 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SkySteve
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
Posts: 94
Location: Huntsville, UT
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:29 am Post subject: Re: Tricycle Kitfox II-Reminder |
 |
|
Dave,
Yes, I agree with all of your comments in your last post. In fact, I have to admit that I was just going along fat, dumb and happy with the entire upgrade on my plane until you suggested that the builder may have just written down a number (1050#). Until that I just assumed all the information I had was honest and accurate. I still do think the info is honest and accurate, but I will also back-check the figures now. Believe me, I really don't want to die trying to fly an aircraft that is unsafe due to possible intentional fraud!!
Yesterday I placed a phone call to the builder of my plane to ask about this very issue. He did not answer so I left a message requesting a call back. As of right now I have not received a phone call. I have also asked the current Kitfox Aircraft company for help with this issue. They know the builder, I do not.
Again, I must assume that the information I was given is correct, and when verified as such I plan to report back here that those involved have high integrity, honesty and have accomplished great things for the aircraft industry.
| | - The Matronics Kitfox-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List |
|
_________________
Steve Wilson
Huntsville, UT
Kitfox Model 1- 85DD
912A / 3 Blade Warp Drive
Convertible Nosewheel & Tailwheel |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rex Hefferan
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 147
Location: Olney Springs, Colorado USA "NOT a Kitpig"
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:18 am Post subject: Tricycle Kitfox II-Reminder |
|
|
Certainly Dan Denny had the resources to easily do exactly what he
documented. He could have rebuilt the entire aircraft (or had it done)
more than once on a whim. So it is fully believeable that N85DD is safe
at 1050 gross.
IMHO
--
Rex Hefferan
SE Colorado / K-II / 582-C / still waiting repairs
SkySteve wrote:
| Quote: |
Dave,
Yes, I agree with all of your comments in your last post. In fact, I have to admit that I was just going along fat, dumb and happy with the entire upgrade on my plane until you suggested that the builder may have just written down a number (1050#). Until that I just assumed all the information I had was honest and accurate. I still do think the info is honest and accurate, but I will also back-check the figures now. Believe me, I really don't want to die trying to fly an aircraft that is unsafe due to possible intentional fraud!!
Yesterday I placed a phone call to the builder of my plane to ask about this very issue. He did not answer so I left a message requesting a call back. As of right now I have not received a phone call. I have also asked the current Kitfox Aircraft company for help with this issue. They know the builder, I do not.
Again, I must assume that the information I was given is correct, and when verified as such I plan to report back here that those involved have high integrity, honesty and have accomplished great things for the aircraft industry.
--------
Steve Wilson
Huntsville, UT
Kitfox I-IV 85DD
912A / 3 Blade Warp Drive
Convertable Nosewheel & Tailwheel
|
| | - The Matronics Kitfox-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List |
|
_________________
Rex
N740GP - M2/582
Colorado |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Float Flyr
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:04 am Post subject: Tricycle Kitfox II-Reminder |
|
|
I think we are talking about two different things here. Financial liability or responsibility and your responsibility to yourself.
As the pilot the onus is on you to make sure your plane is safe, for the type of flying you will be doing. There are several reasons why your plane may have a much higher gross weigh on the data plate than other model I kitfoxes. It would be irresponsible if not libellous for me to express an opinion that Mr. D. was or is in any way party to a fraud.
As you mentioned when Mr D. designed the plane he also built in a margin of safety (+- 3G?) Because this is a prototype he may have decided to go for broke and register the plane for its design limits less a bit (?) for safety as you say. Then went ahead and registered the plane for every pound he thought it would be able to hold... rounded that figure up to the nearest fifty pounds and ended up with 1050lb. This would sound great to him.. it would allow him enough leeway to do all the flight testing he wanted. Admittedly in the production of the kit planes, through testing, he developed a lower gross weight and of course he wanted a wider margin of safety so eventually the production plane ends up getting set at 850lb. Probably a good choice because we haven’t been seeing Kitfoxes falling apart in the air. The prototype plane however, cannot be re-registered with a lower gross or MTOW and eventually you end up buying the very first of a line of successful planes... But could it be that it is the same plane???
On the other hand he may have decided that he wanted to use the plane to do aerobatic shows at the various fly-ins he attended. To this end he may have constructed that particular plane well reinforced for that task and the higher gross weight reflects that strengthening. A give away to this will be a much heavier tare weight.
Every homebuilder should recognize that is he is always liable for the plane. If you go buy a plane someone else built (we both did) and go flying someday even at say 5000 lb. over gross and the landing gear breaks off while taxiing off the ramp. Causing you/me a bump on the noggin and a broken prop and a few other items (We are very lucky) here is the clincher, the original manufacturer is still liable for what happens to the plane. That’s why Boeing is a Limited liability company. Too bad amateurs can’t build their planes through limited liability companies. Guys who build planes should realize this when they go to sell their baby. Even if they sell to a close friend who they know will always fly within safe parameters. What happens if your friend, the one who bought your pride and joy, decides he wants a bigger/smaller plane and sells the plane you built to a flight training unit...make that a poor flight training unit where some green as grass student spins it in from 10K ft. Guess who is liable for the accident? The school... There will be arguments. No... The builder. Even though he didn’t have anything to do with the flight in question. The builder may not even know the plane is in the ownership of a flight school. He didn’t even sell the plane to the flight school but he is still financially responsible (liable) for the plane. Just try to get insurance on a plane you built forty years ago an haven’t seen in thirty five years!
To add insult to injury let’s imagine the student pilot signed a waiver for the flight school absolving everyone from any responsibility in a possible crash. Guess what! His remaining relatives have every right to sue the builder for their loss. So much for waivers.
In my case I bought my plane third hand. It was built by a close friend of my family who has since died. Now I am the only person left to take on the responsibility of that plane. When/if I sell the plane that responsibility goes with it. This is one of the reasons that I preferred to buy my plane completed. I expect to finish flying before I turn seventy, if I die of a social disease at the age of a hundred and ten I not only will do very well for myself but I’d have to carry the burden of financial responsibility for the plane for an additional forty years. No thanks. A lot of builders know this and they sell the plane as parts, no registration or have a non-air force regulation bon fire.
All this financial responsibility stuff aside when you get into a plane as P.I.C. you owe it to your &ss to make sure the plane is safe to fly, the way you fly. What I’m getting at is simply because you have a prototype or close to prototype plane it is in your best interest to compare it to other Model I Kitfoxes and if you find your plane is for all intents and purposes the same as the others, then fly it as if it had their (850#) gross weight. Either way, Mr. Denney is still liable for any accident involving your plane if his name appears as the builder in the registration.
I’m just wondering out loud here. What if the registration / data plate on your machine says it was built by the Denney Aircraft Co. Is this now a certified airplane?? Does it now require annual inspections by an A&P?? Is Kitfox Aircraft LLC now liable for any accident involving your plane?? Are you legally allowed to make any changes to the plane?? How would that effect the operation of your two stroke engine? How would that affect your insurance?? Remember we live in a world where a woman dumb enough to drop scalding hot coffee on herself was able to successfully sue McDonalds for serving coffee... hot. Sheesh!! Hard to figure out which is dumber her or the court that made the award.
Noel
--
| | - The Matronics Kitfox-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List |
|
_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Float Flyr
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:33 am Post subject: Tricycle Kitfox II-Reminder |
|
|
I missed a point.
If you sell such a plane as a kit you are not the manufacturer of the plane. The builder is the manufacturer. In your case the kit provider is Denney Mfg. And the manufacturer may be Dan Denney (SEE my last post). Wearing his manufacturers building hat, he has the right to decide what the gross weight for that plane should be. There are however loose guidelines the builder can use and of course the FAA or licensing authority in your country can refuse to register a plane on any one of a number of grounds. I doubt they go over every calculation with a magnifying glass and unless something is really out of whack like a 500lb plane having a gross of 5000lb MTOW I suspect you can get just about anything through. You can go today and buy a kit, any kit, from Kitfox LLC, build it, call it a Hs-arc (Crash backwards)and register it for 1800lb. on the grounds that the plane, similar to a Kitfox model III, now has a lower G rating of +-2.
As long as it passes the final inspection and the rate of climb test you’re legal to fly. Where is the fraud? At the same time where is the safety?
Of course when you go to sell the (trusty?)Hs-arc, be prepared to carry the liability of it for the rest of your days.
Noel
--
| | - The Matronics Kitfox-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List |
|
_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guy Buchanan
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1204
Location: Ramona, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:04 am Post subject: Tricycle Kitfox II-Reminder |
|
|
At 08:06 PM 3/17/2008, you wrote:
| Quote: | Do you really mean what you just said? That the
builder/manufacturer has the RIGHT to put whatever weight rating on
the plane he wants? And that the otis is on the pilot to make sure
the plane is safe?
|
Unfortunately Noel's right. The builder has the LEGAL right
to put any gross weight he wants. (The Lancair guys increase their
gross all the time, sometimes by remarkable amounts.) Your
moral/ethical arguments stand, of course, but Denney, knowing how the
aircraft was designed/built/tested could well have put a 1050# gross
on an 850# gross airframe, and still been "safe".
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.
| | - The Matronics Kitfox-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List |
|
_________________
Guy Buchanan
Deceased K-IV 1200
A glider pilot too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Float Flyr
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:20 am Post subject: Tricycle Kitfox II-Reminder |
|
|
What Dave said...except for the affidavit... Inquiring minds want to
know... I can't believe I wrote that!
Do not archive this one.
Noel
--
| | - The Matronics Kitfox-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List |
|
_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
