Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:04 AM - Re: re- RV6a maximum gross weight @1650 lb. (f1rocket@telus.net)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: re- RV6a maximum gross weight @1650 lb. |
Jim,
I have a Stits Playboy that I bought and the empty weight was wrong (an
outright lie in my opinion). So I thought I would apply for an increase in GW
from 1500 to 1800 lbs. I filled out all the paperwork as I did for my Rocket
(flap area, wing loading etc) and thought I was set.
MOT has come back and told me that if I wish to have a GW higher than original
design, I need to run all the stress analysis my self and prove it to them. OK
wing was easy, but fuse is beyond my current means, without hiring a
professional or getting a program.
I also can't contact the original designer to get a statement from him (they
would also accept this), so I'm not sure what to do, other than fly under 1500
lbs.
I would think that you could get a statement from Vans that you can have the
higher GW. I wonder what would happen though if Vans refuses? Guess you would
be back to calculating.
With my Rocket I found that as soon as my paperwork was done with MDRA (final
inspection) I was on my own with TC. I can tell you that I had more problems
with the TC paperwork than anything. Basically I didn't mail anything as they
claimed to have lost my file. So I spent a total of three days going back and
forth to get my paperwork in order. Oh and one thing to watch - after your 25
hours are done, make sure they don't just give you day VFR. They tried that
with me and I made them go back and re-type it up to read day/night VFR.
Don't know if I helped or confused?
Jeff
Quoting Jim Jewell <jjewell@telus.net>:
>
> A month or two ago I registered my RV6-a with the MOT. The application
> included the requested gross weight which I set at 1775 lb.
> A week later I received the as applied for registration which now resides in
>
> the aircraft as required.
> My local inspector is an acquaintance. He was professional diligent and
> helpful in all regards. He is in fact a highly trained aircraft structural
> AME. By trade.
> Yesterday upon having completed the final inspection process of my RV6-a he
> had to inform me of the following; It has been decided that the maximum
> gross weight during the 25 hr. flight test period will be set by the MDRA at
>
> the kit manufacturers stated (in my case1650 lb.) regardless of the
> applicant's requested weight.
>
> It is as yet unclear to me and the inspector exactly how this will effect my
>
> intention to maintain the previously applied for and accepted 1775 maximum
> gross weight.
>
> Is this little more than a mild shifting of weight by the MDRA with little
> or no effect on the builders?
>
> Will I have to re-test the aircraft for some as yet undetermined additional
> flight period?.
>
> It might mean that I have to re-do the gross weight climb test at the
> requested 1775 lb. weight.
>
> Will the onus be on me to go through a structural testing regime to prove
> the airframe is up to the task.
>
> The first three options can be complied with, the later would of course be
> out of the question.
>
> I have no word from the MDRA administration or the local provincial rep. as
> to the why's and how's this rule change was arrived at. No advance warning.
> No background or explanations offered to the local inspector. No word as to
> where this will leave me in dealing with the MOT ? I was informed that after
>
> the 25 hr. test period I will be on my own with the MOT. in this regard.
> No opportunity at all to have input on the matter!
>
> My bet is that after turning over one or two rocks in this pile,, a lawyer
> will be found !?
>
> Jim in Kelowna
>
> P.S. I almost put the sealed envelope containing the paper work re- the
> inpection into the mailbox without checking the amount of postage that was
> on it.
> Upon doing so I went to the post office and had the postage increased to the
>
> required $1.xx additional amount.
> Had I not done so the affixed return address was to the head office in
> Ontario instead of here in Kelowna. With the incorrect postage it would have
>
> been returned or sent to Ontario then back to B.C. to be scrutinized By
> Terry Elgood before arriving back here. Who knows how long that would take?.
>
> This might explain some of the gripes I have heard about the paperwork turn
> around time? If by chance you are given the wrong envelope, a small error
> will have a fairly big effect.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|