Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:59 AM - Re: Aileron gussets (Sabrina)
2. 11:36 AM - Rules vs laws (was: Re: Dutch XL crash findings) (Jim Belcher)
3. 03:33 PM - Sebring Light Sport Expo (Bill Pagan)
4. 03:38 PM - RV9- Light Sport (Bill Pagan)
5. 03:48 PM - Re: RV9- Light Sport (Jim Belcher)
6. 05:19 PM - Re: RV9- Light Sport (jaybannist@cs.com)
7. 06:07 PM - Re: RV9- Light Sport (Ronald Steele)
8. 06:48 PM - Re: RV9- Light Sport (David Downey)
9. 08:23 PM - Re: [Possible Spam] Re: RV9- Light Sport (LarryMcFarland)
10. 08:32 PM - Re: [Possible Spam] Re: RV9- Light Sport (Paul Mulwitz)
11. 08:37 PM - Re: RV9- Light Sport (Gig Giacona)
12. 08:40 PM - [Possible Spam] Re: RV9- Light Sport (Gig Giacona)
13. 08:51 PM - Re: [Possible Spam] Re: RV9- Light Sport (Afterfxllc@aol.com)
14. 09:03 PM - Re: [Possible Spam] Re: RV9- Light Sport (Paul Mulwitz)
15. 10:34 PM - Re: [Possible Spam] Re: RV9- Light Sport (Craig Payne)
16. 11:12 PM - [Possible Spam] Re: RV9- Light Sport (Sabrina)
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: Aileron gussets |
Alex,
Could you please post a picture of your new gussets as installed?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226548#226548
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: Dutch XL crash findings) |
> What law is it you would violate if you flew your plane over max gross
> weight?
One of the catch 22s about FARs is that they are rules, not laws. This may
seem trivial, but it was once explained to me that the differences are
significant:
1) Laws are passed by a legislative body, like Congress, a state legislature,
or a town body.
A) You can be either fined or sent to prison for violating a law.
B) Normal rights of appeal and jury trial apply.
C) There is normally a statute of limitations. E.G. if you did something a
stated number of years ago, and you have met certain other requirements, you
can no longer be prosecuted for the crime.
2) Rules are passed by government agencies, like the FAA, and the IRS.
A) You cannot be sent to prison for violating a rule, but you can be fined.
C) The normal rights of appeal and jury trial do not necessarily apply.
D) There is no statute of limitations on violating a rule. If they find out
about it 25 years later, in theory, you can still be fined.
In other words, although it is unlikely anybody would bother, anything you
confess to on this forum that is a violation of the FARs could be pursued,
and a fine could result. I would not loose a lot of sleep over this, but it
might be worth considering before posting.
What I'm passing along is what the FAA has told me. If you need specific legal
advice, I'm the wrong guy. In other words, the opinion expressed above is
that of the FAA, and not necessarily anyone in their right mind. :-)
--
============================================
Do not archive.
============================================
Jim B Belcher
BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Retired aerospace technical manager
============================================
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: | Sebring Light Sport Expo |
Went to the Sebring Light Sport Expo today and only 2 Zeniths I could find
on the field were the factory 750 and an AMD 601 parked on the ramp.- Has
definitely been more of a Zenith presence in years past.-
Bill Pagan
EAA Tech Counselor #4395
601XL QBK/Corvair/N565BW (RES)
=0A=0A=0A
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: | RV9- Light Sport |
Saw an RV-9A being promoted as a Light Sport at the Sebring Light Sport Exp
o.- The plane had a Lyc. 0-235.- The numbers don't seem to add up to qu
alifying as an LSA.- Anybody seen this?- Doesn't seem to leave much roo
m for payload.
Bill Pagan
EAA Tech Counselor #4395
601XL QBK/Corvair/N565BW (RES)
=0A=0A=0A
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: RV9- Light Sport |
On Saturday 24 January 2009 17:35, Bill Pagan wrote:
> Saw an RV-9A being promoted as a Light Sport at the Sebring Light Sport
> Expo. The plane had a Lyc. 0-235. The numbers don't seem to add up to
> qualifying as an LSA. Anybody seen this? Doesn't seem to leave much room
> for payload.
RV had a display across from Zenith @ S&F last year, and made me this same
pitch, probably because I stated I was interestewd in the Zenith as an LSA.
It struck me the same way. I think trying to make an LSA out of an RV9A is a
bit of a stretch.
Of course, one wouldn't need to worry too much about overstressing the
aircraft, if one were somewhat over the 1320 lb limit. It might tax that
O-235 a bit, though.
--
============================================
Do not archive.
============================================
Jim B Belcher
BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Retired aerospace technical manager
============================================
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: RV9- Light Sport |
Van's lists, for the RV9A, with 115 HP, at gross, cruise 55%, 8.000 ft, 148 mph;
stall speed 48 mph. I really don't see how an RV9A could ever qualify as an
LSA.
I also question the "E" in E-LSA. (ie. the RV12)? To qualify, one must be built
EXACTLY like a production model of the same airplane.? That completely rules
out experimentation. Isn't that what the "E" stands for ?
Jay Bannister
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Pagan <pdn8r@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 5:35 pm
Subject: Zenith601-List: RV9- Light Sport
Saw an RV-9A being promoted as a Light Sport at the Sebring Light Sport Expo.?
The plane had a Lyc. 0-235.? The numbers don't seem to add up to qualifying as
an LSA.? Anybody seen this?? Doesn't seem to leave much room for payload.
Bill Pagan
EAA Tech Counselor #4395
601XL QBK/Corvair/N565BW (RES)
[Image Removed]
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV9- Light Sport |
When I looked at Van's web site, I was confused by how they are trying
to package the RV-12. My impression was that it will be/is available
as an EAB and they are in the process of getting an E-SLA
certification. I'm not sure how that works when you don't have an S-
LSA, but apparently you can specify a virtual S-LSA that the E-LSA can
be spec'ed from?
Ron
On Jan 24, 2009, at 8:18 PM, Jaybannist@cs.com wrote:
> Van's lists, for the RV9A, with 115 HP, at gross, cruise 55%, 8.000
> ft, 148 mph; stall speed 48 mph. I really don't see how an RV9A
> could ever qualify as an LSA.
>
> I also question the "E" in E-LSA. (ie. the RV12) To qualify, one
> must be built EXACTLY like a production model of the same airplane.
> That completely rules out experimentation. Isn't that what the "E"
> stands for ?
>
> Jay Bannister
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Pagan <pdn8r@yahoo.com>
> To: Zenith List <zenith-list@matronics.com>; zenith601-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 5:35 pm
> Subject: Zenith601-List: RV9- Light Sport
>
> Saw an RV-9A being promoted as a Light Sport at the Sebring Light
> Sport Expo. The plane had a Lyc. 0-235. The numbers don't seem to
> add up to qualifying as an LSA. Anybody seen this? Doesn't seem to
> leave much room for payload.
>
> Bill Pagan
> EAA Tech Counselor #4395
> 601XL QBK/Corvair/N565BW (RES)
>
>
> Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
>
>
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: RV9- Light Sport |
I agree Jay. I had plans for that plane. At the time they said there was no
way to make the weight bogey for LSA. Plans gone. Sure would have made a t
errific low and slow plane though... It would certainly fly and fly well wi
th even an A-65 pitched for climb. Today's crowd just doesn't understand th
at planes do not have to suck fuel and go fast...
David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA
--- On Sat, 1/24/09, jaybannist@cs.com <jaybannist@cs.com> wrote:
From: jaybannist@cs.com <jaybannist@cs.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: RV9- Light Sport
Van's lists, for the RV9A, with 115 HP, at gross, cruise 55%, 8.000 ft, 14
8 mph; stall speed 48 mph. I really don't see how an RV9A could ever qualif
y as an LSA.
I also question the "E" in E-LSA. (ie. the RV12)- To qualify, one must be
built EXACTLY like a production model of the same airplane.- That comple
tely rules out experimentation. Isn't that what the "E" stands for ?
Jay Bannister
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Pagan <pdn8r@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 5:35 pm
Subject: Zenith601-List: RV9- Light Sport
Saw an RV-9A being promoted as a Light Sport at the Sebring Light Sport Exp
o.- The plane had a Lyc. 0-235.- The numbers don't seem to add up to qu
alifying as an LSA.- Anybody seen this?- Doesn't seem to leave much roo
m for payload.
Bill Pagan
EAA Tech Counselor #4395
601XL QBK/Corvair/N565BW (RES)
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
=0A=0A=0A
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: RV9- Light Sport |
Hi guys,
The E in LSA suggests the aircraft is built exactly to plans for the
Airworthiness Certificate. Does this mean that the aircraft cannot be
modified
for any other accessory or gage after the Airworthiness Certificate has
been issued?
Also, it appears that the RV12 may not be able to meet the 51% rule.
Hope this is not true.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
David Downey wrote:
> I agree Jay. I had plans for that plane. At the time they said there
> was no way to make the weight bogey for LSA. Plans gone. Sure would
> have made a terrific low and slow plane though... It would certainly
> fly and fly well with even an A-65 pitched for climb. Today's crowd
> just doesn't understand that planes do not have to suck fuel and go
> fast...
>
> David L. Downey
> Harleysville (SE) PA, USA
>
>
> --- On *Sat, 1/24/09, jaybannist@cs.com /<jaybannist@cs.com>/* wrote:
>
> From: jaybannist@cs.com <jaybannist@cs.com>
> Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: RV9- Light Sport
> To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
> Date: Saturday, January 24, 2009, 8:18 PM
>
> Van's lists, for the RV9A, with 115 HP, at gross, cruise 55%,
> 8.000 ft, 148 mph; stall speed 48 mph. I really don't see how an
> RV9A could ever qualify as an LSA.
>
> I also question the "E" in E-LSA. (ie. the RV12) To qualify, one
> must be built EXACTLY like a production model of the same
> airplane. That completely rules out experimentation. Isn't that
> what the "E" stands for ?
>
> Jay Bannister
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Pagan <pdn8r@yahoo.com>
> To: Zenith List <zenith-list@matronics.com>;
> zenith601-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 5:35 pm
> Subject: Zenith601-List: RV9- Light Sport
>
> Saw an RV-9A being promoted as a Light Sport at the Sebring Light
> Sport Expo. The plane had a Lyc. 0-235. The numbers don't seem
> to add up to qualifying as an LSA. Anybody seen this? Doesn't
> seem to leave much room for payload.
>
> Bill Pagan
> EAA Tech Counselor #4395
> 601XL QBK/Corvair/N565BW (RES)
>
> *
> *
>
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: RV9- Light Sport |
Hi Larry,
I guess it is time we all started focusing on the new E-LSA rule. I
only remember the way it was described several years ago - that it
had to match, exactly, the S-LSA from the same manufacturer. The
notion was it was a bolt together version of the S-LSA and the
"Builder" was really an untalented assembler.
I don't have any clue about the changes that could be made to an
E-LSA after certification and who could do it.
Why do you think the RV-12 won't qualify for the 51% rule? I would
expect it to easily meet that rule since the kit should be similar to
the other planes from Van's.
Paul
XL getting close
do not archive
At 08:22 PM 1/24/2009, you wrote:
>The E in LSA suggests the aircraft is built exactly to plans for the
>Airworthiness Certificate. Does this mean that the aircraft cannot be modified
>for any other accessory or gage after the Airworthiness Certificate
>has been issued?
>
>Also, it appears that the RV12 may not be able to meet the 51% rule.
>
>Hope this is not true.
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: RV9- Light Sport |
They really should have called the E-LSA aircraft A-LSA for Amateur-built LSA but
the FAA didn't ask me.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226639#226639
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: [Possible Spam] Re: RV9- Light Sport |
The E-LSA don't have to meet the 51% rule. It is my understanding that post certification
modifications must be approved by the manufacture of the E-LSA kit.
larry(at)macsmachine.com wrote:
> Hi guys,
> The E in LSA suggests the aircraft is built exactly to plans for the
> Airworthiness Certificate. Does this mean that the aircraft cannot be
> modified
> for any other accessory or gage after the Airworthiness Certificate has
> been issued?
>
> Also, it appears that the RV12 may not be able to meet the 51% rule.
>
> Hope this is not true.
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226640#226640
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV9- Light Sport |
>From what I understand and I might be wrong Van's didn't want builders to be
able to put in any other power plants in the RV-12 and that's why it is
classed the way it is.
Jeff
>The E in LSA suggests the aircraft is built exactly to plans for the
>Airworthiness Certificate. Does this mean that the aircraft cannot be
modified
>for any other accessory or gage after the Airworthiness Certificate
>has been issued?
>
>Also, it appears that the RV12 may not be able to meet the 51% rule.
>
>Hope this is not true.
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
cemailfooterNO62)
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV9- Light Sport |
Van's kits usually specify the engine or small family of engines that work.
I spoke to Van himself about the choice of Rotax for the RV-12. I
guess I failed to talk him into a larger engine. I believe the
physical size of the 912 is considerably smaller than any competing
engines. I also believe the airframe kit includes most of the
FWF. That leaves you a large task if you want to use a different engine.
Paul
XL getting close
do not archive
At 08:50 PM 1/24/2009, you wrote:
> From what I understand and I might be wrong Van's didn't want
> builders to be able to put in any other power plants in the RV-12
> and that's why it is classed the way it is.
>
>Jeff
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: RV9- Light Sport |
> From what I understand and I might be wrong Van's didn't want builders to
be able to put in any other power plants in the RV-12 and that's why it is
classed the way it is.
Van's can't stop you from buying an RV-12 kit and doing whatever you want to
with it. Nor do they want to:
"In February 2008, the FAA stopped reviewing new kits for compliance with
Experimental-Amateur Built category. Van's Aircraft, Inc. is unable to
predict the ultimate effect of the moratorium on the E-AB eligibility of
RV-12 kits, but from the information currently available, E-AB certification
will still be allowed on an individual basis. Responsibility for
demonstrating compliance with the "51%" rule will rest entirely with the
builder."
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-12int.htm
-- Craig
From: owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Afterfxllc@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Possible Spam] Re: Zenith601-List: RV9- Light Sport
>From what I understand and I might be wrong Van's didn't want builders to be
able to put in any other power plants in the RV-12 and that's why it is
classed the way it is.
Jeff
>The E in LSA suggests the aircraft is built exactly to plans for the
>Airworthiness Certificate. Does this mean that the aircraft cannot be
modified
>for any other accessory or gage after the Airworthiness Certificate
>has been issued?
>
>Also, it appears that the RV12 may not be able to meet the 51% rule.
>
>Hope this is not true.
_____
A Good Credit Score is
7001028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=6680
72%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=DecemailfooterNO62"> See yours in just 2 easy steps!
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: [Possible Spam] Re: RV9- Light Sport |
The problem is the 20% fabrication proposal and whether it will be applied to kits
already under construction. This is where the E-LSA rule would come into
play--no 51% (or future 20% fabrication) requirement.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226657#226657
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! --
|