 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rvhad(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 8:30 am Post subject: Viking Engine |
 |
|
my Subaru engine added at least 3-4 years to the build because of all the shenanigan's Jan pulls. get used to the delays!
From: Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Mon, July 11, 2011 8:28:11 PM
Subject: RE: Viking Engine
It's interesting to note that on the Viking engine website here; http://tinyurl.com/69whowh there are photographs of engines on the shipping dock (or at least crates purporting to be engines) and it says that next weeks shipments go to Daniel Stanton, Christopher Leng, Glen Sterling, Richard Monroe and Burton Harger .
I understand frustration, and certainly no customer deserves to be hung up on, but is there a chance that this dissatisfaction could be premature??
Don't know of course when that page was updated and whether or not it is current but some effort to deliver seems to be being made.
Bob McC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of dj45
> Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 8:23 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Viking Engine
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "dj45" <daniel-stanton1(at)comcast.net>
>
> Anyone considering a Viking engine please be advised, I have had $4,300 deposit
> since Oct 28th and payment in full since May 8th and still haven't seen my engine yet.
> I called Jan today and he hung up on me and all I got after that was voice mail.
> I don't think that I would be ordering an engine from him.
>
> --------
> Do not archive
>
> Dan Stanton
> N801S CH 801
> N226BS CH701
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=345736#345736
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _-
> ===
> =======
> style='mso-spacerun:yes'> - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
>
[b]> style='mso-spacerun:yes'> --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List[/b]
[b]>
[b]> _-[/b]
[b]> ===
> =======
> style='mso-spacerun:yes'> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
>
[b]> style='mso-spacerun:yes'> --> http://forums.matronics.com[/b]
[b]>
[b]> _-[/b]
[b]> ===
> =======
> style='mso-spacerun:yes'> - List Contribution Web Site -
> style='mso-spacerun:yes'> Thank you for your generous support!
> style='mso-spacerun:yes'> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> style='mso-spacerun:yes'> --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> _-
> ===
> =======
>
>
[/b][/b][/b][/b]
[b][b][b] [/b][/b][/b][/b]
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ainut(at)knology.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:33 am Post subject: Viking Engine |
|
|
| Quote: |
There are service stations around that sell pure gas; I believe that
|
mogas at airports has to be non-ethanol. DO not fily with ethanol, esp
above 10,000 feet. IIRC, the alcohol is really bad for flying due to
separation and it's bad for airplane systems due to a sort of
corrosiveness. But, that is all from memory.
David M.
[quote] To All,
The ability to burn any fuel is tied to the limitations of the
airplane, whether certificated or experimental. In the case of a
certificated airplane, to change the type of fuel used in the
airplane, an STC would be required. In the experimental, it would
most likely require going back into Phase 1.
In certificated airplanes, the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS)
shows the fuel that is allowed for use. In order to use any other
fuel, and maintain the airworthiness of the airplane, an STC would be
required. The FAA doesn't dictate what fuel can be used, but rather
the applicant shows they can meet the certification requirements using
a fuel, or fuels, and then that is what is placed on the TCDS. The
fuel itself has to have a specification. There's a whole separate
argument about fuel specifications, but I will not go into that here.
To use any fuel other than what is on the TCDS requires an STC. Note:
an STC is for someone who isn't the type design holder
(manufacturer). The type design holder can amend their TCDS to show
additional fuels, but the process for fuel approval is identical to
the STC.
I have not been involved with alternate fuel testing on experimental
airplanes, but it sounds analogous to the use of an alternate
powerplant. I would imagine there would be a 40 hour Phase 1 that
would have to be accomplished prior to being able to operate beyond
the Phase 1 operating area.
I know this subject is not electric in nature, but I was trying to
help and provide some clarification based upon the discussion.
Pete Rouse
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
*Mike Welch
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:33 AM
*To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
*Subject:* RE: Re: Viking Engine
Guys,
To augment Ben's point, even if you do have a certified plane, you
still don't have the
'right' to burn auto gas as the plane comes out of the factory, do
you? From my
experience, if you want to use auto gas in a certified airplane, you
have to PAY for
an 'STC'.
Maybe newer aircraft have auto gas approved engines from the
factory. I don't know.
I never owned a newer certified plane, but the older ones required the
STC, and they
weren't free.
Mike Welch
>That's incorrect. If you fly an experimental then you can burn
anything you want in it, auto engine or not. And since we are talking
about >Viking engines, considering they CANNOT be installed in a
Luscombe, I don't really see your point.
>do not archive
>Ben Haas
>N801BH
>www.haaspowerair.com
--------
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bicyclop(at)pacbell.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:17 am Post subject: Viking Engine |
|
|
Most Ex, AB operating limitations specify a minimum 5 hour phase 1 test flight period after a major alteration. They also usually spec that the local FSDO must be notified in advance and is in concurrence with your proposed test flight area and that a logbook entry be made to return the aircraft to phase 2. The usual method of compliance is to make an appointment and walk in with two copies of a letter which states what you intend to do and re-iterates your already assigned phase 1 area. You get the duty officer to sign it and they keep a copy.
The definition of what constitutes a major alteration is contained in part 43, appendix A, sec A43.1.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgFAR.nsf/0/AC9BED30F1D032B9852566AB006BC89C?OpenDocument
(2)(vi) Conversions of any sort for the purpose of using fuel of a rating or grade other than that listed in the engine specifications.
If, on the other hand, you had test flown the aircraft with alternative fuel during the original phase 1 period, and made a logbook entry to that effect, you wouldn't have to do anything further.
Read your own oplims to make sure that they are worded this way and that you agree with my interpretation.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
On 7/12/2011 9:23 AM, Pete wrote: [quote] .hmmessage P { PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px } BODY.hmmessage { FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; FONT-SIZE: 10pt } To All,
The ability to burn any fuel is tied to the limitations of the airplane, whether certificated or experimental. In the case of a certificated airplane, to change the type of fuel used in the airplane, an STC would be required. In the experimental, it would most likely require going back into Phase 1.
In certificated airplanes, the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) shows the fuel that is allowed for use. In order to use any other fuel, and maintain the airworthiness of the airplane, an STC would be required. The FAA doesn't dictate what fuel can be used, but rather the applicant shows they can meet the certification requirements using a fuel, or fuels, and then that is what is placed on the TCDS. The fuel itself has to have a specification. There's a whole separate argument about fuel specifications, but I will not go into that here. To use any fuel other than what is on the TCDS requires an STC. Note: an STC is for someone who isn't the type design holder (manufacturer). The type design holder can amend their TCDS to show additional fuels, but the process for fuel approval is identical to the STC.
I have not been involved with alternate fuel testing on experimental airplanes, but it sounds analogous to the use of an alternate powerplant. I would imagine there would be a 40 hour Phase 1 that would have to be accomplished prior to being able to operate beyond the Phase 1 operating area.
I know this subject is not electric in nature, but I was trying to help and provide some clarification based upon the discussion.
Pete Rouse
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Mike Welch
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:33 AM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com (aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: RE: Re: Viking Engine
Guys,
To augment Ben's point, even if you do have a certified plane, you still don't have the
'right' to burn auto gas as the plane comes out of the factory, do you? From my
experience, if you want to use auto gas in a certified airplane, you have to PAY for
an 'STC'.
Maybe newer aircraft have auto gas approved engines from the factory. I don't know.
I never owned a newer certified plane, but the older ones required the STC, and they
weren't free.
Mike Welch
>That's incorrect. If you fly an experimental then you can burn anything you want in it, auto engine or not. And since we are talking about >Viking engines, considering they CANNOT be installed in a Luscombe, I don't really see your point.
>do not archive
>Ben Haas
>N801BH
>www.haaspowerair.com
--------
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ainut(at)knology.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:05 pm Post subject: Viking Engine |
|
|
AIUI, once you have your papers, any subsequent major changes do not
require notification of anyone, just a log entry and 5 hours of phase 1
flying, then another log entry. Repeat as necessary.
David M.
[quote] Most Ex, AB operating limitations specify a minimum 5 hour phase 1
test flight period after a major alteration. They also usually spec
that the local FSDO must be notified in advance and is in concurrence
with your proposed test flight area and that a logbook entry be made
to return the aircraft to phase 2. The usual method of compliance is
to make an appointment and walk in with two copies of a letter which
states what you intend to do and re-iterates your already assigned
phase 1 area. You get the duty officer to sign it and they keep a copy.
The definition of what constitutes a major alteration is contained in
part 43, appendix A, sec A43.1.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgFAR.nsf/0/AC9BED30F1D032B9852566AB006BC89C?OpenDocument
(2)(vi) Conversions of any sort for the purpose of using fuel of a
rating or grade other than that listed in the engine specifications.
If, on the other hand, you had test flown the aircraft with
alternative fuel during the original phase 1 period, and made a
logbook entry to that effect, you wouldn't have to do anything further.
Read your own oplims to make sure that they are worded this way and
that you agree with my interpretation.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
On 7/12/2011 9:23 AM, Pete wrote:
> To All,
> The ability to burn any fuel is tied to the limitations of the
> airplane, whether certificated or experimental. In the case of a
> certificated airplane, to change the type of fuel used in the
> airplane, an STC would be required. In the experimental, it would
> most likely require going back into Phase 1.
> In certificated airplanes, the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS)
> shows the fuel that is allowed for use. In order to use any other
> fuel, and maintain the airworthiness of the airplane, an STC would be
> required. The FAA doesn't dictate what fuel can be used, but rather
> the applicant shows they can meet the certification requirements
> using a fuel, or fuels, and then that is what is placed on the TCDS.
> The fuel itself has to have a specification. There's a whole
> separate argument about fuel specifications, but I will not go into
> that here. To use any fuel other than what is on the TCDS requires an
> STC. Note: an STC is for someone who isn't the type design holder
> (manufacturer). The type design holder can amend their TCDS to show
> additional fuels, but the process for fuel approval is identical to
> the STC.
> I have not been involved with alternate fuel testing on experimental
> airplanes, but it sounds analogous to the use of an alternate
> powerplant. I would imagine there would be a 40 hour Phase 1 that
> would have to be accomplished prior to being able to operate beyond
> the Phase 1 operating area.
> I know this subject is not electric in nature, but I was trying to
> help and provide some clarification based upon the discussion.
> Pete Rouse
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *Mike Welch
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:33 AM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: Re: Viking Engine
>
> Guys,
>
> To augment Ben's point, even if you do have a certified plane, you
> still don't have the
> 'right' to burn auto gas as the plane comes out of the factory, do
> you? From my
> experience, if you want to use auto gas in a certified airplane, you
> have to PAY for
> an 'STC'.
> Maybe newer aircraft have auto gas approved engines from the
> factory. I don't know.
> I never owned a newer certified plane, but the older ones required
> the STC, and they
> weren't free.
>
> Mike Welch
> >That's incorrect. If you fly an experimental then you can burn
> anything you want in it, auto engine or not. And since we are talking
> about >Viking engines, considering they CANNOT be installed in a
> Luscombe, I don't really see your point.
> >do not archive
>
> >Ben Haas
> >N801BH
> >www.haaspowerair.com
>
> --------
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AV8ORJWC
Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:35 pm Post subject: Viking Engine |
|
|
Wait. Wait. Wait. I just spoke this AM to an FAA Airworthiness
Inspector on the subject of major alteration to an RV-12. The owners
can make the major mod. They must inform the FSDO. The FSDO will
authorize another Phase One. It will likely have the same terms and
geographic boundary of the original. There must be an accurate and
appropriate logbook entry prior to the Phase One and upon completion.
So at this point "any subsequent major changes do not require
notification of anyone" I am saying show me.
John Cox
--
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
r.r.hall(at)cox.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:06 pm Post subject: Viking Engine |
|
|
Strangely enough you both could be right. There was an interesting article on this I think in Kitplanes awhile back. It all depends on your operating limitations when your plane was certified. If I remember correctly there was a time when they were putting a passage in that you did not have to notify anyone just do phase one flight testing. There have also been periods where you had to get the FSDO approval in person and new phase one and, like mine, a time where you had to write a letter and get approval for flight testing. So in all cases you are bound by the aircraft operating limitations it says.
Rodney
---- John Cox <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> wrote:
[quote] --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
Wait. Wait. Wait. I just spoke this AM to an FAA Airworthiness
Inspector on the subject of major alteration to an RV-12. The owners
can make the major mod. They must inform the FSDO. The FSDO will
authorize another Phase One. It will likely have the same terms and
geographic boundary of the original. There must be an accurate and
appropriate logbook entry prior to the Phase One and upon completion.
So at this point "any subsequent major changes do not require
notification of anyone" I am saying show me.
John Cox
--
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bicyclop(at)pacbell.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:56 pm Post subject: Viking Engine |
|
|
That's why I said read your oplims. The latest version that is being issued is as I laid out. I had an earlier version that had no provision for major alterations and would have required a re-inspection of the aircraft and new airworthiness cert. The addition of a wing leveler is, by definition, a major alteration. It also said no IFR. I wanted to be able to train for and fly IFR in my aircraft and so got a new set of oplims (and a new airworthiness cert - oplims are considered to part of the AW cert.) issued so that I could legally modify my aircraft and legally fly in IMC. It was quite a bit of fun getting the FSDO to re-issue, but that's another story.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
On 7/12/2011 3:03 PM, r.r.hall(at)cox.net (r.r.hall(at)cox.net) wrote: [quote]
Strangely enough you both could be right. There was an interesting article on this I think in Kitplanes awhile back. It all depends on your operating limitations when your plane was certified. If I remember correctly there was a time when they were putting a passage in that you did not have to notify anyone just do phase one flight testing. There have also been periods where you had to get the FSDO approval in person and new phase one and, like mine, a time where you had to write a letter and get approval for flight testing. So in all cases you are bound by the aircraft operating limitations it says.
Rodney
---- John Cox <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> (johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com) wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> (johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com)
>
> Wait. Wait. Wait. I just spoke this AM to an FAA Airworthiness
> Inspector on the subject of major alteration to an RV-12. The owners
> can make the major mod. They must inform the FSDO. The FSDO will
> authorize another Phase One. It will likely have the same terms and
> geographic boundary of the original. There must be an accurate and
> appropriate logbook entry prior to the Phase One and upon completion.
> So at this point "any subsequent major changes do not require
> notification of anyone" I am saying show me.
>
> John Cox
>
>
> --
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ceengland(at)bellsouth.ne
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:19 pm Post subject: Viking Engine |
|
|
Having owned homebuilts with three versions of the oplims (there may be more) and gotten old ones updated, I have a bit of experience, too. It should be said that FSDO experiences are highly dependent on the individual FSDO. My experience with mine has been about as painless as anyone could reasonably expect.
On the issue of fuel, I wouldn't pretend to be an expert, but I can find no evidence anywhere that fuel selection is any sort of alteration to an airframe or engine. I have never, until now, in around 20 years of flying homebuilts, ever heard anyone suggest that fuel selection is a major alteration when discussing homebuilt rules. If you ask the question of the wrong FSDO, you might easily get an answer you don't like, but that would probably just mean that the FSDO doesn't know what it's talking about. Like the foolishness several years ago when one FSDO tried to re-write rules & disallow training in any a/c that didn't have a full set of dual controls (Luscombe or others with only left-side brakes, etc). That went on until FAA HQ officially and publicly slapped their hand.
On the subject of alcohol, experience seems to contradict a lot of the commonly held beliefs in aviation circles. There's a guy who's active on the VAF forum (search for 'frankh') that has flown an injected Lyc running gasahol for years. He did do what would be considered a major alteration to the airframe to run it; he omitted the engine driven fuel pump (alcohol kills the diaphragm) & replaced it with redundant Facet fuel pumps. Testing I've read about seems to show that phase separation only becomes an issue at well up into the oxygen altitudes & at below Antarctic-like temps. Corrosion is an issue with *methanol* (Indy cars), but seems to be a minimal issue with ethanol, which can come from corn, and is where we get our gasahol in the USA, due to corn lobby-induced rules & subsidies. I'd love to see the subsidies/rules go away, & if the market supports ethanol based gas (hopefully, from a more sensible source), then we can adjust to it, at least in the homebuilt community.
Charlie
(playing along with thread creep...)
On 07/12/2011 05:52 PM, Ed Holyoke wrote: [quote] That's why I said read your oplims. The latest version that is being issued is as I laid out. I had an earlier version that had no provision for major alterations and would have required a re-inspection of the aircraft and new airworthiness cert. The addition of a wing leveler is, by definition, a major alteration. It also said no IFR. I wanted to be able to train for and fly IFR in my aircraft and so got a new set of oplims (and a new airworthiness cert - oplims are considered to part of the AW cert.) issued so that I could legally modify my aircraft and legally fly in IMC. It was quite a bit of fun getting the FSDO to re-issue, but that's another story.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
On 7/12/2011 3:03 PM, r.r.hall(at)cox.net (r.r.hall(at)cox.net) wrote: [quote]
Strangely enough you both could be right. There was an interesting article on this I think in Kitplanes awhile back. It all depends on your operating limitations when your plane was certified. If I remember correctly there was a time when they were putting a passage in that you did not have to notify anyone just do phase one flight testing. There have also been periods where you had to get the FSDO approval in person and new phase one and, like mine, a time where you had to write a letter and get approval for flight testing. So in all cases you are bound by the aircraft operating limitations it says.
Rodney
---- John Cox <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> (johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com) wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> (johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com)
>
> Wait. Wait. Wait. I just spoke this AM to an FAA Airworthiness
> Inspector on the subject of major alteration to an RV-12. The owners
> can make the major mod. They must inform the FSDO. The FSDO will
> authorize another Phase One. It will likely have the same terms and
> geographic boundary of the original. There must be an accurate and
> appropriate logbook entry prior to the Phase One and upon completion.
> So at this point "any subsequent major changes do not require
> notification of anyone" I am saying show me.
>
> John Cox
>
>
> --
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ainut(at)knology.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:04 pm Post subject: Viking Engine |
|
|
It could be that the FAA changed it back to having to notify them and I
just hadn't heard. I'm sorry if I'm not keeping up.
David
[quote]
Wait. Wait. Wait. I just spoke this AM to an FAA Airworthiness
Inspector on the subject of major alteration to an RV-12. The owners
can make the major mod. They must inform the FSDO. The FSDO will
authorize another Phase One. It will likely have the same terms and
geographic boundary of the original. There must be an accurate and
appropriate logbook entry prior to the Phase One and upon completion.
So at this point "any subsequent major changes do not require
notification of anyone" I am saying show me.
John Cox
--
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AV8ORJWC
Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:19 pm Post subject: Viking Engine |
|
|
Here is a kernel of value. The Inspector told me If you write and send
the statement of work and request for a new Phase One via USPS, they
respond USPS. If you email it, they respond by email. As a former
letter carrier, the speed of light is just a tad quicker. I doubt if you
send it FEDEX they would respond in kind, so chose wisely. Waiting to
hear back.
John
--
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bicyclop(at)pacbell.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 9:09 pm Post subject: Viking Engine |
|
|
John,
Once again, most of the newer oplims specify that they must be notified and concur with the test flight area. You don't request a new phase 1 period. The best way is to walk it in and get the signature on your letter, then you're not waiting for them to respond by mail, snail or otherwise.
Charlie, you might be right about changing fuel not being an alteration, however Appendix A does say that "conversions of any sort for the purpose of using a fuel of a rating or grade other than that listed in the engine specifications" is a major alteration. That would seem to include removing the engine driven fuel pump and adding a second boost pump to take it's place. If the engine doesn't have a data plate on it, well maybe, but only because it doesn't have any specifications, not because it isn't an alteration. Speaking of Lycomings, here. Auto conversions are a bit of a different story, of course.
Ed Holyoke
On 7/12/2011 8:16 PM, John Cox wrote: [quote] [quote]--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> (johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com) Here is a kernel of value. The Inspector told me If you write and send the statement of work and request for a new Phase One via USPS, they respond USPS. If you email it, they respond by email. As a former letter carrier, the speed of light is just a tad quicker. I doubt if you send it FEDEX they would respond in kind, so chose wisely. Waiting to hear back. John --
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ceengland(at)bellsouth.ne
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:50 am Post subject: Viking Engine |
|
|
In my post, I think that I specifically said that the fuel pump change would be considered a major alteration. (That assumes that the change is made *after* the plane has left phase 1 testing.)
My point was that there's a difference between airframe changes and operational changes. The only operational change I can think of that would require re-entering phase 1 would be adding an acro capability, because most homebuilt oplims have traditionally had specific exclusions for any acro maneuvers that aren't tested and documented in phase 1.
I was told that the latest version of oplims, that require notifying the FSDO & getting approval of the test area, came about after 9-11 when hyper-monitoring of just about everything became common. For re-entering phase one under the new oplims, my FSDO just wants a fax with the request & the requested test area, & they respond with a fax. They are very accommodating with the size/shape of the area, mainly requiring that we stay away from controlled airspace if we aren't based at a controlled field (no need to fly in the controlled airspace). A FSDO in a higher traffic area would likely be more restrictive.
Charlie
On 07/13/2011 12:06 AM, Ed Holyoke wrote: [quote] John,
Once again, most of the newer oplims specify that they must be notified and concur with the test flight area. You don't request a new phase 1 period. The best way is to walk it in and get the signature on your letter, then you're not waiting for them to respond by mail, snail or otherwise.
Charlie, you might be right about changing fuel not being an alteration, however Appendix A does say that "conversions of any sort for the purpose of using a fuel of a rating or grade other than that listed in the engine specifications" is a major alteration. That would seem to include removing the engine driven fuel pump and adding a second boost pump to take it's place. If the engine doesn't have a data plate on it, well maybe, but only because it doesn't have any specifications, not because it isn't an alteration. Speaking of Lycomings, here. Auto conversions are a bit of a different story, of course.
Ed Holyoke
On 7/12/2011 8:16 PM, John Cox wrote: [quote] [quote]--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> (johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com) Here is a kernel of value. The Inspector told me If you write and send the statement of work and request for a new Phase One via USPS, they respond USPS. If you email it, they respond by email. As a former letter carrier, the speed of light is just a tad quicker. I doubt if you send it FEDEX they would respond in kind, so chose wisely. Waiting to hear back. John --
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kellym
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1706
Location: Sun Lakes AZ
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:14 am Post subject: Viking Engine |
|
|
It would be interesting to consider plane with Lycoming derived
experimental engine, that was changed enough to require 40 hour Phase 1
test period had any specifications. Certainly is debate as to
applicability of ADs to such an engine. I would expect same debate as to
whether Part 43 Appendix A had any applicability to such an engine.
On 7/12/2011 10:06 PM, Ed Holyoke wrote:
| Quote: |
Charlie, you might be right about changing fuel not being an
alteration, however Appendix A does say that "conversions of any sort
for the purpose of using a fuel of a rating or grade other than that
listed in the engine specifications" is a major alteration. That would
seem to include removing the engine driven fuel pump and adding a
second boost pump to take it's place. If the engine doesn't have a
data plate on it, well maybe, but only because it doesn't have any
specifications, not because it isn't an alteration. Speaking of
Lycomings, here. Auto conversions are a bit of a different story, of
course.
Ed Holyoke
*
*
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bakerocb
Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 727
Location: FAIRFAX VA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:41 am Post subject: Viking Engine |
|
|
7/15/2011
Congratulations Fellow Amateur Builders,
Several years ago when I first began to read amateur builder postings in
various venues I was dismayed and concerned about the general lack of
knowledge regarding the fundamental rules governing our community and the
casual attitude towards such rules. Postings consisting of speculation,
hearsay, gossip, and rumors would go on at length about any particular
subject with not one poster citing the fundamental document governing the
subject or even hinting that such a document may even exist.
What a change we have seen. While there was significant thread creep on the
aeroelectric list away from Viking Engine(s) per se in this thread several
posters got directly
into whatever side path may have been taken and provided clarification by
stating outright, or provided links to, the facts contained in the
controlling documents.**
Demonstrating this knowlege, and a responsible attitude towards the rules,
is very healthy for our amateur built community as aviation is already seen
by the general public, with significant help from the lame stream media, as
fraught with risky ventures and amateur builders ("nut case builds airplane
in his grarage") as being probably totally irresponsible.
Let's keep up the good work and help stamp out speculation, hearsay, gossip,
and rumors as a means of communication (and confusion for the new guys) when
the facts are usually readily available in this great day of the internet.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
**PS: I am not suggesting that all of the controlling documents (or the
bureaucrats that enforce them) are all wise and should be followed
slavishly. I am suggestion that if one decides to deviate from the rules
that the deviation be done with knowledge and deliberation not out of
ignorance.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gpabruce(at)gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:43 am Post subject: Viking Engine |
|
|
WOW, was this spam helpful to anyone? Just curious . . . .
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:37 AM, <bakerocb(at)cox.net (bakerocb(at)cox.net)> wrote:
[quote]--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb(at)cox.net (bakerocb(at)cox.net)>
7/15/2011
Congratulations Fellow Amateur Builders,
Several years ago when I first began to read amateur builder postings in
various venues I was dismayed and concerned about the general lack of
knowledge regarding the fundamental rules governing our community and the
casual attitude towards such rules. Postings consisting of speculation,
hearsay, gossip, and rumors would go on at length about any particular
subject with not one poster citing the fundamental document governing the
subject or even hinting that such a document may even exist.
What a change we have seen. While there was significant thread creep on the
aeroelectric list away from Viking Engine(s) per se in this thread several
posters got directly
into whatever side path may have been taken and provided clarification by
stating outright, or provided links to, the facts contained in the
controlling documents.**
Demonstrating this knowlege, and a responsible attitude towards the rules,
is very healthy for our amateur built community as aviation is already seen
by the general public, with significant help from the lame stream media, as
fraught with risky ventures and amateur builders ("nut case builds airplane
in his grarage") as being probably totally irresponsible.
Let's keep up the good work and help stamp out speculation, hearsay, gossip,
and rumors as a means of communication (and confusion for the new guys) when
the facts are usually readily available in this great day of the internet.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
**PS: I am not suggesting that all of the controlling documents (or the
bureaucrats that enforce them) are all wise and should be followed
slavishly. I am suggestion that if one decides to deviate from the rules
that the deviation be done with knowledge and deliberation not out of
ignorance.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
====================================
-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
====================================
http://forums.matronics.com
====================================
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
====================================
[b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deej(at)deej.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:00 am Post subject: Viking Engine |
|
|
On 07/15/2011 12:40 PM, b d wrote:
| Quote: | WOW, was this spam helpful to anyone? Just curious . . . .
|
Yes, I thought it was helpful.
-Dj
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rickofudall
Joined: 19 Sep 2009
Posts: 1392
Location: Udall, KS, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:25 pm Post subject: Viking Engine |
|
|
Bruce, The discussion has been interesting to me, certainly more than your rather rude comment.
Rick Girard
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:40 AM, b d <gpabruce(at)gmail.com (gpabruce(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | WOW, was this spam helpful to anyone? Just curious . . . .
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:37 AM, <bakerocb(at)cox.net (bakerocb(at)cox.net)> wrote:
| Quote: | --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb(at)cox.net (bakerocb(at)cox.net)>
7/15/2011
Congratulations Fellow Amateur Builders,
Several years ago when I first began to read amateur builder postings in
various venues I was dismayed and concerned about the general lack of
knowledge regarding the fundamental rules governing our community and the
casual attitude towards such rules. Postings consisting of speculation,
hearsay, gossip, and rumors would go on at length about any particular
subject with not one poster citing the fundamental document governing the
subject or even hinting that such a document may even exist.
What a change we have seen. While there was significant thread creep on the
aeroelectric list away from Viking Engine(s) per se in this thread several
posters got directly
into whatever side path may have been taken and provided clarification by
stating outright, or provided links to, the facts contained in the
controlling documents.**
Demonstrating this knowlege, and a responsible attitude towards the rules,
is very healthy for our amateur built community as aviation is already seen
by the general public, with significant help from the lame stream media, as
fraught with risky ventures and amateur builders ("nut case builds airplane
in his grarage") as being probably totally irresponsible.
Let's keep up the good work and help stamp out speculation, hearsay, gossip,
and rumors as a means of communication (and confusion for the new guys) when
the facts are usually readily available in this great day of the internet.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
**PS: I am not suggesting that all of the controlling documents (or the
bureaucrats that enforce them) are all wise and should be followed
slavishly. I am suggestion that if one decides to deviate from the rules
that the deviation be done with knowledge and deliberation not out of
ignorance.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
====================================
-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
====================================
http://forums.matronics.com
====================================
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
====================================
ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
|
|
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
_________________
The smallest miracle right in front of you is enough to make you happy.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gpabruce(at)gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:01 pm Post subject: Viking Engine |
|
|
FO
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com (aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
[quote] Bruce, The discussion has been interesting to me, certainly more than your rather rude comment.
Rick Girard
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:40 AM, b d <gpabruce(at)gmail.com (gpabruce(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | WOW, was this spam helpful to anyone? Just curious . . . .
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:37 AM, <bakerocb(at)cox.net (bakerocb(at)cox.net)> wrote:
| Quote: |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb(at)cox.net (bakerocb(at)cox.net)>
7/15/2011
Congratulations Fellow Amateur Builders,
Several years ago when I first began to read amateur builder postings in
various venues I was dismayed and concerned about the general lack of
knowledge regarding the fundamental rules governing our community and the
casual attitude towards such rules. Postings consisting of speculation,
hearsay, gossip, and rumors would go on at length about any particular
subject with not one poster citing the fundamental document governing the
subject or even hinting that such a document may even exist.
What a change we have seen. While there was significant thread creep on the
aeroelectric list away from Viking Engine(s) per se in this thread several
posters got directly
into whatever side path may have been taken and provided clarification by
stating outright, or provided links to, the facts contained in the
controlling documents.**
Demonstrating this knowlege, and a responsible attitude towards the rules,
is very healthy for our amateur built community as aviation is already seen
by the general public, with significant help from the lame stream media, as
fraught with risky ventures and amateur builders ("nut case builds airplane
in his grarage") as being probably totally irresponsible.
Let's keep up the good work and help stamp out speculation, hearsay, gossip,
and rumors as a means of communication (and confusion for the new guys) when
the facts are usually readily available in this great day of the internet.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
**PS: I am not suggesting that all of the controlling documents (or the
bureaucrats that enforce them) are all wise and should be followed
slavishly. I am suggestion that if one decides to deviate from the rules
that the deviation be done with knowledge and deliberation not out of
ignorance.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
====================================
-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
====================================
http://forums.matronics.com
====================================
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
====================================
ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
|
|
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
| Quote: |
ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:08 pm Post subject: Viking Engine |
|
|
At 04:18 PM 7/15/2011, you wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:40 AM, b d <gpabruce(at)gmail.com> wrote:
WOW, was this spam helpful to anyone? Just curious . . . .
Sure! Mr. Baker's unusual clarity of insight into
the innate perversity human behaviors is worthy
of consideration by any interested, competent observer.
It doesn't matter if we're talking about folks who are building
airplanes . . . or folks who would dearly love to burden
us with the same regulatory millstones carried by our
brothers in the TC aircraft industry. So I'd hardly call
his efforts on our behalf 'spam'.
A few milliseconds action on the 'delete' key will
unburden the disinterested reader in a heartbeat.
In my business, I use it many times a day every
day.
Bob . . .
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:16 pm Post subject: Viking Engine |
|
|
Good Evening All,
Personally, I find O. C.s comments to be interesting and always well documented. I don't always come to the same conclusion as he does, but that is not unusual considering the vast flexibility of interpretation that is inherent in our FAR's.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Stearman N3977A
CFI - RAIG & ME
A&P/IA
In a message dated 7/15/2011 4:27:39 P.M. Central Daylight Time, aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com writes:
| Quote: | Bruce, The discussion has been interesting to me, certainly more than your rather rude comment.
Rick Girard
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:40 AM, b d <gpabruce(at)gmail.com (gpabruce(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | WOW, was this spam helpful to anyone? Just curious . . . .
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:37 AM, <bakerocb(at)cox.net (bakerocb(at)cox.net)> wrote:
| Quote: | --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb(at)cox.net (bakerocb(at)cox.net)>
7/15/2011
Congratulations Fellow Amateur Builders,
Several years ago when I first began to read amateur builder postings in
various venues I was dismayed and concerned about the general lack of
knowledge regarding the fundamental rules governing our community and the
casual attitude towards such rules. Postings consisting of speculation,
hearsay, gossip, and rumors would go on at length about any particular
subject with not one poster citing the fundamental document governing the
subject or even hinting that such a document may even exist.
What a change we have seen. While there was significant thread creep on the
aeroelectric list away from Viking Engine(s) per se in this thread several
posters got directly
into whatever side path may have been taken and provided clarification by
stating outright, or provided links to, the facts contained in the
controlling documents.**
Demonstrating this knowlege, and a responsible attitude towards the rules,
is very healthy for our amateur built community as aviation is already seen
by the general public, with significant help from the lame stream media, as
fraught with risky ventures and amateur builders ("nut case builds airplane
in his grarage") as being probably totally irresponsible.
Let's keep up the good work and help stamp out speculation, hearsay, gossip,
and rumors as a means of communication (and confusion for the new guys) when
the facts are usually readily available in this great day of the internet.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
**PS: I am not suggesting that all of the controlling documents (or the
bureaucrats that enforce them) are all wise and should be followed
slavishly. I am suggestion that if one decides to deviate from the rules
that the deviation be done with knowledge and deliberation not out of
ignorance.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
====================================
-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
====================================
http://forums.matronics.com
====================================
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
====================================
ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
|
|
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
| Quote: |
====================================
List href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
====================================
ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
====================================
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
====================================
|
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| 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
