Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:46 AM - Re: RV9- Light Sport (Bryan Martin)
2. 06:50 AM - Re: RV9- Light Sport (Bryan Martin)
3. 07:03 AM - Re: Re: RV9- Light Sport (Bryan Martin)
4. 07:16 AM - Re: RV9- Light Sport (jaybannist@cs.com)
5. 07:22 AM - Re: [Possible Spam] Re: RV9- Light Sport (Bryan Martin)
6. 07:31 AM - Re: [Possible Spam] Re: RV9- Light Sport (LarryMcFarland)
7. 08:04 AM - Re: RV9- Light Sport (Bryan Martin)
8. 08:25 AM - Re: [Possible Spam] Re: RV9- Light Sport (Paul Mulwitz)
9. 08:27 AM - Re: RV9- Light Sport (jaybannist@cs.com)
10. 08:57 AM - Re: Re: Aileron gussets (A.F.RUPP@att.net)
11. 09:50 AM - Re: Aileron gussets (Sabrina)
12. 11:06 AM - Re: RV9- Light Sport (Bryan Martin)
13. 03:55 PM - Re: RV9- Light Sport (sdthatcher)
14. 04:34 PM - Re: RV9- Light Sport (Sabrina)
15. 05:02 PM - Web cam with chat (Afterfxllc@aol.com)
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: RV9- Light Sport |
They are probably going to use one aircraft to get the LSA
certification. Then that first example will be the S-LSA and the E-LSA
kits will built to that pattern.
On Jan 24, 2009, at 9:06 PM, Ronald Steele wrote:
> 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?
>
>>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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: RV9- Light Sport |
No, the Experimental category is just a catch-all for any airplane
that doesn't meet the requirements for either a Standard or Special
certificate.
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 ?
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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: RV9- Light Sport |
Experimental is just the category the FAA assigns to any aircraft that
doesn't fall under any of the other categories of aircraft
certification.
>
> >
>
> They really should have called the E-LSA aircraft A-LSA for Amateur-
> built LSA but the FAA didn't ask me.
>
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: RV9- Light Sport |
Bryan,
Not to be argumentative, but the FAA and I disagree.? E-LSA is an acronym for "Experimental
Light Sport Aircraft." (look it up) ?
LSA or Light Sport Aricraft is a category that meets the LSA consensus standards,
whether factory built or amateur built.? To qualify as E-LSA, it must be built
exactly like the production version LSA; no variance or Experimetation is
allowed. Only the FAA would come up with a "Experimental" where no Experimenting
is allowed. An "outsider" would probably have called it AB-LSA.
E-AB is any amateur built experimental.? My 601XL is registered E-AB, but it qualifies
as an LSA. It can be flown by a Private Pilot as an experimental airplane,
or by a Light Sport Pilot as an LSA.? It can not qualify as E-LSA.
Jay Bannister
-----Original Message-----
From: Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
Sent: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 8:49 am
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: RV9- Light Sport
?
No, the Experimental category is just a catch-all for any airplane that doesn't
meet the requirements for either a Standard or Special certificate.?
?
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 ??
>?
?
--Bryan Martin?
N61BM, CH 601 XL,?
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.?
do not archive.?
?
?
?
?
?
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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 |
An E-LSA built from a conforming kit must be assembled exactly
according to plans. Once the test time is flown off though, according
to the EAA website, an E-LSA can be modified any way you like. It
basically falls under the same rules as E-AB except that you need an
LSA-I repairman certificate to sign off the annual.
On Jan 24, 2009, at 11:22 PM, LarryMcFarland 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.
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
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 |
Paul,
Vans expressed that none of his kits would meet the 51% rule given the
pre-cut, bent, welded, punched and molded
components that comprise the majority of the kit. The work of
fabrication is a much larger component than the assembly
that follows. Consensus of our EAA Chapter is that the RV12 is likely
the same. I'm helping an XL builder with his wings
right now and can fully appreciate what was intended by the rule. The
kits do not do much for the education of a
builder if he does not read up on proper use of tools, cutters,
measuring and riveting processes.
Accident statistics will get worse without more builder focus and
attention to detail.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
do not archive
Paul Mulwitz wrote:
>
> 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 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 |
I need to correct my earlier post. I should have stated that the
Experimental category is a catch-all for any airplane that doesn't
meet the requirements of any other category. Standard and Special are
not categories of certification, they are types.
The S-LSA and the E-LSA both fall under the same TYPE of airworthiness
certificate (Special) but they do not fall under the same CATEGORY of
airworthiness certificate. The S-LSA falls under its own category, the
Light Sport Aircraft category [21.190]. The E-LSA falls under a subset
the Experimental category, Operating light-sport aircraft [21.191(i)].
Technically the E-LSA should be called the S-E-LSA but E-LSA is good
enough to get the point across. An amateur built aircraft also falls
under a subset of the Experimental category, Operating amateur built
aircraft [21.191(g)].
The fact is that E-LSA does not just apply to LSA kits built to a
conforming S-LSA by an amateur builder, it also includes former "fat
ultralights" that may have been factory built or amateur built and it
includes factory built S-LSA aircraft that have since been converted
to E-LSA. So AB-LSA wouldn't fit very well either. That's probably why
they put it under the catch-all Experimental category.
It is also my understanding that once the test time is flown off, an E-
LSA built from a conforming kit pretty much falls under the same rules
as an E-AB as far as maintenance, repair and modifications are
concerned.
On Jan 25, 2009, at 10:15 AM, jaybannist@cs.com wrote:
> Bryan,
>
> Not to be argumentative, but the FAA and I disagree. E-LSA is an
> acronym for "Experimental Light Sport Aircraft." (look it up)
>
> LSA or Light Sport Aricraft is a category that meets the LSA
> consensus standards, whether factory built or amateur built. To
> qualify as E-LSA, it must be built exactly like the production
> version LSA; no variance or Experimetation is allowed. Only the FAA
> would come up with a "Experimental" where no Experimenting is
> allowed. An "outsider" would probably have called it AB-LSA.
>
> E-AB is any amateur built experimental. My 601XL is registered E-
> AB, but it qualifies as an LSA. It can be flown by a Private Pilot
> as an experimental airplane, or by a Light Sport Pilot as an LSA.
> It can not qualify as E-LSA.
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
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 with you Larry,
I have found building a Zodiac from standard kit to be a highly
educational experience.
I'm not sure I agree about Van's kits being too well fabricated. I
have a friend who just completed an RV-9A. He built it mostly to the
furnished design. Still, he worked close to full time on it for 4 or
more years. He had to finish nearly every part and set the rivets
after line drilling and them and dimpling each rivet location. He
also had to deal with most of the same issues we Zenith builders must
to finish the plane after finishing the kit. I suppose it is true he
didn't have to do much measuring as the pre-drilled parts really do
fit together correctly. From my conversation with Van, I know he
would be very unhappy if he learned there was even a single pilot
hole drilled in the wrong place in his kit.
I am sure that scratch builders must learn a great deal more and do a
great deal more work to complete their planes. I don't have personal
experience with QBK builders, but even those have been approved by
the FAA as meeting the 51% rule.
As I recall, the latest issue with the 51% rule was not about how
well prepared the kit materials are. It was about getting too much
professional assistance building the airplane after acquiring the kit.
I recall some recent discussions with a list member who bought a
completed AMD XL rather than building one from any sort of
materials. I was surprised about his reluctance to modify the engine
cowling to get his temperatures under control. Perhaps I shouldn't
have been so surprised. This just points out the great divide
between airplane builders and airplane buyers. I'm not sure the FAA
has it just right with the 51% determination, but they certainly have
the right idea to distinguish between people who build planes and
ones who just fly them. I think their biggest concern is preventing
manufacturers from avoiding type certification by claiming their
product is a kit when it is really professionally built at the factory.
I am pretty sure the RV-12 kit is prepared in much the same style as
the other RV kits. There are significant differences since pulled
rivets are used instead of solid ones. Still I think the kit is
mostly drilled and bent parts rather than the bolt-on wings and
wheels you might expect on an E-LSA kit.
I personally have no interest in building an RV-12 or any other of
Van's offerings. I probably will build another plane when I have
completed all the testing and finishing on my XL. Perhaps I will
consider the E-LSA route after I have a firm grip on the limits that
path offers. (I think the Aeroprakt A-22 is really neat looking.) My
choice will depend more on the design features of the plane than on
the freedom to make major modifications.
Paul
XL getting close
do not archive
At 07:30 AM 1/25/2009, you wrote:
>The kits do not do much for the education of a
>builder if he does not read up on proper use of tools, cutters,
>measuring and riveting processes.
>Accident statistics will get worse without more builder focus and
>attention to detail.
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 |
Bryan,
I just know the FAA has a secret group who's mission is confusion and obfuscation.?
They sit around a big conference table and have wild brainstorming sessions.?
The most outrageous suggestions are incorporated into the regs. "Boy, this
one will REALLY throw them!"? I'm sure that is how they came up with the ubiquitous
and required "No one shall do so and so, unless...."? Oh well, it keeps
them busy, employed and amused.
Jay Bannister
-----Original Message-----
From: Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
Sent: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 10:03 am
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: RV9- Light Sport
?
I need to correct my earlier post. I should have stated that the Experimental category
is a catch-all for any airplane that doesn't meet the requirements of
any other category. Standard and Special are not categories of certification,
they are types.?
?
The S-LSA and the E-LSA both fall under the same TYPE of airworthiness certificate
(Special) but they do not fall under the same CATEGORY of airworthiness certificate.
The S-LSA falls under its own category, the Light Sport Aircraft category
[21.190]. The E-LSA falls under a subset the Experimental category, Operating
light-sport aircraft [21.191(i)]. Technically the E-LSA should be called
the S-E-LSA but E-LSA is good enough to get the point across. An amateur built
aircraft also falls under a subset of the Experimental category, Operating
amateur built aircraft [21.191(g)].?
?
The fact is that E-LSA does not just apply to LSA kits built to a conforming S-LSA
by an amateur builder, it also includes former "fat ultralights" that may
have been factory built or amateur built and it includes factory built S-LSA aircraft
that have since been converted to E-LSA. So AB-LSA wouldn't fit very well
either. That's probably why they put it under the catch-all Experimental category.?
?
It is also my understanding that once the test time is flown off, an E-LSA built
from a conforming kit pretty much falls under the same rules as an E-AB as far
as maintenance, repair and modifications are concerned.?
?
On Jan 25, 2009, at 10:15 AM, jaybannist@cs.com wrote:?
?
> Bryan,?
>?
> Not to be argumentative, but the FAA and I disagree. E-LSA is an > acronym for
"Experimental Light Sport Aircraft." (look it up)?
>?
> LSA or Light Sport Aricraft is a category that meets the LSA > consensus standards,
whether factory built or amateur built. To > qualify as E-LSA, it must
be built exactly like the production > version LSA; no variance or Experimetation
is allowed. Only the FAA > would come up with a "Experimental" where no Experimenting
is > allowed. An "outsider" would probably have called it AB-LSA.?
>?
> E-AB is any amateur built experimental. My 601XL is registered E-> AB, but it
qualifies as an LSA. It can be flown by a Private Pilot > as an experimental
airplane, or by a Light Sport Pilot as an LSA. > It can not qualify as E-LSA.?
>?
?
--Bryan Martin?
N61BM, CH 601 XL,?
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.?
?
?
?
?
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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: Aileron gussets |
Sabrina,
As you can see it would be just as easy to open a couple more rivets and sl
ide them underneath,
it would be easier to pick up the rivet holes that way. You may have a stre
ss point from the outboard end of the gusset where the wing skin bends down
to the spar cap when the aileron flexes the skin in a parallel plane to th
e cap. I think it is minimal though.
Al Rupp
Lake Placid
New York
-------------- Original message from "Sabrina" <chicago2paris@msn.com>: ---
-----------
>
> 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 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: Aileron gussets |
I have never seen a photo of a flex hinge aileron failure. I don't know of a single
wing fold involving a flex hinge XL.
Placing the flex hinge gussets under the skin will create an unnecessary distortion
in the geometry of the flex hinge. I have seen no testing of this new design.
I don't understand why AMD has issued a bulletin showing flex hinge ailerons when
they only install piano hinge ailerons.
As to the gussets for the piano hinge, the Zenith drawings show the gussets AFT
of the piano hinge's aft edge, not 'just aft' of the piano hinge centerline.
The initial flexing damage shown in Alex and "Mr. X's" photo occurred in an area
NOT reinforced by the Zenith gusset.
External placement allows for a thicker gusset and I see no reason not to replace
the inboard aft piano hinge aileron A4 attach rivet with an AS5.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226723#226723
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: RV9- Light Sport |
On the list of the three greatest lies in history: "I'm from the
government, I'm here to help you."
On Jan 25, 2009, at 11:26 AM, jaybannist@cs.com wrote:
> Bryan,
>
> I just know the FAA has a secret group who's mission is confusion
> and obfuscation. They sit around a big conference table and have
> wild brainstorming sessions. The most outrageous suggestions are
> incorporated into the regs. "Boy, this one will REALLY throw them!"
> I'm sure that is how they came up with the ubiquitous and required
> "No one shall do so and so, unless...." Oh well, it keeps them
> busy, employed and amused.
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV9- Light Sport |
When I got my 601XL registered as an E-LSA, it seemed very clear as to the advantages
at that time. It appeared that there was a loophole in the Fat Ultralight
ruling that allowed me to register the 601XL as an E-LSA with an auto-converted
Corvair engine and still get only a 5 hour fly-off for Phase I. That was
compared to the 40 hour fly-off for the E-AB. Also, there really wasn't an S-LSA
at the time with a Corvair engine... and still isn't. But there were examples
of flying 601XL's with Corvair engines and these were posted on Zenith's
website. That satisfied the conditions of the E-LSA rule for fat ultralights.
Even though I built the plane, I had to take the LSA Repairman Course (16 hour)
in order to perform the condition inspection, or I would need to get an A&P or
higher to perform the condition inspection. My understanding was that anyone
(including a child if I felt comfortable allowing it), could do repairs to the
aircraft.
The big advantage for going this route was that upon selling the aircraft, the
new owner could also obtain the LSA repairman certificate and could then perform
the condition inspection themselves. Since the sale of the E-AB aircraft would
either require the original owner to perform the inspection or an IA or A&P,
this seemed to be a big advantage.
And last, during the taking of the Repairman Course, I was told by the instructors
that any modifications to the aircraft that affected the W&B would require
another Phase I test flight and appropriate notations in the log book. We discussed
this at length since I hadn't gotten the wheel pants on yet and this type
of addition would, by the rules, require another Phase I test. I think the
instructor said that even a 1/2 lb addition to the Weight of the aircraft meant
that Phase I needed to be started over. As to whether I needed to contact
FSDO and advise them of this I will need to review but I think I only needed
to make a log entry similar to the first that resulted in moving to Phase II.
If anyone has updated info on this, let me know.
bryanmmartin wrote:
> I need to correct my earlier post. I should have stated that the
> Experimental category is a catch-all for any airplane that doesn't
> meet the requirements of any other category. Standard and Special are
> not categories of certification, they are types.
>
> The S-LSA and the E-LSA both fall under the same TYPE of airworthiness
> certificate (Special) but they do not fall under the same CATEGORY of
> airworthiness certificate. The S-LSA falls under its own category, the
> Light Sport Aircraft category [21.190]. The E-LSA falls under a subset
> the Experimental category, Operating light-sport aircraft [21.191(i)].
> Technically the E-LSA should be called the S-E-LSA but E-LSA is good
> enough to get the point across. An amateur built aircraft also falls
> under a subset of the Experimental category, Operating amateur built
> aircraft [21.191(g)].
>
> The fact is that E-LSA does not just apply to LSA kits built to a
> conforming S-LSA by an amateur builder, it also includes former "fat
> ultralights" that may have been factory built or amateur built and it
> includes factory built S-LSA aircraft that have since been converted
> to E-LSA. So AB-LSA wouldn't fit very well either. That's probably why
> they put it under the catch-all Experimental category.
>
> It is also my understanding that once the test time is flown off, an E-
> LSA built from a conforming kit pretty much falls under the same rules
> as an E-AB as far as maintenance, repair and modifications are
> concerned.
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2009, at 10:15 AM, jaybannist@cs.com wrote:
>
>
> > Bryan,
> >
> > Not to be argumentative, but the FAA and I disagree. E-LSA is an
> > acronym for "Experimental Light Sport Aircraft." (look it up)
> >
> > LSA or Light Sport Aricraft is a category that meets the LSA
> > consensus standards, whether factory built or amateur built. To
> > qualify as E-LSA, it must be built exactly like the production
> > version LSA; no variance or Experimetation is allowed. Only the FAA
> > would come up with a "Experimental" where no Experimenting is
> > allowed. An "outsider" would probably have called it AB-LSA.
> >
> > E-AB is any amateur built experimental. My 601XL is registered E-
> > AB, but it qualifies as an LSA. It can be flown by a Private Pilot
> > as an experimental airplane, or by a Light Sport Pilot as an LSA.
> > It can not qualify as E-LSA.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Bryan Martin
> N61BM, CH 601 XL,
> RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
--------
Scott Thatcher, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
601XL with Corvair, Registered as E-LSA
N601EL, EAA203 25 hours and climbing.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226773#226773
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 |
Scott,
Your aircraft is listed as "registered prior" light sport not "operating" light
sport. Compare the FAA web page for my tail number and yours. A child cannot
repair an "operating light sport", not even the child who declared it airworthy.
We already talked before at length about who can repair a "registered prior."
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226777#226777
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: | Web cam with chat |
The site I use to stream my building of the 601 has a chat also and I am
getting ready to finish the engine install tonight if anyone would care to come
and chat or just lurk a while.
Jeff
www.aerolite.camstreams.com
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
cemailfooterNO62)
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! --
|