Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:43 AM - Extra fuel for 52 (Cliff Coy)
2. 06:37 AM - Re: EAA FAA (bill wade)
3. 06:46 AM - Re: EAA FAA (Stephen Fox)
4. 08:05 AM - Re: EAA FAA (Roger Kemp)
5. 12:56 PM - Re: EAA FAA (A. Dennis Savarese)
6. 12:56 PM - Re: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07 (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
7. 12:56 PM - Re: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07 (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
8. 01:14 PM - Re: Re: Air system problem.... (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
9. 01:36 PM - Re: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07 (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
10. 02:00 PM - Re: Re: Air system problem.... (Roger Kemp)
11. 02:02 PM - Re: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07 (Roger Kemp)
12. 02:05 PM - Re: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07 (Roger Kemp)
13. 03:09 PM - Re: EAA FAA (Doug Sapp)
14. 05:05 PM - Re: EAA FAA (A. Dennis Savarese)
15. 07:54 PM - Re: EAA FAA (bill wade)
16. 08:43 PM - Re: EAA FAA (Rick Basiliere)
17. 09:18 PM - Re: EAA FAA (Dave Laird)
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: | Extra fuel for 52 |
Good morning Cyrus,
There are two versions of aircraft tank sealant we use:
FlameMaster Chemseal CS3204-A-1/2
FlameMaster Chemseal CS3204-B-1/2
Both of these sealants come as a two-part mixture.
The Class "A" sealant is a pourable/brushable liquid used for getting
the tight tight areas.
The Class "B" sealant is the consistency of snot...and sticks like it too.
We use it to re-enforce the seam areas and on the access panels.
The "1/2" is the working time in hours- so be ready to seal when you mix it.
The Cure time is 30hrs.
We purchase these from Aviall 1-800-284-2551.
Your options are a "Semkit" which a pre-portioned tube or in Qt cans
which must be mixed 10:1 *by weight* (critical) RTFI
Clean surfaces are also critical.
Get a can of Toluene as it's the *only* substance which will clean the
stuff off.
As for the vent...I would separate the vent lines and run a new vent
line from the Aux Tank.
We simply go up and over the wing in the wing root. Which is plenty.
If you're seriously worried about porting fuel overboard, Andair
manufacters the best vent line check valve in the world (expect to pay
for it tho').
In regards to our system, we simply ran out 6 bays, we can go further
(and probably will) on the next system. We won't get the same volume as
Vytas because they actually remove the wing skin completely, and seal up
the wing back past the false spar- we simply seal back to it.
We decided that a system which added 1 to 2 hrs of flight time for 6-7k
was definitely marketable.
Our experience with the 52TW has shown that very few people actually
utilize the 4.5hrs leg the aircraft offers. A 2-3 hr leg dramatically
changes the utility of the aircraft.
I guess I'll need to re-read the posting instructions for the list as
the pictures I attached didn't come through <grin>
Best regards,
Cliff
Cyrus Kissling wrote:
>
> Cliff,
> I had Anabaras in Lithuania do a wet wing mod for me when they did my
> plane. It leaked like hell form the day I got it to the point where I
> simply disconnected it. Liutauras at Anabaras would not even email me
> back. They also simply ran a vent line from the main aluminum tank
> about 3/4 of the way up into the new wet wing. Fuel would leak into
> the wet wing when the main was full and leak out.
> Do you have any type of liquid sealer that you can recommend and a
> method to apply it? Thanks,
> Cy Kissling Stuart Fl
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cliff Coy" <cliff@gesoco.com>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 9:18 AM
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Extra fuel for 52 - Follow the example in the
> 52W's
>
>
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 |
|
Anyone have news from the EAA about rewriting the operating limitations for Experimental
Exhibition aircraft. There was talk last year about removing the densely
populated restriction and the 300 kt proficiency area as well.
Thanks Bill Wade
---------------------------------
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
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 |
|
The 300 and 600 mile limits are being removed according to EAA
Warbirds director. Haven't heard anything about populated areas.
Steve
On Jul 26, 2007, at 8:27 AM, bill wade wrote:
> Anyone have news from the EAA about rewriting the operating
> limitations for Experimental Exhibition aircraft. There was talk
> last year about removing the densely populated restriction and the
> 300 kt proficiency area as well.
> Thanks Bill Wade
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 |
|
Bill,
Did you mean 250 knots below 10000 and 600 nm for the heavy iron and 300 nm
for us light weight trainers?
Have heard the restrictions were going to go away but have not seen anything
to that effect written anywhere.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Fox
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: EAA FAA
The 300 and 600 mile limits are being removed according to EAA Warbirds
director. Haven't heard anything about populated areas.
Steve
On Jul 26, 2007, at 8:27 AM, bill wade wrote:
Anyone have news from the EAA about rewriting the operating limitations for
Experimental Exhibition aircraft. There was talk last year about removing
the densely populated restriction and the 300 kt proficiency area as well.
Thanks Bill Wade
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 |
|
The FAA has said they intend to remove the proficiency area
restrictions. That mean for us Yak and CJ guys (under 800 horsepower),
300 NM from our home base area as stated in our OL's and 600 NM for the
over-800 horsepower guys. There has never been any mention of the 250
knot limitation below 10000' because pertains to all aircraft and not
only the experimental exhibition aircraft. FAR 91.117 covers this rule.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Kemp
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:04 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: EAA FAA
Bill,
Did you mean 250 knots below 10000 and 600 nm for the heavy iron and
300 nm for us light weight trainers?
Have heard the restrictions were going to go away but have not seen
anything to that effect written anywhere.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Fox
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 8:46 AM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Yak-List: EAA FAA
The 300 and 600 mile limits are being removed according to EAA
Warbirds director. Haven't heard anything about populated areas.
Steve
On Jul 26, 2007, at 8:27 AM, bill wade wrote:
Anyone have news from the EAA about rewriting the operating
limitations for Experimental Exhibition aircraft. There was talk last
year about removing the densely populated restriction and the 300 kt
proficiency area as well.
Thanks Bill Wade
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com
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: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07 |
Really? From what I see in mine, I have two different size tanks right
next to each other. It appears to me that the original aerobatic tank
could easily be made as big as the Aux tank that currently sits right
next to it.
Dennis is suggesting replacing BOTH with some kind of bladder. THAT
sounds interesting as well!
Hey, I'm just thinking out loud is all.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 21:06
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
Mark,
I do not think you or I could fit danged shoulders in the hell hole to
work on anything else if two Aux tanks were fitted in the space. I'm not
sure one could get a second tank in that space so easily either.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich,
Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 4:16 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
--> Point,
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Why not pull the whole mess out and put in TWO of those size tanks?
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of viperdoc
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 16:54
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
Tim,
I tend to agree with you. Less plumbling ect. Still have to build a hard
point(s) for attachment which will probably entail removing the
exsisting fuel tanks. If you are going to do that then why not just weld
a stainless steel 10 in section to the ends of the AUX tank. That if the
calculation is correct will get you up to 42 gal total fuel.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Gagnon
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 2:24 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
When you guys finishing the engineering, can you work on building a
better ass..mine is limited to about an hour in these things! After
that, I call work and have them book me a first class ticket.
I think a centerline tank would look way cooler and I think would
require less engineering. I know someone who could knock it out pretty
quickly. The same guy who did my bottle set-up....the guy is scary good
and we talked in passing about it...his reply "no problem".
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=125379#125379
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07 |
See what I mean Doc? If he could do this... Well... WOW~!
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis
Savarese
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 21:19
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
--> <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
I really think I could develop a fuel bladder to replace BOTH tanks and
add another 50% more gas without increasing the area required by the
existing fuel tanks.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 8:06 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
<viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>
> Mark,
> I do not think you or I could fit danged shoulders in the hell hole to
> work
> on anything else if two Aux tanks were fitted in the space. I'm not
sure
> one
> could get a second tank in that space so easily either.
> Doc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich,
Mark
> G
> CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 4:16 PM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
>
Point,
> MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> Why not pull the whole mess out and put in TWO of those size tanks?
>
> Mark
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of viperdoc
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 16:54
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
>
>
> Tim,
> I tend to agree with you. Less plumbling ect. Still have to build a
hard
> point(s) for attachment which will probably entail removing the
> exsisting fuel tanks. If you are going to do that then why not just
weld
> a stainless steel 10 in section to the ends of the AUX tank. That if
the
> calculation is correct will get you up to 42 gal total fuel.
> Doc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Gagnon
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 2:24 PM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
>
>
> When you guys finishing the engineering, can you work on building a
> better ass..mine is limited to about an hour in these things! After
> that, I call work and have them book me a first class ticket.
>
> I think a centerline tank would look way cooler and I think would
> require less engineering. I know someone who could knock it out pretty
> quickly. The same guy who did my bottle set-up....the guy is scary
good
> and we talked in passing about it...his reply "no problem".
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=125379#125379
>
>
>
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: Air system problem.... |
Good find. If you want, you can rebuild them yourself, it is not too
hard. Carl Hays has kits I believe.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Gagnon
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 22:39
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Air system problem....
Brian, nice to see you again and thanks for the advice.
I ran the test Mark recommended today and if I simply had better
hearing, I could have avoided all of them and found the problem. I did
figure out that I have a good check valve and started valve though.
Right main is leaking from the front cap where the rod end goes. They
come out tomorrow and will be shipped for overhaul.
Thanks for the input fellas!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=125603#125603
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: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07 |
I have to admit this was an answer worthy of a Marine.. The fact that it
came from an Air Force guy is impressive.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Gagnon
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:24
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
> Have you ever tried to use a piddle pack in a 50 without an autopilot?
I just throw it over the side.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=125472#125472
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: Air system problem.... |
He does. I have a set for my 50 sitting on the shelf currently. I got them
from Carl and Jill.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich, Mark G
CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:14 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Air system problem....
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Good find. If you want, you can rebuild them yourself, it is not too
hard. Carl Hays has kits I believe.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Gagnon
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 22:39
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Air system problem....
Brian, nice to see you again and thanks for the advice.
I ran the test Mark recommended today and if I simply had better
hearing, I could have avoided all of them and found the problem. I did
figure out that I have a good check valve and started valve though.
Right main is leaking from the front cap where the rod end goes. They
come out tomorrow and will be shipped for overhaul.
Thanks for the input fellas!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=125603#125603
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: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07 |
That is what I was referring to. Putting a second aux tank in the acro tank
side on the left side of the fuselage.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich, Mark G
CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:55 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Really? From what I see in mine, I have two different size tanks right
next to each other. It appears to me that the original aerobatic tank
could easily be made as big as the Aux tank that currently sits right
next to it.
Dennis is suggesting replacing BOTH with some kind of bladder. THAT
sounds interesting as well!
Hey, I'm just thinking out loud is all.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 21:06
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
Mark,
I do not think you or I could fit danged shoulders in the hell hole to
work on anything else if two Aux tanks were fitted in the space. I'm not
sure one could get a second tank in that space so easily either.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich,
Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 4:16 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
--> Point,
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Why not pull the whole mess out and put in TWO of those size tanks?
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of viperdoc
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 16:54
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
Tim,
I tend to agree with you. Less plumbling ect. Still have to build a hard
point(s) for attachment which will probably entail removing the
exsisting fuel tanks. If you are going to do that then why not just weld
a stainless steel 10 in section to the ends of the AUX tank. That if the
calculation is correct will get you up to 42 gal total fuel.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Gagnon
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 2:24 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
When you guys finishing the engineering, can you work on building a
better ass..mine is limited to about an hour in these things! After
that, I call work and have them book me a first class ticket.
I think a centerline tank would look way cooler and I think would
require less engineering. I know someone who could knock it out pretty
quickly. The same guy who did my bottle set-up....the guy is scary good
and we talked in passing about it...his reply "no problem".
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=125379#125379
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-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07 |
True. It would be easy to fit in the space. Just have to seal the for and
aft bulk heads and line the inner side of the fuselage. All the fuel line
plumbing would have to be infront of the bulk head whereas it is now it is
under the two tanks behind the bulkhead.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich, Mark G
CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:55 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
See what I mean Doc? If he could do this... Well... WOW~!
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis
Savarese
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 21:19
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
--> <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
I really think I could develop a fuel bladder to replace BOTH tanks and
add another 50% more gas without increasing the area required by the
existing fuel tanks.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 8:06 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
<viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>
> Mark,
> I do not think you or I could fit danged shoulders in the hell hole to
> work
> on anything else if two Aux tanks were fitted in the space. I'm not
sure
> one
> could get a second tank in that space so easily either.
> Doc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich,
Mark
> G
> CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 4:16 PM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
>
Point,
> MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> Why not pull the whole mess out and put in TWO of those size tanks?
>
> Mark
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of viperdoc
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 16:54
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
>
>
> Tim,
> I tend to agree with you. Less plumbling ect. Still have to build a
hard
> point(s) for attachment which will probably entail removing the
> exsisting fuel tanks. If you are going to do that then why not just
weld
> a stainless steel 10 in section to the ends of the AUX tank. That if
the
> calculation is correct will get you up to 42 gal total fuel.
> Doc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Gagnon
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 2:24 PM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/21/07
>
>
> When you guys finishing the engineering, can you work on building a
> better ass..mine is limited to about an hour in these things! After
> that, I call work and have them book me a first class ticket.
>
> I think a centerline tank would look way cooler and I think would
> require less engineering. I know someone who could knock it out pretty
> quickly. The same guy who did my bottle set-up....the guy is scary
good
> and we talked in passing about it...his reply "no problem".
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=125379#125379
>
>
>
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 |
|
Dennis,
Does this mean that we have to reapply for new OL's?? If yes, I'm not
really eager to jump through those hoops again as I have a great OL now
and I have seen a few of the current ones coming out of our FSDO.
Things like NO night VFR, and other nasties are finding their way into
the new wording. Having to go do it again with a different guy who
knows nothing about the aircraft or the process does not give me a warm
and fuzzy feeling inside.
Always Yakin,
Doug
A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
> The FAA has said they intend to remove the proficiency area
> restrictions. That mean for us Yak and CJ guys (under 800
> horsepower), 300 NM from our home base area as stated in our OL's and
> 600 NM for the over-800 horsepower guys. There has never been
> any mention of the 250 knot limitation below 10000' because pertains
> to all aircraft and not only the experimental exhibition aircraft.
> FAR 91.117 covers this rule.
> Dennis
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Roger Kemp <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
> *To:* yak-list@matronics.com <mailto:yak-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:04 AM
> *Subject:* RE: Yak-List: EAA FAA
>
> Bill,
>
> Did you mean 250 knots below 10000 and 600 nm for the heavy iron
> and 300 nm for us light weight trainers?
>
> Have heard the restrictions were going to go away but have not
> seen anything to that effect written anywhere.
>
> Doc
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> <mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com>
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *Stephen Fox
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 26, 2007 8:46 AM
> *To:* yak-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Yak-List: EAA FAA
>
>
>
> The 300 and 600 mile limits are being removed according to EAA
> Warbirds director. Haven't heard anything about populated areas.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 26, 2007, at 8:27 AM, bill wade wrote:
>
>
> Anyone have news from the EAA about rewriting the operating
> limitations for Experimental Exhibition aircraft. There was talk
> last year about removing the densely populated restriction and the
> 300 kt proficiency area as well.
>
> Thanks Bill Wade
>
>
>
>* *
>
>* *
>
>**
>
>**
>
>**
>
>**
>
>**
>
>**
>
>*http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
>
>**
>
>**
>
>**
>
>*http://forums.matronics.com*
>
>**
>
>* *
>
>*
>
>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>href="http://forums.matronics.com">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 |
|
I seriously doubt the FSDO's will be willing and able to re-write all of
the existing OL's. My guess is that portion of our OL's will no longer
be applicable. I'm sure the FAA will publish some type of document
which states how the revised FAA Order 8130.2x will be applied to
existing OL's. Personally, I wouldn't worry about it because I doubt
the FAA whats all that paperwork. The inspectors will be screaming!
As for no night VFR, IAW 8130.2F Chg 2 (incorporated and effective
7/10/2006), page 178 unless the aircraft is equiped for night
operations, the aircraft is limited to day VFR only. Here's the
paragraph that is applicable to ALL experimental aircraft.
(39) After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately
equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with =A7
91.205, this aircraft is only to be operated under day VFR.
(Applicability: All)
Dennis
From: Doug Sapp
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: EAA FAA
Dennis,
Does this mean that we have to reapply for new OL's?? If yes, I'm not
really eager to jump through those hoops again as I have a great OL now
and I have seen a few of the current ones coming out of our FSDO.
Things like NO night VFR, and other nasties are finding their way into
the new wording. Having to go do it again with a different guy who
knows nothing about the aircraft or the process does not give me a warm
and fuzzy feeling inside.
Always Yakin,
Doug
A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
The FAA has said they intend to remove the proficiency area
restrictions. That mean for us Yak and CJ guys (under 800 horsepower),
300 NM from our home base area as stated in our OL's and 600 NM for the
over-800 horsepower guys. There has never been any mention of the 250
knot limitation below 10000' because pertains to all aircraft and not
only the experimental exhibition aircraft. FAR 91.117 covers this rule.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Kemp
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:04 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: EAA FAA
Bill,
Did you mean 250 knots below 10000 and 600 nm for the heavy iron
and 300 nm for us light weight trainers?
Have heard the restrictions were going to go away but have not
seen anything to that effect written anywhere.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Fox
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 8:46 AM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Yak-List: EAA FAA
The 300 and 600 mile limits are being removed according to EAA
Warbirds director. Haven't heard anything about populated areas.
Steve
On Jul 26, 2007, at 8:27 AM, bill wade wrote:
Anyone have news from the EAA about rewriting the operating
limitations for Experimental Exhibition aircraft. There was talk last
year about removing the densely populated restriction and the 300 kt
proficiency area as well.
Thanks Bill Wade
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?Yak-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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 |
|
Doc I think Dennis answered your question about speed restrictions, Here in Albany
we have we have an FAA guy that doesn't feel warbirds are safe and both of
my airplanes are Day VFR only period. He actually called me in after receiving
my IAR from GESOCO and rewrote the operating limitations removing the if aircraft
is equipped night and IFR ops are permitted. Does anyone know the FAA definition
of densely populated? I've been told its two guys standing next to a
shit house. I know this because I got violated for flying low over the Adirondack
Mountains six years ago doing a flyby for a funeral I was thinking 500' sparsly
populated and treetop unpopulated (wrong), well flyby's and acro near Speculator.
My advise read the regs before talking to the Fed's then answer with
I'll have to see if the airplane flew that day and if so who was flying it. GOOD
LUCK
Bill Wade
Roger Kemp <viperdoc@mindspring.com> wrote:
Bill,
Did you mean 250 knots below 10000 and 600 nm for the heavy iron and 300 nm for
us light weight trainers?
Have heard the restrictions were going to go away but have not seen anything
to that effect written anywhere.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Fox
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: EAA FAA
The 300 and 600 mile limits are being removed according to EAA Warbirds director.
Haven't heard anything about populated areas.
Steve
On Jul 26, 2007, at 8:27 AM, bill wade wrote:
Anyone have news from the EAA about rewriting the operating limitations for
Experimental Exhibition aircraft. There was talk last year about removing the
densely populated restriction and the 300 kt proficiency area as well.
Thanks Bill Wade
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
http://forums.matronics.com
---------------------------------
Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.
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 |
|
There was an attorney a while back on this list I believe. - I saved the e-mail
...somewhere. he stated his client spend 10s of thousands (as i remember it)
and the fed came up with "the yellow depicted area on a sectional". When the
FAA decided to talk to me about my Unlimited practice here north of DEN I brought
up the "yellow area" and they totally backed off never to be heard from
again, and that was two or three years ago. The people complaining about me
were/are on 10-35 acre ranchettes. For what it is worth...I'll look for the copy
I downloaded.
Respectfully, Rick b
----- Original Message -----
From: bill wade
Sent: 7/26/2007 8:59:39 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: EAA FAA
Doc I think Dennis answered your question about speed restrictions, Here in Albany
we have we have an FAA guy that doesn't feel warbirds are safe and both of
my airplanes are Day VFR only period. He actually called me in after receiving
my IAR from GESOCO and rewrote the operating limitations removing the if aircraft
is equipped night and IFR ops are permitted. Does anyone know the FAA definition
of densely populated? I've been told its two guys standing next to a
shit house. I know this because I got violated for flying low over the Adirondack
Mountains six years ago doing a flyby for a funeral I was thinking 500' sparsly
populated and treetop unpopulated (wrong), well flyby's and acro near Speculator.
My advise read the regs before talking to the Fed's then answer with
I'll have to see if the airplane flew that day and if so who was flying it. GOOD
LUCK
Bill Wade
Roger Kemp <viperdoc@mindspring.com> wrote:
Bill,
Did you mean 250 knots below 10000 and 600 nm for the heavy iron and 300 nm for
us light weight trainers?
Have heard the restrictions were going to go away but have not seen anything to
that effect written anywhere.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Fox
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: EAA FAA
The 300 and 600 mile limits are being removed according to EAA Warbirds director.
Haven't heard anything about populated areas.
Steve
On Jul 26, 2007, at 8:27 AM, bill wade wrote:
Anyone have news from the EAA about rewriting the operating limitations for Experimental
Exhibition aircraft. There was talk last year about removing the densely
populated restriction and the 300 kt proficiency area as well.
Thanks Bill Wade
Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
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 |
|
>
Rick, is this the one you were talking about?
You posted it 3 years ago... like July 20th, 2004
Dave Laird
N63536 1983 CJ6A "Betty"
Dallas ADS (surrounded by yellow....)
>
>
> I represented a pilot who was facing a 180 day suspension of his
> license for overflying a "densely populated" area. The FAA lawyer
> assigned to the case argued that a cluster of 3 or more houses was
> a "densely populated area." We argued that it was the yellow areas
> depicted on the sectional. $20,000 of my time later we were
> successful.
>
>
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! --
|