From: KR-net users group digest[SMTP:kr-net@telelists.com] Sent: Monday, June 14, 1999 12:26 AM To: kr-net digest recipients Subject: kr-net digest: June 13, 1999 KR-net users group Digest for Sunday, June 13, 1999. 1. Re: Engine Info Wanted 2. 51 Percent 3. Re: Corvair engines 4. Young Eagles 5. KR-Net Knowledge Archive 6. Re: Young Eagles 7. Re: KR-Net Knowledge Archive 8. Re: KR-Net Knowledge Archive 9. Re: KR-Net Knowledge Archive 10. Re: KR-Net Knowledge Archive 11. Re: KR-Net Knowledge Archive 12. Re: 51 Percent 13. Re: KR-Net Knowledge Archive 14. Help!!! Control surface hinges 15. Re: Help!!! Control surface hinges 16. Re: Young Eagles 17. Young Eagles 18. Re: Young Eagles 19. Re: 51 Percent 20. Re: 51 Percent 21. Re: 51 Percent 22. Re: Engine Info Wanted 23. Re: KR-Net Knowledge Archive 24. Re: 51 Percent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Engine Info Wanted From: Malcolm Hartman Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 05:41:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Message-Number: 1 Bruce, I'll give you the little knowledge that I have on the subject. Aircraft engines and auto conversions such as the VW, have camshafts with the correct timing and duration for the engine to produce maximum HP and torque in the correct RPM range. The correct RPM range is one that will give good thrust but will not allow the prop tips from exceeding 0.8 mach. Once the prop tips exceed this speed, efficiency decreases dramatically because the prop tips develop most of the thrust. By exceeding this speed the prop tips are pretty much bitting on a vacuum. There is a formula for prop tip speed which I do not have handy right now, but I'll look for it later and post it if I find it. Other auto conversions use a propeller speed reduction unit (PSRU) because maximum HP and torque are developed in a higher RPM range. That range is unacceptable because of the reason given above and a reduction in RPM at the prop shaft is required to keep the prop in it's most efficient RPM. The April 1999 issue of Kitplanes has a listing in the Engine Beat department of engine and PSRU manufactures and suppliers. Malcolm --- Bruce Knorr wrote: > The only dumb question is one that is not asked!!!! > So here is my not dumb question. > > I have almost zero knowledge of the mechanics of the > beast but in reading > about auto to aircraft conversions I see some that > are direct drive and some > with various kinds of speed reduction units. Can > anyone recommend an info > source to get me up to speed on the hows and whys of > this subject? > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: > n926fw@yahoo.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > > _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: 51 Percent From: Ron Freiberger Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 10:23:28 -0500 X-Message-Number: 2 I purchased a wrecked Jodel D-11 and did a major rebuild to put it back in service. Even though I had built two prior airplanes, and had functioned as an EAA Designee, and been appointed b the FAA to do precover inspections, I did not meet the 51% rule on this aircraft.I had to hire an A&P to do the inspection. Ol' John was critical of several points I'd overlooked or ignored. There is no real loss in doing this process with an honest inspector; we can all find something with another viewpoint. There is no rule that says you cannot have the aircraft in 100% shape and work with the A&P TO MAKE REPAIRS UNDER HIS SUPERVISION. It's still a good way to fly a "special" airplane. Ron Freiberger Ft Myers, enroute to Kokomo, In for the summer ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Corvair engines From: larryshu@pacbell.net Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 08:58:47 -0700 X-Message-Number: 3 Be sure and pick up a copy of Corvair Aircraft Conversions while you are there. Larry marmet wrote: > Yes it seems kind of quiet today... > JC, Quebec, Canada > > Oscar Zuniga wrote: > > > Hello, Vairheads- > > > > One of you kind netters put me in touch with Corvair Underground, which just > > happens to be up the road from me in Forest Grove, Oregon. I will be > > talking with them next week (they have a shop as well as a parts house > > specializing in Corvairs). I will report back on my findings as far as > > availability of engines here in the Northwest, tips on rebuilding, etc.- but > > for now they have the same comments as everybody else has about how reliable > > and available the Corvair engines are. > > > > And hey- what happened to my KRNet digest? I came in for my morning fix and > > 'no joy'. Was there no net traffic Thursday? ;o) > > > > Oscar Zuniga > > Medford, Oregon > > website at http://www.geocities.com/Pipeline/Dropzone/5610/ > > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: marmet2@videotron.ca > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: LarryShu@PacBell.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Young Eagles From: John Roffey Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 12:51:44 -0500 X-Message-Number: 4 Glad to hear Dana flew Young Eagles on National Young Eagle Day. I'm the Young Eagle coordinator here at chapter 979 and we had a steam bath day for 78 kids. The temp was 93 the humidity was 100% and no one had an air conditioned plane. Anyone fly any Young Eagles in their KR? John jeroffey@tir.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: KR-Net Knowledge Archive From: "Walter Lounsbery" Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 12:02:09 -0500 X-Message-Number: 5 Hi, I am a little late replying to the original thread, but I hope someone is still interested in the ideas of a few days ago. I know that I would like to see an accessible archive of the tremendous knowledge that zips by on the daily archive. And since I am a computer consultant, I feel that I can productively volunteer to help get the job done. My last major website was the Utility Conservation Tracking System, which tracks energy and utility use by over 30,000 United States Postal Service facilities. It is also the basis for a pilot program for online bill approval by Postmasters, acting as a hub for a tremendous volume of data. I am currently working at Lockheed Tactical Aircraft Systems, automating the transfer of standardized engineering analysis between staffs. I would be happy to work on something a bit smaller, something I could show to people for once :-) I would suggest initially hosting the system at my website, which has about 60 Mbyte free at this time (it's been sorely neglected, I'm afraid). I would set up the database and access pages so that the initial information would be culled from the normal list email, so that there will be no changes to the list as it works now. We can try out different features and ways to break the system, and it should be easy to scale it as needed to support any other arrangement people want. Interested? Let me know either on the list or direct. I will summarize what I hear in a later message (even if other ideas are judged better!). At any rate, someone is going to save $50... Walter Lounsbery POB 54266 Hurst, TX 76054 (817) 285-8520 Walt@Lounsbery.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Young Eagles From: DClarke351@aol.com Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 13:14:25 EDT X-Message-Number: 6 No but I flew some this morning in an Air Coupe. We had about 40 of the little buggers. We and they all enjoyed it. Don ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: KR-Net Knowledge Archive From: "Wayne DeLisle Sr." Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 14:20:06 -0400 X-Message-Number: 7 At 12:02 PM 6/13/99 -0500, you wrote: >Hi, > >I am a little late replying to the original thread, but I hope someone is >still interested in the ideas of a few days ago. I know that I would like -snip- >I would suggest initially hosting the system at my website, which has about >60 Mbyte free at this time (it's been sorely neglected, I'm afraid). I >would set up the database and access pages so that the initial information >would be culled from the normal list email, so that there will be no changes >to the list as it works now. We can try out different features and ways to >break the system, and it should be easy to scale it as needed to support any >other arrangement people want. > >Interested? Let me know either on the list or direct. I will summarize >what I hear in a later message (even if other ideas are judged better!). At >any rate, someone is going to save $50... > >Walter Lounsbery Hello Walter, Great idea. I have access to a server connected to a T-1 link that has 7gigs of free space at the moment. I'm sure we can spare 2-3 hundred megs. There will be a small traffic charged based on the number of megs of bandwidth used. The cost is quite small, considering the performance. If this will help, I'll contact my son and see what he says. Let me know, WD --------------------------------------------------------- Wayne DeLisle Sr. Charlotte, North Carolina USA mailto:dodger@accessnode.net (new address) mailto:dodger@coincidental.net (old address) http://accessnode.net/~dodger --------------------------------------------------------- Project Viking "Daring to venture forward from the Dark Ages" online FAQ/manual at http://www.evansville.net/~boeing/project_viking ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: KR-Net Knowledge Archive From: "Rick Hubka" Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 12:22:52 -0600 X-Message-Number: 8 Hi Walter Are you a KR builder? I don't recall & can't find a post to KRNet from you. I'm also a computer consultant but with less WWW exposure and only enough spare time to spend 5 years to build my KR-2S. Mark's idea is great and your offer to do it cheap is also great. But there has been so little response to this idea I am beginning to wonder if there is opposition as in KISS(Keep It Simple Stupid) the newsgroup and leave it the way it is? Maybe everyone would like to see it to those who know how? I am only a 3 month member myself. and have started my site at www.hubka.com. Can we get some more opinions on Mark L's suggestion to have an upscale/searchable web facility. ----- Original Message ----- From: Walter Lounsbery To: KR-net users group Sent: Sunday, June 13, 1999 11:02 AM Subject: [kr-net] KR-Net Knowledge Archive > Hi, > > I am a little late replying to the original thread, but I hope someone is > still interested in the ideas of a few days ago. I know that I would like > to see an accessible archive of the tremendous knowledge that zips by on the > daily archive. And since I am a computer consultant, I feel that I can > productively volunteer to help get the job done. My last major website was > the Utility Conservation Tracking System, which tracks energy and utility > use by over 30,000 United States Postal Service facilities. It is also the > basis for a pilot program for online bill approval by Postmasters, acting as > a hub for a tremendous volume of data. I am currently working at Lockheed > Tactical Aircraft Systems, automating the transfer of standardized > engineering analysis between staffs. I would be happy to work on something > a bit smaller, something I could show to people for once :-) > > I would suggest initially hosting the system at my website, which has about > 60 Mbyte free at this time (it's been sorely neglected, I'm afraid). I > would set up the database and access pages so that the initial information > would be culled from the normal list email, so that there will be no changes > to the list as it works now. We can try out different features and ways to > break the system, and it should be easy to scale it as needed to support any > other arrangement people want. > > Interested? Let me know either on the list or direct. I will summarize > what I hear in a later message (even if other ideas are judged better!). At > any rate, someone is going to save $50... > > Walter Lounsbery > POB 54266 > Hurst, TX 76054 > (817) 285-8520 > Walt@Lounsbery.com > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: rick@hubka.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: KR-Net Knowledge Archive From: Steven Eberhart Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 14:17:17 -0500 (CDT) X-Message-Number: 9 On Sun, 13 Jun 1999, Rick Hubka wrote: > Hi Walter [snip] > Can we get some more opinions on Mark L's suggestion to have an > upscale/searchable web facility. > I didn't want to get a me too thread started but I thought it was/is a great idea. Anything that we can do to make the collective experiences of the KRnet members available to all has to be a BIG plus. Steve Eberhart ------------------------------------- http://www.newtech.com/nlf ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: KR-Net Knowledge Archive From: "Mark Langford" Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 15:27:56 -0500 X-Message-Number: 10 > Can we get some more opinions on Mark L's suggestion to have an > upscale/searchable web facility. Obviously, I think it's a great idea, and can't see the harm. If it turns out anything like the www.a4.org site, there will be a wealth of infomation sitting at your fingertips. Just key in "strobes", "magneto", "hub", or "horse", and you'll turn up 40 or 50 messages dealing with exactly what you want to know. Imagine 50 opinions on a matter instantly, rather than throwing it out and waiting for days. Also, you'll get several different threads, where all sides are bound to be covered, depending on who asked the question and who all responded. Lets do it, and if Walter needs more disk space, I'll be we can take up a quick collection to buy him a new disk if he needs it. Back to the basement. I'm ironing out the aileron mechanism today... Mark Langford, Huntsville, Alabama mailto:langford@hiwaay.net see KR2S project N56ML at http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: KR-Net Knowledge Archive From: Kimball Anderson Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 18:19:54 -0400 X-Message-Number: 11 >> Can we get some more opinions on Mark L's suggestion to have an >> upscale/searchable web facility. Great idea. Go for it. >if Walter needs more disk >space, I'll be we can take up a quick collection >to buy him a new disk if he needs it. Sounds like a good idea. I'd certainly be willing to contribute. Kimball Anderson isleno@hargray.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: 51 Percent From: Michael Taglieri Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 16:09:18 -0400 X-Message-Number: 12 >Ol' John was critical of several points I'd overlooked or ignored. There is >no real loss in doing this process with an honest inspector; we can all find >something with another viewpoint. > >There is no rule that says you cannot have the aircraft in 100% shape and >work with the A&P TO MAKE REPAIRS UNDER HIS SUPERVISION. Actually, you don't even need to do that. Even if you did not build the airplane, you are allowed to do all the repairs on a homebuilt plane and they do not have to be under an A&P's supervision. The only thing you can't do if you didn't build the plane is the annual inspection. Mike Taglieri _____________________________________________ "Fundamentally the marksman aims at himself." - from Zen And the Art of Archery ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: KR-Net Knowledge Archive From: JEHayward@aol.com Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 20:43:23 EDT X-Message-Number: 13 In a message dated 6/13/99 2:34:43 PM Mountain Daylight Time, langford@hiwaay.net writes: << Just key in "strobes", "magneto", "hub", or "horse", and you'll turn up 40 or 50 messages dealing with exactly what you want to know. Imagine 50 opinions on a matter instantly, rather than throwing it out and waiting for days. >> I've got around 180 to 190 "catagories" most with multiple entries from various people over the past year and a half or so. I'd be quite happy to contribute a copy of these for whatever use anyone might deem useful. Jim Hayward Rapid City, SD ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Help!!! Control surface hinges From: RFG842@aol.com Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 21:23:08 EDT X-Message-Number: 14 Last fall I glassed my rudder after fitting it to the fin and then set it aside for the winter. I just tried to reinstall the rudder and find the middle hinge about 3/16 out of line. Used R&R hinges epoxed to the spar. Can force to fit but binds badly and is not acceptable. Any fix other than building a new rudder???? Thanks, Bob ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Help!!! Control surface hinges From: Warron Gray Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:01:31 -0400 X-Message-Number: 15 Try drilling for oilite bearings but that will be difficult or try a heat gun to soften epoxy glass and try to unwarp the sucker Good luck RFG842@aol.com wrote: > Last fall I glassed my rudder after fitting it to the fin and then set it > aside for the winter. I just tried to reinstall the rudder and find the > middle hinge about 3/16 out of line. Used R&R hinges epoxed to the spar. > > Can force to fit but binds badly and is not acceptable. > > Any fix other than building a new rudder???? > > Thanks, Bob > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: WARRONG@BELLSOUTH.NET > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Young Eagles From: KRkip@aol.com Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:48:50 EDT X-Message-Number: 16 In a message dated 6/13/99 12:53:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jeroffey@tir.com writes: << Anyone fly any Young Eagles in their KR? John >> We flew 63 young eagles out of our local airport and i flew 8 in my KR and all loved it i even had one little girl that wanted to go 3 times. The local tv station covered it and even got some coverage of my KR flying and they interviewed one of my passngeres for the local news about how it was to fly in a homebuilt airplane. He said it was real cool and he wanted to go again if his mother would let him. Kip ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Young Eagles From: John Bryhan Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 21:09:54 -0600 X-Message-Number: 17 Chapter 691 (combined Los Alamos and Santa Fe) flew 75 official Eaglets there were another 15 or so un-official kids. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Young Eagles From: "w.g. kirkland" Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 23:25:45 -0400 X-Message-Number: 18 no krs but we flew 18 in a variety of a/c. That adds to the 15 grade eights I'll fly before the end of the school year. W.G. KIRKLAND kirkland@vianet.on.ca ---------- > From: John Roffey > To: KR-net users group > Subject: [kr-net] Young Eagles > Date: Sunday, June 13, 1999 1:51 PM > > Glad to hear Dana flew Young Eagles on National Young Eagle Day. I'm the > Young Eagle coordinator here at chapter 979 and we had a steam bath day > for 78 kids. The temp was 93 the humidity was 100% and no one had an air > conditioned plane. > Anyone fly any Young Eagles in their KR? > John > jeroffey@tir.com > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: kirkland@vianet.on.ca > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: 51 Percent From: "Tom Andersen" Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 23:58:25 -0400 X-Message-Number: 19 Here's my understanding of the process, it'll be interesting to see if it all passes through the collective KR mindmeld smoothly: Once an experimental aircraft receives it's airworthiness certificate, it has to be treated the same as a type certified aircraft when it comes to maintenance and repairs, meaning either an A&P is required to do the work, or the person with the repairman's certificate for that specific N-number is required to do that work. Either one needs to sign off in the logbook. If you can convince an A&P to just supervise your hands in order to save you some money, then more power to ya, but knowing what I know and knowing what many experienced people don't know, I would not take that chance with my A&P license. Maybe you were referring to the maintenance items which can be done by the pilot such as wheel bearings repack, oil addition, etc.? Not only that, but even if you are an A&P or have the Amateur Builder's Repairman's Certificate, after the airworthiness certificate is given, you cannot make major modifications (such as different engine or wings), to an amateur-built experimental without FAA approval, and may possibly require another airworthiness inspection and fly-off period. There are possible legal implications of making unauthorized changes, such as making your airworthiness certificate invalid, leading to loss of insurance coverage should that fact come to light at a later date. >From what I've seen and heard, to get the Amateur Builder's Repairman's Certificate it is not necessary to PROVE that you have built 51% of a KR aircraft since it's on the list of 51% kits approved by the FAA. Only if they know you didn't build 51% of a KR will they challenge your application. How they would do that and make it stick is unknown to me, but I can think of a few creative things they would try. It's all a mail-order procedure. The DAR or FAA Inspector does not quiz you for your Amateur Builder's Repairman's Certificate at the time of Airworthiness Inspection, they only look for obvious unairworthy conditions on the airframe. To get the ABRC you sign an affadavit to the effect that you built the major portion of the plane and fill out application form O4-R0065, and send the two to Oklahoma City FAA HQ. The FAA considers the $10,000 fine for falsifying records, which includes submitting a false affadavit, to be sufficient deterrent, (plus the possible liability you may incur if it comes to light at a later date). The definition of "major portion" known unofficially as 51%, is not clearly defined. Some people have sucessfully argued that their assembly time for an ultralight kit exceeded the time it took the manufacturer of the kit to make the kit parts, and so it received an N-number. Is it 51% of the parts count, or 51% of the number of tasks, or 51% of the airframe weight, or 51% of the volume of the airframe, or 51% of the mass, or 51% of the work as would be performed by a reasonably competent homebuilder, or 51% of the work done by an A&P, or 51% of the framing alone, not including sanding and painting the exterior. Maybe if you built your own auto engine conversion and put it on a sanded but not primed airframe you might have 51% by time. What will definitely not fly with the FAA is buying an airframe that has previously been certified by someone else, and stripping it down then recertifying it under your name with a new paint job. You could probably use another plane's wings, tail, engine, landing gear, and hardware, but if that boat had an N-number you are not getting the repairman's certificate for that boat. You can probably argue that any KR project without final primer and control rigging could pass as 49% complete since composite aircraft are generally considered only 1/3 done after you frame it up. Ask any builder who's completed a KR! Firewall forward is a lot of work even if you only bolt on an 0-200 with a prefab mount. What will also not fly is having a professional shop build an entire plane for you. Many shops specialize in helping you COMPLETE your partially-completed project and this is still a gray area since it's hard to say if you brought a 51% complete project to them or whether it was 35%. If you bring them a KR with the boat and turtledeck done, tail surfaces and wings formed and glassed but not sanded, and flight controls rigged, you probably wouldn't have a problem since from pictures it would look like an airplane. There's a builder's joke that when you get the plane looking like a plane you're about 49-51% done, with about 90% to go:-) For sure, framing it up is not 90% done. The countless hours it takes an amateur to complete all the systems, panel, and FWF, is a surprise for many builders. You could argue the other way when buying a project in this stage. I would take pictures of it disassembled, buy it with everything unbolted that can be unbolted, and carefully document that your time in it from that point is more than 51% of what RR estimates it takes to build a KR. The FAA's intent with all this is to insure that you know how it was built and how everything should be arranged or built, and that you could rebuild any portion of it safely, or re-rig it, or do any of the other tasks an A&P would know how to do for YOUR PLANE. Now the A&P knows how to do it for all planes, according to the FAA, because you passed their tests for all planes (especially 1940's radial engines). (I wonder how the FAA would expect the A&P to know the compression values for a experimental turbo EA-81 Subaru conversion with modifications to the pistons and heads?) -Tom Andersen A&P Mechanic -----Original Message----- From: Michael Taglieri To: KR-net users group Cc: kr-net@telelists.com Date: Sunday, June 13, 1999 7:35 PM Subject: [kr-net] Re: 51 Percent >>Ol' John was critical of several points I'd overlooked or ignored. >There is >>no real loss in doing this process with an honest inspector; we can all >find >>something with another viewpoint. >> >>There is no rule that says you cannot have the aircraft in 100% shape >and >>work with the A&P TO MAKE REPAIRS UNDER HIS SUPERVISION. > >Actually, you don't even need to do that. Even if you did not build the >airplane, you are allowed to do all the repairs on a homebuilt plane and >they do not have to be under an A&P's supervision. The only thing you >can't do if you didn't build the plane is the annual inspection. > >Mike Taglieri >_____________________________________________ > >"Fundamentally the marksman aims at himself." > - from Zen And the Art of Archery > >___________________________________________________________________ >Get the Internet just the way you want it. >Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! >Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. > >--- >You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: tomkr2s@t-three.com >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: 51 Percent From: boggyd@webtv.net (D Bogdan) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 23:24:34 -0500 (CDT) X-Message-Number: 20 As I understand it, an A & P is required to conform to several items: have all necessary tools to do the repair, have the necessary manuals to do the repair, and to have previously done the repair or observed same... So whether your KR is powered by a Soob Turbo or your equally handy Pratt & Whitney Wasp the A & P must have experience with that power plant and have the manuals for that power plant and must have all the necessary tools to complete the repairs. Regards, DJ Milwaukee They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safty deserve neither... Historical Review of Pennsylvania: Benjamin Franklin ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: 51 Percent From: Michael Taglieri Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 01:10:26 -0400 X-Message-Number: 21 No offense meant, but the post below is not correct. An experimental aircraft is not covered AT ALL by Part 43, which is the section setting all the rules that restrict owners of an aircraft from doing major maintenance: Sec. 43.1 (a) "Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part prescribes rules governing the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration. . . ." Sec. 43.1 (b) "This part does not apply to any aircraft for which an experimental airworthiness certificate has been issued, unless a different kind of airworthiness certificate had previously been issued for that aircraft." Therefore, the ONLY thing the buyer of an experimental aircraft can't do himself is the annual, which must be done by the builder or by an A&P (but he doesn't have to be an IA). I imagine the "unless..." is for certified aircraft that have been moved into the experimental category because a manufacturer is testing a special engine in them, etc., but these aren't experimental-homebuilt. The post below is correct that if you make a major change, you may have to do another 40-hours of test flying. Mike Taglieri _____________________________________________ "Fundamentally the marksman aims at himself." - from Zen And the Art of Archery >Here's my understanding of the process, it'll be interesting to see if it >all passes through the collective KR mindmeld smoothly: > >Once an experimental aircraft receives it's airworthiness certificate, it >has to be treated the same as a type certified aircraft when it comes to >maintenance and repairs, meaning either an A&P is required to do the work, >or the person with the repairman's certificate for that specific N-number is >required to do that work. Either one needs to sign off in the logbook.... ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Engine Info Wanted From: Ross Youngblood Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:41:14 -0700 X-Message-Number: 22 Bruce, Most engines develop peak power at hi RPM (say 4000 RPM). At these speeds, the tips of your propellor go supersonic, making terrible noise, and wiping out all efficiency at developing thrust. (I assume the shock wave does a number on the efficiency). So.. most engines have a reduction if they need to run at 4000 RPM so the prop turns at say 2000 rpm. On the direct drive VW, you will find that VW propellors are smaller in diamater than other engines. This is the reason. -- Regards Ross Bruce Knorr wrote: > > The only dumb question is one that is not asked!!!! > So here is my not dumb question. > > I have almost zero knowledge of the mechanics of the beast but in reading > about auto to aircraft conversions I see some that are direct drive and some > with various kinds of speed reduction units. Can anyone recommend an info > source to get me up to speed on the hows and whys of this subject? > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: rossy@teleport.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: KR-Net Knowledge Archive From: Ross Youngblood Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:44:03 -0700 X-Message-Number: 23 Walter, If you write the code in 'C' or as a perl script, we can probably mirror the site here at krnet.org. Or at least we can plant the links to your site once you have somthing going. If you need anything to get started let me know. -- Regards Ross Youngblood rossy@teleport.com krnet@krnet.org KRNET admin Walter Lounsbery wrote: > > Hi, > > I am a little late replying to the original thread, but I hope someone is > still interested in the ideas of a few days ago. I know that I would like > to see an accessible archive of the tremendous knowledge that zips by on the > daily archive. And since I am a computer consultant, I feel that I can > productively volunteer to help get the job done. My last major website was > the Utility Conservation Tracking System, which tracks energy and utility > use by over 30,000 United States Postal Service facilities. It is also the > basis for a pilot program for online bill approval by Postmasters, acting as > a hub for a tremendous volume of data. I am currently working at Lockheed > Tactical Aircraft Systems, automating the transfer of standardized > engineering analysis between staffs. I would be happy to work on something > a bit smaller, something I could show to people for once :-) > > I would suggest initially hosting the system at my website, which has about > 60 Mbyte free at this time (it's been sorely neglected, I'm afraid). I > would set up the database and access pages so that the initial information > would be culled from the normal list email, so that there will be no changes > to the list as it works now. We can try out different features and ways to > break the system, and it should be easy to scale it as needed to support any > other arrangement people want. > > Interested? Let me know either on the list or direct. I will summarize > what I hear in a later message (even if other ideas are judged better!). At > any rate, someone is going to save $50... > > Walter Lounsbery > POB 54266 > Hurst, TX 76054 > (817) 285-8520 > Walt@Lounsbery.com > > --- > You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: rossy@teleport.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: 51 Percent From: Mike Mims Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 23:12:51 -0700 X-Message-Number: 24 Tom Andersen wrote: > > Here's my understanding of the process, it'll be interesting to see if it > all passes through the collective KR mindmeld smoothly: > > Once an experimental aircraft receives it's airworthiness certificate, it > has to be treated the same as a type certified aircraft when it comes to > maintenance and repairs, meaning either an A&P is required to do the work, > or the person with the repairman's certificate for that specific N-number is > required to do that work. Either one needs to sign off in the logbook. You only need a A&P to sign off your annual inspection, period, that all. You can do all the work and or maintenance for the life of the airplane. You can even do major modifications but those would need to be signed off by an inspector for a re-certification. Now that is how it works according to the FARs but the insurance companies tend to use this to their benefit if and when you have an accident. If the airplane is found to be in any way shape or form different than when it received its original airworthiness certificate then they will use it as leverage against you and or anyone else who has a claim. The whole insurance thing is kinda new for me as no one (private individuals) has insurance where I used to fly. I had a hard time believing I would HAVE to have it just to land at my airport. -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Micheal Mims Filling and Sanding again! http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4136/ http://members.home.com/mikemims/ Aliso Viejo CA ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ --- END OF DIGEST --- You are currently subscribed to kr-net as: johnbou@timberline.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-kr-net-17800J@telelists.com