go on vacation for 2 weeks
, in
which time you go to the factory, wave a magic wand then you do vacation
seeing the highlights in town; they then pack up your plane in a crate; shi
p it to
you with a certificate saying you completed the 51% rule; and it's a
European Experimental, you bolt on the wings, install the battery, and you
file the
paperwork requesting a repairman's certificate...is that bending the 51%
rule?
Should the FAA give you a repairman's certificate?
And this may be happening all over the place...it can happen anywhere. Is
this fair to the true builders...remember these folks who may be skirting t
he
51% rule, will be in your insurance pool no matter how you slice the pool;
there are only so many members in the Experimental category and that's who
you'll share your risk with, and the insurances' company's profits with.
I can't imagine the insurance payments that Cirrus folks are paying.
Up to now, RV's have a very good record but with in a few years and bogus
builders and maintenance that record could get skewed quickly by a few. An
d
this could include some death's and injuries. Accident rates are generally
lower for most VFR flying compared to heavy IFR flights by low time pilots.
The
RV 10 is being built by many builders to be a solid IFR machine; if any
corners are cut, it could lead to unwanted results. Does the concept of a
600 hp
RV 10 being built for folks that don't have any knowledge about the machine
make any sense in your insurance pool?
Sooooo, let's all be careful for what's going on and what the FAA is
targeting. As we know, the FAA generally swings too far one way before log
ic sets
in. If you have the opportunity, and the FAA begins to have a comment peri
od
be sure to log in your opinion...all this is MHO...
Can't wait to get back to IL to begin the building phase.
By the way, I've been in contact with the Western PA RV Builders for the
past couple of years--thanks to Dan Checkaway's web site...I'd planned to g
o to
their facility and do their workshop...apparently they have changed
directions.
Now they are basically working to help people begin and complete their RV
project. Originally it was my impression they were a workshop to try tools
and
for one to begin the process of the Rear Stab...apparently they are now mor
e
of a building shop and are booked through 2008...FYI.
Patrick
do not archive
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 |
|
I don't think they should be reviewing everyone that applies for a
certificate. Something like that would need to be triggered as a second
level based on a concern, hunch, report or whatever they currently use
to root out models that are in production. I certainly don't think it
should be a first level item that is attached to everyone. They have
more than enough info in their existing registration database for them
to mine and find models that are being built as a production run. Any
DAR or FAA rep in a given area certainly knows who is doing what as this
is a fairly closed community. I blame them more than anyone for
allowing it to happen.
Michael
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel
R.
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 8:42 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
SO here is a thought on this, how can the FAA be expected to review the
employment condition of every person that applies for an airworthiness
certificate? We all complain about how much oversight they have now, and
the associated costs. You want to see fee's go through the roof, add an
additional administrative overhead to the process and see how much more
money it costs us, and how much additional time will be added to the
review/paperwork process?
Not saying the system does not need to be re-worked, but we need to
figure out how to fix it, and I personally do not think that by having
vendors on the committee, we the builders are being looked out for.
I would like to ask John Cox who else is on the panel, and who is
representing "all of us?" those with the money who vote?
Dan
N289DT
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:05 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
You forgot Florida. As far as how many should someone be allowed to
build, there shouldn't be a limit as long as they are sticking to the
intent of the rule which clearly is against any type of productionizing
of a experimental aircraft. You want to produce the RV-10 as a aircraft
for profit, no problem. Take it through the same processes that every
other production aircraft company does. While you are at it develop
your own manufacturing facilities because there isn't a chance Van will
sell kit's to you at that point, even under the guise of "raw
materials".
Unfortunately there is no litmus test for determining what a builders
intent is. This is what the FAA has to struggle with. Sometimes they
get it right, sometimes they get it wrong. There are some limits that
make it pretty clear like building and selling an aircraft once a year,
especially the same model. The 51% rule requires some philosophical
debate and a little too much Carnac the Magnificent to determine who is
following the rule and who isn't. Some guys are just flat out breaking
the rule no matter how they rationalize it. Some are legitimate in
their pursuits. I think to things that would go a long way are to
reduce this problem are; make the builder sit on the aircraft for at
least 2 years and look at the builders employment history. If they have
been unemployed for several years but have built 5 aircraft it's a good
bet they are in it for the money.
I enjoy the building aspects as much as I enjoy flying. There is a good
chance I will build one or more aircraft in the future because I enjoy
that aspect. I sure don't need more than 2 or 3 aircraft :-) so I will
probably end up selling at least one or two. The difference is I have
absolutely no problem in keeping the aircraft for a few years after I
complete it.
Soap box off.
Michael
Do not archive
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 2:48 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Thank you for respectfully withdrawing your observation. The RV-10 is
being mass produced in South Africa, Russian, the P.I., Central America
and yes in Oklahoma. The loophole has a truck running through it and
the FAA has convened a committee to close the door or give approval on
those current actions. Your answer will be forthcoming quite soon.
Just a rhetorical question for the masses. Just how many RV-10s beyond
ONE should a builder be allowed to complete before the group yells
"Foul"? I guess the silence is a compelling answer.
The "For hire" boys are alive and well buying RV-10 kits.
Here is the final question. Who finds it inappropriate for a
manufacturer to ship a second, third, fourth or fifth kit to those
repeat builders?
Bill, you should be hearing soon from a few of those builders
(predators) about their product offering.
John Cox
#40600
Do not Archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Condon
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:00 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Given that the below is all true, one cannot have any sympathy for the
two doctors involved or the former owner of the company. Not only did
were the doctors displaying an unbelievable level of foolishness (by
giving away huge sums of money to a possible crook), but they were
directly threatening the experimental building community, as a whole.
I say that because this apparently involved the 'for-hire' building of
an experimental aircraft - since the doctors didn't know anything about
the scam, they obviously hadn't invested any of their own labor in the
building of the aircraft. Of course, to get an airworthiness
certificate for this aircraft, the people would have to defraud the FAA.
And, when people are out there defrauding the FAA, this will eventual
lead to them (the FAA) eating away at the public's right to build its
own airplanes.
Unless, of course, there is a loophole that I don't know about (where
one can pay to have kit airplanes professionally built) - if that is the
case, I respectfully withdraw my comments (except for the foolishness /
crook part, which still stands).
Bill C.
Dream - 100%, everything else - 0%
US military stationed overseas until 2009
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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 |
|
Knowing everyone from down there, this could not be farther from the
truth. The NWPA shop is there to give new builders an introduction to
metal kit plane building, specifically the RV series. They are great
people, and do not bend the rules, they help the new builder complete
the emp, and give the builder a solid foundation in correct building
practices and the builder gets to try multiple tools while under
instruction. But to make it clear, it is the builder that does the
construction, the shop will HELP, not do, with the priming and deburring
but the builder is doing the majority of the work. This shop is well
organized and highly recommended by other builders in the area. This is
a great way to complete an emp in 7 days and get a solid footing to
finish your project.
Remember, I do not have an affiliation with them, just know them from
being in the area, and highly respecting their efforts for the building
community.
Dan
N289DT
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
GRANSCOTT@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
In a message dated 2/13/07 9:44:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jesse@saintaviation.com writes:
To add to the mix, I have a friend who is retired and he had
built 6 or 7 RV-6 and -7's because he enjoys doing it and needs
something to do. He doesn't make much on them, but he keeps building
because he enjoys it. He builds planes because he can, but I don't
think he is abusing the rules. He is doing it as recreation, which
definitely fits within the intent and letter of the law. The litmus
test that you mention would obviously cause him unjust problems.
I'm guessing, the FAA may want to target peoples or companies that have
set up to "pretend" that individual builders have completed the project
when they may only have just "supervised" the builder...yet the pretend
builder files for a repairman's certificate; not having truly completed
the 51% rule. Let's say, there is a kit in Europe that one can go on
vacation for 2 weeks, in which time you go to the factory, wave a magic
wand then you do vacation seeing the highlights in town; they then pack
up your plane in a crate; ship it to you with a certificate saying you
completed the 51% rule; and it's a European Experimental, you bolt on
the wings, install the battery, and you file the paperwork requesting a
repairman's certificate...is that bending the 51% rule?
Should the FAA give you a repairman's certificate?
And this may be happening all over the place...it can happen anywhere.
Is this fair to the true builders...remember these folks who may be
skirting the 51% rule, will be in your insurance pool no matter how you
slice the pool; there are only so many members in the Experimental
category and that's who you'll share your risk with, and the insurances'
company's profits with.
I can't imagine the insurance payments that Cirrus folks are paying.
Up to now, RV's have a very good record but with in a few years and
bogus builders and maintenance that record could get skewed quickly by a
few. And this could include some death's and injuries. Accident rates
are generally lower for most VFR flying compared to heavy IFR flights by
low time pilots. The RV 10 is being built by many builders to be a
solid IFR machine; if any corners are cut, it could lead to unwanted
results. Does the concept of a 600 hp RV 10 being built for folks that
don't have any knowledge about the machine make any sense in your
insurance pool?
Sooooo, let's all be careful for what's going on and what the FAA is
targeting. As we know, the FAA generally swings too far one way before
logic sets in. If you have the opportunity, and the FAA begins to have
a comment period be sure to log in your opinion...all this is MHO...
Can't wait to get back to IL to begin the building phase.
By the way, I've been in contact with the Western PA RV Builders for the
past couple of years--thanks to Dan Checkaway's web site...I'd planned
to go to their facility and do their workshop...apparently they have
changed directions.
Now they are basically working to help people begin and complete their
RV project. Originally it was my impression they were a workshop to try
tools and for one to begin the process of the Rear Stab...apparently
they are now more of a building shop and are booked through 2008...FYI.
Patrick
do not archive
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: unbelievable!!! |
Dan,
Please don't misconstrue what I meant...they have made some changes and are
not offering the same concept as they began, that's all I meant to say...I'm
sure they are ethical in their approach to helping the RV builder and other
builders...as assistance. It seems to me they are now offering total
assistance as compared to a "start" assistance before.
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 |
|
Patrick,
Since you are in IL, you may want to try Grov-Air in Indy. I ran into the
same issues. I wanted to go to Western PA RV Builders too and was
disappointed that he stopped conducting the basic class. I attended a
session at Grov-Air in December. Troy has built a RV6 and is just
finishing the wings on his RV-10. He's also assisting several other
builders in his shop as well. He is also a former United A&P.
Bob
do not archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of GRANSCOTT@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
In a message dated 2/13/07 9:44:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jesse@saintaviation.com writes:
<<edited>>>
By the way, I've been in contact with the Western PA RV Builders for the
past couple of years--thanks to Dan Checkaway's web site...I'd planned to go
to their facility and do their workshop...apparently they have changed
directions.
Now they are basically working to help people begin and complete their RV
project. Originally it was my impression they were a workshop to try tools
and for one to begin the process of the Rear Stab...apparently they are now
more of a building shop and are booked through 2008...FYI.
Patrick
do not archive
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: unbelievable!!!) |
OK, here's my 2 pennies. This subject is much like religion and
politics. We're only going to get opinions, not facts.
The FAA has blessed 'builder assistance centers', where a customer can
go and get 'expert' guidance and training ...... and a whole lot of
help. Lets face it, after you've drilled, deburred, and set 100 rivets
..... you've ceased learning and are now in repetitive mode.
Does it matter if you had contracted help on the rest of the 25,000
rivets???
Does it matter if you've done some wiring, but contracted to have the
panel done???
Does it matter if you just bought your engine instead of building one up
yourself????
Does it matter if you bought your strobes instead of building them
yourself???
I could go on, but I think the answer is no, it doesn't matter.
The sticking point seems to be the builders Repairmans Certificate. I
think that if the 'absent builder' can supply definitive data that the
FAA will accept, then the problem doesn't reside with us, but with the FAA.
The builder that participates in a Builder Assistance Center has to
gather enough knowledge and participation, and pictures etc. to satisfy
the FAA guy on the other side of the counter no matter the depth of his
involvement.
As to the point that a 'builder' that doesn't have the experience to
properly do his conditional inspection is gonna crash and burn .... I
know a lot of guys that built their own airplane and do a really lousy
job of maintenenace ..... and inspecting ..... but they're still here to
cause amazement in their fellow aviators.
Linn
do not archive
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 |
|
Not true, as a builder I have access to many different FSDO's and DAR's,
and if I was doing this for profit, I could contact a different one each
time and none would be the wiser about how many I had built. As for that
what is the magic number that would trip it? further what if I build it,
but let the new owner fill out the paperwork, how would you track that?
My argument is that it is not as easy as all of that, there are many
loop holes and that is why they are addressing it. For that matter, even
if they only will sell one kit to one household, I could get various
people in the area to buy the kits for me, so it gets more and more
complex.
Dan
N289DT
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 10:58 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
I don't think they should be reviewing everyone that applies for a
certificate. Something like that would need to be triggered as a second
level based on a concern, hunch, report or whatever they currently use
to root out models that are in production. I certainly don't think it
should be a first level item that is attached to everyone. They have
more than enough info in their existing registration database for them
to mine and find models that are being built as a production run. Any
DAR or FAA rep in a given area certainly knows who is doing what as this
is a fairly closed community. I blame them more than anyone for
allowing it to happen.
Michael
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel
R.
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 8:42 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
SO here is a thought on this, how can the FAA be expected to review the
employment condition of every person that applies for an airworthiness
certificate? We all complain about how much oversight they have now, and
the associated costs. You want to see fee's go through the roof, add an
additional administrative overhead to the process and see how much more
money it costs us, and how much additional time will be added to the
review/paperwork process?
Not saying the system does not need to be re-worked, but we need to
figure out how to fix it, and I personally do not think that by having
vendors on the committee, we the builders are being looked out for.
I would like to ask John Cox who else is on the panel, and who is
representing "all of us?" those with the money who vote?
Dan
N289DT
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:05 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
You forgot Florida. As far as how many should someone be allowed to
build, there shouldn't be a limit as long as they are sticking to the
intent of the rule which clearly is against any type of productionizing
of a experimental aircraft. You want to produce the RV-10 as a aircraft
for profit, no problem. Take it through the same processes that every
other production aircraft company does. While you are at it develop
your own manufacturing facilities because there isn't a chance Van will
sell kit's to you at that point, even under the guise of "raw
materials".
Unfortunately there is no litmus test for determining what a builders
intent is. This is what the FAA has to struggle with. Sometimes they
get it right, sometimes they get it wrong. There are some limits that
make it pretty clear like building and selling an aircraft once a year,
especially the same model. The 51% rule requires some philosophical
debate and a little too much Carnac the Magnificent to determine who is
following the rule and who isn't. Some guys are just flat out breaking
the rule no matter how they rationalize it. Some are legitimate in
their pursuits. I think to things that would go a long way are to
reduce this problem are; make the builder sit on the aircraft for at
least 2 years and look at the builders employment history. If they have
been unemployed for several years but have built 5 aircraft it's a good
bet they are in it for the money.
I enjoy the building aspects as much as I enjoy flying. There is a good
chance I will build one or more aircraft in the future because I enjoy
that aspect. I sure don't need more than 2 or 3 aircraft :-) so I will
probably end up selling at least one or two. The difference is I have
absolutely no problem in keeping the aircraft for a few years after I
complete it.
Soap box off.
Michael
Do not archive
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 2:48 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Thank you for respectfully withdrawing your observation. The RV-10 is
being mass produced in South Africa, Russian, the P.I., Central America
and yes in Oklahoma. The loophole has a truck running through it and
the FAA has convened a committee to close the door or give approval on
those current actions. Your answer will be forthcoming quite soon.
Just a rhetorical question for the masses. Just how many RV-10s beyond
ONE should a builder be allowed to complete before the group yells
"Foul"? I guess the silence is a compelling answer.
The "For hire" boys are alive and well buying RV-10 kits.
Here is the final question. Who finds it inappropriate for a
manufacturer to ship a second, third, fourth or fifth kit to those
repeat builders?
Bill, you should be hearing soon from a few of those builders
(predators) about their product offering.
John Cox
#40600
Do not Archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Condon
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:00 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Given that the below is all true, one cannot have any sympathy for the
two doctors involved or the former owner of the company. Not only did
were the doctors displaying an unbelievable level of foolishness (by
giving away huge sums of money to a possible crook), but they were
directly threatening the experimental building community, as a whole.
I say that because this apparently involved the 'for-hire' building of
an experimental aircraft - since the doctors didn't know anything about
the scam, they obviously hadn't invested any of their own labor in the
building of the aircraft. Of course, to get an airworthiness
certificate for this aircraft, the people would have to defraud the FAA.
And, when people are out there defrauding the FAA, this will eventual
lead to them (the FAA) eating away at the public's right to build its
own airplanes.
Unless, of course, there is a loophole that I don't know about (where
one can pay to have kit airplanes professionally built) - if that is the
case, I respectfully withdraw my comments (except for the foolishness /
crook part, which still stands).
Bill C.
Dream - 100%, everything else - 0%
US military stationed overseas until 2009
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
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 |
|
Dan,
>> how can the FAA be expected to review the employment condition of every
person that applies for an airworthiness certificate? <<
They probably can't, and I don't think they want to.
>>and how much additional time will be added to the review/paperwork
process? <<
Well, somebody needs to be looking closer. That will take more time but
hopefully not much more.
>>... I personally do not think that by having vendors on the committee, we
the builders are being looked out for. <<
The committee co-chairs, Frank Paskiewicz (FAA), Van, and EAA's Earl
Lawrence are tremendous builder's advocates. I hope I am too. There is a
great respect for the tradition of homebuilding and the consequences of
continuing the present course of action are not lost on us.
>> who else is on the panel <<
Kim Barnette, FAA Flight Standards Service, AFS-300
Joe Bartels, Lancair
Mike Brown, FAA Flight Standards Service, AFS-800
Stephen Buczynski, FAA Aircraft Certification, Van Nuys MIDO
Paul Fiduccia, Small Aircraft Manufacturers Association (SAMA)
Joe Gauthier, Manufacturing DAR
Paul Greer, Airworthiness Law Branch, AGC-210
Donald Lausman, FAA Airworthiness Certification Branch, AIR-230
Dave Saylor, AirCrafters LLC
Rick Schramek, Epic Aircraft
Matt Tomsheck, FAA Aircraft Certification, Cleveland MIDO
Mikael Via, Glasair
Brian Whitehead, Transport Canada Civil Aviation
Jeremy Monnett, Sonex Aircraft
I welcome any input and will take it all in as we develop our
recomendations. Of course we all have a stake in the game but I think this
is a very well assembled group, well suited for the task at hand. We are
meeting for the third time next week in Bend, OR.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
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 |
|
There will always be ways to hide activities. Hell you could easily
buy the kit, have it delivered, throw it back on another truck, and take
it to someone else to build. Fill out all the paperwork saying you
built it and no one would no. Of course you start getting into
falsifying documents to the federal government at that point which is a
whole different can of worms. I know of at least one operation that is
doing it that way, but I still found them in the FAA database once I had
heard about it and had some reference points. No easy answer that's for
sure.
Michael
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel
R.
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 10:40 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Not true, as a builder I have access to many different FSDO's and DAR's,
and if I was doing this for profit, I could contact a different one each
time and none would be the wiser about how many I had built. As for that
what is the magic number that would trip it? further what if I build it,
but let the new owner fill out the paperwork, how would you track that?
My argument is that it is not as easy as all of that, there are many
loop holes and that is why they are addressing it. For that matter, even
if they only will sell one kit to one household, I could get various
people in the area to buy the kits for me, so it gets more and more
complex.
Dan
N289DT
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 10:58 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
I don't think they should be reviewing everyone that applies for a
certificate. Something like that would need to be triggered as a second
level based on a concern, hunch, report or whatever they currently use
to root out models that are in production. I certainly don't think it
should be a first level item that is attached to everyone. They have
more than enough info in their existing registration database for them
to mine and find models that are being built as a production run. Any
DAR or FAA rep in a given area certainly knows who is doing what as this
is a fairly closed community. I blame them more than anyone for
allowing it to happen.
Michael
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel
R.
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 8:42 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
SO here is a thought on this, how can the FAA be expected to review the
employment condition of every person that applies for an airworthiness
certificate? We all complain about how much oversight they have now, and
the associated costs. You want to see fee's go through the roof, add an
additional administrative overhead to the process and see how much more
money it costs us, and how much additional time will be added to the
review/paperwork process?
Not saying the system does not need to be re-worked, but we need to
figure out how to fix it, and I personally do not think that by having
vendors on the committee, we the builders are being looked out for.
I would like to ask John Cox who else is on the panel, and who is
representing "all of us?" those with the money who vote?
Dan
N289DT
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:05 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
You forgot Florida. As far as how many should someone be allowed to
build, there shouldn't be a limit as long as they are sticking to the
intent of the rule which clearly is against any type of productionizing
of a experimental aircraft. You want to produce the RV-10 as a aircraft
for profit, no problem. Take it through the same processes that every
other production aircraft company does. While you are at it develop
your own manufacturing facilities because there isn't a chance Van will
sell kit's to you at that point, even under the guise of "raw
materials".
Unfortunately there is no litmus test for determining what a builders
intent is. This is what the FAA has to struggle with. Sometimes they
get it right, sometimes they get it wrong. There are some limits that
make it pretty clear like building and selling an aircraft once a year,
especially the same model. The 51% rule requires some philosophical
debate and a little too much Carnac the Magnificent to determine who is
following the rule and who isn't. Some guys are just flat out breaking
the rule no matter how they rationalize it. Some are legitimate in
their pursuits. I think to things that would go a long way are to
reduce this problem are; make the builder sit on the aircraft for at
least 2 years and look at the builders employment history. If they have
been unemployed for several years but have built 5 aircraft it's a good
bet they are in it for the money.
I enjoy the building aspects as much as I enjoy flying. There is a good
chance I will build one or more aircraft in the future because I enjoy
that aspect. I sure don't need more than 2 or 3 aircraft :-) so I will
probably end up selling at least one or two. The difference is I have
absolutely no problem in keeping the aircraft for a few years after I
complete it.
Soap box off.
Michael
Do not archive
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 2:48 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Thank you for respectfully withdrawing your observation. The RV-10 is
being mass produced in South Africa, Russian, the P.I., Central America
and yes in Oklahoma. The loophole has a truck running through it and
the FAA has convened a committee to close the door or give approval on
those current actions. Your answer will be forthcoming quite soon.
Just a rhetorical question for the masses. Just how many RV-10s beyond
ONE should a builder be allowed to complete before the group yells
"Foul"? I guess the silence is a compelling answer.
The "For hire" boys are alive and well buying RV-10 kits.
Here is the final question. Who finds it inappropriate for a
manufacturer to ship a second, third, fourth or fifth kit to those
repeat builders?
Bill, you should be hearing soon from a few of those builders
(predators) about their product offering.
John Cox
#40600
Do not Archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Condon
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:00 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Given that the below is all true, one cannot have any sympathy for the
two doctors involved or the former owner of the company. Not only did
were the doctors displaying an unbelievable level of foolishness (by
giving away huge sums of money to a possible crook), but they were
directly threatening the experimental building community, as a whole.
I say that because this apparently involved the 'for-hire' building of
an experimental aircraft - since the doctors didn't know anything about
the scam, they obviously hadn't invested any of their own labor in the
building of the aircraft. Of course, to get an airworthiness
certificate for this aircraft, the people would have to defraud the FAA.
And, when people are out there defrauding the FAA, this will eventual
lead to them (the FAA) eating away at the public's right to build its
own airplanes.
Unless, of course, there is a loophole that I don't know about (where
one can pay to have kit airplanes professionally built) - if that is the
case, I respectfully withdraw my comments (except for the foolishness /
crook part, which still stands).
Bill C.
Dream - 100%, everything else - 0%
US military stationed overseas until 2009
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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: | Re: unbelievable!!! |
Being an ex-cop I can offer a suggestion to track who doing what for
whom: FOLLOW THE MONEY and it's not that hard to backtrack. IRS does it
all the time.
KABONG Do Not Archive
NOTE: I did trim all of the previous posts & added Do Not Archive.
Thanks John I did see your D-N-A.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lloyd, Daniel R.
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 8:40 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Dan
N289DT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Michael
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel
R.
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
I would like to ask John Cox who else is on the panel, and who is
representing "all of us?" those with the money who vote?
Dan
N289DT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Soap box off.
Michael
Do not archive
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Here is the final question. Who finds it inappropriate for a
manufacturer to ship a second, third, fourth or fifth kit to those
repeat builders?
Bill, you should be hearing soon from a few of those builders
(predators) about their product offering.
John Cox
#40600
Do not Archive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Condon
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:00 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Bill C.
Dream - 100%, everything else - 0%
US military stationed overseas until 2009
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: unbelievable!!!) |
I think you are missing another ingredient to the 51% rule. We are
permitted to build for our education and entertainment. For any other
purpose, such as making money, a Type certificate and production
certificate are needed. I could care less about the Repairman
certificate, I already hold an A&P/IA certificate. Just because I'm
busy with other things, I can't hire someone to build an RV-10 for me
and meet the 51% rule. You still have to show that 51% of the tasks
were done under the Amateur, home-built intent. I also don't believe
that you learn all there is to know about riveting after 100
rivets(unless they were 100 different kinds of rivets). I'm sure there
are skills you learn elsewhere in the aircraft than just what you got
out of doing the tail. I'd bet those rivets done later in the project
are also much more workman-like than your first 20-50.
On 2/13/07, linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> OK, here's my 2 pennies. This subject is much like religion and
> politics. We're only going to get opinions, not facts.
>
> The FAA has blessed 'builder assistance centers', where a customer can
> go and get 'expert' guidance and training ...... and a whole lot of
> help. Lets face it, after you've drilled, deburred, and set 100 rivets
> ..... you've ceased learning and are now in repetitive mode.
>
> Does it matter if you had contracted help on the rest of the 25,000
> rivets???
>
> Does it matter if you've done some wiring, but contracted to have the
> panel done???
>
> Does it matter if you just bought your engine instead of building one up
> yourself????
>
> Does it matter if you bought your strobes instead of building them
> yourself???
>
> I could go on, but I think the answer is no, it doesn't matter.
>
> The sticking point seems to be the builders Repairmans Certificate. I
> think that if the 'absent builder' can supply definitive data that the
> FAA will accept, then the problem doesn't reside with us, but with the FAA.
>
> The builder that participates in a Builder Assistance Center has to
> gather enough knowledge and participation, and pictures etc. to satisfy
> the FAA guy on the other side of the counter no matter the depth of his
> involvement.
>
> As to the point that a 'builder' that doesn't have the experience to
> properly do his conditional inspection is gonna crash and burn .... I
> know a lot of guys that built their own airplane and do a really lousy
> job of maintenenace ..... and inspecting ..... but they're still here to
> cause amazement in their fellow aviators.
> Linn
> do not archive
>
>
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 |
|
Nice trim job! Following the money is probably the quickest solution
for the true manufacturers and turnkey operations.
Michael
DNA below (yes I check everytime:-))
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN STARN
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Being an ex-cop I can offer a suggestion to track who doing what for
whom: FOLLOW THE MONEY and it's not that hard to backtrack. IRS does it
all the time.
KABONG Do Not Archive
NOTE: I did trim all of the previous posts & added Do Not Archive.
Thanks John I did see your D-N-A.
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 |
|
Dave,
Can you share the groups progress? Any impending recommendations or
timelines for implementation.
Michael
Do not archive
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Dan,
>> how can the FAA be expected to review the employment condition of
every person that applies for an airworthiness certificate? <<
They probably can't, and I don't think they want to.
>>and how much additional time will be added to the review/paperwork
process? <<
Well, somebody needs to be looking closer. That will take more time but
hopefully not much more.
>>... I personally do not think that by having vendors on the
committee, we the builders are being looked out for. <<
The committee co-chairs, Frank Paskiewicz (FAA), Van, and EAA's Earl
Lawrence are tremendous builder's advocates. I hope I am too. There is
a great respect for the tradition of homebuilding and the consequences
of continuing the present course of action are not lost on us.
>> who else is on the panel <<
Kim Barnette, FAA Flight Standards Service, AFS-300
Joe Bartels, Lancair
Mike Brown, FAA Flight Standards Service, AFS-800
Stephen Buczynski, FAA Aircraft Certification, Van Nuys MIDO
Paul Fiduccia, Small Aircraft Manufacturers Association (SAMA)
Joe Gauthier, Manufacturing DAR
Paul Greer, Airworthiness Law Branch, AGC-210
Donald Lausman, FAA Airworthiness Certification Branch, AIR-230
Dave Saylor, AirCrafters LLC
Rick Schramek, Epic Aircraft
Matt Tomsheck, FAA Aircraft Certification, Cleveland MIDO
Mikael Via, Glasair
Brian Whitehead, Transport Canada Civil Aviation
Jeremy Monnett, Sonex Aircraft
I welcome any input and will take it all in as we develop our
recomendations. Of course we all have a stake in the game but I think
this is a very well assembled group, well suited for the task at hand.
We are meeting for the third time next week in Bend, OR.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
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: | Re: unbelievable!!! |
Seems this topic comes up every month or so. Yes, we point our fingers
at lousy worksmanship at Oshkosh than we point our fingers at RV-10
rockets on E-bay and each time it brings up the commitee on ending the
building for profit.
Most of us agree that having people build this strictly for profit was
never the intention of the EAA 50 years ago, when they fought for the
privilege to allow a person to build a plane as a hobby, my guess that
"for profit" never was even conceived in the minds of any of those
involved.
Now, about pointing fingers at those in Florida, specifically Jesse and
his "for profit", I did a survey with many of my friends, mostly all did
missionary work out of the US sometime in their lives and asked- if it
is against the rules to build something for profit, yet some
organization does it for profit with the intent of buildiong skills of
Equadorian laborers and the profits go to support and finance a
missionary ministry- does that make it right? Before I respond with the
answer I'll remind many of the goals of some organizations to get kits
and bring them to schools to teach students the skills involved in
building a plane. Last I heard the planes were sold and the proceeds
went to support the school to continue the program.. hmm that goes
against the rules and should be stopped!! or should it?
Well to answer the question, Jesse and Saint Aviation are doing the
right thing, they are not doing this for self profit but for a charity
and the benefit of others. Yes there is a gray in the black and white of
the rules and just as I would consider going through a red light
(looking both ways first of course) and speeding to get my pregnant wife
who is about to have a baby, to the hospital, there are those exceptions
to the rules- even if someone thought there wasn't, until they
themselves are in that situation.
Now for my personal selfishness- I loath the "for profits" out there.
They are not only doing it for their own benefit, like the 2bums group
and the unethical builders and companies taking money and having no
morals for anyone but themselves, they are killing my hopes to afford a
plane. Why? 225K for a plane? that means registration in California on
this aircraft goes up (value is not based on my costs but the going rate
on trade-a-plane), there is the insurance issues of course and the
reasons we all are upset about.
Let's point our fingers at the unethical builders and leave the rare
builders that participate in this forum and add value in the form of
positive comments(ie Jesse) alone. I agree that "for profit" will
ultimately hurt those who want it as a hobby, as it was initially
designed for, but stopping the few will ultimately result in rules that
will harm the rest.
Let Van's and the commitee figure out how they will do this and hope the
way is to penalize those who are building for profit without a good
reason for it (retired and like building, charity, schools, etc) in the
form of fines that goes to paying for improving the experimental
category so those who are honestly doing it can benefit from those are
aren't!
tide box off
Do not archive
Pascal
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 6:39 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
To add to the mix, I have a friend who is retired and he had built 6
or 7 RV-6 and -7's because he enjoys doing it and needs something to do.
He doesn't make much on them, but he keeps building because he enjoys
it. He builds planes because he can, but I don't think he is abusing
the rules. He is doing it as recreation, which definitely fits within
the intent and letter of the law. The litmus test that you mention
would obviously cause him unjust problems.
I know some of you are pointing your finger at me without knowing what
we really are doing. That's fine.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:05 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
You forgot Florida. As far as how many should someone be allowed to
build, there shouldn't be a limit as long as they are sticking to the
intent of the rule which clearly is against any type of productionizing
of a experimental aircraft. You want to produce the RV-10 as a aircraft
for profit, no problem. Take it through the same processes that every
other production aircraft company does. While you are at it develop
your own manufacturing facilities because there isn't a chance Van will
sell kit's to you at that point, even under the guise of "raw
materials".
Unfortunately there is no litmus test for determining what a builders
intent is. This is what the FAA has to struggle with. Sometimes they
get it right, sometimes they get it wrong. There are some limits that
make it pretty clear like building and selling an aircraft once a year,
especially the same model. The 51% rule requires some philosophical
debate and a little too much Carnac the Magnificent to determine who is
following the rule and who isn't. Some guys are just flat out breaking
the rule no matter how they rationalize it. Some are legitimate in
their pursuits. I think to things that would go a long way are to
reduce this problem are; make the builder sit on the aircraft for at
least 2 years and look at the builders employment history. If they have
been unemployed for several years but have built 5 aircraft it's a good
bet they are in it for the money.
I enjoy the building aspects as much as I enjoy flying. There is a
good chance I will build one or more aircraft in the future because I
enjoy that aspect. I sure don't need more than 2 or 3 aircraft :-) so I
will probably end up selling at least one or two. The difference is I
have absolutely no problem in keeping the aircraft for a few years after
I complete it.
Soap box off.
Michael
Do not archive
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 2:48 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Thank you for respectfully withdrawing your observation. The RV-10 is
being mass produced in South Africa, Russian, the P.I., Central America
and yes in Oklahoma. The loophole has a truck running through it and
the FAA has convened a committee to close the door or give approval on
those current actions. Your answer will be forthcoming quite soon.
Just a rhetorical question for the masses. Just how many RV-10s
beyond ONE should a builder be allowed to complete before the group
yells "Foul"? I guess the silence is a compelling answer.
The "For hire" boys are alive and well buying RV-10 kits.
Here is the final question. Who finds it inappropriate for a
manufacturer to ship a second, third, fourth or fifth kit to those
repeat builders?
Bill, you should be hearing soon from a few of those builders
(predators) about their product offering.
John Cox
#40600
Do not Archive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Condon
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:00 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Given that the below is all true, one cannot have any sympathy for the
two doctors involved or the former owner of the company. Not only did
were the doctors displaying an unbelievable level of foolishness (by
giving away huge sums of money to a possible crook), but they were
directly threatening the experimental building community, as a whole.
I say that because this apparently involved the 'for-hire' building of
an experimental aircraft - since the doctors didn't know anything about
the scam, they obviously hadn't invested any of their own labor in the
building of the aircraft. Of course, to get an airworthiness
certificate for this aircraft, the people would have to defraud the FAA.
And, when people are out there defrauding the FAA, this will eventual
lead to them (the FAA) eating away at the public's right to build its
own airplanes.
Unless, of course, there is a loophole that I don't know about (where
one can pay to have kit airplanes professionally built) - if that is the
case, I respectfully withdraw my comments (except for the foolishness /
crook part, which still stands).
Bill C.
Dream - 100%, everything else - 0%
US military stationed overseas until 2009
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com
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: | Sec 12: Empennage Fairings |
I am finishing up my Emp kit working on Sec 12 and have a question for those already
flying or in the final stages.
Fitting the elevator tip, I find that there is a slight wave about 2 long in the
fiberglass about half way back from the front tip to the back tip where it attaches
to the elevator. I would like to smooth this out as well as fill in any
small imperfections where the tip mates up with the metal.
How much fiberglass work are people doing in this area and when? Are they filling
any seams visible as well as smoothing any variations in the glass or glass
& metal?
After the tip is riveted on, I sure hope it is never coming off again. I could
do the sanding and filling now or wait until I do the glass work on the cabin/doors.
I am sure the same situation will be present with the wings.
--------
Gary Blankenbiller
RV10 - # 40674
(N410GB reserved)
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94766#94766
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: | Fuel Tank Question |
I am in the process of sealing the tanks and I have a question about
the rubber seal on the fuel level senders. Are these just installed
dry, are they lubed with fuellube, or are they sealed with ProSeal?
Thanks,
Mike Schipper
#40576 - Wings - www.rvten.com
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: unbelievable!!!) |
100 rivets did nothing for me. I took the Sportair class with Dan Checkoway.
Dan was great in giving tips and guidance to improve my process and
technique, much like builder assists do, but that is a foundation.. I assure
you my technique needs to vary depending on where I am working on the plane,
there is a reason for different bucking bars, etc.. no, 100 rivets does
nothing for the builder, I don't even think 1000 does why? the process of
setting everything together in the plane is not repitition if it was there
would be no benefit to this forum. There are those almost done asking for
guidance at certain points.
I think the issue here is forgeting the purpose of building a plane. You
want 100 rivets? take a sportair class get your quota and buy a used plane,
why ruin it for everyone else?
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "linn Walters" <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 8:37 AM
Subject: factory built RVs (wasRe: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!)
>
> OK, here's my 2 pennies. This subject is much like religion and politics.
> We're only going to get opinions, not facts.
>
> The FAA has blessed 'builder assistance centers', where a customer can go
> and get 'expert' guidance and training ...... and a whole lot of help.
> Lets face it, after you've drilled, deburred, and set 100 rivets .....
> you've ceased learning and are now in repetitive mode.
>
> Does it matter if you had contracted help on the rest of the 25,000
> rivets???
>
> Does it matter if you've done some wiring, but contracted to have the
> panel done???
>
> Does it matter if you just bought your engine instead of building one up
> yourself????
>
> Does it matter if you bought your strobes instead of building them
> yourself???
>
> I could go on, but I think the answer is no, it doesn't matter.
>
> The sticking point seems to be the builders Repairmans Certificate. I
> think that if the 'absent builder' can supply definitive data that the FAA
> will accept, then the problem doesn't reside with us, but with the FAA.
>
> The builder that participates in a Builder Assistance Center has to gather
> enough knowledge and participation, and pictures etc. to satisfy the FAA
> guy on the other side of the counter no matter the depth of his
> involvement.
>
> As to the point that a 'builder' that doesn't have the experience to
> properly do his conditional inspection is gonna crash and burn .... I know
> a lot of guys that built their own airplane and do a really lousy job of
> maintenenace ..... and inspecting ..... but they're still here to cause
> amazement in their fellow aviators.
> Linn
> do not archive
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Tank Question |
Remove the rubber seal and replace with proseal at final
installation. Dip each screw into the proseal and then insert and
tighten screw and be generous with the proseal.
No seal or gaskets of any kind is needed.
do not archive.
On Feb 13, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Michael Schipper wrote:
> <mike@learningplanet.com>
>
> I am in the process of sealing the tanks and I have a question
> about the rubber seal on the fuel level senders. Are these just
> installed dry, are they lubed with fuellube, or are they sealed
> with ProSeal?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike Schipper
> #40576 - Wings - www.rvten.com
>
>
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: | Fuel Tank Question |
I put proseal on mine when I installed it.
Scott Schmidt
sschmidt@ussynthetic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Schipper
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:30 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Fuel Tank Question
<mike@learningplanet.com>
I am in the process of sealing the tanks and I have a question about
the rubber seal on the fuel level senders. Are these just installed
dry, are they lubed with fuellube, or are they sealed with ProSeal?
Thanks,
Mike Schipper
#40576 - Wings - www.rvten.com
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 |
|
| Subject: | Doctors are no different than anyone else |
People who are not in the know are not foolish. Doctors do an amazing
amount of reading and are focused on their profession, sometimes it can
be all consuming. Yes I know first hand what I'm saying. Without knowing
the facts behind why 2 individuals chose this kit and no one else did,
well only they know. Looking at the website one would think this was a
good deal, just as someone who spent 100K on e-bay to buy a kit with
clecos; never seeing what he was buying first hand would think.
We are all on this forum because we take the time to learn about the
RV-10 either as a potential or current builder. Let's not assume
everyone else is as wise as we are and if they aren't they are follish,
until we know the motivation behind how they got sucked in to start
with. I feel nothing since I don't know why it happened but I sure can
learn from it so I am not in this situation.
Lastly, lawyers make Doctors jobs hard enough, certainly don't need
people calling them foolish, before we know it they will sue these guys
for malpractice in not following up on their planes progress;-)
Pascal
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: William Condon
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 11:59 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Given that the below is all true, one cannot have any sympathy for the
two doctors involved or the former owner of the company. Not only did
were the doctors displaying an unbelievable level of foolishness (by
giving away huge sums of money to a possible crook), but they were
directly threatening the experimental building community, as a whole.
I say that because this apparently involved the 'for-hire' building of
an experimental aircraft - since the doctors didn't know anything about
the scam, they obviously hadn't invested any of their own labor in the
building of the aircraft. Of course, to get an airworthiness
certificate for this aircraft, the people would have to defraud the FAA.
And, when people are out there defrauding the FAA, this will eventual
lead to them (the FAA) eating away at the public's right to build its
own airplanes.
Unless, of course, there is a loophole that I don't know about (where
one can pay to have kit airplanes professionally built) - if that is the
case, I respectfully withdraw my comments (except for the foolishness /
crook part, which still stands).
Bill C.
Dream - 100%, everything else - 0%
US military stationed overseas until 2009
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:34 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Predator, indeed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of SteinAir,
Inc.
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 3:53 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Wow....I can't believe all the banter about these planes from
literally everyone who has little to NO knowledge themselves. It seems
even Jims "understanding" is just flat wrong. The facts are:
Predator Aviation was building a custom plane called the "Kymera 750"
(aka an RV-10 with a 700+somethingth hp engine) and also the Kymera 440.
They Kymera "750" was priced/sold around $300K and the "440" was
around $200K.
They had to call them a new plane, because Predator Aviation
themselves got in trouble selling/advertising turnkey RV-10's (The FAA
got in the middle of it some time ago).
Predator Aviation/Chris Opperman sold TWO "Kymera 750's or 440's" to
individuals who BOTH paid a LOT of money (we're talking hundreds of
thousands of $$'s here).
Incidentally, both of the buyers / customers are doctors - I know one
of them very well and just met the other after this whole debacle. I
was building the panel for one of the customers and the other was being
built by Predator (supposedly).
Chris ordered avionis from me for "both" planes.
Predator Aviation constantly send updates to both "customers" complete
with pictures, progress reports, etc.. on BOTH planes.
Both customers truly believed that each of them was having a plane
built by Opperman and relied on his "progress reports" of newly clecoed
together pieces as proof of progress.
Both customers previous to his "death" last year did not know each
other.
Both customers didn't spend time on site.
Both customers found out after Oppermans death that in fact there was
only ONE airplane, and an incomplete one at that.
Both customers fought over who's plane it was (since both of them had
paid a LOT OF $$'s for their plane).
The "Kymera 750 or 440" was promised to be a super fast, super
structurally modified (Chris told me many times personally about all his
"engineering" modifications to the airplane that made it so different
from an RV-10).
Quote from their sales brochure says "Airframe Reinforced for high
payload".
This whole thing was/is a bloody mess with both guys losing a ton of
money. Look at the Predator Aviation website if you want the details.
They claimed: 274mph cruise, 2400 nm range, 1850lb usefull load, 120gal
fuel capacity and 750+ hp turbocharged engine.
The only sad thing here is that the current owner of the kit was so
ignorant (who in the world honestly thinks that plane is even remotely
done). The fact is there is about 2% of work done on that plane.....I
don't think the guy is stupid, just one of the most ignorant people I've
ever met. Who thinks they have 9" GRT displays, or a 92" prop, or an
80% completed airplane that's barely unpacked from the crate?!?!?!? I
feel bad for anyone that now falls for those lies or plain ignorance (I
don't know which), just like the original two owners fell for Oppermans
lies.
As far as picking on a Dead Guy, well.....it turns out he wasn't the
most ethical, moral, or honest person in the world when it came to
customers and business. We all may wonder how in the world people get
involved in things like that, and at the time of his supposed death when
I found out all the nasty details from both customers I thought - -
"Who would send that much money without getting anything back, etc.. or
checking in constantly".
Then, I find myself losing hundreds of thousands of $$'s myself in the
middle of this D2A/Chelton debacle and I see how easy it is to end up on
the receiving end of bad deals.
Just my 2 cents as usual! Sorry if anyone gets offended, but it seems
like I've seen lots banter here with little to no first hand knowledge
of the situation.
Cheers,
Stein.
P.S., I've attached a copy of their sales brochure (if it makes it)
for your review. Chris actually thought I'd be crazy enough to try and
"resell" these things for him...!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
lessdragprod@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 2:00 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
I certainly like to see how easy it is for some people WITHOUT ANY
APPARRENT KNOWLWDGE OF A PROJECT to be critical of another persons
dream.
It's my understanding that the builder who had this RV-10 dream
machine died of a sudden heart attack.
I like your style of picking on a dead guy. NOT.
Jim Ayers
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: Fuel Tank Question |
The advice I received at that stage was to use the rubber gasket and also
apply ProSeal. The fuel tank design is similar to what Piper has and I kno
w of an A&P who only used the gasket with no ProSeal in his Piper and has n
o leaks. I used both, however, if I had to do it over I would only use the
rubber gasket, as this avoids having to clean up the proseal if you ever h
ave to replace the sending unit.=0A=0ANiko=0A40188=0A=0A----- Original Mess
age ----=0AFrom: Michael Schipper <mike@learningplanet.com>=0ATo: rv10-list
@matronics.com=0ASent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 1:29:46 PM=0ASubject: RV1
Schipper <mike@learningplanet.com>=0A=0AI am in the process of sealing the
tanks and I have a question about =0Athe rubber seal on the fuel level se
nders. Are these just installed =0Adry, are they lubed with fuellube, or a
re they sealed with ProSeal?=0A=0AThanks,=0AMike Schipper=0A#40576 - Wings
====
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: unbelievable!!!) |
No argument, Kelly. However, if you remove the Repairmans Certificate
from the equation, then there is little difference from a group of guys
(we'll use 10 good friends ..... at the start) building the airplane in
ones garage and selling the plane ..... and a group of 'employees'
(could be the same 10 friends) at a Builder Assistance Center building
an airplane and then selling it.
The FAA has already come down on one company (name and airplane escapes
me right now) that were building to order. Definitely a no-no. TC and
PC required. The difference is that a builder assistance center
requires your presence ...... and you take home an unfinished
kit/part/subassembly .... whatever.
My take on the 51% rule is that it's changed over the years. But it's
still rather neulous, and loosely defined. 51% of the tasks MIGHT just
boil down to the basics. Aluminum cutting, aluminum forming, riveting
(which might contain the drilling and deburring ops), hardware, wiring,
and painting.
When I built my Pitts, there was not such thing as a quick-build kit.
And now there's no pre-cover or pre-closeout inspections.
As for the 100 rivets .... I just picked out a number. But you're right
..... the last 100 sure look a lot better than the first 100 ..... but
you haven't learned anything more except finesse .... which does come
from practice.
My whole point is that I'd rather have somebody 'get away' with building
a plane for income (and exploit the system) than have the FAA become the
'builder police'.
Linn
do not archive
Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> I think you are missing another ingredient to the 51% rule. We are
> permitted to build for our education and entertainment. For any other
> purpose, such as making money, a Type certificate and production
> certificate are needed. I could care less about the Repairman
> certificate, I already hold an A&P/IA certificate. Just because I'm
> busy with other things, I can't hire someone to build an RV-10 for me
> and meet the 51% rule. You still have to show that 51% of the tasks
> were done under the Amateur, home-built intent. I also don't believe
> that you learn all there is to know about riveting after 100
> rivets(unless they were 100 different kinds of rivets). I'm sure there
> are skills you learn elsewhere in the aircraft than just what you got
> out of doing the tail. I'd bet those rivets done later in the project
> are also much more workman-like than your first 20-50.
>
> On 2/13/07, linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
>>
>> OK, here's my 2 pennies. This subject is much like religion and
>> politics. We're only going to get opinions, not facts.
>>
>> The FAA has blessed 'builder assistance centers', where a customer can
>> go and get 'expert' guidance and training ...... and a whole lot of
>> help. Lets face it, after you've drilled, deburred, and set 100 rivets
>> ..... you've ceased learning and are now in repetitive mode.
>>
>> Does it matter if you had contracted help on the rest of the 25,000
>> rivets???
>>
>> Does it matter if you've done some wiring, but contracted to have the
>> panel done???
>>
>> Does it matter if you just bought your engine instead of building one up
>> yourself????
>>
>> Does it matter if you bought your strobes instead of building them
>> yourself???
>>
>> I could go on, but I think the answer is no, it doesn't matter.
>>
>> The sticking point seems to be the builders Repairmans Certificate. I
>> think that if the 'absent builder' can supply definitive data that the
>> FAA will accept, then the problem doesn't reside with us, but with
>> the FAA.
>>
>> The builder that participates in a Builder Assistance Center has to
>> gather enough knowledge and participation, and pictures etc. to satisfy
>> the FAA guy on the other side of the counter no matter the depth of his
>> involvement.
>>
>> As to the point that a 'builder' that doesn't have the experience to
>> properly do his conditional inspection is gonna crash and burn .... I
>> know a lot of guys that built their own airplane and do a really lousy
>> job of maintenenace ..... and inspecting ..... but they're still here to
>> cause amazement in their fellow aviators.
>> Linn
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: | what do you call yourself to ATC? |
I was reading the AIM last night trying to find something about this and
saw the same thing you did.
Sounds like the official way to make a call would be "RV-10 104XP
Experimental", then after the first call just "RV-10 4XP" or even "RV
4XP"
That is what I am going with!
Scott Schmidt
sschmidt@ussynthetic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Cooper
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 7:03 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: what do you call yourself to ATC?
There may be more to the story than just AIM. Here is a copy (picture,
not
cut/paste unfortunately) of my Operating Limitations:
This would imply you need to tack on "Experimental" to at least the
first
call. While an argument could probably be made that most, if not all
eventually, controllers know a RV-10 is an experimental it legally
probably
shouldn't be assumed. FWIW, I always use "Experimental 585MR" then just
"585MR" or even "5MR" if the conversation has gone back and forth a few
times.
Marcus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Erickson
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:23 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: what do you call yourself to ATC?
Scott,
The AIM is very specific about this. Here is the quote (the examples in
the
quote are from the AIM also).
QUOTE
"3. Civil aircraft pilots should state the aircraft type, model or
manufacturer's name, followed by the digits/letters of the registration
number. When the aircraft manufacturer's name or model is stated, the
prefix
"N" is dropped; e.g., Aztec Two Four Six Four Alpha.
EXAMPLE-
1. Bonanza Six Five Five Golf.
2. Breezy Six One Three Romeo Experimental (omit "Experimental" after
initial contact)."
END QUOTE
Basically, using "Experimental XXX" is counter to what the AIM says.
When
you think about it, it makes sense. The purpose of using the
manufacturers
name in the callsign (not trying to start an argument on who the
manufacturer of an experimental is... For these purposes let's just call
it
RV...) is to give the controller a small clue as to your capabilities.
RV
XXX does that while Experimental XXX doesn't. Just tag Experimental to
the
end of your callsign on initial contact to fulfill the requirements of
the
ops limits and the AIM and you're good...
John
RV-10 #40208 Wings
RV-8 N94DW (or should that be RV 94DW Experimental? :-) )
(btw, moving to Ogden in 2 weeks... Any chance I can get a look at that
gorgeous plane?)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:57 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: what do you call yourself to ATC?
--> <sschmidt@ussynthetic.com>
I would say more and more I am hearing "RV XXXX", and Experimental is
phasing out. I have talked to a few different ATC controllers and they
all
know what an RV is and like to hear that.
Is Steve Darton listening? What do you think?
Is there any problems saying "RV 104XP"? It seems like everyone up here
calls themselves "RV" and I have continued to called myself Experimental
but
that is such a long word. I'm actually going to start saying "RV"
now and see what they say.
Scott Schmidt
sschmidt@ussynthetic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 7:37 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: what do you call yourself to ATC?
I hear some call "experimental", a few call "red experimental" and most
call
"rv-whatever". I don't know what is officially the right way, but most,
in
my experience, say the actual model of airplane, not experimental. I
have
heard of several cases where ATC wanted to know about and chat about
"that
4-seat RV" and one case where they actually asked the pilot to change
frequencies to chat about the plane, especially when hitting ground
speeds
over 185Kts on descent into an airport.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 1:03 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: what do you call yourself to ATC?
You've got it right. "Experimental <N-Number>, 10 miles East at 6500'
inbound with Oscar" For filing, I had been filing HXB/G, but now that I
hear "RV10" is in the system, RV10/G should work too. Usually ATC asks
what
kind of plane we are, when they see the speeds we're making....then I
tell
them I'm an RV10.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Chris Johnston wrote:
> Hey all -
>
> just sitting around staring at the James cowl that I picked up this
> evening from the freight station, and I wondered... when you call ATC
> and you're flying an RV, what do you call yourself? I know about 97%
> of you guys just rolled your eyes, but I've never flown in an RV of
> any type. Or anything experimental at all. Do you say "experimental
> 12345 downwind abeam" or what? Inquiring minds want to know.
>
> cj #40410 fuse www.perfectlygoodairplane.net do not archive
__________ NOD32 2046 (20070208) Information __________
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 |
|
Michael,
Most of the work that we think we can do should be finished by this summer.
Implementation will take another year or so after we submit our
recommendations.
One point that has been accepted by the committee is that it is much more
practical to change orders and guidance than it is to change FARs. So
21.191(g) probably won't change.
Another point is that much of the problem exists because FAA inpsectors and
DARs don't have the ability to deny an application without overwhelming
evidence. A project can look pretty fishy and still be within the rules as
written. Everyone knows it stinks but the orders don't say what to do about
it. That's an area that will most likely change: authority for those
issuing the certificates to use the judgement and experience that allowed
them to become inspectors in the first place.
As we've just witnessed in this short exchange, as soon as a rule is adopted
or even proposed, those with ill will find a way around it. The inspectors
need to be able to adapt just as quickly, which historically is difficult
for governments to do. It seems to me that a clever and concise solution is
possible, but it hasn't shown itself yet.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:55 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Dave,
Can you share the groups progress? Any impending recommendations or
timelines for implementation.
Michael
Do not archive
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Dan,
>> how can the FAA be expected to review the employment condition of every
person that applies for an airworthiness certificate? <<
They probably can't, and I don't think they want to.
>>and how much additional time will be added to the review/paperwork
process? <<
Well, somebody needs to be looking closer. That will take more time but
hopefully not much more.
>>... I personally do not think that by having vendors on the committee, we
the builders are being looked out for. <<
The committee co-chairs, Frank Paskiewicz (FAA), Van, and EAA's Earl
Lawrence are tremendous builder's advocates. I hope I am too. There is a
great respect for the tradition of homebuilding and the consequences of
continuing the present course of action are not lost on us.
>> who else is on the panel <<
Kim Barnette, FAA Flight Standards Service, AFS-300
Joe Bartels, Lancair
Mike Brown, FAA Flight Standards Service, AFS-800
Stephen Buczynski, FAA Aircraft Certification, Van Nuys MIDO
Paul Fiduccia, Small Aircraft Manufacturers Association (SAMA)
Joe Gauthier, Manufacturing DAR
Paul Greer, Airworthiness Law Branch, AGC-210
Donald Lausman, FAA Airworthiness Certification Branch, AIR-230
Dave Saylor, AirCrafters LLC
Rick Schramek, Epic Aircraft
Matt Tomsheck, FAA Aircraft Certification, Cleveland MIDO
Mikael Via, Glasair
Brian Whitehead, Transport Canada Civil Aviation
Jeremy Monnett, Sonex Aircraft
I welcome any input and will take it all in as we develop our
recomendations. Of course we all have a stake in the game but I think this
is a very well assembled group, well suited for the task at hand. We are
meeting for the third time next week in Bend, OR.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
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: | Re: unbelievable!!!) |
Enter the "Two Weeks to Taxi" program.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:38 AM
Subject: factory built RVs (wasRe: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!)
OK, here's my 2 pennies. This subject is much like religion and
politics. We're only going to get opinions, not facts.
The FAA has blessed 'builder assistance centers', where a customer can
go and get 'expert' guidance and training ...... and a whole lot of
help. Lets face it, after you've drilled, deburred, and set 100 rivets
..... you've ceased learning and are now in repetitive mode.
Does it matter if you had contracted help on the rest of the 25,000
rivets???
Does it matter if you've done some wiring, but contracted to have the
panel done???
Does it matter if you just bought your engine instead of building one up
yourself????
Does it matter if you bought your strobes instead of building them
yourself???
I could go on, but I think the answer is no, it doesn't matter.
The sticking point seems to be the builders Repairmans Certificate. I
think that if the 'absent builder' can supply definitive data that the
FAA will accept, then the problem doesn't reside with us, but with the FAA.
The builder that participates in a Builder Assistance Center has to
gather enough knowledge and participation, and pictures etc. to satisfy
the FAA guy on the other side of the counter no matter the depth of his
involvement.
As to the point that a 'builder' that doesn't have the experience to
properly do his conditional inspection is gonna crash and burn .... I
know a lot of guys that built their own airplane and do a really lousy
job of maintenenace ..... and inspecting ..... but they're still here to
cause amazement in their fellow aviators.
Linn
do not archive
--
1:23 PM
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: unbelievable!!! |
>authority for those issuing the certificates to use the judgement and
experience that allowed them to become inspectors in the first place.
Use common sense? Are you mad?! You are talking about the U.S.
Government, right? Run for the hills!
sheesh.. common sense... what's this world coming to?
-Jim 40384 ,who is about to get a whole crapload of snow dumped on him.
do not archive (This entire message was written in a humorous tone;
Please read it as the same)
(Penguins rule!)
Dave Saylor wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Most of the work that we think we can do should be finished by this
> summer. Implementation will take another year or so after we submit
> our recommendations.
>
> One point that has been accepted by the committee is that it is much
> more practical to change orders and guidance than it is to change
> FARs. So 21.191(g) probably won't change.
>
> Another point is that much of the problem exists because FAA
> inpsectors and DARs don't have the ability to deny an application
> without overwhelming evidence. A project can look pretty fishy and
> still be within the rules as written. Everyone knows it stinks but
> the orders don't say what to do about it. That's an area that will
> most likely change: authority for those issuing the certificates to
> use the judgement and experience that allowed them to become
> inspectors in the first place.
>
> As we've just witnessed in this short exchange, as soon as a rule is
> adopted or even proposed, those with ill will find a way around it.
> The inspectors need to be able to adapt just as quickly, which
> historically is difficult for governments to do. It seems to me that
> a clever and concise solution is possible, but it hasn't shown itself yet.
>
> Dave Saylor
> AirCrafters LLC
> 140 Aviation Way
> Watsonville, CA
> 831-722-9141
> 831-750-0284 CL
> www.AirCraftersLLC.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *RV
> Builder (Michael Sausen)
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:55 AM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
>
> Dave,
>
>
>
> Can you share the groups progress? Any impending recommendations or
> timelines for implementation.
>
>
>
> Michael
>
> Do not archive
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Dave Saylor
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:26 AM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
>
>
>
>
>
> Dan,
>
>
>
> >> how can the FAA be expected to review the employment condition of
> every person that applies for an airworthiness certificate? <<
>
>
>
> They probably can't, and I don't think they want to.
>
>
>
>>>and how much additional time will be added to the review/paperwork
> process? <<
>
>
>
> Well, somebody needs to be looking closer. That will take more time
> but hopefully not much more.
>
>
>
> >>... I personally do not think that by having vendors on the
> committee, we the builders are being looked out for. <<
>
>
>
> The committee co-chairs, Frank Paskiewicz (FAA), Van, and EAA's Earl
> Lawrence are tremendous builder's advocates. I hope I am too. There
> is a great respect for the tradition of homebuilding and the
> consequences of continuing the present course of action are not lost
> on us.
>
>
>
>>> who else is on the panel <<
>
>
>
> Kim Barnette, FAA Flight Standards Service, AFS-300
>
>
>
> Joe Bartels, Lancair
>
>
>
> Mike Brown, FAA Flight Standards Service, AFS-800
>
>
>
> Stephen Buczynski, FAA Aircraft Certification, Van Nuys MIDO
>
>
>
> Paul Fiduccia, Small Aircraft Manufacturers Association (SAMA)
>
>
>
> Joe Gauthier, Manufacturing DAR
>
>
>
> Paul Greer, Airworthiness Law Branch, AGC-210
>
>
>
> Donald Lausman, FAA Airworthiness Certification Branch, AIR-230
>
>
>
> Dave Saylor, AirCrafters LLC
>
>
>
> Rick Schramek, Epic Aircraft
>
>
>
> Matt Tomsheck, FAA Aircraft Certification, Cleveland MIDO
>
>
>
> Mikael Via, Glasair
>
>
>
> Brian Whitehead, Transport Canada Civil Aviation
>
>
>
> Jeremy Monnett, Sonex Aircraft
>
>
>
> I welcome any input and will take it all in as we develop our
> recomendations. Of course we all have a stake in the game but I think
> this is a very well assembled group, well suited for the task at
> hand. We are meeting for the third time next week in Bend, OR.
>
>
>
> Dave Saylor
>
> AirCrafters LLC
>
> 140 Aviation Way
>
> Watsonville, CA
>
> 831-722-9141
>
> 831-750-0284 CL
>
> www.AirCraftersLLC.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>* *
>
>* *
>
>**
>
>**
>
>**
>
>**
>
>**
>
>**
>
>*http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
>
>**
>
>**
>
>**
>
>*http://forums.matronics.com*
>
>**
>
>* *
>
>*
>
>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>*
>
>*
>
>
>*
>
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 |
|
Other than an EAA rep, and several FAA reps, there is Dave Saylor who is
one of the few true builders, (non kit manufacturers). Dave has asked
on this list for your opinions and posted his address so you could keep
informed. At least the wolves only go after the weakest hens when
guarding the roost. Now when was the last time VAN, or Joe or Rick
asked what builders wanted to protect the builder's interests with this
unique pursuit. I think they just might already know what is in their
own self-interests and they believe that is in ours as well.
FAA Order 1110.143 dated 07/26/2006 National ARC Policy - Amateur-Built
initiated by AIR-230
Frank Paskiewicz FAA Manager
Earl Lawrence, EAA Vice President of Industry - (Co Chairman)
Richard Van Grunsven - VANS Aircraft (Co-Chairman)
engineering2@vansaircraft.com
Rick Schrameck - Epic LT rickschrameck@cox.net
David Saylor - AirCrafters Dave@airCraftersLLC.com
Joe Bartels - Lancair International JoeB@lancair.com
The condition of the kit manufacturers is quite healthy, Thank you for
asking. Sales are brisk.
Each of you should already know who is on the panel, what is being
discussed and what they are proposing. Or just sleep tight tonight cause
the roost is well guarded.
Wouldn't it be cute to have a custom EAA dash plate which read "The
majority of construction of this aircraft you are about to fly in has
been built by individuals I have no knowledge of from an unidentified
country other than the US of A."
John Cox
#40600
Do not archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel
R.
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 6:42 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
SO here is a thought on this, how can the FAA be expected to review the
employment condition of every person that applies for an airworthiness
certificate? We all complain about how much oversight they have now, and
the associated costs. You want to see fee's go through the roof, add an
additional administrative overhead to the process and see how much more
money it costs us, and how much additional time will be added to the
review/paperwork process?
Not saying the system does not need to be re-worked, but we need to
figure out how to fix it, and I personally do not think that by having
vendors on the committee, we the builders are being looked out for.
I would like to ask John Cox who else is on the panel, and who is
representing "all of us?" those with the money who vote?
Dan
N289DT
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 |
|
The Vans Hobbs Meter sits now at 4,999 planes... not that there's any
real magic in the number 5,000... but it is an amazing number of kit
plane completions that validates our good feelings toward the company
that we've all thrown our lot in with.
Congrats to Vans are in order!
Jeff Carpenter
40304
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 |
|
I'm in the process of running my conduit in the wings and am curious
how much conduit I should leave extended beyond the outboard and
inboard most ribs?
Jeff Carpenter
40304
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 |
|
Jesse, you and several have read more into the text. I was referencing,
two-three-nine-twenty five replicated RV-10s build not for personal
education, not for personal recreation but built for Revenue RESALE by
the same abuser. The unjust problems will become self evident when the
drivers of the semi tractor crash through the brick wall like in a scene
from "Terminator" and say "I am Back!". It is the manufacturing scope
that should be the focus. Even Rolls Royce used to be hand built one by
one for Revenue. It was not for recreation, education or for individual
fulfillment.
This unique facet should be Solely for the Education, and Recreation of
the builder(s) who completes the project. Not third party purchasers.
Thank goodness when they are sold they are more difficult to maintain.
Wait a minute.... That sounds like a formula for disaster. Dozens and
dozens of knock off production RV-10s built for revenue, sold for
revenue and maintained by whom?
We just saw an Ebay ad which confirms PT Barnum may have been 100 years
ago (a fool is born every minute) but the human spirit leaves the
repetition of poor judgment for every future generation to stumble upon.
I would hope our legacy is to a higher calling. Keep your Situational
Awareness High.
Let's close the Loop Hole and promote safe flying.
John Cox
the Turbanator #40600
Do not Archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 6:40 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
To add to the mix, I have a friend who is retired and he had built 6 or
7 RV-6 and -7's because he enjoys doing it and needs something to do.
He doesn't make much on them, but he keeps building because he enjoys
it. He builds planes because he can, but I don't think he is abusing
the rules. He is doing it as recreation, which definitely fits within
the intent and letter of the law. The litmus test that you mention
would obviously cause him unjust problems.
I know some of you are pointing your finger at me without knowing what
we really are doing. That's fine.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Conduit Runs |
Outboard, only a couple inches or so. inboard, you could possibly even
extend it into your fuselage if you wanted, so maybe 16 inches for
spare, but even if you only go a couple inches past the rib, you're
probably fine.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Jeff Carpenter wrote:
>
> I'm in the process of running my conduit in the wings and am curious how
> much conduit I should leave extended beyond the outboard and inboard
> most ribs?
>
> Jeff Carpenter
> 40304
>
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 |
|
To anyone that is interested. Drop me a line. After 23 years and now
retired as an FAA Pilot Examiner, I would be happy to share the written
process known as "Congressionalising" a member of the Executive Branch
of government and the path, process and outcomes which result from being
the recipient. All employees of the government work for some various
branch of the Executive, the Legislative (elected officials and their
aides) just loves to pull chains when "an agent of the Administrator"
fails to do the work of the People. The President selects his Cabinet
(DOT) then they select the Administrator (FAA) then they have employees
(the FSDO) who work for YOU. By the way, many well intentioned and hard
working Federal Employees have never encountered the process.
Like Sausage production it is not pretty. Those in the sausage
production know what is happening. They are hoping you don't want an
actual tour but that you do continue to buy the packaged product.
John Cox
the Turbanator
Do not Archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 7:58 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
I don't think they should be reviewing everyone that applies for a
certificate. Something like that would need to be triggered as a second
level based on a concern, hunch, report or whatever they currently use
to root out models that are in production. I certainly don't think it
should be a first level item that is attached to everyone. They have
more than enough info in their existing registration database for them
to mine and find models that are being built as a production run. Any
DAR or FAA rep in a given area certainly knows who is doing what as this
is a fairly closed community. I blame them more than anyone for
allowing it to happen.
Michael
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: Conduit Runs |
Jeff,
I left about an inch at the tip, this was plent to allow the wiring to go either
forward or aft. After the wires left the conduit I secured them with a cushioned
clamp on the tip rib.
My root wiring is terminated at a 16 pin AMP barrel connector so my conduit terminates
at the first rib inboard from the root rib and the wires go to the connector
straight from there. If I was running wires right from the fuselage to
the wing I would do it the same way as the tip, allow a nice service loop and
secure to the root rib with cushion clamps. You would not need too much conduit
left outside the rib, just enough to secure it to the rib and allow your wires
to travel in your desired direction. I secured the conduit with red silicone
prior to cutting it off with a hobby razor saw.
Rick S.
40185
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 |
|
Dan, you are right there are great shops. But respectfully, you have
not seen the Build Assists which allow the owner to drink coffee (hour
after hour, days on end, week after week) and watch while the paid staff
does the work. Then at the end of the day, they prep the "Builder" in
how to explain what was done.
I don't consider you na=EFve, I just think you are a bit Wide Eyed and
innocent in the ways of 51% violations in today's lucrative market.
By the way, I have every intention of setting up shop just as soon as
the rules are clarified. I do have a dog in this hunt and would be just
as happy if the Build Assist required FAA monitoring for violation and
financial penalties. When going into a street fight, you don't bring a
knife when the other guy has a knife you bring a shotgun - Sean Connery.
John
Do not Archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel
R.
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 8:03 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Knowing everyone from down there, this could not be farther from the
truth. The NWPA shop is there to give new builders an introduction to
metal kit plane building, specifically the RV series. They are great
people, and do not bend the rules, they help the new builder complete
the emp, and give the builder a solid foundation in correct building
practices and the builder gets to try multiple tools while under
instruction. But to make it clear, it is the builder that does the
construction, the shop will HELP, not do, with the priming and deburring
but the builder is doing the majority of the work. This shop is well
organized and highly recommended by other builders in the area. This is
a great way to complete an emp in 7 days and get a solid footing to
finish your project.
Remember, I do not have an affiliation with them, just know them from
being in the area, and highly respecting their efforts for the building
community.
Dan
N289DT
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 |
|
Those are some knarley looking graphics Ron...nice bright colors!!
Rick S.
40185
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 |
|
>>The majority of construction of this (GADAHRS) you are about to fly
(behind) has been built by individuals I have no knowledge of from an
unidentified country other than the US of A." <<
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Do Not Archive
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 |
|
Thanks Rick - I think ??
cheers
Ron
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Sent: Wednesday, 14 February 2007 9:43 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Panel Lettering
Those are some knarley looking graphics Ron...nice bright colors!!
Rick S.
40185
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: | Re: Conduit Runs |
Not a -10 but we extended at least 6" beyond what we thought was enough &
added at least 12" more wire at both ends. We also ran two extra wires "just
in case". Did we use them ?? Yep, when we added the individual strobe
lights. KABONG Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Carpenter" <jeff@westcottpress.com>
Subject: RV10-List: Conduit Runs
>
> I'm in the process of running my conduit in the wings and am curious how
> much conduit I should leave extended beyond the outboard and inboard most
> ribs?
>
> Jeff Carpenter
> 40304
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: unbelievable!!! |
Thanks Bob, not in IL until some time this spring or early summer or I woul
d
have started the 10 in the fall...don't want to move any more for PA than I
need to...
P
Since you are in IL, you may want to try Grov-Air in Indy. I ran into th
e
same issues. I wanted to go to Western PA RV Builders too and was
disappointed that he stopped conducting the basic class. I attended a ses
sion at
Grov-Air in December. Troy has built a RV6 and is just finishing the wing
s
on his RV-10. He=99s also assisting several other builders in his s
hop as
well. He is also a former United A&P.
Bob
do not archive
____________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of GRANSCOTT@aol.co
m
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
In a message dated 2/13/07 9:44:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jesse@saintaviation.com writes:
<<edited>>>
By the way, I've been in contact with the Western PA RV Builders for the
past couple of years--thanks to Dan Checkaway's web site...I'd planned to g
o to
their facility and do their workshop...apparently they have changed
directions.
Now they are basically working to help people begin and complete their RV
project. Originally it was my impression they were a workshop to try tools
and
for one to begin the process of the Rear Stab...apparently they are now mor
e
of a building shop and are booked through 2008...FYI.
Patrick
do not archive
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List)
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 |
|
It was a compliment...It's nice to see something different than just plain ordinary
text. I have no room to talk...my panel is being painted with "Faux Suede"
paint as long as I can get the distributor onboard. Normally used for yacht
consoles.
Rick S.
40185
do not archive
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 |
|
David, great challenge to the group.
Several years ago I had a difficulty issuing a pilot certificate to a
known drug dealer. There was no provision - Not To. It took time but
Paragraph U was added to the 8710 Application to trip them up on
falsification of a federal document. Several ideas come to mind. I
will forward them offline to you for consideration next week. We are
all extending our sincerely heartfelt best wishes at a fair and
productive session.
John Cox
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 1:23 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Michael,
Most of the work that we think we can do should be finished by this
summer. Implementation will take another year or so after we submit our
recommendations.
One point that has been accepted by the committee is that it is much
more practical to change orders and guidance than it is to change FARs.
So 21.191(g) probably won't change.
Another point is that much of the problem exists because FAA inpsectors
and DARs don't have the ability to deny an application without
overwhelming evidence. A project can look pretty fishy and still be
within the rules as written. Everyone knows it stinks but the orders
don't say what to do about it. That's an area that will most likely
change: authority for those issuing the certificates to use the
judgement and experience that allowed them to become inspectors in the
first place.
As we've just witnessed in this short exchange, as soon as a rule is
adopted or even proposed, those with ill will find a way around it. The
inspectors need to be able to adapt just as quickly, which historically
is difficult for governments to do. It seems to me that a clever and
concise solution is possible, but it hasn't shown itself yet.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:55 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Dave,
Can you share the groups progress? Any impending recommendations or
timelines for implementation.
Michael
Do not archive
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Dan,
>> how can the FAA be expected to review the employment condition of
every person that applies for an airworthiness certificate? <<
They probably can't, and I don't think they want to.
>>and how much additional time will be added to the review/paperwork
process? <<
Well, somebody needs to be looking closer. That will take more time but
hopefully not much more.
>>... I personally do not think that by having vendors on the
committee, we the builders are being looked out for. <<
The committee co-chairs, Frank Paskiewicz (FAA), Van, and EAA's Earl
Lawrence are tremendous builder's advocates. I hope I am too. There is
a great respect for the tradition of homebuilding and the consequences
of continuing the present course of action are not lost on us.
>> who else is on the panel <<
Kim Barnette, FAA Flight Standards Service, AFS-300
Joe Bartels, Lancair
Mike Brown, FAA Flight Standards Service, AFS-800
Stephen Buczynski, FAA Aircraft Certification, Van Nuys MIDO
Paul Fiduccia, Small Aircraft Manufacturers Association (SAMA)
Joe Gauthier, Manufacturing DAR
Paul Greer, Airworthiness Law Branch, AGC-210
Donald Lausman, FAA Airworthiness Certification Branch, AIR-230
Dave Saylor, AirCrafters LLC
Rick Schramek, Epic Aircraft
Matt Tomsheck, FAA Aircraft Certification, Cleveland MIDO
Mikael Via, Glasair
Brian Whitehead, Transport Canada Civil Aviation
Jeremy Monnett, Sonex Aircraft
I welcome any input and will take it all in as we develop our
recomendations. Of course we all have a stake in the game but I think
this is a very well assembled group, well suited for the task at hand.
We are meeting for the third time next week in Bend, OR.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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: | Re: unbelievable!!! |
I'm not a tax attorney nor play one on TV but I'd think if Saint was a
charity then they would have an e mail address as a dot "org" and not a dot
com...as in company for profit...just a though...Jesse are you folks a 501c
3?
Seems this topic comes up every month or so. Yes, we point our fingers at
lousy worksmanship at Oshkosh than we point our fingers at RV-10 rockets on
E-bay and each time it brings up the commitee on ending the building for pr
ofit.
Most of us agree that having people build this strictly for profit was
never the intention of the EAA 50 years ago, when they fought for the privi
lege
to allow a person to build a plane as a hobby, my guess that "for profit"
never was even conceived in the minds of any of those involved.
Now, about pointing fingers at those in Florida, specifically Jesse and his
"for profit", I did a survey with many of my friends, mostly all did
missionary work out of the US sometime in their lives and asked- if it is a
gainst the
rules to build something for profit, yet some organization does it for
profit with the intent of buildiong skills of Equadorian laborers and the p
rofits
go to support and finance a missionary ministry- does that make it right?
Before I respond with the answer I'll remind many of the goals of some
organizations to get kits and bring them to schools to teach students the s
kills
involved in building a plane. Last I heard the planes were sold and the pro
ceeds
went to support the school to continue the program.. hmm that goes against
the rules and should be stopped!! or should it?
Well to answer the question, Jesse and Saint Aviation are doing the right
thing, they are not doing this for self profit but for a charity and the
benefit of others. Yes there is a gray in the black and white of the rules
and just
as I would consider going through a red light (looking both ways first of
course) and speeding to get my pregnant wife who is about to have a baby, t
o
the hospital, there are those exceptions to the rules- even if someone thou
ght
there wasn't, until they themselves are in that situation.
Now for my personal selfishness- I loath the "for profits" out there. They
are not only doing it for their own benefit, like the 2bums group and the
unethical builders and companies taking money and having no morals for anyo
ne but
themselves, they are killing my hopes to afford a plane. Why? 225K for a
plane? that means registration in California on this aircraft goes up (valu
e is
not based on my costs but the going rate on trade-a-plane), there is the
insurance issues of course and the reasons we all are upset about.
Let's point our fingers at the unethical builders and leave the rare
builders that participate in this forum and add value in the form of positi
ve
comments(ie Jesse) alone. I agree that "for profit" will ultimately hurt th
ose who
want it as a hobby, as it was initially designed for, but stopping the few
will ultimately result in rules that will harm the rest.
Let Van's and the commitee figure out how they will do this and hope the wa
y
is to penalize those who are building for profit without a good reason for
it (retired and like building, charity, schools, etc) in the form of fines
that goes to paying for improving the experimental category so those who ar
e
honestly doing it can benefit from those are aren't!
tide box off
Do not archive
Pascal
----- Original Message -----
From: _Jesse Saint_ (mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com)
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 6:39 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
To add to the mix, I have a friend who is retired and he had built 6 or 7
RV-6 and -7=99s because he enjoys doing it and needs something to do.
He doesn=99
t make much on them, but he keeps building because he enjoys it. He builds
planes because he can, but I don=99t think he is abusing the rules.
He is doing
it as recreation, which definitely fits within the intent and letter of the
law. The litmus test that you mention would obviously cause him unjust
problems.
I know some of you are pointing your finger at me without knowing what we
really are doing. That=99s fine.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
_jesse@saintaviation.com_ (mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com)
_www.saintaviation.com_ (http://www.saintaviation.com/)
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
____________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder (Micha
el Sausen)
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:05 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
You forgot Florida. As far as how many should someone be allowed to build
,
there shouldn=99t be a limit as long as they are sticking to the inte
nt of the
rule which clearly is against any type of productionizing of a experimental
aircraft. You want to produce the RV-10 as a aircraft for profit, no
problem. Take it through the same processes that every other production ai
rcraft
company does. While you are at it develop your own manufacturing facilitie
s
because there isn=99t a chance Van will sell kit=99s to you at
that point, even
under the guise of =9Craw materials=9D.
Unfortunately there is no litmus test for determining what a builders inten
t
is. This is what the FAA has to struggle with. Sometimes they get it
right, sometimes they get it wrong. There are some limits that make it pre
tty
clear like building and selling an aircraft once a year, especially the sam
e
model. The 51% rule requires some philosophical debate and a little too mu
ch
Carnac the Magnificent to determine who is following the rule and who isn
=99t.
Some guys are just flat out breaking the rule no matter how they rationaliz
e
it. Some are legitimate in their pursuits. I think to things that would g
o
a long way are to reduce this problem are; make the builder sit on the
aircraft for at least 2 years and look at the builders employment history.
If
they have been unemployed for several years but have built 5 aircraft it
=99s a
good bet they are in it for the money.
I enjoy the building aspects as much as I enjoy flying. There is a good
chance I will build one or more aircraft in the future because I enjoy that
aspect. I sure don=99t need more than 2 or 3 aircraft :-) so I will
probably end
up selling at least one or two. The difference is I have absolutely no
problem in keeping the aircraft for a few years after I complete it.
Soap box off.
Michael
Do not archive
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 2:48 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Thank you for respectfully withdrawing your observation. The RV-10 is bein
g
mass produced in South Africa, Russian, the P.I., Central America and yes
in Oklahoma. The loophole has a truck running through it and the FAA has
convened a committee to close the door or give approval on those current
actions. Your answer will be forthcoming quite soon.
Just a rhetorical question for the masses. Just how many RV-10s beyond ONE
should a builder be allowed to complete before the group yells =9CFoul
=9D? I
guess the silence is a compelling answer.
The =9CFor hire=9D boys are alive and well buying RV-10 kits.
Here is the final question. Who finds it inappropriate for a manufacturer
to ship a second, third, fourth or fifth kit to those repeat builders?
Bill, you should be hearing soon from a few of those builders (predators)
about their product offering.
John Cox
#40600
Do not Archive
____________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Condon
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:00 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Given that the below is all true, one cannot have any sympathy for the two
doctors involved or the former owner of the company. Not only did were the
doctors displaying an unbelievable level of foolishness (by giving away huge
sums of money to a possible crook), but they were directly threatening the
experimental building community, as a whole.
I say that because this apparently involved the =98for-hire=99
building of an
experimental aircraft =93 since the doctors didn=99t know anythi
ng about the
scam, they obviously hadn=99t invested any of their own labor in the b
uilding of
the aircraft. Of course, to get an airworthiness certificate for this
aircraft, the people would have to defraud the FAA. And, when people are o
ut there
defrauding the FAA, this will eventual lead to them (the FAA) eating away a
t
the public=99s right to build its own airplanes.
Unless, of course, there is a loophole that I don=99t know about (whe
re one
can pay to have kit airplanes professionally built) =93 if that is th
e case, I
respectfully withdraw my comments (except for the foolishness / crook part,
which still stands).
Bill C.
Dream =93 100%, everything else =93 0%
US military stationed overseas until 2009
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.c
om/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List)
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 |
|
John Starn just sent me a good overhead placard for back seaters in a
Harmon Rocket. "Everything aft of this sign is for baggage, Act like
it."
Still waiting to hear if the meeting in Bend is open to the public. I
am attending state meetings with the Oregon Aviation Board and the
Oregon Pilots Association as Legislative Affairs.
John Cox
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:15 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
>>The majority of construction of this (GADAHRS) you are about to fly
(behind) has been built by individuals I have no knowledge of from an
unidentified country other than the US of A." <<
Sorry, couldn't resist.
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 |
|
I would like to thank Wally at synergy for the 10 day course which my wife and
I enjoyed.I would also like to thank the paid workers in the philipines who built
the majority of my wings and fuse.Not to mention lancair avionics for my panel.I
for one do not want the feds looking over my shoulder deciding if i meet
the 51% rule on my 7 project.When we sign our application for airwortiness we
sign under penalty of perjury that the aircraft was amateur built for our own
purposes.If there are those out there bending the rules and it doesnt effect
safety so be it.This may result in safer aircraft.Note the new light sport allows
owners to do there own maintanance after a weekend course.I will continue
to build my own aircraft because it is cheaper than psycotherapy.
________________________________________________________________________
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 |
|
Now that I'd like to see!
My other half has pretty much lost her sense of humour about 'that thing
in the shed'. In a vain attempt to resurrect her interest, I've asked
her to help with the interior 'decorating' and paint scheme design. She
has no preconceptions about what a panel should look like - she
certainly did not like the sterile (ie GA typical) layout that I opted
for. She wanted something a bit more (knarly??) to add interest -
that's why I needed a flexible way of designing removeable/disposable
placards that were robust enough to keep when the final decision was
made.
To be honest, I did not like the colour or the way it looked to start
with (a little outside my comfort zone, not what I was used to). But
with the colour coordinated wool upholstery, it will all fit together
really well and I am extremely happy with the outcome. More
importantly, so is the missus.
Cheers,
Ron
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Sent: Wednesday, 14 February 2007 9:59 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Panel Lettering
It was a compliment...It's nice to see something different than just
plain ordinary text. I have no room to talk...my panel is being painted
with "Faux Suede" paint as long as I can get the distributor onboard.
Normally used for yacht consoles.
Rick S.
40185
do not archive
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 |
|
| Subject: | Anyone have a photo/diagram of fuel routing? |
I am looking for two pieces of information:
1. A photo(s) of the fuel lines between the tank and fuselage so I
can see the routing there, and
2. A fuel routing diagram if anyone has one.
I am trying to figure out where exactly I should put a fuel return in
the tanks (Yes, I had my tanks done, and NOW I want a fuel return.... my
bad!) I already have an inspection panel in the rear baffle like Dan
Lloyd has.
Thanks!
-Jim 40384, I think I'm starting to love the smell of Proseal... Is that
bad? :)
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 |
|
got my axle nuts today, thanks a bunch Tim for yours and your families
effort, now if I just had a plane to attach them to. Just about to get the
permits for the hangar, courtesy of Phil Hall @ ASI, and should start
building very soon.........then the -10.....I've read everyone's building
sites and posts to this list soo many times I feel like Ive built the plane
already....cant wait to get started.....everyone on this list gives great
info to one degree or another to a newbie like me.....THANKS
Robb
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Conduit Runs
Outboard, only a couple inches or so. inboard, you could possibly even
extend it into your fuselage if you wanted, so maybe 16 inches for
spare, but even if you only go a couple inches past the rib, you're
probably fine.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Jeff Carpenter wrote:
>
> I'm in the process of running my conduit in the wings and am curious how
> much conduit I should leave extended beyond the outboard and inboard
> most ribs?
>
> Jeff Carpenter
> 40304
>
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 |
|
For those that are flying or already installed the Vic Syracuse style rudder
trim, I'm trying to determine the vertical placement of the hinge. If I
center it on the rudder, the servo would have to go where the rib R-1010D is
located. From looking at Vic's pictures, it appears that the hinge may be
dropped down four or five inches from the center. I'm trying to determine
the impact of the trim not being center on rudder.
Is there any impact of if the trim hinge is lower on the rudder trailing
edge?
What height on the trailing edge of the rudder did you install the rudder?
Thanks,
Bob
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 |
|
I would beg to differ, I am very aware of the build to profit and know
several individuals doing it, and am approaching the whole scenario very
cautiously. The only one I was speaking for was NWPA as I know them
personally, and how they conduct business. The other shops I know of are
write a check and send email pictures with hands for updates. So no, I
am not wide eyed or all trusting, but on the other hand I really do not
see an issue with someone building a plane for another person. What I do
have an issue with is that someone that paid for the construction, and
not participating, even with another previous build claiming the
repairman's certificate. Let me repeat that, I do personally do not have
an issue with someone building for profit, as long as the buyer does not
get the repairman cert, in other words the aircraft must be found
airworthy at the time of certification, and it must be maintained by the
person who built it, or a qualified shop.
My opinion only, and no I am not naive just aware of what everyone has
done to bend the rules occasionally to met their individual needs.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 6:13 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Dan, you are right there are great shops. But respectfully, you have
not seen the Build Assists which allow the owner to drink coffee (hour
after hour, days on end, week after week) and watch while the paid staff
does the work. Then at the end of the day, they prep the "Builder" in
how to explain what was done.
I don't consider you na=EFve, I just think you are a bit Wide Eyed and
innocent in the ways of 51% violations in today's lucrative market.
By the way, I have every intention of setting up shop just as soon as
the rules are clarified. I do have a dog in this hunt and would be just
as happy if the Build Assist required FAA monitoring for violation and
financial penalties. When going into a street fight, you don't bring a
knife when the other guy has a knife you bring a shotgun - Sean Connery.
John
Do not Archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel
R.
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 8:03 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Knowing everyone from down there, this could not be farther from the
truth. The NWPA shop is there to give new builders an introduction to
metal kit plane building, specifically the RV series. They are great
people, and do not bend the rules, they help the new builder complete
the emp, and give the builder a solid foundation in correct building
practices and the builder gets to try multiple tools while under
instruction. But to make it clear, it is the builder that does the
construction, the shop will HELP, not do, with the priming and deburring
but the builder is doing the majority of the work. This shop is well
organized and highly recommended by other builders in the area. This is
a great way to complete an emp in 7 days and get a solid footing to
finish your project.
Remember, I do not have an affiliation with them, just know them from
being in the area, and highly respecting their efforts for the building
community.
Dan
N289DT
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 |
|
Not true, as anyone can register any address extension they want, IE pay
the fee and the name is yours, unless someone else already owns it.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
GRANSCOTT@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 6:37 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
I'm not a tax attorney nor play one on TV but I'd think if Saint
was a charity then they would have an e mail address as a dot "org" and
not a dot com...as in company for profit...just a though...Jesse are you
folks a 501c3?
Seems this topic comes up every month or so. Yes, we
point our fingers at lousy worksmanship at Oshkosh than we point our
fingers at RV-10 rockets on E-bay and each time it brings up the
commitee on ending the building for profit.
Most of us agree that having people build this strictly
for profit was never the intention of the EAA 50 years ago, when they
fought for the privilege to allow a person to build a plane as a hobby,
my guess that "for profit" never was even conceived in the minds of any
of those involved.
Now, about pointing fingers at those in Florida,
specifically Jesse and his "for profit", I did a survey with many of my
friends, mostly all did missionary work out of the US sometime in their
lives and asked- if it is against the rules to build something for
profit, yet some organization does it for profit with the intent of
buildiong skills of Equadorian laborers and the profits go to support
and finance a missionary ministry- does that make it right? Before I
respond with the answer I'll remind many of the goals of some
organizations to get kits and bring them to schools to teach students
the skills involved in building a plane. Last I heard the planes were
sold and the proceeds went to support the school to continue the
program.. hmm that goes against the rules and should be stopped!! or
should it?
Well to answer the question, Jesse and Saint Aviation
are doing the right thing, they are not doing this for self profit but
for a charity and the benefit of others. Yes there is a gray in the
black and white of the rules and just as I would consider going through
a red light (looking both ways first of course) and speeding to get my
pregnant wife who is about to have a baby, to the hospital, there are
those exceptions to the rules- even if someone thought there wasn't,
until they themselves are in that situation.
Now for my personal selfishness- I loath the "for
profits" out there. They are not only doing it for their own benefit,
like the 2bums group and the unethical builders and companies taking
money and having no morals for anyone but themselves, they are killing
my hopes to afford a plane. Why? 225K for a plane? that means
registration in California on this aircraft goes up (value is not based
on my costs but the going rate on trade-a-plane), there is the insurance
issues of course and the reasons we all are upset about.
Let's point our fingers at the unethical builders and
leave the rare builders that participate in this forum and add value in
the form of positive comments(ie Jesse) alone. I agree that "for profit"
will ultimately hurt those who want it as a hobby, as it was initially
designed for, but stopping the few will ultimately result in rules that
will harm the rest.
Let Van's and the commitee figure out how they will do
this and hope the way is to penalize those who are building for profit
without a good reason for it (retired and like building, charity,
schools, etc) in the form of fines that goes to paying for improving the
experimental category so those who are honestly doing it can benefit
from those are aren't!
tide box off
Do not archive
Pascal
----- Original Message -----
From: Jesse Saint
<mailto:jesse@saintaviation.com>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 6:39 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
To add to the mix, I have a friend who is
retired and he had built 6 or 7 RV-6 and -7's because he enjoys doing it
and needs something to do. He doesn't make much on them, but he keeps
building because he enjoys it. He builds planes because he can, but I
don't think he is abusing the rules. He is doing it as recreation,
which definitely fits within the intent and letter of the law. The
litmus test that you mention would obviously cause him unjust problems.
I know some of you are pointing your finger at
me without knowing what we really are doing. That's fine.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
<http://www.saintaviation.com/>
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder
(Michael Sausen)
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:05 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
You forgot Florida. As far as how many should
someone be allowed to build, there shouldn't be a limit as long as they
are sticking to the intent of the rule which clearly is against any type
of productionizing of a experimental aircraft. You want to produce the
RV-10 as a aircraft for profit, no problem. Take it through the same
processes that every other production aircraft company does. While you
are at it develop your own manufacturing facilities because there isn't
a chance Van will sell kit's to you at that point, even under the guise
of "raw materials".
Unfortunately there is no litmus test for
determining what a builders intent is. This is what the FAA has to
struggle with. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it
wrong. There are some limits that make it pretty clear like building
and selling an aircraft once a year, especially the same model. The 51%
rule requires some philosophical debate and a little too much Carnac the
Magnificent to determine who is following the rule and who isn't. Some
guys are just flat out breaking the rule no matter how they rationalize
it. Some are legitimate in their pursuits. I think to things that
would go a long way are to reduce this problem are; make the builder
sit on the aircraft for at least 2 years and look at the builders
employment history. If they have been unemployed for several years but
have built 5 aircraft it's a good bet they are in it for the money.
I enjoy the building aspects as much as I enjoy
flying. There is a good chance I will build one or more aircraft in the
future because I enjoy that aspect. I sure don't need more than 2 or 3
aircraft :-) so I will probably end up selling at least one or two. The
difference is I have absolutely no problem in keeping the aircraft for a
few years after I complete it.
Soap box off.
Michael
Do not archive
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 2:48 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Thank you for respectfully withdrawing your
observation. The RV-10 is being mass produced in South Africa, Russian,
the P.I., Central America and yes in Oklahoma. The loophole has a truck
running through it and the FAA has convened a committee to close the
door or give approval on those current actions. Your answer will be
forthcoming quite soon.
Just a rhetorical question for the masses. Just
how many RV-10s beyond ONE should a builder be allowed to complete
before the group yells "Foul"? I guess the silence is a compelling
answer.
The "For hire" boys are alive and well buying
RV-10 kits.
Here is the final question. Who finds it
inappropriate for a manufacturer to ship a second, third, fourth or
fifth kit to those repeat builders?
Bill, you should be hearing soon from a few of
those builders (predators) about their product offering.
John Cox
#40600
Do not Archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Condon
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:00 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Given that the below is all true, one cannot
have any sympathy for the two doctors involved or the former owner of
the company. Not only did were the doctors displaying an unbelievable
level of foolishness (by giving away huge sums of money to a possible
crook), but they were directly threatening the experimental building
community, as a whole.
I say that because this apparently involved the
'for-hire' building of an experimental aircraft - since the doctors
didn't know anything about the scam, they obviously hadn't invested any
of their own labor in the building of the aircraft. Of course, to get
an airworthiness certificate for this aircraft, the people would have to
defraud the FAA. And, when people are out there defrauding the FAA,
this will eventual lead to them (the FAA) eating away at the public's
right to build its own airplanes.
Unless, of course, there is a loophole that I
don't know about (where one can pay to have kit airplanes professionally
built) - if that is the case, I respectfully withdraw my comments
(except for the foolishness / crook part, which still stands).
Bill C.
Dream - 100%, everything else - 0%
US military stationed overseas until 2009
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s
.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.co
m
/Navigator?RV10-List
.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: unbelievable |
One thing regarding the 51% rule... from what I understand, Panel
wiring, and Engine work, among other things, are specifically excluded
from being part of the rule, for the sole reason that you state below...
to allow for some of these specialized job to be done by a
person with those special skills. So when one thinks about an
organization or person violating the 51% rule, it really does
come down to mostly the airframe. My personal biggest problem
I'd have with any of the 51% violators would be if they actually
help the recipient of the aircraft obtain the repairman's certificate.
As you can tell from reading the various threads on this forum, even
some of the simplest tasks can launch into great discussions of
theory as to what is the proper/safest/strongest/most correct way to
complete a task. For the builder that just paid someone for the plane,
they couldn't possibly have as good a grasp as most of the people on
this forum will have. I personally would take offense to them
holding the repairmans certificate, because at that point they have
not done the diligence required to actually *know* their airframe
enough to qualify for the ability to inspect it. I think this
whole hunt for violators could be approached from the maintenance
and repairman's cert. end....a thorough interview is common before
granting the certificate. This should prevent anyone from not
having done a considerable amount of work in obtaining the certificate.
As a follow-on to that theory, if the buyer doesn't hold any
certificate, then their plane will need to be inspected by an
A&P....something that some A&P's may not even be willing to do
unless it meets very high standards. In fact, A&P's could be
specifically *required* to hold all homebuilts to some very
high standards. That would put a crimp in the urge for some
buyers to try to buy a ready-made-homebuilt....and instead
favor them buying a certified bird. But it helps us by keeping
that insurance from rising due to someone who doesn't know the
airframe doing improper maintenance.
It should also be noted that even if you have the repairman's cert.
you would be crazy to think that you are qualified to do every
bit of engine and avionics work automatically. The smart
homebuilder will know when he's getting in over his head and
ask for assistance early on. One of the problems though is that
the people who would want to buy a read-made-homebuilt are
doing it for a reason....either cost, or "free" annual maintenance.
People who are obsessed enough to do this for those reasons
*may* be the ones who would be dangerous to be in that situation,
as it's when you cut corners that things start to be problems.
A true and honest "builder assist" is really a good thing though,
in that it does help a builder to better learn good skills and
apply them to their project. I do have a very tough time
getting my own mind to accept a "2 weeks to taxi" program though,
for the reasons I state above....those people simply didn't
likely do enough of the work themselves to know their machine to
the level they should/could. It would be nice if they just
bought a pre-made certified plane because at least then they
know they have to get help in inspecting it.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
pilotdds@aol.com wrote:
> I would like to thank Wally at synergy for the 10 day course which my
> wife and I enjoyed.I would also like to thank the paid workers in the
> philipines who built the majority of my wings and fuse.Not to mention
> lancair avionics for my panel.I for one do not want the feds looking
> over my shoulder deciding if i meet the 51% rule on my 7 project.When we
> sign our application for airwortiness we sign under penalty of perjury
> that the aircraft was amateur built for our own purposes.If there are
> those out there bending the rules and it doesnt effect safety so be
> it.This may result in safer aircraft.Note the new light sport allows
> owners to do there own maintanance after a weekend course.I will
> continue to build my own aircraft because it is cheaper than psycotherapy.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
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: | Re: unbelievable!!!) |
Jesse Saint wrote:
>
> Enter the "Two Weeks to Taxi" program.
...which falls under the "FAA blessed 'builder assistance centers'".
The FAA has physically inspected the operation at the Glasair Aviation
facility and approved the TWT program.
I've personally talked to a Sportsman builder that lives nearby that
went through the program. It is a VERY busy program, but there is no
question in his mind (or in mine after talking to him) that the builder
does more than 51% of the operations required by the FAA, and it is well
documented so there should not be any problem obtaining the repairman
certificate.
I was seriously considering the TWT program at one time, and did a lot
of personal research on it. There may be some "questionable" builder
assist centers out there, but I don't think the TWT program is one of them.
-Dj
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: unbelievable |
Tim Olson wrote:
> I do have a very tough time
> getting my own mind to accept a "2 weeks to taxi" program though,
> for the reasons I state above....those people simply didn't
> likely do enough of the work themselves to know their machine to
> the level they should/could.
I thought the same way until I looked into it a bit more. Will they
know the plane as intimately as someone doing a slow build? Probably
not. Will they know it enough to safely maintain it? I believe so,
after looking into the program myself.
You can apply a similar comparison to buying a quick build kit versus
building the slow build version.
As you say, most of us know when we are getting in over our heads, and
ask for help. Those that don't, well, Darwin generally pays a visit
unfortunately, regardless of what type of airplane or who built it.
-Dj
do not archive
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: | Re: unbelievable!!! |
MessageWould you then also agree that a "buyer" should be restricted
from winning a "Builders" award for workmanship....like the Bronze Lindy
at OSH, as a very true life example...? ? KABONG Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Lloyd, Daniel R.
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 5:13 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
I would beg to differ, I am very aware of the build to profit and know
several individuals doing it, and am approaching the whole scenario very
cautiously. What I do have an issue with is that someone that paid for
the construction, and not participating, even with another previous
build claiming the repairman's certificate. Let me repeat that, I do
personally do not have an issue with someone building for profit, as
long as the buyer does not get the repairman cert, in other words the
aircraft must be found airworthy at the time of certification, and it
must be maintained by the person who built it, or a qualified shop.
My opinion only, and no I am not naive just aware of what everyone has
done to bend the rules occasionally to met their individual needs.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 6:13 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
.
By the way, I have every intention of setting up shop just as soon
as the rules are clarified. I do have a dog in this hunt and would be
just as happy if the Build Assist required FAA monitoring for violation
and financial penalties. When going into a street fight, you don't
bring a knife when the other guy has a knife you bring a shotgun - Sean
Connery.
John
Do not Archive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel
R.
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 8:03 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!
Knowing everyone from down there, this could not be farther from the
truth. The NWPA shop is there to give new builders an introduction to
metal kit plane building, specifically the RV series. Remember, I do not
have an affiliation with them, just know them from being in the area,
and highly respecting their efforts for the building community.
Dan
N289DT
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: unbelievable |
You do have a good point in that, and since you've invested the
time to check out the program at Glastar, I don't doubt you
on it. On the positive side of the QB -10 parts though, when
you receive them they are fully open enough that you can pretty
much view every rivet if you wish, and inspect the quality of
the work....and from workflow perspective, since all builders
should pretty much have built the tailcone and fins, the skills
should still be there. But I do agree you can make an argument
against it to some extent.
I'm sorry I got so long-winded the last post though. My main
intent was to just touch on the fact that avionics/paint/engine
work count nothing towards the 51% rule, so those items can be
fully farmed out and not affect your standing at all....and for
some people, that's probably a very good thing. One caution to
all panel-shop-buyers....your panel builder can build the panel
and do a great job, but you're still not excused from the post-flight
debugging. It would be very hard indeed for a panel builder to
have 100% of everything perfectly calibrated and set up from
their shop....the builder still has some responsibilities to
read and understand the install and operations manuals.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Dj Merrill wrote:
>
> Tim Olson wrote:
>> I do have a very tough time
>> getting my own mind to accept a "2 weeks to taxi" program though,
>> for the reasons I state above....those people simply didn't
>> likely do enough of the work themselves to know their machine to
>> the level they should/could.
>
>
> I thought the same way until I looked into it a bit more. Will they
> know the plane as intimately as someone doing a slow build? Probably
> not. Will they know it enough to safely maintain it? I believe so,
> after looking into the program myself.
>
> You can apply a similar comparison to buying a quick build kit versus
> building the slow build version.
>
> As you say, most of us know when we are getting in over our heads, and
> ask for help. Those that don't, well, Darwin generally pays a visit
> unfortunately, regardless of what type of airplane or who built it.
>
> -Dj
> 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 |
|
I don't know that it would matter a huge amount if it's higher or lower,
but you probably want to keep it a little distant from the Horizontal
stab so that the wash from that doesn't affect the rudder trim. I
just planned on looking at Vic's photos closely and counting rivets
and trying to basically duplicate the positioning. I think Ed Hayden
did a good copy of that design and also did some creative work getting
the wiring to run down the leading edge inside the rudder. The
tab itself though is often found not necessarily centered on the
rudder so I'd just look for a good looking place for it.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Bob Leffler wrote:
> For those that are flying or already installed the Vic Syracuse style
> rudder trim, Im trying to determine the vertical placement of the
> hinge. If I center it on the rudder, the servo would have to go where
> the rib R-1010D is located. From looking at Vics pictures, it appears
> that the hinge may be dropped down four or five inches from the center.
> Im trying to determine the impact of the trim not being center on rudder.
>
> Is there any impact of if the trim hinge is lower on the rudder trailing
> edge?
>
> What height on the trailing edge of the rudder did you install the rudder?
>
> Thanks,
> Bob
>
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: | Re: Static Air System - Alternate Air Valve- REDUX |
Try the alt air valve used on a Cirrus SR-20, which can be purchased from a dealer.
Part # is long forgotten, but it was about $20. It's plastic, light weight,
and has a large lever on it. The lever and valve are two different part #s,
if I recall correctly. You can mount it with an Adel clamp.
Marc
--------
Marc Ausman
http://www.verticalpower.com
RV-7 IO-390 Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94905#94905
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 |
|
"The tree of life is self pruning", unfortunately the selection process
effects everyone with insurance with the same tree rate. Whether it be
Elm Disease or Pine Beetle, there are whole forests to attest that even
healthy one's can get in the way when it spreads.
Self policing, information sharing, meaningful discussion, peer
pressure, seminars, schooling and regular currency in piloting and
maintenance will all lead to a healthier forest.
I just don't want to see a segment of aviation go by the wayside as
profit and kit sales become the overriding issue of the moment. It was
kit operation that challenged Rick Schrameck and Dr. Caldwell that lead
to the 51% Committee.
February 13th, 2007 5,000 RV aircraft having been completed the old
fashioned way.
John Cox
Do not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj Merrill
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: unbelievable
Tim Olson wrote:
> I do have a very tough time
> getting my own mind to accept a "2 weeks to taxi" program though,
> for the reasons I state above....those people simply didn't
> likely do enough of the work themselves to know their machine to
> the level they should/could.
I thought the same way until I looked into it a bit more. Will
they
know the plane as intimately as someone doing a slow build? Probably
not. Will they know it enough to safely maintain it? I believe so,
after looking into the program myself.
You can apply a similar comparison to buying a quick build kit
versus
building the slow build version.
As you say, most of us know when we are getting in over our
heads, and
ask for help. Those that don't, well, Darwin generally pays a visit
unfortunately, regardless of what type of airplane or who built it.
-Dj
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: | A&P willing to do annual condition inspection, pre-buy |
Do we anticipate a problem with the RV-10 in the aftermarket? Is there something
peculiar about this plane that will prevent certificated mechanics from inspecting
or repairing them? I agree that some A&P's will be unwilling - I heard
there are shops that WILL NOT work on anything older than 18 years because of
liability issues but I believe free market forces will take affect and mechanics
will step up to meet demand.
Paul
#40203 , getting ready to prime/paint interior fuse and tail
############################################
"................As a follow-on to that theory, if the buyer doesn't hold any
certificate, then their plane will need to be inspected by an
A&P....something that some A&P's may not even be willing to do
unless it meets very high standards. In fact, A&P's could be
specifically *required* to hold all homebuilts to some very
high standards. That would put a crimp in the urge for some
buyers to try to buy a ready-made-homebuilt....and instead
favor them buying a certified bird. But it helps us by keeping
that insurance from rising due to someone who doesn't know the
airframe doing improper maintenance.
###############################################
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94914#94914
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: | Fuel Tank Question |
We generally use the rubber seal and then proseal around a little after it
is installed. The main reason is to make it easier to remove and fix,
replace, tweak or whatever. I'm not saying it will never leak this way, but
it is in a place that would be easy to detect a leak and would be easy to
fix if there were a leak. Either way works, though. I don't know that they
will ever have to be replaced or fixed or tweaked, but there is a chance.
Anything that can come apart eventually will come apart for service, IMHO.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 2:09 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fuel Tank Question
I put proseal on mine when I installed it.
Scott Schmidt
sschmidt@ussynthetic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Schipper
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:30 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Fuel Tank Question
<mike@learningplanet.com>
I am in the process of sealing the tanks and I have a question about
the rubber seal on the fuel level senders. Are these just installed
dry, are they lubed with fuellube, or are they sealed with ProSeal?
Thanks,
Mike Schipper
#40576 - Wings - www.rvten.com
--
1:23 PM
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 |
|
I wouldn't leave any more than you need to possibly put something on to keep
it from receding.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Carpenter
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 5:44 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Conduit Runs
I'm in the process of running my conduit in the wings and am curious
how much conduit I should leave extended beyond the outboard and
inboard most ribs?
Jeff Carpenter
40304
--
1:23 PM
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 |
|
At first thought, it probably is not any more necessary to have it centered
than it is to have the control cables connected to the center of the rudder.
I may be wrong, but that makes sense to me. Tim's comment about the affect
of the elevator makes sense as well. My main thought is getting the wires
to it, although I would think the absolute best place for it would be high
enough that people don't bump into it when walking around the plane.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Leffler
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 8:01 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Rudder Trim
For those that are flying or already installed the Vic Syracuse style rudder
trim, I'm trying to determine the vertical placement of the hinge. If I
center it on the rudder, the servo would have to go where the rib R-1010D is
located. From looking at Vic's pictures, it appears that the hinge may be
dropped down four or five inches from the center. I'm trying to determine
the impact of the trim not being center on rudder.
Is there any impact of if the trim hinge is lower on the rudder trailing
edge?
What height on the trailing edge of the rudder did you install the rudder?
Thanks,
Bob
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: unbelievable!!!) |
My point exactly. Thanks. I think it's a great program and a fantastic
example of the best of both worlds. Yes, the builder builds enough to
safely be the builder/maintainer of the airplane. Not only this, but he is
taught things in the program that he might not be taught elsewhere that will
benefit him in maintenance. This opens the world of experimental aviation
to more people than those who have the 2,000 hours to put into a build
project, and it makes them much safer, IMHO, than many of the Cessna drivers
out there who don't know a bolt from a rivet or a cylinder from a sump. For
those who want to know, that is exactly what Saint Aviation is doing with
the -10. We are working on the blessing part now.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj Merrill
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: factory built RVs (wasRe: RV10-List: unbelievable!!!)
Jesse Saint wrote:
>
> Enter the "Two Weeks to Taxi" program.
...which falls under the "FAA blessed 'builder assistance centers'".
The FAA has physically inspected the operation at the Glasair Aviation
facility and approved the TWT program.
I've personally talked to a Sportsman builder that lives nearby that
went through the program. It is a VERY busy program, but there is no
question in his mind (or in mine after talking to him) that the builder
does more than 51% of the operations required by the FAA, and it is well
documented so there should not be any problem obtaining the repairman
certificate.
I was seriously considering the TWT program at one time, and did a
lot
of personal research on it. There may be some "questionable" builder
assist centers out there, but I don't think the TWT program is one of them.
-Dj
--
1:23 PM
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 |
|
Isn't the 'where-the-rubber-meets-the-road' on this issue how the fraudulent
eBay builders affect the experimental aircraft building community as a
whole?
Somewhere down the road, a certain experimental aircraft will crash, and
somebody fill file a lawsuit against many people (to include the builder of
the aircraft). Imagine the outcome when the 'builder' claims that he wasn't
actually the 'builder', and therefore should be released from the lawsuit.
If the FAA doesn't act in advance of this scenario, they will surely act
subsequent to it. I would think that it is in everyone's best interest to
ensure that the 51% rule remains as an option to those of us wishing to
avoid the costs/limitations associated with purchasing production aircraft;
but that means that we need to adhere to the 51% rule 100% of the time.
Bill C.
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! --
|