Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:38 AM - for hire experimentals? (cjpilot710@aol.com)
2. 03:57 AM - Re: Yak-18T in Canada, Can it be done? (Daniel Fortin)
3. 04:12 AM - Re: Yak-18T in Canada, Can it be done? (Daniel Fortin)
4. 05:25 AM - Fw: for a better new year (AEROSTAR)
5. 06:31 AM - Re: Yak 50 Main gear actuator seals (A. Dennis Savarese)
6. 07:44 AM - Re: Doing work on US experimental airplanes (Lee Taylor)
7. 08:14 AM - Re: T-34 (Ron Davis)
8. 08:24 AM - Re: Yak-18T in Canada, Can it be done? (Ron Davis)
9. 08:35 AM - Re: for hire experimentals? (Ron Davis)
10. 08:41 AM - Re: Yak-18T in Canada, Can it be done? (Ron Davis)
11. 08:57 AM - Re: Re: Doing work on US experimental airplanes (Ron Davis)
12. 09:32 AM - Re: Yak-18T in Canada, Can it be done? (Walt Lannon)
13. 09:38 AM - Re: CJ rental (Lee Taylor)
14. 09:39 AM - Re: Lead substitute for Autogas? (Ron Davis)
15. 09:46 AM - Re: Re: Doing work on US experimental airplanes (A. Dennis Savarese)
16. 11:18 AM - INSTRUMENT LIGHTING (ART STAVRO)
17. 01:30 PM - Re: INSTRUMENT LIGHTING (John W. Cox)
18. 03:49 PM - Nice going Hitman! (Barry Hancock)
19. 05:45 PM - Whatisit? (cpayne@joimail.com)
20. 06:10 PM - Re: CJ rental (Ron Davis)
21. 06:47 PM - Re: Fw: for a better new year (Royden Heays)
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: | for hire experimentals? |
--> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
The way we do it at the Collings Foundation with the B-17 & B-24 both
Experimental Exhibition, is that while they are sitting on the ground its $8.0/person
to walk though both airplanes. If a person wants a "ride" he/she must
"donate" a tax deductible $400. to the Foundation. All the paper work, receipts,
etc., are done right at the site. We fly the airplane IF we get at least 6
riders. We CAN'T EVER take "riders" from one airport to another. If you donate
a
much larger sum >$2,000 and become a "plane sponsor" you get to ride in the
airplanes almost anytime you want when we moved them from one airport to
another. Some times the flights are several hours, most of the time they are just
20 to 30 minutes. The foundation has been doing this for over 15 years.
Is it fool proof? It appears so, however I know that the foundation has a
cadre of lawyers who have had to fight the FAA & IRS bureaucrats a good number
of times. Its interesting at times, when one FSDO might "jump" us and start us
giving a hard time about something, we'll defer to our MCO FSDO who in
essence tells them to bug off, 'its the way we've set it up.' This is NOT uncommon.
Pappy
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak-18T in Canada, Can it be done? |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Daniel Fortin" <fougapilot@hotmail.com>
Ron,
The "I got hungry during proficiency" works great until a bunch of overpaid
lawyers convince a judge you were "illegal" being there. The underwriters
may just agree with them and keeps his money. Specifically if the restaurant
is 1500nm away from home base.
AMOs may be part of an FBO, and their sole purpose is to provide maintenance
services for hire. Ex-military airplanes fall in 3 different maintenance
categories in Canada:
1- Piston with less then 800hp,
2- Piston with more then 800hp and Jet trainers,
3- Jet fighters
Any aircraft in the first categories only requires only an AME (A&P) for
maintenance, the second categories an AMO and the third an AMO certified to
conduct maintenance on the specific type. For example, the Northern Lights
established their own AMO and their 2 AMEs were trained by ex RAF technician
(as approved by TC) and are now endorsed to conduct maintenance on the
Hunters.
If anyone wants it, I can provide you with an actual copy of the regs, but
it would most likely put you to sleep.
Dan
>From: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: yak-list@matronics.com
>To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak-18T in Canada, Can it be done?
>Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:45:59 -0700
>
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
>
>Thanks for the reply. Your AMOs probably have less concern with liability
>than big FBOs here. Can you use them for hire? The only difference
>between
>a recreational flight and a proficiency flight is on the exceedingly rare
>occasion when a federal employee asks why your CJ is parked in front of a
>resturant. "I flew here to eat" is the wrong answer, "I got hungry during
>my proficiency flight" is the right answer.
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak-18T in Canada, Can it be done? |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Daniel Fortin" <fougapilot@hotmail.com>
Walt,
I will agree with you, the short answer is NO. Where I will disagree is the
use of Limited aircraft is not only permitted for Government contractors,
but to ALL aerial work. If you want to transform your CJ into a photo ship
and put it on a 702 operator certificate, the feds will allow it iaw CAR
700.05 (3). For our US friends, in Canada Part135 equivalent in sub divided
into 4 categories; 702; 703, 704 and 705. Cars 702 is for the commercial
operation of an airplane for aerial work where you cannot carry passenger
for hire, but provide a service such as: Police contract, forest fire
patrols, aerial photography...
D
>From: "Walt Lannon" <wlannon@cablerocket.com>
>Reply-To: yak-list@matronics.com
>To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak-18T in Canada, Can it be done?
>Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:57:18 -0800
>
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "Walt Lannon" <wlannon@cablerocket.com>
>
>Ron;
>
>Can you use them for hire?????
>
>The short answer is no, the Limited category is for non commercial use only
>unless "you" are a government contractor then you can use L39's, F5's, Mig
>21's or whatever to provide aggressor or other services to the military. We
>also have a "Restricted" category that does allow some specific commercial
>use. This seems to be used mostly for non-certificated agricultural
>aircraft.
>
>On a different matter your earlier post on 12V alternatives indicated a
>certain disdain for the Astron 2412 converter. This subject is definitely
>not my forte and (since I have been using one with apparently good results
>for many years) I would appreciate if you could expand on it's problems.
>
>Thanks;
>Walt
>Original Message -----
>From: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
>To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak-18T in Canada, Can it be done?
>
>
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
> >
> > Thanks for the reply. Your AMOs probably have less concern with
>liability
> > than big FBOs here. Can you use them for hire? The only difference
>between
> > a recreational flight and a proficiency flight is on the exceedingly
>rare
> > occasion when a federal employee asks why your CJ is parked in front of
>a
> > resturant. "I flew here to eat" is the wrong answer, "I got hungry
>during
> > my proficiency flight" is the right answer.
> >
> >
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fw: for a better new year |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "AEROSTAR" <aerostar@aerostar.ro>
----- Original Message -----
From: Marketing AEROSTAR
Subject: for a better new year
Gentlemen ,
Being the final of the year , we wish to all of you all the best and a Happy New
Year in 2005 !
We are hoping your Yak 52 aircraft make your life a little more pleasant . And
maybe you will not blame us to much when some technical problems are issued
to your planes ....
Our plan for 2005 is to continue the production for new aircraft . Maybe not so
many like before but we still estimate to produce around 15 - 20 new aircraft
. We also will continue to produce spare parts for your aircraft , a reasonable
spare parts deposit being available here all the time . We also will continue
to make repairs & overhauls and to cooperate for servicing and inspections
.
We have in intention as soon is possible in 2005 to put under your analyzes several
proposals to improve and modify YAK 52 aircraft , in order to extend the
aircraft resources and abilities . We thank you in advance if you will want to
help us .
We all from Aerostar - Romania wish to you Merry Christmas and to have all a better
year !
Sincerely ,
Cristian Dragoi
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: Yak 50 Main gear actuator seals |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
TJ,
If you will disassemble the actuator and send me ALL the seals (don't forget
the one on the shaft end cap), C-clips, and metal balls, I will compare them
to a complete rebuild kit for the 52 nose gear actuator. If they are the
same, I'll have my supplier ship you two complete rebuild kits. Just for
grins, I'll also compare them to the 52 main actuator rebuild kit. There
are in fact two different sizes of the large seals used in the main actuator
and the smaller of the two may just be the ones that will fit the 50.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Johnson" <tjohnson@cannonaviation.com>
Subject: Yak-List: Yak 50 Main gear actuator seals
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Tom Johnson"
<tjohnson@cannonaviation.com>
>
> Any 50 drivers might have recently bought Yak50 Main Gear Actuator Seals?
> They may be same as 52 nose actuator seals.
>
> If anybody has a set on their parts shelf, I'm in need.
> Rebuilding actuators for the New Year.
>
> Tj
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Doing work on US experimental airplanes |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Lee Taylor" <leetay@comcast.net>
One of the guys in the list just made the statement, (in the
U.S.)"on an experimental airplane, you can do the work yourself."
This has been a long-time misunderstanding that has been kinda
winked at by the FAA, unofficially, of course, BUT--- (and this is from
a long-time A&P and experimental plane owner)--
UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY BUILT THE AIRCRAFT, AND HOLD AN AIRMAN'S
REPAIR CERTIFICATE SPECIFIC FOR THAT PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL AIRPLANE,
The regulations as to what you, as an experimental aircraft owner/non
A&P, can do to that airplane, are EXACTLY what you are allowed to do to
a certificated airplane. ONLY the original BUILDER can do whatever he
wants to, to the plane. Everything else, to be legal, has to be at
least signed off by an A&P. The only real difference is that only an
A&P is required for the condition (annual) inspection. You don't need
an AI signoff.
If you're gonna be legal, guys, all your work has to be signed
off by an A&P. Insurance could rear its ugly head!!!!!!!
Just for info, so you can't claim ignorance. :>)
Lee Taylor
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
The last I heard, Beech was trying to get all of the Starships back (for
destruction). They can't make owners trade them in of course, but they can
refuse to sell parts for them (to replace a high wear part or some critical
items that turns out to be defective...).
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak-18T in Canada, Can it be done? |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
The earlier posts (which I REALLY don't want to start again) were related to
my opinion and experience regarding center tapping a pair of 12 volt
batteries in a 24 volt plane which is contrary to Brian's opinon and
experience on the issue.
I have nothing against the Astron, and have used them without problem in
several planes. Why do I have them? You HAVE to use a converter to power
12 equipment when you use a 24 volt battery. You CAN use a converter when
you use two 12 volt batteries, if you want to for any reason.
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: for hire experimentals? |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
I've ridden in the B-24. I know I paid for ride, you know I paid for a
ride, and Bob Collings knows I paid for a ride. And we are all better off
that the feds don't think I did.
EAA has a cadre of lawyers and the good graces of it's FSDO too. Both
organizations probably get along better at this than an individual would,
although a lot is possible if you have buddies at FAA, or are low profile
enough to stay under their radar. They do have a habit of piling on though.
Think Bob Hoover, for example.
A fellow can go farther with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word
alone-- A. Capone
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak-18T in Canada, Can it be done? |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
Thanks for the information. This thread started when someone commented that
Canadian regs were simpler, or more friendly than the US regs in some cases.
I think he said at one point that there were no limits on use and that's why
I asked the dumb question of whether they could be used for hire and the
details on maintenance.
From the replys, I think I'd say Canadian regs are different, rather than
saying they are more friendly. Especially after factoring in night VFR and
over-water regs.
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Doing work on US experimental airplanes |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
You are correct on maintenance for experimental planes. I knew that and
didn't type it right. You are also correct that you don't need an IA to
sign the Condition Inspection. You don't need an IA's signature for
anything on an experimental plane in the US.
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak-18T in Canada, Can it be done? |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Walt Lannon" <wlannon@cablerocket.com>
Dan;
I think we are both wrong. It is most likely that the aerial services
mentioned would be with an aircraft licensed under the Special C of A
RESTRICTED Category rather than Limited.
Cheers;
Walt
BTW - Did you ever receive the video I sent you?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Fortin" <fougapilot@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak-18T in Canada, Can it be done?
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Daniel Fortin" <fougapilot@hotmail.com>
>
> Walt,
>
> I will agree with you, the short answer is NO. Where I will disagree is
the
> use of Limited aircraft is not only permitted for Government contractors,
> but to ALL aerial work. If you want to transform your CJ into a photo
ship
> and put it on a 702 operator certificate, the feds will allow it iaw CAR
> 700.05 (3). For our US friends, in Canada Part135 equivalent in sub
divided
> into 4 categories; 702; 703, 704 and 705. Cars 702 is for the commercial
> operation of an airplane for aerial work where you cannot carry passenger
> for hire, but provide a service such as: Police contract, forest fire
> patrols, aerial photography...
>
> D
>
> >From: "Walt Lannon" <wlannon@cablerocket.com>
> >Reply-To: yak-list@matronics.com
> >To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak-18T in Canada, Can it be done?
> >Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:57:18 -0800
> >
> >--> Yak-List message posted by: "Walt Lannon" <wlannon@cablerocket.com>
> >
> >Ron;
> >
> >Can you use them for hire?????
> >
> >The short answer is no, the Limited category is for non commercial use
only
> >unless "you" are a government contractor then you can use L39's, F5's,
Mig
> >21's or whatever to provide aggressor or other services to the military.
We
> >also have a "Restricted" category that does allow some specific
commercial
> >use. This seems to be used mostly for non-certificated agricultural
> >aircraft.
> >
> >On a different matter your earlier post on 12V alternatives indicated a
> >certain disdain for the Astron 2412 converter. This subject is definitely
> >not my forte and (since I have been using one with apparently good
results
> >for many years) I would appreciate if you could expand on it's problems.
> >
> >Thanks;
> >Walt
> >Original Message -----
> >From: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
> >To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak-18T in Canada, Can it be done?
> >
> >
> > > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
> > >
> > > Thanks for the reply. Your AMOs probably have less concern with
> >liability
> > > than big FBOs here. Can you use them for hire? The only difference
> >between
> > > a recreational flight and a proficiency flight is on the exceedingly
> >rare
> > > occasion when a federal employee asks why your CJ is parked in front
of
> >a
> > > resturant. "I flew here to eat" is the wrong answer, "I got hungry
> >during
> > > my proficiency flight" is the right answer.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Lee Taylor" <leetay@comcast.net>
Re experimental rentals:
Been through this a lot, since I have been approached several
times about giving instruction in my Christen Eagle.
The "corporation" approach has been used several times, and to
the best of my knowledge, hasn't been disallowed.
The other way is "joint ownership", where anyone interested can
"buy" a share in the desired plane. This way an instructor can give
paid instruction in that plane, as he is just giving transition training
to an actual owner.
Outright rental of an experimental plane, or charging for any
service such as instruction, with any pilot that is not in some way an
"owner" of the plane, is not allowed.
The only expemption to this is that I am supposedly allowed to
give instruction, and charge for it and me, in my Eagle IF the person
paying is doing so to get transition training INTO THE TYPE which he is
comtemplating buying. E.G., I can give training to someone interested
in buying an Eagle, but not someone interested in a Pitts.
On that last, my feeling is that the statement is so ambiguous
that I have never done that. My feeling is that would be stretching my
neck out on a chopping block, hoping that the ax wouldn't fall.
If you want to rent your plane, or your talents, it has to be to
an owner of the plane.
Lee Taylor
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lead substitute for Autogas? |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
>Anyone have any experience/info on a product called CD-2 Lead Substitute?
CD-2 Super Concentrated Lead Substitute is about 25% sodium sulfonate, and
4% each of octane, nonane, and trimethylbenzene. Balance is naphtha.
It will raise the octane of a gasoline which is below 100, because octane
has an octane number of 100. It's a math thing. Not by much though if you
add a few ounces of the "super concentrate" containing 4% octane to 10
gallons of gas.
Sulfur has lubricating qualities, as does sodium metal, but I have no
opinion on the efficacy of sodium sulfonate in the fuel of a gasoline
engine.
Octane is C8H18. Gasoline's octane number is its anti-knock rating compared
to pure octane in percent. There is more than one way to calculate this,
the two common methods for autos are called Research method and the Motor
method. The octane number for auto gas that's posted on the pump is an
average of the two methods. You may have seen the equation (R+M)/2 on gas
pumps.
Avgas octane is determined by a different technique, so the numbers can not
be directly compared.
Nonane is C9H20 (H twenty, not H2 capital O). Some, but not all, isomers of
nonane have an octane number exceeding 100, so that may add imperceptibly to
the octane number of gas treated with CD-2.
The cheapest way to increase octane number is add alcohol. This generally
considered a bad idea for piston airplanes due to vapor pressure concerns
and rubber compatibility issues.
The above is fact, the following is opinion:
This stuff is a waste of money.
Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and annoy the pig.--
Lazarus Long
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: RE: Doing work on US experimental airplanes |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
I beg to differ with you Lee. FAR 43 which covers maintenance of aircraft is quite
clear with regards to experimental aircraft. Verbatim - please note 43.1
(b), which I have bolded and underlined the pertinent words. It clearly states
this part does not apply to experimental aircraft. Part means FAR 43; in
its entirety.
=A743.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part prescribes rules
governing the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration
of any --
(1) Aircraft having a U.S. airworthiness certificate;
(2) Foreign-registered civil aircraft used in common carriage or carriage of
mail under the provisions of Part 121 or 135 of this chapter; and
(3) Airframe, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, and component parts
of such aircraft.
(b) This part does not apply to any aircraft for which an experimental airworthiness
certificate has been issued, unless a different kind of airworthiness certificate
had previously been issued for that aircraft
An A&P does not have to sign off all the work you've done on your airplane since
experimental aircraft are not covered under FAR 43. As you said, an A&P does
have to sign off the annual condition inspection and the annual condition inspection
has to be of the scope and detail of Part 43, Appendix D. IAW FAA Order
8130.2E, page 136, c. (4) which is also the basis of your Operating Limitations.
It states:
c. Group III, Piston-Powered: Warbirds, Vintage, Replica, and Unique Aircraft.
(4) Inspection Requirements. Aircraft under 800 horsepower must be inspected
each year in accordance with an inspection plan that contains the scope and detail
of appendix D to part 43. Aircraft of 800 horsepower and above must be inspected
in accordance with appropriate military technical publications or manufacturer=92s
instructions for the aircraft.
Bottom line; there is nothing illegal about you maintaining your experimental aircraft
as long as an A&P does sign off on the annual condition inspection.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Taylor" <leetay@comcast.net>
Subject: Yak-List: RE: Doing work on US experimental airplanes
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Lee Taylor" <leetay@comcast.net>
>
> One of the guys in the list just made the statement, (in the
> U.S.)"on an experimental airplane, you can do the work yourself."
> This has been a long-time misunderstanding that has been kinda
> winked at by the FAA, unofficially, of course, BUT--- (and this is from
> a long-time A&P and experimental plane owner)--
> UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY BUILT THE AIRCRAFT, AND HOLD AN AIRMAN'S
> REPAIR CERTIFICATE SPECIFIC FOR THAT PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL AIRPLANE,
> The regulations as to what you, as an experimental aircraft owner/non
> A&P, can do to that airplane, are EXACTLY what you are allowed to do to
> a certificated airplane. ONLY the original BUILDER can do whatever he
> wants to, to the plane. Everything else, to be legal, has to be at
> least signed off by an A&P. The only real difference is that only an
> A&P is required for the condition (annual) inspection. You don't need
> an AI signoff.
> If you're gonna be legal, guys, all your work has to be signed
> off by an A&P. Insurance could rear its ugly head!!!!!!!
> Just for info, so you can't claim ignorance. :>)
>
> Lee Taylor
>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | INSTRUMENT LIGHTING |
--> Yak-List message posted by: ART STAVRO <art79@cwnet.com>
I once saw an instrument lighting system that appeared to be a strip of low
intensity lights that could be placed around the perimiter of an instrument panel
where they would shine down on the instrument faces. Does anyone know who the
manufacturer is or if something similar is available for CJ'S? Most of my Chinese
instruments are gone with no provision for night flight. Appreciate any help..
N77YC
ART
---- Msg sent via CWNet - http://www.cwnet.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 |
|
| Subject: | INSTRUMENT LIGHTING |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Here is a URL for an inexpensive lighting controller.
http://www.fdatasystems.com/LC_40.htm
Here is an alternate lighting product (on the edge)
http://www.californeon.net/
Here is what I think your requesting which is commonly used in
Experimentals. http://www.aeroenhancements.com/
Here is an attached PDF file on a Lancair IVP that used such a system. The
unit is a little high on lumens and needs some control down to reduce glare.
If you don't receive it, contact me direct. Happy Holidays.
John Cox - Oregon
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ART STAVRO
Subject: Yak-List: INSTRUMENT LIGHTING
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: | Nice going Hitman! |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org>
Just cracked open the latest edition of "Sport Aerobatics" and saw that
our very own John "Hitman" Hilterman scored best First Timer Sportsman
at the US Nationals in his Yak-50. Well done. I guess you're more
than just an ACM guy after all...and proof positive that fighter pilots
can use the rudder pedals too! :)
Cheers,
Barry
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "cpayne@joimail.com" <cpayne@joimail.com>
There is a single place "Yak" for sale on ebay. It is
advertised as a "Yak" but has fixed conventional gear with a
mfg'd date of 1987. Looks a lot like an I-3 to me but heh,
I'm just a 'changer.
BTW, there is also a Yak-12 carcass offered, don't we have a
few flying in the US? Something like 110mph at 15GPH?
Craig Payne
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
Lee,
I'm not disagreeing with you, but where is the part that says you can't rent
the plane to a pilot to fly himself? I know where to find the prohibition
on carrying passengers or cargo for hire (ops limits). I've haven't come
across a statement about renting the plane out. I presume you aren't
willing to rent it out, but don't know what prohibits that if you did want
to.
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fw: for a better new year |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Royden Heays" <heaysr@telus.net>
Hello Christian at AEROSTAR,
Do you do any work with the Yak 55M - parts, etc.
Royden
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of AEROSTAR
Subject: Yak-List: Fw: for a better new year
--> Yak-List message posted by: "AEROSTAR" <aerostar@aerostar.ro>
----- Original Message -----
From: Marketing AEROSTAR
Subject: for a better new year
Gentlemen ,
Being the final of the year , we wish to all of you all the best and a
Happy New Year in 2005 !
We are hoping your Yak 52 aircraft make your life a little more
pleasant . And maybe you will not blame us to much when some technical
problems are issued to your planes ....
Our plan for 2005 is to continue the production for new aircraft .
Maybe not so many like before but we still estimate to produce around
15 - 20 new aircraft . We also will continue to produce spare parts for
your aircraft , a reasonable spare parts deposit being available here
all the time . We also will continue to make repairs & overhauls and to
cooperate for servicing and inspections .
We have in intention as soon is possible in 2005 to put under your
analyzes several proposals to improve and modify YAK 52 aircraft , in
order to extend the aircraft resources and abilities . We thank you in
advance if you will want to help us .
We all from Aerostar - Romania wish to you Merry Christmas and to have
all a better year !
Sincerely ,
Cristian Dragoi
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! --
|