Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:55 AM - Re: Zenith-List Digest: Zinc Chromate (Scott Thatcher)
2. 05:00 AM - Builders Dinner (Zodie Rocket)
3. 07:01 AM - Re: To paint or not to paint (Bill Naumuk)
4. 08:28 AM - Re: A couple of 601XL Questions ()
5. 08:32 AM - Re: A couple of 601XL Questions ()
6. 08:35 AM - Re: Re: Stopped prop in glide ()
7. 08:46 AM - ...pic of the day... (Jari Kaija)
8. 08:51 AM - Re: Re: Stopped prop in glide ()
9. 09:07 AM - Re: ...pic of the day... (Craig Payne)
10. 10:16 AM - TP vs 801 (Keystone Engineering LLC)
11. 10:38 AM - Re: Sun Shade (Tommy Walker)
12. 10:56 AM - Re: Sun Shade ()
13. 11:21 AM - Re: Sun Shade (Randy Bryant)
14. 11:29 AM - Re: TP vs 801 (ihab.awad@gmail.com)
15. 11:48 AM - Re: Sun Shade ()
16. 01:20 PM - Re: Sun Shade (Robert L. Stone)
17. 01:34 PM - Re: Sun Shade (Craig Payne)
18. 02:02 PM - Re: Sun Shade (Jim Pellien)
19. 02:12 PM - Re: A couple of 601XL Questions (Randy L. Thwing)
20. 02:30 PM - Re: Sun Shade (Craig Payne)
21. 02:35 PM - Re: Sun Shade - Night VFR (Jeff)
22. 03:05 PM - Re: Sun Shade (Dave)
23. 03:05 PM - Re: Sun Shade (B Johnson)
24. 03:31 PM - Re: Sun Shade (Jim Pellien)
25. 03:41 PM - Re: Re: Sun Shade - Night VFR (Jim Pellien)
26. 04:18 PM - Re: Sun Shade (Bryan Martin)
27. 09:22 PM - Re: Re: Sun Shade - Night VFR (Jeff)
28. 09:43 PM - Re: Sun Shade (Paul Mulwitz)
29. 09:46 PM - Re: Re: Sun Shade - Night VFR (Craig Moore)
30. 09:57 PM - Re: Sun Shade (Paul Mulwitz)
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: Zenith-List Digest: Zinc Chromate |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Scott Thatcher" <s_thatcher@bellsouth.net>
Here is a source for ZC that costs 4.95 per can:
http://www.skygeek.com/a7-6889a.html
I bought 6 less than a year ago and prior to that was buying the marine
version from Tempo at 9+ per can.
Scott Thatcher
601XL... working on fuselage
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 |
|
Hi Folks, it=92s that time of year again, I=92m trying to get an idea on
the
attendance for the Zenair Builders Dinner being held at Oshkosh
Zenair=99 Builders Dinner: Thursday, July 27, 2006: 6:00 - 8:00 pm.
Robbins Restaurant, 1810 Omro Road (Hwy 21), Oshkosh, WI. (buffet
dinner; approx. $16.00 pp.)
Please send me an E-Mail at HYPERLINK
"mailto:Oshkosh@can-zacaviation.com"Oshkosh@can-zacaviation.com to RSVP
Mark Townsend
Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
HYPERLINK
"mailto:president@can-zacaviation.com"president@can-zacaviation.com
HYPERLINK "http://www.can-zacaviation.com/"www.can-zacaviation.com
--
7/13/2006
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: To paint or not to paint |
Gary-
I agree, it will be a beautiful plane- you don't have the expense of
painting, and it will be lighter, but tt's a damned if you do, damned if
you don't situation.
It reminds me of my uncle who had a Lyman wood boat. Absolutely
gorgeous compared to the cookie cutter fiberglass boats, but he spent as
much time stripping and revarnishing every year as he did water skiing.
I'm too lazy for that, and I'll be the first to admit that there are
a couple of "Smileys" that can benefit from a couple of heavy coats of
primer!
Bill
do
not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Gower
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: To paint or not to paint
I think that if one builder decides to fly first and paint later, the
best second option will be to polish the metal, some part every week end
and add some trim, Yes I know, lots of cleaning and repolishing later,
but will be a beautiful airplane.
Just a thought.
Saludos
Gary Gower
do not archive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call
rates.
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: | Re: A couple of 601XL Questions |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: <dredmoody@cox.net>
You're in Las Vegas and you have to spend money on a hot tub to get women to disrobe?
Hmmm....... something is amiss here.
Ed Moody II
---- "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I have never spared any expense, in any area, for any thing, that encourages
women to take their clothes off.
>
> A hot tub is one of the best investments in this endeavor.
> do not archive
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | A couple of 601XL Questions |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: <dredmoody@cox.net>
Tell her that the instruments allow you to divert your attention to her inflight.
Ed Moody II
---- Zodie Rocket <zodierocket@hsfx.ca> wrote:
> Gents if you happen to see me running down the road, it is due to the
> fact that my wife just found out how much I spent on the instrument
> panel ! Dont stop ! Just back up and run me over ! It will be a more
> humane death then at the hands of a woman wanting a hot tub but lost
> over the planes panel!
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: Stopped prop in glide |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: <dredmoody@cox.net>
Just the opposite, Jim. A feathered prop is one on which the blades are turned
flat to the rotation and inline with the airflow to reduce drag. At least that's
what I was taught.
Ed Moody II
Do Not Archive
---- James Ferris <mijniljj@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: James Ferris <mijniljj@yahoo.com>
>
> When you say that the nonrotating is much more
> important than the actual feathering of the prop you
> are saying that the airfoil of the prop has more drag
> than the flat plate area of the prop and that is
> nonsense.
> Jim
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: | ...pic of the day... |
Do Not Archive
----------------------------------
http://www.jarikaija.com
http://www.project-ch701.net
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: Stopped prop in glide |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: <dredmoody@cox.net>
As an afterthought, I should have been more clear.
The biggest reduction in drag occurs as the prop quits rotating. Feathering the
prop (turning the blades inline with the airflow) further reduces the drag, but
Randy is correct; the additional reduction in drag is not as great as stopping
the rotation. Sorry if I clouded the issue with my original response,
Ed Moody II
---- Randy Bryant <randy@shadycreekoutlaws.com> wrote:
> I'm saying that a rotating prop must cause more drag than a non-rotating prop.
> Randy
>
> Do Not Archive
>
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: James Ferris <mijniljj@yahoo.com>
> >
> > When you say that the nonrotating is much more
> > important than the actual feathering of the prop you
> > are saying that the airfoil of the prop has more drag
> > than the flat plate area of the prop and that is
> > nonsense.
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: | ...pic of the day... |
Now that is a short airstrip!
-- Craig
do not archive
_____
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jari Kaija
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 9:44 AM
Do Not Archive
----------------------------------
http://www.jarikaija.com
http://www.project-ch701.net
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 |
|
Frank
I have about 800 hrs in a Tri pacer and another 300 in a pacer. I liked them and
they were great to fly. You can not expect them to perform like a super cub
or a Cessna. If you were willing to either keep them light or have long runways
they were fine. I like the way you could raise the nose with power. I got
into them because they were so cheap to buy.
I have 250 hrs or so in the 801. The 801 really gets off the ground faster. I
like being able to do my own maintenance and annuals.
The tri pacer glides better than the 801. All the stories you hear about a tri
pacer falling out of the sky are from guys who don't have much time in them but
have lots of time in Cessna. The tri pacer like the 801 don't fly like a Cessna
which is what most pilots use as a reference.
The 801 is really a specialty airplane. It is made to get off the ground short.
RVs are made to go fast....
Figure out what you want to with your plane, then buy a plane that fits that mission
within your ability and budget.
Bill Wilcox
N801BW
Valdez, AK
Soon to be on floats.
260 Hrs
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Frank Roskind" <frankroskind@hotmail.com>
So what other comparisons can you make between the Tri-Pacer and the 801?
Tripacers seem to be among the least expensive certified aircraft, and seem
worthy of consideration.
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 |
|
701 Builders,
Down here in the Sunny South:
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?country=US&address=&city=Sunny+South&st
ate=AL
it gets quite warm during the summer. I've thought about getting some of
the film that installers use on windows to cover my lexan skylight. Has
anyone tried that?
Thanks and Do Not Archive
Tommy Walker in Alabama
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of PHFD400@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 1:32 PM
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Sun Shade
I tried the suction cup type of sun shade, you can get them at the local
auto parts stores. I got tired of the little round spots left from the
suction cups, or falling off when you come in for a landing. I now have the
slide sun shade the Van's aircraft uses on the RV-6 type canopys. I called
the company (Kroger sun shade) that makes them for Van and told them I
needed about 12 inch longer shade. He made one up for me and it works
great. You can slide it back to the rear of the canopy and lock in place by
a small thumb type screw. It is a light grey colored material and slides on
a "C" type aluminum channel that attaches to the top of the canopy with
double 3M type provided with the sun shade kit.
Very easy to install, just have to make sure you bend the sliding "C"
channel to the exact curvature of the top of your canopy.
Here is the web site for the company, they will make up what ever size you
need. I had them extend there stock item by 12 inches and it works great on
my 601HDS.
http://cleavelandtool.com/kogercompany/sunshade.htm
Jim Olson
Murphy, NC
CH601HDS N56BJ 285 hrs
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: <dredmoody@cox.net>
The drawback with tinting is that it doesn't retract at night or other low visibility
times. I'd go for the retractable shade, Tommy.
Ed
---- Tommy Walker <twalker@cableone.net> wrote:
> it gets quite warm during the summer. I've thought about getting some of
> the film that installers use on windows to cover my lexan skylight. Has
> anyone tried that?
Do Not Archive
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Randy Bryant" <randy@shadycreekoutlaws.com>
What about the tinted canopies some people use on the XL's...? Do you think
there'd be the same issue? I'm debating this in the back of my mind, now,
for when the time comes...
Thanks,
Randy
XL Wings - Plans Only
http://www.n344rb.com
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 1:52 PM
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: <dredmoody@cox.net>
>
> The drawback with tinting is that it doesn't retract at night or other low
> visibility times. I'd go for the retractable shade, Tommy.
>
> Ed
>
> ---- Tommy Walker <twalker@cableone.net> wrote:
>> it gets quite warm during the summer. I've thought about getting some of
>> the film that installers use on windows to cover my lexan skylight. Has
>> anyone tried that?
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: ihab.awad@gmail.com
On 7/14/06, Keystone Engineering LLC <keystone@gci.net> wrote:
> Figure out what you want to with your plane, then buy a plane that fits that
> mission within your ability and budget. ... Bill Wilcox ... Valdez, AK
Yes, or -- move to Alaska so you can do what you would *really* like
to do with the plane you'd *really* like to build!
Ihab
DO NOT ARCHIVE
--
Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: <dredmoody@cox.net>
Yep, I had some misgivings about the standard tinted canopy for my XL kit because
I want to be able to fly at night. However, flying in the demo I found that
the tint was not very dark at all so I went along with that when I ordered.
On the other hand, due to the minimal tint in the canopy, I will be installing
some sort of sunshade, probably the Kroger shade which has been discussed here
recently.
Ed
---- Randy Bryant <randy@shadycreekoutlaws.com> wrote:
>
> What about the tinted canopies some people use on the XL's...?
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Robert L. Stone" <rstone4@hot.rr.com>
Randy,
If you are building your XL in compliance with the Light Sport Plane
criteria, you cannot fly at night so a tinted canopy would be the way to go.
That's the way I am going but I don't think a tinted canopy is going to keep
the heat out as much as a shade so I plan to have both. I agree with the
member who says it's better to use the Van's sliding shade rather that the
suction cup type for the same reasons he stated.
Bob Stone, Harker Heights, Tx
Building an XL
Do not Archive
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 1:18 PM
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Randy Bryant"
> <randy@shadycreekoutlaws.com>
>
> What about the tinted canopies some people use on the XL's...? Do you
> think there'd be the same issue? I'm debating this in the back of my
> mind, now, for when the time comes...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Randy
> XL Wings - Plans Only
> http://www.n344rb.com
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 1:52 PM
>
>
>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: <dredmoody@cox.net>
>>
>> The drawback with tinting is that it doesn't retract at night or other
>> low visibility times. I'd go for the retractable shade, Tommy.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> ---- Tommy Walker <twalker@cableone.net> wrote:
>>> it gets quite warm during the summer. I've thought about getting some
>>> of
>>> the film that installers use on windows to cover my lexan skylight. Has
>>> anyone tried that?
>>
>> Do Not Archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
> http://wiki.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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
No night flying is a restriction of a Sport Pilot license, not an LSA. You
can stick the needed lights on an LSA and fly it at night if you are a
private pilot.
-- Craig
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jim Pellien" <jim@pellien.com>
What Craig says is true, but it is not a complete answer.
To fly at night or in IFR conditions, you would need a fully certified
engine like the Rotax 912S. The 912ULS is a non-certified engine and cannot
be used for night flight or for IFR. The 912S can be used for night flight
and IFR. It costs about $5K more for the certified engine (now we're up to
about $18K for that engine). Also the airframe has to be certified by the
manufacturer as suitable for night flight.
My Czech Aircraft Works 601XL SLSA has neither the correct engine nor the
airframe certification and cannot be flown IFR or at night, by anyone.
Once you have the correct engine and the airframe certification from the
manufacturer, then a private pilot can fly it IFR or at night if they have
received the proper training and sign-offs and are current for each flight
regime.
A Sport Pilot can never fly at night or in IFR conditions and these
limitations are absolute......they cannot be worked off with experience and
training and a logbook endorsement like some of the other SP limitations
like Class B,C,D airspace.
Just putting on lights and having the proper radios does not certify the
airframe for night flight and IFR. I have strobe lights, position lights,
all of the required internal lighting, but the pilots operating handbook
still says I cannot use that aircraft at night.
Jim
Jim Pellien
Mid-Atlantic Sports Planes
Sky Bryce Airport (VG18)
Basye, VA
www.MASPL.com
703-313-4818
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig Payne
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 4:32 PM
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
No night flying is a restriction of a Sport Pilot license, not an LSA. You
can stick the needed lights on an LSA and fly it at night if you are a
private pilot.
-- Craig
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A couple of 601XL Questions |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v@mindspring.com>
My mistake, I used the term "Women". I meant "Wives".
Women in Las Vegas are like Women everywhere else; Money talks and poor,
homely clods like me walk.
Do not archive.
Randy L. Thwing
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: <dredmoody@cox.net>
>
> You're in Las Vegas and you have to spend money on a hot tub to get women
to disrobe? Hmmm....... something is amiss here.
>
> Ed Moody II
>
> ---- "Randy L. Thwing" <n4546v@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > I have never spared any expense, in any area, for any thing, that
encourages women to take their clothes off.
> >
> > A hot tub is one of the best investments in this endeavor.
>
> > 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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
Aren't there planes legally flying at night with the Jabiru (which doesn't
have a certified version)? I believe the "no night flight" restriction on
the non-certified Rotax comes from Rotax. Quoting from EAA Sport Aviation
magazine (page 11, Jan 2006): "Many S-LSA are equipped with Rotax engines,
whose operating instructions prohibit use at night or in IFR conditions
unless it is the FAA-type-certified engine (certificated to FAR Part 33)."
For that matter can't an XL with a Corvair legally fly at night? Isn't being
an experimental vs. an S-LSA a factor?
-- Craig
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: | RE: Sun Shade - Night VFR |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jeff " <jeffrey_davidson@earthlink.net>
Jim Pellien wrote " Once you have the correct engine and the airframe
certification from the manufacturer, then a private pilot can fly it IFR or
at night if they have received the proper training and sign-offs and are
current for each flight regime.
The following is a cut-n-paste from a posting by Pete at JabiruUSA on this
issue. This is an important point for those of use with Private
Certificates that want to build LSA compliant aircraft. It may be that
Rotax limits the use of some models of its engines at night.
"The only application of JAR22H engine certification in the USA is for
Primary Category Aircraft under 750 kg. Primary category aircraft under 750
kg can use a JAR22H engine if limited to day VFR.
JAR22H does not come into play in the LSA area. Engines are compliant to
ASTM F2339.
Jabiru engines used in experimental amateur built aircraft can be flown in
any condition that the aircraft operating limitations allow, night usually
being one of them. Under a LSA certificate there is no prohibition on the
part of Jabiru against night operation. There is no specific prohibition in
the FAR's prohibiting night flight in S-LSA aircraft. The implied
restriction is in the certificate in that it is based on ASTM F2245-04. It
is stated in the scope of that standard that it applies to LSA aircraft
operated day VFR.
To be clear - it is not the Jabiru engine that limits an aircraft to day
VFR."
Jeff Davidson
CH601-HD
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Dave" <daberti@sbcglobal.net>
Where in the FAR's does it say that!
message posted by: "Jim Pellien" <jim@pellien.com>
What Craig says is true, but it is not a complete answer.
To fly at night or in IFR conditions, you would need a fully certified
engine like the Rotax 912S.
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "B Johnson" <bjohnson@satx.rr.com>
The part of the EAA article that applied to the Jabiru was retracted after
Jabiru officials corrected them. I have not seen any retraction for the
Rotax. I'll have access to an sLSA POH with the 912ULs in a week or so, I
intend to give it a good read so see if I can find the night limitation...
Also this would ONLY apply to sLSA, eLSA or experimental AB are not
effected.
-Bruce
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig Payne
> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 4:28 PM
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Sun Shade
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
>
> Aren't there planes legally flying at night with the Jabiru (which doesn't
> have a certified version)? I believe the "no night flight" restriction on
> the non-certified Rotax comes from Rotax. Quoting from EAA Sport Aviation
> magazine (page 11, Jan 2006): "Many S-LSA are equipped with Rotax engines,
> whose operating instructions prohibit use at night or in IFR conditions
> unless it is the FAA-type-certified engine (certificated to FAR Part 33)."
>
> For that matter can't an XL with a Corvair legally fly at night? Isn't
> being
> an experimental vs. an S-LSA a factor?
>
> -- Craig
--
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jim Pellien" <jim@pellien.com>
Craig,
You are right about ELSA's not having any type of night/IFR restrictions.
The reason is that the airworthiness certificate for an ELSA lists the
"builder" (on Line D) of an ELSA as the person who bought the kit and built
it.....hence there is no liability (or lets say, a much reduced liability)
to the manufacturer of the kit. Whereas, the manufacturer of an SLSA is
listed as the "builder" on line D of the Airworthiness Certificate.....hence
they are liable if something goes wrong and it is traced back to a design or
fabrication fault that they caused. This is why some manufacturers put in
their operating handbooks the limitations that they do....to limit their
risk....and not jeopardize the "bottom line" through lawsuits.
An SLSA cannot be flown legally IFR or Night, by anybody, if the pilots
operating handbook (POH) says otherwise.....and in the case of SLSA's, as
opposed to Part-23 certified aircraft, the handbook is self-produced by the
manufacturer and must cover all of the required ASTM material in the proper
formats. However, if a manufacturer wants to limit his SLSA aircraft's
legal performance envelope in any way to limit his post-production
liability, he can do so through the POH. Let the buyer beware. You should
not purchase an SLSA without first reading the POH from cover to cover. For
an ELSA, the POH, I believe, is produced by the builder, you, and it is up
to you what you put into the POH.
COMMENTS?
Jim
Jim Pellien
Mid-Atlantic Sports Planes
Sky Bryce Airport (VG18)
Basye, VA
www.MASPL.com
703-313-4818
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig Payne
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 5:28 PM
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
Aren't there planes legally flying at night with the Jabiru (which doesn't
have a certified version)? I believe the "no night flight" restriction on
the non-certified Rotax comes from Rotax. Quoting from EAA Sport Aviation
magazine (page 11, Jan 2006): "Many S-LSA are equipped with Rotax engines,
whose operating instructions prohibit use at night or in IFR conditions
unless it is the FAA-type-certified engine (certificated to FAR Part 33)."
For that matter can't an XL with a Corvair legally fly at night? Isn't being
an experimental vs. an S-LSA a factor?
-- Craig
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: Sun Shade - Night VFR |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jim Pellien" <jim@pellien.com>
Jeff,
I believe that any experimental aircraft that is properly equipped for night
operation can be operated at night by a properly trained private pilot,
unless for some unusual reason the builder of the airplane limited it to day
VFR in the POH. For ELSA's, the builder determines the operating
limitations. If you, as the "Builder", do not limit your aircraft to Day
VFR only in the POH, then it can be flown at night with the proper lighting.
Ditto for IFR, again only for private pilots properly trained and current.
It works differently with SLSA's. In SLSA's the "Builder" that is listed on
the airworthiness certificate Line D is the SLSA manufacturer. SLSA's are
completely factory-built. Now they, the manufacturers, are in control and
can, and do, limit the operation of perfectly good aircraft simply by
stating so in the POH. I believe they do this to limit their risk and
liability to lawsuits. If I were in their position, I'd do the same thing.
For purchasers of SLSA aircraft, they need to read the POH for the specific
aircraft that they are purchasing and see what limitations are included. If
they do not like what they see, then they should ask the manufacturer to
delete IFR/Night limitations. They may do it to make a sale, or they may
not. They may do it for a higher price. Everything is negotiable.
Jim
Jim Pellien
Mid-Atlantic Sports Planes
Sky Bryce Airport (VG18)
Basye, VA
www.MASPL.com
703-313-4818
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 5:34 PM
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jeff " <jeffrey_davidson@earthlink.net>
Jim Pellien wrote " Once you have the correct engine and the airframe
certification from the manufacturer, then a private pilot can fly it IFR or
at night if they have received the proper training and sign-offs and are
current for each flight regime.
The following is a cut-n-paste from a posting by Pete at JabiruUSA on this
issue. This is an important point for those of use with Private
Certificates that want to build LSA compliant aircraft. It may be that
Rotax limits the use of some models of its engines at night.
"The only application of JAR22H engine certification in the USA is for
Primary Category Aircraft under 750 kg. Primary category aircraft under 750
kg can use a JAR22H engine if limited to day VFR.
JAR22H does not come into play in the LSA area. Engines are compliant to
ASTM F2339.
Jabiru engines used in experimental amateur built aircraft can be flown in
any condition that the aircraft operating limitations allow, night usually
being one of them. Under a LSA certificate there is no prohibition on the
part of Jabiru against night operation. There is no specific prohibition in
the FAR's prohibiting night flight in S-LSA aircraft. The implied
restriction is in the certificate in that it is based on ASTM F2245-04. It
is stated in the scope of that standard that it applies to LSA aircraft
operated day VFR.
To be clear - it is not the Jabiru engine that limits an aircraft to day
VFR."
Jeff Davidson
CH601-HD
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
I have the tinted canopy on my plane. I have no trouble with night
flying in it. The tinting is not that dark, it's about like the
windshield tint on most cars. It probably helps reduce the insolation
during daylight but it still gets plenty hot in there with the canopy
down and no shade.
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Randy Bryant"
> <randy@shadycreekoutlaws.com>
>
> What about the tinted canopies some people use on the XL's...? Do
> you think there'd be the same issue? I'm debating this in the back
> of my mind, now, for when the time comes...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Randy
> XL Wings - Plans Only
> http://www.n344rb.com
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
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 |
|
| Subject: | RE: Sun Shade - Night VFR |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jeff " <jeffrey_davidson@earthlink.net>
Jim wrote:
"I believe that any experimental aircraft that is properly equipped for
night operation can be operated at night by a properly trained private
pilot, unless for some unusual reason the builder of the airplane limited it
to day VFR in the POH. For ELSA's, the builder determines the operating
limitations. If you, as the "Builder", do not limit your aircraft to Day
VFR only in the POH, then it can be flown at night with the proper lighting.
Ditto for IFR, again only for private pilots properly trained and current."
I agree. I think the only loose end here is whether any other engine
manufacturer (Rotax?) puts limitations on the use of any of their engines
for the same reason as above. Clearly Jabiru doesn't. The first post made
it sound like there were restrictions on the 912UL. If so, a builder
choosing that engine would have to include those limitations in the POH.
Maybe someone out there knows the answer.
Jeff Davidson
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
Hi Randy,
I am afraid you suffer from a little misunderstanding. Light Sport
Aircraft can fly at night or IFR if properly equiped. It is Sport
Pilots or others limited to Sport Pilot privileges due to lack of a
medical certificate that are limited to VFR day operations.
Paul
XL fuselage.
do not archive
At 01:14 PM 7/14/2006, you wrote:
>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Robert L. Stone" <rstone4@hot.rr.com>
>
>Randy,
> If you are building your XL in compliance with the Light Sport
> Plane criteria, you cannot fly at night so a tinted canopy would be
> the way to go. That's the way I am going but I don't think a tinted
> canopy is going to keep the heat out as much as a shade so I plan
> to have both. I agree with the member who says it's better to use
> the Van's sliding shade rather that the suction cup type for the
> same reasons he stated.
>
>Bob Stone, Harker Heights, Tx
>Building an XL
>Do not Archive
>
>
>>
>
>
-
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: | RE: Sun Shade - Night VFR |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Craig Moore <moorecomp@yahoo.com>
Jim,
Maybe you saw this, maybe not.
http://www.newplane.com/amd/amd/news/AMD_SLSA_IFR_CERTIFIED.htm
IFR Certified 601XLi using O-200. That sounds like a
great fit for flight schools, give SPL or PPL
instruction during the day and be able to do night and
IFR as well.
And this article explains again what you have said.
http://www.sportpilot.org/news/051013_ifr.html#TopOfPage
Best regards,
Craig Moore A&P
Mancelona, MI
701 builder wannabe
--- Jim Pellien <jim@pellien.com> wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Jim Pellien"
> <jim@pellien.com>
>
> Jeff,
>
> I believe that any experimental aircraft that is
> properly equipped for night
> operation can be operated at night by a properly
> trained private pilot,
> unless for some unusual reason the builder of the
> airplane limited it to day
> VFR in the POH. For ELSA's, the builder determines
> the operating
> limitations. If you, as the "Builder", do not
> limit your aircraft to Day
> VFR only in the POH, then it can be flown at night
> with the proper lighting.
> Ditto for IFR, again only for private pilots
> properly trained and current.
>
> It works differently with SLSA's. In SLSA's the
> "Builder" that is listed on
> the airworthiness certificate Line D is the SLSA
> manufacturer. SLSA's are
> completely factory-built. Now they, the
> manufacturers, are in control and
> can, and do, limit the operation of perfectly good
> aircraft simply by
> stating so in the POH. I believe they do this to
> limit their risk and
> liability to lawsuits. If I were in their position,
> I'd do the same thing.
> For purchasers of SLSA aircraft, they need to read
> the POH for the specific
> aircraft that they are purchasing and see what
> limitations are included. If
> they do not like what they see, then they should ask
> the manufacturer to
> delete IFR/Night limitations. They may do it to
> make a sale, or they may
> not. They may do it for a higher price. Everything
> is negotiable.
>
> Jim
>
> Jim Pellien
> Mid-Atlantic Sports Planes
> Sky Bryce Airport (VG18)
> Basye, VA
> www.MASPL.com
> 703-313-4818
snipped
__________________________________________________
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 |
|
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
Hi Jim,
It seems you and the other guys are all correct about the night and
IFR issue. Apparently it all depends on what type of airworthiness
certificate you have. As a bunch of airplane builders, I think those
of us who frequent this list are most likely to wind up with E-AB or
E-LSA certificates. In that case, the FAR equipment and
certification requirements will rule.
If I remember it all correctly, for night flight a plane must have
operating position lights and (at least according to one inspector I
spoke to) anti-collision strobes. For IFR, you need a reasonably
full panel including some assortment of radio equipment and you need
your pressure instrument system certified every two years.
I guess it makes sense that S-LSA airplanes would have a different
set of rules. It also seems to make sense that the POH is a medium
for the manufacturer to limit his planes beyond the limits placed by
the government. I don't see what the manufacturer can do to you if
you fly your properly equipped S-LSA plane at night except for
possibly limiting his liability should you get squashed flat. I
don't think the FAA would enforce such limits that go beyond the FARs.
Best regards,
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
At 03:26 PM 7/14/2006, you wrote:
>However, if a manufacturer wants to limit his SLSA aircraft's
>legal performance envelope in any way to limit his post-production
>liability, he can do so through the POH. Let the buyer beware. You should
>not purchase an SLSA without first reading the POH from cover to cover. For
>an ELSA, the POH, I believe, is produced by the builder, you, and it is up
>to you what you put into the POH.
>
>COMMENTS?
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! --
|