Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:18 AM - Re: Re: Jabiru prices (Larry H)
2. 03:21 AM - Re: Paint program (rroberts)
3. 05:49 AM - Re: Re: Diesel engines (Paul & Colleen Schelfhout)
4. 06:10 AM - FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT ... (ashontz)
5. 06:11 AM - Re: Diesel engines (dgardea(at)gmail.com)
6. 06:56 AM - Re: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT ... (Terry Phillips)
7. 07:16 AM - Re: Paint program (Jaybannist@cs.com)
8. 07:58 AM - FAA Kits (steve)
9. 08:58 AM - Re: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT ... (Juan Vega)
10. 09:55 AM - Re: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT ... (Terry Phillips)
11. 10:11 AM - Re: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT ... (steve)
12. 10:31 AM - Re: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT ... (John Marzulli)
13. 10:44 AM - Re: FAA Kits (John Marzulli)
14. 10:56 AM - 701 STOL vs. non-STOL wings. (Robert Schoenberger)
15. 10:57 AM - Re: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT ... (ashontz)
16. 12:16 PM - Re: 701 STOL vs. non-STOL wings. (John Bolding)
17. 12:45 PM - Re: Paint program (kmccune)
18. 12:54 PM - Motivational Flying Video for the Week (cookwithgas)
19. 02:10 PM - Re: Motivational Flying Video for the Week (kmccune)
20. 02:12 PM - Re: Motivational Flying Video for the Week (Ron Lendon)
21. 02:22 PM - Re: Re: When to rivet Center Spar to Cabin Floor (601XL) (Brad Cohen)
22. 02:33 PM - Re: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT ... (Juan Vega)
23. 02:42 PM - Re: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT ... (Juan Vega)
24. 02:54 PM - Torque values (Brad Cohen)
25. 03:11 PM - Re: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT ... (Juan Vega)
26. 03:20 PM - Re: Torque values (Craig Payne)
27. 03:21 PM - Re: Torque values (Tim Juhl)
28. 03:37 PM - Re: Torque values (John Swanson)
29. 03:46 PM - Re: Torque values (Craig Payne)
30. 04:27 PM - Re: FAA Kits (Paul Mulwitz)
31. 05:23 PM - Re: Torque values (Joemotis@aol.com)
32. 06:43 PM - Re: Paint program (ROBERT SCEPPA)
33. 06:57 PM - Re: Paint program (Darrell Haas)
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: Jabiru prices |
OK guys, go ahead and nit-pick it to death. I got the information I needed. Thanks,
Larry
You stand corrected.
The history of Subaru arguably begins in 1917 with the Aircraft Research
Laboratory. The ARL was founded by Chikuhei Nakajima, a former member of the
Japanese navy who had become entranced by early 20th century aircraft.
Sometime before World War II, the ARL became Nakajima Aircraft Co., Ltd. and
began producing aircraft for the Japanese armed forces. One of its more
memorable contributions to war was in production of engines for the famed
Zero fighter.
LRM, www.skyhawg.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "jetboy"
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 3:01 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Jabiru prices
>
> Thats an old myth often told by Subaru dealerships in the 70's.
>
> My book on light aircraft has a page on the Fuji FA-200 Aero Subaru:
>
> "The FA-200 Aero Subaru was the first light aircraft fully designed by
> Fuji....."
>
> Engines used were Lycoming 0-320 and 0-360.
>
> I used to believe the myth myself as it seemed to make sense, until I
> discovered the use of Lycomings. I'd be delighted to stand corrected.
> The Subaru flat fours however do make a good aero engine conversion
> provided the ignition and cooling system are made reliable.
>
> Ralph
>
> --------
> Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=164291#164291
>
>
> --
> 9:00 AM
>
>
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
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: Paint program |
Adobe has, its called Photoshop
--------
Low & Slow
Rick
www.n701rr.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=164390#164390
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: Diesel engines |
G'day All,
I am scratch building a CH 701 and have most of the airframe done (major
components are not yet attached), then theres the controls, avionics and
engine to keep me busy.
A diesel engine really interests me as I have been driving behind them for
years, right back to the mid 70's in a Peugeot 504 - they were heavy then
but oh so reliable and fuel efficient.
I have read on the Zenith site that someone has installed a turbo diesel
from a Mercedes (Smart car), does anyone have any info or knowledge of
diesel engines conversions - would love to hear about it ??
Maybe a contact ??
Paul Schelfhout
Perth Western Australia.
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: | FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT ... |
FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT APPROVED LIST
Amateur-Built ARC Report Published
The FAA today issued the final report of the Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC)
that it appointed more than 18 months ago to investigate and make recommendations
regarding the interpretation and enforcement of the amateur-building "51
percent Rule." Concurrently, the FAA also placed a moratorium on its customary
practice of providing to aircraft kit manufacturers and builders courtesy evaluations
of new kits' compliance with the 51 percent requirement.
The moratorium means FAA has temporarily suspended amateur-built aircraft kit evaluations.
No new kits will appear on the "51 percent approved list" until the
FAA has completed its new process revision for determining the major portion
(51 percent). The new policies will be printed in a future Federal Register notice.
EAA estimates that notice will be published in the April-May time frame.
That notice will provide the public an opportunity to comment on the various
changes. (See EAA's Questions and Answers regarding the moratorium here.)
"We understand the logic behind the FAA's suspending advance evaluations and approvals
until after it has announced exactly how it will interpret and enforce
the rule going forward," EAA's Earl Lawrence said. "However, we also understand
that manufacturers and customers may have difficulty in making decisions until
the FAA makes its policy clear. Accordingly, we're stressing to the FAA that
this 'limbo period' should be as brief as possible."
The ARC's report
The ARC, co-chaired by Lawrence, Van's Aircraft's Dick VanGrunsven, and FAA's Frank
Paskiewicz, was formed during EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2006. It was comprised
of representatives from the kit industry, organizations, and FAA. The ARC's
charge was to develop and present to the FAA its thoughts and ideas on what the
original intent of the regulation was; how it is being applied today; and what
impact the growing commercial assistance centers are having on the industry.
"EAA continues to advocate the preservation of amateur-builders' privileges and
the exploration of alternative regulatory avenues allowing for different levels
of participation in aircraft building and flying activities," Lawrence stressed.
The FAA stated that it is in general agreement with the proposed changes to FAA
Orders, Advisory Circulars, and Forms put forth in the ARC's final report. The
FAA will make all documents available for review and comment prior to publication.
The full committee, FAA and industry members, agreed:
FAA directive and advisory language for the airworthiness certification of amateur-built
aircraft does not adequately address the issue of commercial assistance
in excess of that allowed under the regulations.
The forms used in determining the amateur-built status of the aircraft need to
be updated to more accurately reflect who actually performed the fabrication and
assembly of the aircraft.
The aircraft kit evaluation process is not standardized. The public, industry,
the FAA, and individuals within those groups, have different opinions about what
level of fabrication and assembly constitutes 'major portion.' In other words,
it is not clear how to determine if the amateur builder fabricates and assembles
the major portion of aircraft solely for their own education or recreation.
Aviation Safety Inspectors and Designated Airworthiness Representatives may need
additional training to fully understand the FAA's expectations when determining
an aircraft's eligibility for an amateur-built certificate.
The industry and FAA members of the ARC could not come to an agreement on how to
define 'major portion' when evaluating aircraft kits, either in kit form at
the manufacturers or when an aircraft is fully assembled.
The FAA will develop the final method of calculating major portion. This method
will be made available for review and comment prior to publication. The FAA will
consider petitions for rulemaking by ARC members or any other interested party
or person.
For more information on this important issue, click on the Amateur-Built Aircraft
menu in the left side of the EAA website's Government Advocacy section.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=164400#164400
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: Diesel engines |
If I recall correctly from an earlier post, I would contact Jim McBurney at jmcburney(at)pobox.com
He's building a CH801 with a Deltahawk diesel powerplant.
Dave
do not archive
--------
Dave Gardea
601XL - Corvair
wings done - working on corvair while waiting for fuselage kit
http://home.comcast.net/~davegardea/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=164401#164401
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: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT |
...
The surprising thing about this (to me) is, if you follow the link in the
original message to the FAA list, you will find that, while the 601, 701,
and 801 are listed, ZAC quick-builds are not on the list. Other
manufacturer's quick-builds (e.g., Vans & Rans plus many others) are
listed. See:
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/kit_listing/Complete_mfr_model_listing/
I'm would be very interested in learning whether the absence of ZAC
quick-builds from the list has caused any FAA registration problems for
builders who have already completed ZAC quick-builds. Are there any of you
out there? Certainly, over the years, there have been many aircraft
registered as E-AB's that are not on this list.
Then there is the question why ZAC quick-builds are not on the list. Does
anyone know?
Terry
At 06:07 AM 2/16/2008 -0800, you wrote:
>FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT APPROVED LIST
>Amateur-Built ARC Report Published
>The FAA today issued the final report of the Aviation Rulemaking Committee
>(ARC) that it appointed more than 18 months ago to investigate and make
>recommendations regarding the interpretation and enforcement of the
>amateur-building "51 percent Rule." Concurrently, the FAA also placed a
>moratorium on its customary practice of providing to aircraft kit
>manufacturers and builders courtesy evaluations of new kits' compliance
>with the 51 percent requirement.
>The moratorium means FAA has temporarily suspended amateur-built aircraft
>kit evaluations. No new kits will appear on the "51 percent approved list"
>until the FAA has completed its new process revision for determining the
>major portion (51 percent). The new policies will be printed in a future
>Federal Register notice. EAA estimates that notice will be published in
>the April-May time frame. That notice will provide the public an
>opportunity to comment on the various changes. (See EAA's Questions and
>Answers regarding the moratorium here.)
>
>"We understand the logic behind the FAA's suspending advance evaluations
>and approvals until after it has announced exactly how it will interpret
>and enforce the rule going forward," EAA's Earl Lawrence said. "However,
>we also understand that manufacturers and customers may have difficulty in
>making decisions until the FAA makes its policy clear. Accordingly, we're
>stressing to the FAA that this 'limbo period' should be as brief as possible."
>
>The ARC's report
>The ARC, co-chaired by Lawrence, Van's Aircraft's Dick VanGrunsven, and
>FAA's Frank Paskiewicz, was formed during EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2006. It
>was comprised of representatives from the kit industry, organizations, and
>FAA. The ARC's charge was to develop and present to the FAA its thoughts
>and ideas on what the original intent of the regulation was; how it is
>being applied today; and what impact the growing commercial assistance
>centers are having on the industry.
>
>"EAA continues to advocate the preservation of amateur-builders'
>privileges and the exploration of alternative regulatory avenues allowing
>for different levels of participation in aircraft building and flying
>activities," Lawrence stressed.
>
>The FAA stated that it is in general agreement with the proposed changes
>to FAA Orders, Advisory Circulars, and Forms put forth in the ARC's final
>report. The FAA will make all documents available for review and comment
>prior to publication.
>
>The full committee, FAA and industry members, agreed:
>
>FAA directive and advisory language for the airworthiness certification of
>amateur-built aircraft does not adequately address the issue of commercial
>assistance in excess of that allowed under the regulations.
>The forms used in determining the amateur-built status of the aircraft
>need to be updated to more accurately reflect who actually performed the
>fabrication and assembly of the aircraft.
>The aircraft kit evaluation process is not standardized. The public,
>industry, the FAA, and individuals within those groups, have different
>opinions about what level of fabrication and assembly constitutes 'major
>portion.' In other words, it is not clear how to determine if the amateur
>builder fabricates and assembles the major portion of aircraft solely for
>their own education or recreation.
>Aviation Safety Inspectors and Designated Airworthiness Representatives
>may need additional training to fully understand the FAA's expectations
>when determining an aircraft's eligibility for an amateur-built certificate.
>The industry and FAA members of the ARC could not come to an agreement on
>how to define 'major portion' when evaluating aircraft kits, either in kit
>form at the manufacturers or when an aircraft is fully assembled.
>
>The FAA will develop the final method of calculating major portion. This
>method will be made available for review and comment prior to publication.
>The FAA will consider petitions for rulemaking by ARC members or any other
>interested party or person.
>
>For more information on this important issue, click on the Amateur-Built
>Aircraft menu in the left side of the EAA website's Government Advocacy
>section.
>
>--------
>Andy Shontz
>CH601XL - Corvair
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
are done; working on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
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 |
|
Darrell,
I have three view drawings (601XL with WW cowling for Corvair ) I made on AutoCAD
which I used to develop my painting scheme. It is not really a user-friendly
way to do it, but you are welcome to have the drawings. Just let me know.
Jay in Dallas 601XL N2630J "Lil Bruiser"
"Darrell Haas" <darrellhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>Has anyone designed a computer program using a picture of a 601XL where you
>can try different colors and designs to help you decide what colors and /or
>designs you might want on your plane? It would be fun on those stormy nights
>to try different color combinations before I actually have to make a
>decision on what to use.
>Darrell Haas
>601XL
>N723DD reserved
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I m not an expert these days but I have built three other AB
Experimental aircraft...
If I recall correctly the rule says that the aircraft must be built
(51%) by an amature. It doesnt say by who or how many.
High school class project are sometimes built by a class of young kids,
each making a "part". Then at the end of the school year the "teacher"
get the credit from the FAA and is listed as the builder...
If Zenith QBK is in trouble, then watch out Lancair, Glassair.
Wag Aero Cubby, well the list will be a whopper.....
I will understand the new rule if a commercial airpland factory builds
your aircraft... I have a QBK and absolutely guarantee that I ve done
more than 51%. They say there is 90% of the work in the last 10% of
construction. If your not at the point of instrument panel, engine
installation then you might not get the picture....
Again, the FAA loves to screw with the public. They might give us a bad
time in the future.
Steve Weston
almost, almost almost DONE !
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: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT |
...
You guys are missing the boat, the FAA notice is for aircraft that are applying
for the review, and most are complex engine, high performace aircraft and most
are complex Fber glass and composite builds. ZAC aircraft are not in the same
league of what the FAA is notifying, it is dispositive to Zenith
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Terry Phillips <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
>Sent: Feb 16, 2008 9:50 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT
...
>
>
>The surprising thing about this (to me) is, if you follow the link in the
>original message to the FAA list, you will find that, while the 601, 701,
>and 801 are listed, ZAC quick-builds are not on the list. Other
>manufacturer's quick-builds (e.g., Vans & Rans plus many others) are
>listed. See:
>
>http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/kit_listing/Complete_mfr_model_listing/
>
>I'm would be very interested in learning whether the absence of ZAC
>quick-builds from the list has caused any FAA registration problems for
>builders who have already completed ZAC quick-builds. Are there any of you
>out there? Certainly, over the years, there have been many aircraft
>registered as E-AB's that are not on this list.
>
>Then there is the question why ZAC quick-builds are not on the list. Does
>anyone know?
>
>Terry
>
>At 06:07 AM 2/16/2008 -0800, you wrote:
>>FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT APPROVED LIST
>>Amateur-Built ARC Report Published
>>The FAA today issued the final report of the Aviation Rulemaking Committee
>>(ARC) that it appointed more than 18 months ago to investigate and make
>>recommendations regarding the interpretation and enforcement of the
>>amateur-building "51 percent Rule." Concurrently, the FAA also placed a
>>moratorium on its customary practice of providing to aircraft kit
>>manufacturers and builders courtesy evaluations of new kits' compliance
>>with the 51 percent requirement.
>>The moratorium means FAA has temporarily suspended amateur-built aircraft
>>kit evaluations. No new kits will appear on the "51 percent approved list"
>>until the FAA has completed its new process revision for determining the
>>major portion (51 percent). The new policies will be printed in a future
>>Federal Register notice. EAA estimates that notice will be published in
>>the April-May time frame. That notice will provide the public an
>>opportunity to comment on the various changes. (See EAA's Questions and
>>Answers regarding the moratorium here.)
>>
>>"We understand the logic behind the FAA's suspending advance evaluations
>>and approvals until after it has announced exactly how it will interpret
>>and enforce the rule going forward," EAA's Earl Lawrence said. "However,
>>we also understand that manufacturers and customers may have difficulty in
>>making decisions until the FAA makes its policy clear. Accordingly, we're
>>stressing to the FAA that this 'limbo period' should be as brief as possible."
>>
>>The ARC's report
>>The ARC, co-chaired by Lawrence, Van's Aircraft's Dick VanGrunsven, and
>>FAA's Frank Paskiewicz, was formed during EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2006. It
>>was comprised of representatives from the kit industry, organizations, and
>>FAA. The ARC's charge was to develop and present to the FAA its thoughts
>>and ideas on what the original intent of the regulation was; how it is
>>being applied today; and what impact the growing commercial assistance
>>centers are having on the industry.
>>
>>"EAA continues to advocate the preservation of amateur-builders'
>>privileges and the exploration of alternative regulatory avenues allowing
>>for different levels of participation in aircraft building and flying
>>activities," Lawrence stressed.
>>
>>The FAA stated that it is in general agreement with the proposed changes
>>to FAA Orders, Advisory Circulars, and Forms put forth in the ARC's final
>>report. The FAA will make all documents available for review and comment
>>prior to publication.
>>
>>The full committee, FAA and industry members, agreed:
>>
>>FAA directive and advisory language for the airworthiness certification of
>>amateur-built aircraft does not adequately address the issue of commercial
>>assistance in excess of that allowed under the regulations.
>>The forms used in determining the amateur-built status of the aircraft
>>need to be updated to more accurately reflect who actually performed the
>>fabrication and assembly of the aircraft.
>>The aircraft kit evaluation process is not standardized. The public,
>>industry, the FAA, and individuals within those groups, have different
>>opinions about what level of fabrication and assembly constitutes 'major
>>portion.' In other words, it is not clear how to determine if the amateur
>>builder fabricates and assembles the major portion of aircraft solely for
>>their own education or recreation.
>>Aviation Safety Inspectors and Designated Airworthiness Representatives
>>may need additional training to fully understand the FAA's expectations
>>when determining an aircraft's eligibility for an amateur-built certificate.
>>The industry and FAA members of the ARC could not come to an agreement on
>>how to define 'major portion' when evaluating aircraft kits, either in kit
>>form at the manufacturers or when an aircraft is fully assembled.
>>
>>The FAA will develop the final method of calculating major portion. This
>>method will be made available for review and comment prior to publication.
>>The FAA will consider petitions for rulemaking by ARC members or any other
>>interested party or person.
>>
>>For more information on this important issue, click on the Amateur-Built
>>Aircraft menu in the left side of the EAA website's Government Advocacy
>>section.
>>
>>--------
>>Andy Shontz
>>CH601XL - Corvair
>
>
>Terry Phillips
>ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
>Corvallis MT
>601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
>are done; working on the wings
>http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
>
>
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: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT |
...
Juan
I guess that I don't understand your comment.
I didn't see anything in the EAA article or FAA list that related to the
complexity or performance of the airplane. A Rans S-7 quick-build doesn't
sound like a complex, high performance aircraft to me. It looks to me that
the only thing addressed is whether or not the home builder has done 51% of
the actual building. And whether or not the FAA wants to stay in the
business of listing particular kits on a document that says a builder can
be assured that his project will be approved, providing that he or she does
the work.
Juan, assuming that you have completed a ZAC quidk-build, I would ask,
again, did you experience any difficulty registering your quick-build
with the FAA? If you did not build a quick-build, then I congratulate you
on completing a slow build. I wish mine was done!
Terry
At 11:55 AM 2/16/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>You guys are missing the boat, the FAA notice is for aircraft that are
>applying for the review, and most are complex engine, high performace
>aircraft and most are complex Fber glass and composite builds. ZAC
>aircraft are not in the same league of what the FAA is notifying, it is
>dispositive to Zenith
>
>Juan
>
>-----Original Message-----
> >From: Terry Phillips <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
> >Sent: Feb 16, 2008 9:50 AM
> >To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: Zenith-List: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO
> 51 PERCENT ...
> >
> >
> >The surprising thing about this (to me) is, if you follow the link in the
> >original message to the FAA list, you will find that, while the 601, 701,
> >and 801 are listed, ZAC quick-builds are not on the list. Other
> >manufacturer's quick-builds (e.g., Vans & Rans plus many others) are
> >listed. See:
> >
> >http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/kit_listing/
> Complete_mfr_model_listing/
> >
> >I'm would be very interested in learning whether the absence of ZAC
> >quick-builds from the list has caused any FAA registration problems for
> >builders who have already completed ZAC quick-builds. Are there any of you
> >out there? Certainly, over the years, there have been many aircraft
> >registered as E-AB's that are not on this list.
> >
> >Then there is the question why ZAC quick-builds are not on the list. Does
> >anyone know?
> >
> >Terry
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
are done; working on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
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: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT |
...
Just last week I received my registration from the FAA.
Next, the Phase one inspection.
So,,, I m assuming that alls well with my QBK.
Steve W.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Phillips" <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51
PERCENT ...
>
> Juan
>
> I guess that I don't understand your comment.
>
> I didn't see anything in the EAA article or FAA list that related to the
> complexity or performance of the airplane. A Rans S-7 quick-build doesn't
> sound like a complex, high performance aircraft to me. It looks to me that
> the only thing addressed is whether or not the home builder has done 51%
> of the actual building. And whether or not the FAA wants to stay in the
> business of listing particular kits on a document that says a builder can
> be assured that his project will be approved, providing that he or she
> does the work.
>
> Juan, assuming that you have completed a ZAC quidk-build, I would ask,
> again, did you experience any difficulty registering your quick-build with
> the FAA? If you did not build a quick-build, then I congratulate you on
> completing a slow build. I wish mine was done!
>
> Terry
>
>
> At 11:55 AM 2/16/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>>You guys are missing the boat, the FAA notice is for aircraft that are
>>applying for the review, and most are complex engine, high performace
>>aircraft and most are complex Fber glass and composite builds. ZAC
>>aircraft are not in the same league of what the FAA is notifying, it is
>>dispositive to Zenith
>>
>>Juan
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Terry Phillips <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
>> >Sent: Feb 16, 2008 9:50 AM
>> >To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>> >Subject: Re: Zenith-List: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO
>> 51 PERCENT ...
>> >
>> >
>> >The surprising thing about this (to me) is, if you follow the link in
>> >the
>> >original message to the FAA list, you will find that, while the 601,
>> >701,
>> >and 801 are listed, ZAC quick-builds are not on the list. Other
>> >manufacturer's quick-builds (e.g., Vans & Rans plus many others) are
>> >listed. See:
>> >
>> >http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/kit_listing/
>> Complete_mfr_model_listing/
>> >
>> >I'm would be very interested in learning whether the absence of ZAC
>> >quick-builds from the list has caused any FAA registration problems for
>> >builders who have already completed ZAC quick-builds. Are there any of
>> >you
>> >out there? Certainly, over the years, there have been many aircraft
>> >registered as E-AB's that are not on this list.
>> >
>> >Then there is the question why ZAC quick-builds are not on the list.
>> >Does
>> >anyone know?
>> >
>> >Terry
>
>
> Terry Phillips
> ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
> Corvallis MT
> 601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
> are done; working on the wings
> http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
>
>
>
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: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT |
...
All this does is prevent manufacturers of kits from adding their kits to the
PRE-APPROVED list of aircraft kits shown to comply with the 51% rule.
This most likely will not prevent anyone from certifying their aircraft, it
just implies any builder in the certification process the builder and DAR
will have to use FAA form 8000-38.
If you are afraid that your kit may not meet the 51% rule, then just work
through the 8000-38 your self. You may find that there are steps left that
you can do in favor of the factory provided pieces, document that work and
then you should not have any problems.
Good luck!
DO NOT ARCHIVE
On Feb 16, 2008 9:43 AM, Terry Phillips <ttp44@rkymtn.net> wrote:
>
> Juan
>
> I guess that I don't understand your comment.
>
> I didn't see anything in the EAA article or FAA list that related to the
> complexity or performance of the airplane. A Rans S-7 quick-build doesn't
> sound like a complex, high performance aircraft to me. It looks to me that
> the only thing addressed is whether or not the home builder has done 51%
> of
> the actual building. And whether or not the FAA wants to stay in the
> business of listing particular kits on a document that says a builder can
> be assured that his project will be approved, providing that he or she
> does
> the work.
>
> Juan, assuming that you have completed a ZAC quidk-build, I would ask,
> again, did you experience any difficulty registering your quick-build
> with the FAA? If you did not build a quick-build, then I congratulate you
> on completing a slow build. I wish mine was done!
>
> Terry
>
>
> At 11:55 AM 2/16/2008 -0500, you wrote:
> >You guys are missing the boat, the FAA notice is for aircraft that are
> >applying for the review, and most are complex engine, high performace
> >aircraft and most are complex Fber glass and composite builds. ZAC
> >aircraft are not in the same league of what the FAA is notifying, it is
> >dispositive to Zenith
> >
> >Juan
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Terry Phillips <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
> > >Sent: Feb 16, 2008 9:50 AM
> > >To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> > >Subject: Re: Zenith-List: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO
> > 51 PERCENT ...
> > >
> > >
> > >The surprising thing about this (to me) is, if you follow the link in
> the
> > >original message to the FAA list, you will find that, while the 601,
> 701,
> > >and 801 are listed, ZAC quick-builds are not on the list. Other
> > >manufacturer's quick-builds (e.g., Vans & Rans plus many others) are
> > >listed. See:
> > >
> > >
> http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/kit_listing/
> > Complete_mfr_model_listing/
> > >
> > >I'm would be very interested in learning whether the absence of ZAC
> > >quick-builds from the list has caused any FAA registration problems for
> > >builders who have already completed ZAC quick-builds. Are there any of
> you
> > >out there? Certainly, over the years, there have been many aircraft
> > >registered as E-AB's that are not on this list.
> > >
> > >Then there is the question why ZAC quick-builds are not on the list.
> Does
> > >anyone know?
> > >
> > >Terry
>
>
> Terry Phillips
> ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
> Corvallis MT
> 601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
> are done; working on the wings
> http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
>
>
--
John Marzulli
http://701Builder.blogspot.com/
"Flying a plane is no different than riding a bicycle... it's just a lot
harder to put baseball cards in the spokes.
-Airplane The Movie
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 |
|
The important thing to remember is that this is in response to kits that are
way more prefabricated than anything Zenith makes.
There are two main problems that the FAA is trying to deal with:
1. Kits that come highly pre-assembled that meet the letter, but not
the spirit of the current interpretation of the 51% rule.
2. Builder assistance programs that also undermine the 51% rule.
The current trend has been towards aircraft kits that are almost turn key,
but still technically fulfill the FAA-8000-38 checklist in the builder's
favor.
I doubt that this will have any negative outcomes for Zenith Builders,
except for those who may started, but not completed a CH-701 "Quick-Start"
kit provided by QSP or Flightcrafters before the E-LSA deadline, and even
then those builders may be OK.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
On Feb 16, 2008 7:54 AM, steve <notsew_evets@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> I m not an expert these days but I have built three other AB Experimental
> aircraft...
> If I recall correctly the rule says that the aircraft must be built (51%)
> by an amature. It doesnt say by who or how many.
> High school class project are sometimes built by a class of young kids,
> each making a "part". Then at the end of the school year the "teacher" get
> the credit from the FAA and is listed as the builder...
> If Zenith QBK is in trouble, then watch out Lancair, Glassair.
> Wag Aero Cubby, well the list will be a whopper.....
> I will understand the new rule if a commercial airpland factory builds
> your aircraft... I have a QBK and absolutely guarantee that I ve done more
> than 51%. They say there is 90% of the work in the last 10% of
> construction. If your not at the point of instrument panel, engine
> installation then you might not get the picture....
> Again, the FAA loves to screw with the public. They might give us a bad
> time in the future.
>
> Steve Weston
>
> almost, almost almost DONE !
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
John Marzulli
http://701Builder.blogspot.com/
"Flying a plane is no different than riding a bicycle... it's just a lot
harder to put baseball cards in the spokes.
-Airplane The Movie
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: | 701 STOL vs. non-STOL wings. |
List . . . Interesting article on STOL wing design by Chris Heintz
("Memo for Chris") in the Jan/Feb issue of Zenair. Does anyone have
some reliable 701 figures based on an 80 hp engine for the runway
takeoff distances with the slats and without? Same for the length
required for landing. . I have less need for STOL performance than when
I started my 701 5 years ago, and I think I might like to trade some
STOL for better glide performance. Thank you. Robert Schoenberger 701 60%
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: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT |
...
I'm working from plans. You missed my point, my point was "Dag, homebuilders will
actually have to build their homebuilts" as in a 97.5% complete kit is not
a 51% kit, in fact, it's an airplane that's been completed at the factory and
you reassemble the major parts. If I'm not mistaken, way back, the whole conceot
behing homebuilding was to actually learn how to build and airplane. Bolting
some premade large assemblies together is not building an airplane.
[quote="john.marzulli(at)gmail.co"]All this does is prevent manufacturers of kits
from adding their kits to the PRE-APPROVED list of aircraft kits shown to comply
with the 51% rule.
This most likely will not prevent anyone from certifying their aircraft, it just
implies any builder in the certification process the builder and DAR will have
to use FAA form 8000-38.
If you are afraid that your kit may not meet the 51% rule, then just work through
the 8000-38 your self. You may find that there are steps left that you can
do in favor of the factory provided pieces, document that work and then you should
not have any problems.
Good luck!
DO NOT ARCHIVE
On Feb 16, 2008 9:43 AM, Terry Phillips wrote:
Juan
I guess that I don't understand your comment.
I didn't see anything in the EAA article or FAA list that related to the
complexity or performance of the airplane. A Rans S-7 quick-build doesn't
sound like a complex, high performance aircraft to me. It looks to me that
the only thing addressed is whether or not the home builder has done 51% of
the actual building. And whether or not the FAA wants to stay in the
business of listing particular kits on a document that says a builder can
be assured that his project will be approved, providing that he or she does
the work.
Juan, assuming that you have completed a ZAC quidk-build, I would ask,
again, did you experience any difficulty registering your quick-build
with the FAA? If you did not build a quick-build, then I congratulate you
on completing a slow build. I wish mine was done!
Terry
At 11:55 AM 2/16/2008 -0500, you wrote:
> You guys are missing the boat, the FAA notice is for aircraft that are
> >applying for the review, and most are complex engine, high performace
>
> aircraft and most are complex Fber glass and composite builds. ZAC
> aircraft are not in the same league of what the FAA is notifying, it is
> >dispositive to Zenith
>
>
> Juan
>
> --
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=164445#164445
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: | Re: 701 STOL vs. non-STOL wings. |
Do a search for Joe Spencer he had a lengthy post a couple weeks ago where
he relayed results of his very DETAILED test, before and after slats.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Schoenberger" <hrs1@frontiernet.net>
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 12:53 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: 701 STOL vs. non-STOL wings.
> <hrs1@frontiernet.net>
>
>
> List . . . Interesting article on STOL wing design by Chris Heintz ("Memo
> for Chris") in the Jan/Feb issue of Zenair. Does anyone have some
> reliable 701 figures based on an 80 hp engine for the runway takeoff
> distances with the slats and without? Same for the length required for
> landing. . I have less need for STOL performance than when I started my
> 701 5 years ago, and I think I might like to trade some STOL for better
> glide performance. Thank you. Robert Schoenberger 701 60%
>
>
>
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: | Re: Paint program |
I don't know if these drawings are on the Zenith sire for the 601, but I just used
the line drawing and MS Paint.
--------
Kevin
N701DZ Reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=164456#164456
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/n701dz_111.jpg
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: | Motivational Flying Video for the Week |
Enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgJ3SkVHabA
Keep pullin' those rivets.
Scott Laughlin
www.cooknwithgas.com
601XL/Corvair
22.5 hours
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=164457#164457
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: Motivational Flying Video for the Week |
Thanks Scott,
You suck... err, well, I'm mean, I'm a little l jealous! :P
OK.... back to pulling rivets [Wink]
Great video and plane!
Best Regards
Kevin
--------
Kevin
N701DZ Reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=164461#164461
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Motivational Flying Video for the Week |
Scott,
I was think about you when I paid for 2.3 hours rental time on a C172 this week.
I gotta get this bike done and get back to work on my own plane.
Thanks for the updates,
do not archive
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
Corvair Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=164462#164462
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: When to rivet Center Spar to Cabin Floor (601XL) |
Patrick,
I think you and I are at about the same place in our builds. I am building
the TD version though, but also with the center stick.
I have decided to go ahead and rivet the cabin floor, rudder pedals, center
spar heel support and channel all now before moving on to the sawhorses.. My
big delay has been deciding on interior paint. i figure now is the best time
to prime and paint the cabin floor and any other protuberance that will be
visible in the end.
I got rattle cans of self-etching primer from Autozone, cleaned with MEK,
the dreaded green 3m pads and then lightly sand with 400 grit. i figure one
coat of primer and two coats of epoxy paint.......
I figure, what the hell? if I rivet something out of sequence, I'll just
drill it out and do it over again, since I have already drilled out and
replaced about 60% of the rivets so far.......
>From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt@yahoo.com>
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: When to rivet Center Spar to Cabin Floor (601XL)
>Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:22:01 -0800
>
>
>I'm building the Y-stick.
>
>Thanks,
>
>- Pat
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=164292#164292
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT |
...
Terry,
missing the point, read the FAA notice, its for planes that are not yet certified
to go E-AB, targeting compplex builds the are being sold as quick builds,
read the notice.
ZENITH IS OK!
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Terry Phillips <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
>Sent: Feb 16, 2008 12:43 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT
...
>
>
>Juan
>
>I guess that I don't understand your comment.
>
>I didn't see anything in the EAA article or FAA list that related to the
>complexity or performance of the airplane. A Rans S-7 quick-build doesn't
>sound like a complex, high performance aircraft to me. It looks to me that
>the only thing addressed is whether or not the home builder has done 51% of
>the actual building. And whether or not the FAA wants to stay in the
>business of listing particular kits on a document that says a builder can
>be assured that his project will be approved, providing that he or she does
>the work.
>
>Juan, assuming that you have completed a ZAC quidk-build, I would ask,
>again, did you experience any difficulty registering your quick-build
>with the FAA? If you did not build a quick-build, then I congratulate you
>on completing a slow build. I wish mine was done!
>
>Terry
>
>
>At 11:55 AM 2/16/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>>You guys are missing the boat, the FAA notice is for aircraft that are
>>applying for the review, and most are complex engine, high performace
>>aircraft and most are complex Fber glass and composite builds. ZAC
>>aircraft are not in the same league of what the FAA is notifying, it is
>>dispositive to Zenith
>>
>>Juan
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Terry Phillips <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
>> >Sent: Feb 16, 2008 9:50 AM
>> >To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>> >Subject: Re: Zenith-List: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO
>> 51 PERCENT ...
>> >
>> >
>> >The surprising thing about this (to me) is, if you follow the link in the
>> >original message to the FAA list, you will find that, while the 601, 701,
>> >and 801 are listed, ZAC quick-builds are not on the list. Other
>> >manufacturer's quick-builds (e.g., Vans & Rans plus many others) are
>> >listed. See:
>> >
>> >http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/kit_listing/
>> Complete_mfr_model_listing/
>> >
>> >I'm would be very interested in learning whether the absence of ZAC
>> >quick-builds from the list has caused any FAA registration problems for
>> >builders who have already completed ZAC quick-builds. Are there any of you
>> >out there? Certainly, over the years, there have been many aircraft
>> >registered as E-AB's that are not on this list.
>> >
>> >Then there is the question why ZAC quick-builds are not on the list. Does
>> >anyone know?
>> >
>> >Terry
>
>
>Terry Phillips
>ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
>Corvallis MT
>601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
>are done; working on the wings
>http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT |
...
I WOULDNT KNOW, READ THE faa NOTICE
JUAN
-----Original Message-----
>From: steve <notsew_evets@frontiernet.net>
>Sent: Feb 16, 2008 1:08 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT
...
>
>
>Just last week I received my registration from the FAA.
>Next, the Phase one inspection.
>So,,, I m assuming that alls well with my QBK.
>
>Steve W.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Terry Phillips" <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 10:43 AM
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51
>PERCENT ...
>
>
>>
>> Juan
>>
>> I guess that I don't understand your comment.
>>
>> I didn't see anything in the EAA article or FAA list that related to the
>> complexity or performance of the airplane. A Rans S-7 quick-build doesn't
>> sound like a complex, high performance aircraft to me. It looks to me that
>> the only thing addressed is whether or not the home builder has done 51%
>> of the actual building. And whether or not the FAA wants to stay in the
>> business of listing particular kits on a document that says a builder can
>> be assured that his project will be approved, providing that he or she
>> does the work.
>>
>> Juan, assuming that you have completed a ZAC quidk-build, I would ask,
>> again, did you experience any difficulty registering your quick-build with
>> the FAA? If you did not build a quick-build, then I congratulate you on
>> completing a slow build. I wish mine was done!
>>
>> Terry
>>
>>
>> At 11:55 AM 2/16/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>>>You guys are missing the boat, the FAA notice is for aircraft that are
>>>applying for the review, and most are complex engine, high performace
>>>aircraft and most are complex Fber glass and composite builds. ZAC
>>>aircraft are not in the same league of what the FAA is notifying, it is
>>>dispositive to Zenith
>>>
>>>Juan
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>> >From: Terry Phillips <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
>>> >Sent: Feb 16, 2008 9:50 AM
>>> >To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>> >Subject: Re: Zenith-List: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO
>>> 51 PERCENT ...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >The surprising thing about this (to me) is, if you follow the link in
>>> >the
>>> >original message to the FAA list, you will find that, while the 601,
>>> >701,
>>> >and 801 are listed, ZAC quick-builds are not on the list. Other
>>> >manufacturer's quick-builds (e.g., Vans & Rans plus many others) are
>>> >listed. See:
>>> >
>>> >http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/kit_listing/
>>> Complete_mfr_model_listing/
>>> >
>>> >I'm would be very interested in learning whether the absence of ZAC
>>> >quick-builds from the list has caused any FAA registration problems for
>>> >builders who have already completed ZAC quick-builds. Are there any of
>>> >you
>>> >out there? Certainly, over the years, there have been many aircraft
>>> >registered as E-AB's that are not on this list.
>>> >
>>> >Then there is the question why ZAC quick-builds are not on the list.
>>> >Does
>>> >anyone know?
>>> >
>>> >Terry
>>
>>
>> Terry Phillips
>> ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
>> Corvallis MT
>> 601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
>> are done; working on the wings
>> http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
I am getting ready to put the cabin floor back together and I am curious
about the torque values for the 3/8" nuts/bolts. Specifically for the rudder
lateral and center bearings, rudder pedal brackets, etc. My copy of the
standard aircraft handbook says that a fine thread, 3/8" nut/bolt should be
tightened to 160 to 190 inch pounds, and my beam-style torque wrench is in
foot pounds. I ASSUME then, that I would divide the 160 by 12 to get
13.3333(etc) foot/pounds, which is what I should read off the wrench.
Any thoughts?
Brad Cohen
XL/TD, slow-build kit
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: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT |
...
I DID A QUICK BUILD. FAA REVIEWED IT AND THOUGHT IT WAS A WELL BUILT AND FINISHED
PROJECT. FAA EVEN TOOK A PICTURE WITH IT. FAA IS NOT GOING TO BE A PROBLEM
WITH THE ZENITH AIRCRAFTS.
ENJOY YOUR BUILD AS WELL. THE FAA WILL NOT GIVE YOU ANY PROBLEMS IF YOU JUST DOUMENT
WHAT YOU'VE DONE.
JUAN
-----Original Message-----
>From: Terry Phillips <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
>Sent: Feb 16, 2008 12:43 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO 51 PERCENT
...
>
>
>Juan
>
>I guess that I don't understand your comment.
>
>I didn't see anything in the EAA article or FAA list that related to the
>complexity or performance of the airplane. A Rans S-7 quick-build doesn't
>sound like a complex, high performance aircraft to me. It looks to me that
>the only thing addressed is whether or not the home builder has done 51% of
>the actual building. And whether or not the FAA wants to stay in the
>business of listing particular kits on a document that says a builder can
>be assured that his project will be approved, providing that he or she does
>the work.
>
>Juan, assuming that you have completed a ZAC quidk-build, I would ask,
>again, did you experience any difficulty registering your quick-build
>with the FAA? If you did not build a quick-build, then I congratulate you
>on completing a slow build. I wish mine was done!
>
>Terry
>
>
>At 11:55 AM 2/16/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>>You guys are missing the boat, the FAA notice is for aircraft that are
>>applying for the review, and most are complex engine, high performace
>>aircraft and most are complex Fber glass and composite builds. ZAC
>>aircraft are not in the same league of what the FAA is notifying, it is
>>dispositive to Zenith
>>
>>Juan
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Terry Phillips <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
>> >Sent: Feb 16, 2008 9:50 AM
>> >To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>> >Subject: Re: Zenith-List: FAA PLACES MORATORIUM ON NEW ADDITIONS TO
>> 51 PERCENT ...
>> >
>> >
>> >The surprising thing about this (to me) is, if you follow the link in the
>> >original message to the FAA list, you will find that, while the 601, 701,
>> >and 801 are listed, ZAC quick-builds are not on the list. Other
>> >manufacturer's quick-builds (e.g., Vans & Rans plus many others) are
>> >listed. See:
>> >
>> >http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/kit_listing/
>> Complete_mfr_model_listing/
>> >
>> >I'm would be very interested in learning whether the absence of ZAC
>> >quick-builds from the list has caused any FAA registration problems for
>> >builders who have already completed ZAC quick-builds. Are there any of you
>> >out there? Certainly, over the years, there have been many aircraft
>> >registered as E-AB's that are not on this list.
>> >
>> >Then there is the question why ZAC quick-builds are not on the list. Does
>> >anyone know?
>> >
>> >Terry
>
>
>Terry Phillips
>ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
>Corvallis MT
>601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
>are done; working on the wings
>http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
>
>
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 |
|
Your conversion is correct. But the range of your foot-pound wrench may not
be suitable to a small torque value:
"For instance, did you know that your torque wrench-freshly calibrated by
someone traceable to the National Bureau of Standards-is not accurate in the
first 1/6th and last 1/6th of its range? That's right: a 100 ft.lb torque
wrench is accurate only over the middle 2/3 of its range. So it should not
be used for anything outside of 16?84 ft?lbs! Size the wrench to the job,
and don't fool yourself into thinking that you can just figure the
conversion from in lb to ft?lb, set that 100 ft?lb torque wrench to 3 foot
pounds, and have 36 inch?pounds. No telling what you'll have, that far away
from the calibrated zone. "
http://www.vansairforce.org/articles/tips/tip_torque_bolts.html
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brad Cohen
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 3:48 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Torque values
I am getting ready to put the cabin floor back together and I am curious
about the torque values for the 3/8" nuts/bolts. Specifically for the rudder
lateral and center bearings, rudder pedal brackets, etc. My copy of the
standard aircraft handbook says that a fine thread, 3/8" nut/bolt should be
tightened to 160 to 190 inch pounds, and my beam-style torque wrench is in
foot pounds. I ASSUME then, that I would divide the 160 by 12 to get
13.3333(etc) foot/pounds, which is what I should read off the wrench.
Any thoughts?
Brad Cohen
XL/TD, slow-build kit
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: Torque values |
Correct on the torque wrench conversion.
Hopefully some of the others will chime in but on things such as the hinges I don't
think standard torque values would apply. I think that in such cases "snug"
would be sufficient. On the hinges you are just trying to capture and hold
the bearing and since it is a steel / aluminum interface I think you could easily
overdo it.
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=164469#164469
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Torque values |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Cohen" <bradfnp@msn.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 5:48 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Torque values
>
> I am getting ready to put the cabin floor back together and I am curious
> about the torque values for the 3/8" nuts/bolts. Specifically for the
> rudder lateral and center bearings, rudder pedal brackets, etc. My copy of
> the standard aircraft handbook says that a fine thread, 3/8" nut/bolt
> should be tightened to 160 to 190 inch pounds, and my beam-style torque
> wrench is in foot pounds. I ASSUME then, that I would divide the 160 by 12
> to get 13.3333(etc) foot/pounds, which is what I should read off the
> wrench.
> Any thoughts?
>
>
> Brad Cohen
> XL/TD, slow-build kit
> Correct
Inch Pounds Newton Metres.
Kg Force Metres.
Foot Pounds.
>
>
>
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 |
|
Also I believe all the nuts you are writing about (rudder pedal bearings)
use self-locking nuts which have significant drag torque. In that case what
you should measure is the total torque (drag plus desired). As it says in
the Zenith Constructions Standards:
"Drag torque: Run the nut down to near contact with the washer and check the
friction drag torque required to turn the nut. Add the drag torque to the
desired torque. This is referred to as the final torque which should
register on the indicator or setting on the torque wrench"
www.zenithair.com/pdf-doc/zenair%20construction%20standards%20draft%201-07.p
df, page 32.
If you have a copy of the Sky Ranch Engineering Manual, read the section on
torque accuracy in chapter 7 "Fasteners and Failures". I love this part at
the start of chapter 7: "What is a bolt? A bolt is a very stiff spring..."
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brad Cohen
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 3:48 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Torque values
I am getting ready to put the cabin floor back together and I am curious
about the torque values for the 3/8" nuts/bolts. Specifically for the rudder
lateral and center bearings, rudder pedal brackets, etc. My copy of the
standard aircraft handbook says that a fine thread, 3/8" nut/bolt should be
tightened to 160 to 190 inch pounds, and my beam-style torque wrench is in
foot pounds. I ASSUME then, that I would divide the 160 by 12 to get
13.3333(etc) foot/pounds, which is what I should read off the wrench.
Any thoughts?
Brad Cohen
XL/TD, slow-build kit
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 |
|
I have been following this "Thread" from the FAA and EAA for a while
now. I don't think quick build kits are the target of this
action. It is professional builders "Helping" the amateurs that are
being targeted.
As I see it, the moratorium just means builders of non-approved kits
must be prepared to prove they did over half of the operations to
build their airplane to the DAR or FAA inspector. This is done with
logs and pictures which we all seem to be accumulating. Also, if the
first inspector doesn't think you did 51%, then perhaps the second or
third one will.
I don't know the exact targets of this whole regulatory movement, but
I think it has to do with very high performance "Kit Planes" that are
a long way from Zenith designs. They probably have turbine engines,
pressurized cabins, and galleys and toilets (or some similar
arrangement). The FAA is seriously concerned that these planes are
created to avoid part 23 certification rather than the education and
recreation of their builders.
Anyone who is really worried about getting their 601 airworthiness
certificate should write an email to the EAA and ask for
clarification of this whole mess.
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
At 07:54 AM 2/16/2008, you wrote:
>I will understand the new rule if a commercial airpland factory
>builds your aircraft... I have a QBK and absolutely guarantee that
>I ve done more than 51%. They say there is 90% of the work in the
>last 10% of construction. If your not at the point of instrument
>panel, engine installation then you might not get the picture....
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Torque values |
Go buy a click/stop quality torque wrench calibrated in inch/pounds right
now.
Mechanics torque is not acceptable.
Every single fastening device on your aircraft has a torque rating and a
whole lotta critical ones are in inch/pounds.
Let me repeat that mechanics torque is not acceptable...
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Paint program |
> Years ago, we had a contest in my chapter to see
> who could come up with a color scheme for my friend
> homebuilt. You don't need a pc program to do it.
> Just have the outline of the plane side, front, top
> and make a dozen copies or so and color them
> yourself with color pencils.
--- Darrell Haas <darrellhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Has anyone designed a computer program using a
> picture of a 601XL where you
> can try different colors and designs to help you
> decide what colors and /or
> designs you might want on your plane? It would be
> fun on those stormy nights
> to try different color combinations before I
> actually have to make a
> decision on what to use.
> Darrell Haas
> 601XL
> N723DD reserved
>
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Paint program |
Thank you for the offer. It was just a passing thought that I should have
let pass. Thanks again. Happy flying.
Darrell
do not archive
On Feb 16, 2008 7:13 AM, <Jaybannist@cs.com> wrote:
>
> Darrell,
>
> I have three view drawings (601XL with WW cowling for Corvair ) I made on
> AutoCAD which I used to develop my painting scheme. It is not really a
> user-friendly way to do it, but you are welcome to have the drawings. Just
> let me know.
>
> Jay in Dallas 601XL N2630J "Lil Bruiser"
>
>
> "Darrell Haas" <darrellhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Has anyone designed a computer program using a picture of a 601XL where
> you
> >can try different colors and designs to help you decide what colors and
> /or
> >designs you might want on your plane? It would be fun on those stormy
> nights
> >to try different color combinations before I actually have to make a
> >decision on what to use.
> >Darrell Haas
> >601XL
> >N723DD reserved
> >
>
>
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! --
|