Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: The Dragonfly and LSA

Expand Messages
  • bwilson4web
    Hi Richard, ... This strikes me as the way to go. I have always thought of the Quickies, not the single place one, but the others, as having relatively heavily
    Message 1 of 28 , Jan 2, 2012
      Hi Richard,

      Thanks for the posting but a couple of thoughts:

      --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" <mylittlemgb@...> wrote:
      >
      > . . . 1984 Tri-Q VW 1835 GU canard with VG's empty weight at time of test was
      > 722.35 lbs. We added 24" to each wing and canard giving us a wing span of 20 ft.

      This strikes me as the way to go. I have always thought of the Quickies, not the single place one, but the others, as having relatively heavily loaded wings. Adding area makes a lot of sense and the results suggest this is the case.

      > . . . What we never thought about with making the plane a LSA legal option the FAA
      > told us. For ANY airplane in the experimental world or certified for that matter
      > if the aircraft did not meet the guidelines for LSA it can never be LSA. What they
      > were telling us is no legal flying airplane once declared airworthy with the
      > information provided by the builder can go backwards as far as the air worthiness
      > cert. But a newly built airplane can declare stall, cruise, and gross weight to meet
      > LSA rules.

      This is my understanding too. Neither a test Quickie nor a modified Dragonfly would ever be able to get an LSA designation. However, they could be used to prove the technology. For my purposes, I will find out the limits a 3d generation, owner has to modify an amateur built plane using the modifications posted by other builders . . . Bob Walters not being available.

      I am of the opinion we would have to make something that is not-Dragonfly to make an LSA version. We might get away with a salvage fuselage but that gets a bit dicey. IMOH, a Dragonfly-LSA (or Quickie-LSA) needs to be scratch built so the original designer can call it something else provided it meets the LSA specifications.

      For a Dragonfly-LSA, I would call it a "DamselFly", a lighter weight version of the order. A Quickie might be called "Snap." This is not a commitment for another airplane project . . . my plate is full.

      This past week, I built and tested my wing-ladder which lets me move the wing and canard around the shed single handed. I've bought the parts to make my work table and laid out the build instructions. I've got to rearrange the inventory in the shed, build the table, and then concentrate on the paper work:
      http://hiwaay.net/~bzwilson/dragonfly/

      Bob Wilson
    • Charles Smiith
      Every homebuilt aircraft is a unique product of the buider who is the manufacturer. If Dragonfly plans are used as a loose guide and reference for someone’s
      Message 2 of 28 , Jan 3, 2012
        Every homebuilt aircraft is a unique product of the buider who is the manufacturer. If Dragonfly plans are used as a loose guide and reference for someone’s canard airplane that is not an exact copy per the plans and he does not call.it a ‘Dragonfly’ then it is whatever he says it is and the dataplate restrictions are whatever he wants to put on it. Iffv one wants to build a canard with a larger wing area using the Dragonfly as a guide, so be it, but it is not a Dragonfly when finished. The building techniques are not patented. the finished product becomes a one-off product of the builder, the manufacturer. Almost every airplane in existence got it’s design from modifications (improvements) of previously existing airplanes. The Wright brothers flyer was a canard. So if one builds a homebuild airplane for his own use and it resembles a ‘standard’ Dragonfly overall, it does not have to be legally a ‘Dragonfly” with the advertised “Dragonfly” characteristics.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • texasquadj
        Bob, I do not think I agree with your interpretation of this. I think the intent of this is for airplanes that clearly did not meet the LSA requirements and
        Message 3 of 28 , Jan 3, 2012
          Bob,

          I do not think I agree with your interpretation of this. I think the intent of this is for airplanes that clearly did not meet the LSA requirements and had flown that way that you cannot administratively place new limitations or make modifications to the airplane so it will meet the LSA requirements and call it good. An example of this is the Ercoupe. You cannot take a 415-E with a max gross weight of 1400 pounds and just say I am going to limit the gross weight to 1320 and fly it as a LSA.

          How is the FAA going to know what your actual speeds and weights are unless they took your word for what it says in your POH? If you were to simply look at the aircraft specifications for the Dragonfly provided by the "factory", except for some possible confusion with the cruise speed numbers reported (to make the airplane sound like it is faster) the Dragonfly meets all the LSA requirements. Of course the LSA did not exist when the Dragonfly was originally designed, and the "factory" was of course interested in high cruise speed and economy. The advertised cruise speed was 165 MPH TAS which works out to 142 MPH. I am sure IAS, probably not CAS. If there was such a thing as the LSA back then, you can bet your paycheck they would have listed the cruise speed as 138 MPH even if it was just by placing an continuous operation cruise RPM that was 10 RPM slower than the HAPI engine brochure listed. I suspect the prototype Dragonfly actually fell inside the LSA CAS cruise speed limitations.

          The Q2 on the other hand...I do not think any performance numbers I have seen for the Q2 (or variants) indicate it will meet any of the speed limits of the LSA. So a Q2 with an AW certificate would make it exactly the same as the Ercoupe 415-E example I used. My interpretation is that a previously flying Q2 (or any airplane that did not meet the LSA requirements), can never be flown as a LSA. I think this is what Richard said.

          I do not think the FAA is going to treat an amateur built experimental any different if it meets the LSA requirements or not. The FAA or a DAR is going to inspect a newly constructed airplane and if everything is ok, you will get your AW certificate and operating limitations. I don't think they care if it meets the LSA requirements or not. If it does meet the LSA requirements, it can be flown by a pilot exercising his/her light sport pilot privileges.

          If my existing Dragonfly MK-IIH met the stall speed requirement, how could the FAA ever say or prove that my airplane exceeds the LSA cruises speed limitation (or stall speed requirement)? It doesn't say you cannot exceed 120 knots, it just says the maximum cruise speed with maximum continuous engine power shall not exceed 120 knots CAS. I tell people I cruise at 140 MPH IAS, but I really do not know what my CAS is (maybe I should find out some day).

          Have you seen those guys from Lakeland, FL who have a RV-9 they say can be flown as a LSA? I saw this plane at Sun'N'Fun or the LSA Expo a couple years ago and asked them about the airplane meeting the LSA requirements. They just kind of smiled and winked a lot.

          Bob mentioned Steve Laribee last week on the list. If Steve is able to meet the LSA stall speed requirements (the only hurdle for a VW powered Dragonfly) then IMHO he is perfectly legal to fly his plane using his light sport pilot privileges. Once you are out of your 40 hour test flight restriction period you do not have to send the FAA a letter and declare your performance numbers (this is probably different if you want to become a kit manufacturer). Steve has the same Limbach engine that I have in my Dragonfly, I suspect his maximum continuous cruise speed is right at the LSA limit.

          I am not suggesting that anyone lie to the FAA, but if you can meet the stall speed requirements (like the "factory" numbers indicate) I would not have any problem in the world (with my airplane anyway) stating the Dragonfly could meet the cruise speed limitation. Put a nice light engine like a Jabiru 2200 (I would not go less than 80 HP) and eliminate all the frills and you could build a Dragonfly MK-II that was <600 pounds empty. You might be surprised what kind of stall speed you could achieve.

          Jeff

          ------snip-----

          > . . . What we never thought about with making the plane a LSA legal
          > option the FAA told us. For ANY airplane in the experimental world or
          > certified for that matter if the aircraft did not meet the guidelines
          > for LSA it can never be LSA. What they were telling us is no legal
          > flying airplane once declared airworthy with the information provided
          > by the builder can go backwards as far as the air worthiness cert. But
          > a newly built airplane can declare stall, cruise, and gross weight to meet LSA rules.

          This is my understanding too. Neither a test Quickie nor a modified Dragonfly would ever be able to get an LSA designation. However, they could be used to prove the technology. For my purposes, I will find out the limits a 3d generation, owner has to modify an amateur built plane using the modifications posted by other builders . . . Bob Walters not being available.
        • Bob
          ... If the individual builder and their one plane defines the LSA then maybe the builder could declare that it meets the LSA requirements and fly what is
          Message 4 of 28 , Jan 3, 2012
            I see merit in your thinking:

            --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, "texasquadj" <jeffrey.letempt@...> wrote:
            >
            > . . . I
            > think the intent of this is for airplanes that clearly did not
            > meet the LSA requirements and had flown that way that you
            > cannot administratively place new limitations or make
            > modifications to the airplane so it will meet the LSA
            > requirements and call it good. An example of this is the
            > Ercoupe. You cannot take a 415-E with a max gross weight
            > of 1400 pounds and just say I am going to limit the gross
            > weight to 1320 and fly it as a LSA. . . .

            If the individual builder and their one plane defines the LSA then maybe the builder could 'declare' that it meets the LSA requirements and fly what is otherwise a Dragonfly. In truth, I've only gotten a casual understanding of how LSA is handled and administered . . . being distracted by my current project. <grins>

            Thanks,
            Bob Wilson
          • Jon Goslee
            I could not see a person with 20 hours flying a dragonfly, but that just me. Jon Goslee ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Message 5 of 28 , Jan 3, 2012
              I could not see a person with 20 hours flying a dragonfly, but that just me.

              Jon Goslee

              On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:15 PM, "Bob" <bwilson4web@...> wrote:

              > I see merit in your thinking:
              >
              > --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, "texasquadj" <jeffrey.letempt@...> wrote:
              > >
              > > . . . I
              > > think the intent of this is for airplanes that clearly did not
              > > meet the LSA requirements and had flown that way that you
              > > cannot administratively place new limitations or make
              > > modifications to the airplane so it will meet the LSA
              > > requirements and call it good. An example of this is the
              > > Ercoupe. You cannot take a 415-E with a max gross weight
              > > of 1400 pounds and just say I am going to limit the gross
              > > weight to 1320 and fly it as a LSA. . . .
              >
              > If the individual builder and their one plane defines the LSA then maybe the builder could 'declare' that it meets the LSA requirements and fly what is otherwise a Dragonfly. In truth, I've only gotten a casual understanding of how LSA is handled and administered . . . being distracted by my current project. <grins>
              >
              > Thanks,
              > Bob Wilson
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Chad Burrell
              I know of at least one aircraft flying out there under the LSA  laws that has 180 HP and there is a placard on the throttle that say full power for take off
              Message 6 of 28 , Jan 4, 2012
                I know of at least one aircraft flying out there under the LSA  laws that has 180 HP and there is a placard on the throttle that say full power for take off only  to keep the speed down I dont know the details but I can find out I dont think that it is an experimental  you can get the same exact plane non lsa the only difference is the placard  so its faster if you are the manufacturer I bet you can do the same thing  but  you have to get the stall speed down wether or not it can be called a dragonfly thats a different matter I was thinking about trying to make a portion of the inbord elivator elongate aft to streck out the cord line perhaps spiting it along the cord line so the upper half can telescope out of the elevator and perhaps roll down a bit

                I am sure it sounds complicated but the only thing you would need to alter would be the elevators



                ________________________________
                From: Bob <bwilson4web@...>
                To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 3:15 PM
                Subject: [Dragonflylist] Re: The Dragonfly and LSA


                 
                I see merit in your thinking:

                --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, "texasquadj" <jeffrey.letempt@...> wrote:
                >
                > . . . I
                > think the intent of this is for airplanes that clearly did not
                > meet the LSA requirements and had flown that way that you
                > cannot administratively place new limitations or make
                > modifications to the airplane so it will meet the LSA
                > requirements and call it good. An example of this is the
                > Ercoupe. You cannot take a 415-E with a max gross weight
                > of 1400 pounds and just say I am going to limit the gross
                > weight to 1320 and fly it as a LSA. . . .

                If the individual builder and their one plane defines the LSA then maybe the builder could 'declare' that it meets the LSA requirements and fly what is otherwise a Dragonfly. In truth, I've only gotten a casual understanding of how LSA is handled and administered . . . being distracted by my current project. <grins>

                Thanks,
                Bob Wilson




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Chad Burrell
                not to change the subject but dose anyone know the FAA s stand on restoring what was at one time a flying dragonfly with 200 hrs on the Hobbs and and the 51%
                Message 7 of 28 , Jan 4, 2012
                  not to change the subject but dose anyone know the FAA's stand on restoring what was at one time a flying dragonfly with 200 hrs on the Hobbs and and the 51% rule I ask because I will have way more than the 51% with the restoration and upgrades but am i going to be allowed to do the maintenance   and annuals or do i just scrap the airworthiness/tail # N24DF and  and start over 



                  ________________________________
                  From: Jon Goslee <jngoslee@...>
                  To: "Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com" <Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 3:42 PM
                  Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] Re: The Dragonfly and LSA


                   
                  I could not see a person with 20 hours flying a dragonfly, but that just me.

                  Jon Goslee

                  On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:15 PM, "Bob" <bwilson4web@...> wrote:

                  > I see merit in your thinking:
                  >
                  > --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, "texasquadj" <jeffrey.letempt@...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > . . . I
                  > > think the intent of this is for airplanes that clearly did not
                  > > meet the LSA requirements and had flown that way that you
                  > > cannot administratively place new limitations or make
                  > > modifications to the airplane so it will meet the LSA
                  > > requirements and call it good. An example of this is the
                  > > Ercoupe. You cannot take a 415-E with a max gross weight
                  > > of 1400 pounds and just say I am going to limit the gross
                  > > weight to 1320 and fly it as a LSA. . . .
                  >
                  > If the individual builder and their one plane defines the LSA then maybe the builder could 'declare' that it meets the LSA requirements and fly what is otherwise a Dragonfly. In truth, I've only gotten a casual understanding of how LSA is handled and administered . . . being distracted by my current project. <grins>
                  >
                  > Thanks,
                  > Bob Wilson
                  >
                  >

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Ralph
                  Hey, Chad, I think you can take a three day course and get the certificate you need to do that. But don t scrap the tail #. !! Sent from my iPhone ...
                  Message 8 of 28 , Jan 4, 2012
                    Hey, Chad, I think you can take a three day course and get the certificate you need to do that. But don't scrap the tail #. !!

                    Sent from my iPhone

                    On Jan 4, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Chad Burrell <kodamacarpentry37@...> wrote:

                    > not to change the subject but dose anyone know the FAA's stand on restoring what was at one time a flying dragonfly with 200 hrs on the Hobbs and and the 51% rule I ask because I will have way more than the 51% with the restoration and upgrades but am i going to be allowed to do the maintenance and annuals or do i just scrap the airworthiness/tail # N24DF and and start over
                    >
                    > ________________________________
                    > From: Jon Goslee <jngoslee@...>
                    > To: "Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com" <Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com>
                    > Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 3:42 PM
                    > Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] Re: The Dragonfly and LSA
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > I could not see a person with 20 hours flying a dragonfly, but that just me.
                    >
                    > Jon Goslee
                    >
                    > On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:15 PM, "Bob" <bwilson4web@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > > I see merit in your thinking:
                    > >
                    > > --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, "texasquadj" <jeffrey.letempt@...> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > . . . I
                    > > > think the intent of this is for airplanes that clearly did not
                    > > > meet the LSA requirements and had flown that way that you
                    > > > cannot administratively place new limitations or make
                    > > > modifications to the airplane so it will meet the LSA
                    > > > requirements and call it good. An example of this is the
                    > > > Ercoupe. You cannot take a 415-E with a max gross weight
                    > > > of 1400 pounds and just say I am going to limit the gross
                    > > > weight to 1320 and fly it as a LSA. . . .
                    > >
                    > > If the individual builder and their one plane defines the LSA then maybe the builder could 'declare' that it meets the LSA requirements and fly what is otherwise a Dragonfly. In truth, I've only gotten a casual understanding of how LSA is handled and administered . . . being distracted by my current project. <grins>
                    > >
                    > > Thanks,
                    > > Bob Wilson
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Patrick Panzera
                    ... Nope! That s only for a factory-built S-LSA or a kit-built E-LSA. It s not for an experimental that meets the definition of LSA. Pat [Non-text portions of
                    Message 9 of 28 , Jan 4, 2012
                      On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Ralph <rosbornrosborn@...> wrote:

                      > **
                      >
                      >
                      > Hey, Chad, I think you can take a three day course and get the certificate
                      > you need to do that.
                      >

                      Nope! That's only for a factory-built S-LSA or a kit-built E-LSA.
                      It's not for an experimental that meets the definition of LSA.

                      Pat


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • texasquadj
                      No this is not correct. If it is an experimental amateur built aircraft you have to perform an annual condition inspection. If you hold a repairman s
                      Message 10 of 28 , Jan 4, 2012
                        No this is not correct. If it is an experimental amateur built aircraft you have to perform an annual condition inspection. If you hold a repairman's certificate for the airplane you can conduct the annual condition inspection, if not then an A&P must sign off the inspection. I would say it is not impossible, but unlikely that you will be able to get a repairman's certificate for an aircraft with an existing airworthiness certificate. If you can demonstrate to a willing DAR or FAA official that you have a thorough understanding of all the airplane system and construction methods that you may be able to get a repairman's certificate, but I would not count on it. I have heard of this happening, but it is certainly not the norm. The only thing the repairman's certificate will give you is the ability to sign off the annual condition inspection. As the owner of an amateur built experimental aircraft you can perform all of your own maintenance and repairs, you are not limited to the items listed as preventative maintenance in FAR Part 43 appendix A.

                        Jeff


                        --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, Ralph <rosbornrosborn@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Hey, Chad, I think you can take a three day course and get the certificate you need to do that. But don't scrap the tail #. !!
                        >
                        > Sent from my iPhone
                        >
                        > On Jan 4, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Chad Burrell <kodamacarpentry37@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > > not to change the subject but dose anyone know the FAA's stand on restoring what was at one time a flying dragonfly with 200 hrs on the Hobbs and and the 51% rule I ask because I will have way more than the 51% with the restoration and upgrades but am i going to be allowed to do the maintenance and annuals or do i just scrap the airworthiness/tail # N24DF and and start over
                        > >
                        > > ________________________________
                        > > From: Jon Goslee <jngoslee@...>
                        > > To: "Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com" <Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com>
                        > > Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 3:42 PM
                        > > Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] Re: The Dragonfly and LSA
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > I could not see a person with 20 hours flying a dragonfly, but that just me.
                        > >
                        > > Jon Goslee
                        > >
                        > > On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:15 PM, "Bob" <bwilson4web@...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > > I see merit in your thinking:
                        > > >
                        > > > --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, "texasquadj" <jeffrey.letempt@> wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > > . . . I
                        > > > > think the intent of this is for airplanes that clearly did not
                        > > > > meet the LSA requirements and had flown that way that you
                        > > > > cannot administratively place new limitations or make
                        > > > > modifications to the airplane so it will meet the LSA
                        > > > > requirements and call it good. An example of this is the
                        > > > > Ercoupe. You cannot take a 415-E with a max gross weight
                        > > > > of 1400 pounds and just say I am going to limit the gross
                        > > > > weight to 1320 and fly it as a LSA. . . .
                        > > >
                        > > > If the individual builder and their one plane defines the LSA then maybe the builder could 'declare' that it meets the LSA requirements and fly what is otherwise a Dragonfly. In truth, I've only gotten a casual understanding of how LSA is handled and administered . . . being distracted by my current project. <grins>
                        > > >
                        > > > Thanks,
                        > > > Bob Wilson
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > >
                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        > >
                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                      • texasquadj
                        Chad, I think most people misunderstand the 51% rule thing. In order for an aircraft to be considered an amateur built aircraft, the majority of the aircraft
                        Message 11 of 28 , Jan 4, 2012
                          Chad,

                          I think most people misunderstand the 51% rule thing. In order for an aircraft to be considered an amateur built aircraft, the majority of the aircraft (hence the term 51% rule) has to be built by amateur builders. This 51% does not have to be by just one person, it can be built by several different people. You do not have to personally build 51% of the aircraft yourself, you just have to be able to document that at least 51% of the aircraft was built by amateurs. Not sure this is important for you if your airplane already has an airworthiness certificate.

                          If you have purchased an amateur built experimental aircraft with an existing AW certificate, you can perform any modification, repair, or maintenance you want to, you just cannot sign off the annual condition inspection unless you have your A&P certificate. If you do any major alteration, you have to notify the FAA and enter an abbreviated restricted test program for the airplane (I think it is generally 5 hours).

                          FAA AC 20-27G details the certification and operation of amateur built aircraft.

                          Jeff


                          --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, Chad Burrell <kodamacarpentry37@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > not to change the subject but dose anyone know the FAA's stand on restoring what was at one time a flying dragonfly with 200 hrs on the Hobbs and and the 51% rule I ask because I will have way more than the 51% with the restoration and upgrades but am i going to be allowed to do the maintenance   and annuals or do i just scrap the airworthiness/tail # N24DF and  and start over 
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > ________________________________
                          > From: Jon Goslee <jngoslee@...>
                          > To: "Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com" <Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com>
                          > Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 3:42 PM
                          > Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] Re: The Dragonfly and LSA
                          >
                          >
                          >  
                          > I could not see a person with 20 hours flying a dragonfly, but that just me.
                          >
                          > Jon Goslee
                          >
                          > On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:15 PM, "Bob" <bwilson4web@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > > I see merit in your thinking:
                          > >
                          > > --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, "texasquadj" <jeffrey.letempt@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > . . . I
                          > > > think the intent of this is for airplanes that clearly did not
                          > > > meet the LSA requirements and had flown that way that you
                          > > > cannot administratively place new limitations or make
                          > > > modifications to the airplane so it will meet the LSA
                          > > > requirements and call it good. An example of this is the
                          > > > Ercoupe. You cannot take a 415-E with a max gross weight
                          > > > of 1400 pounds and just say I am going to limit the gross
                          > > > weight to 1320 and fly it as a LSA. . . .
                          > >
                          > > If the individual builder and their one plane defines the LSA then maybe the builder could 'declare' that it meets the LSA requirements and fly what is otherwise a Dragonfly. In truth, I've only gotten a casual understanding of how LSA is handled and administered . . . being distracted by my current project. <grins>
                          > >
                          > > Thanks,
                          > > Bob Wilson
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                        • Ralph
                          Well, hey! That s easy enough! Just don t scrap that tail#!! There are plenty of A&Ps around. Sent from my iPhone ... [Non-text portions of this message have
                          Message 12 of 28 , Jan 4, 2012
                            Well, hey! That's easy enough! Just don't scrap that tail#!! There are plenty of A&Ps around.

                            Sent from my iPhone

                            On Jan 4, 2012, at 1:53 PM, "texasquadj" <jeffrey.letempt@...> wrote:

                            > Chad,
                            >
                            > I think most people misunderstand the 51% rule thing. In order for an aircraft to be considered an amateur built aircraft, the majority of the aircraft (hence the term 51% rule) has to be built by amateur builders. This 51% does not have to be by just one person, it can be built by several different people. You do not have to personally build 51% of the aircraft yourself, you just have to be able to document that at least 51% of the aircraft was built by amateurs. Not sure this is important for you if your airplane already has an airworthiness certificate.
                            >
                            > If you have purchased an amateur built experimental aircraft with an existing AW certificate, you can perform any modification, repair, or maintenance you want to, you just cannot sign off the annual condition inspection unless you have your A&P certificate. If you do any major alteration, you have to notify the FAA and enter an abbreviated restricted test program for the airplane (I think it is generally 5 hours).
                            >
                            > FAA AC 20-27G details the certification and operation of amateur built aircraft.
                            >
                            > Jeff
                            >
                            > --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, Chad Burrell <kodamacarpentry37@...> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > not to change the subject but dose anyone know the FAA's stand on restoring what was at one time a flying dragonfly with 200 hrs on the Hobbs and and the 51% rule I ask because I will have way more than the 51% with the restoration and upgrades but am i going to be allowed to do the maintenance  and annuals or do i just scrap the airworthiness/tail # N24DF and and start overÂ
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > ________________________________
                            > > From: Jon Goslee <jngoslee@...>
                            > > To: "Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com" <Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com>
                            > > Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 3:42 PM
                            > > Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] Re: The Dragonfly and LSA
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Â
                            > > I could not see a person with 20 hours flying a dragonfly, but that just me.
                            > >
                            > > Jon Goslee
                            > >
                            > > On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:15 PM, "Bob" <bwilson4web@...> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > > I see merit in your thinking:
                            > > >
                            > > > --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, "texasquadj" <jeffrey.letempt@> wrote:
                            > > > >
                            > > > > . . . I
                            > > > > think the intent of this is for airplanes that clearly did not
                            > > > > meet the LSA requirements and had flown that way that you
                            > > > > cannot administratively place new limitations or make
                            > > > > modifications to the airplane so it will meet the LSA
                            > > > > requirements and call it good. An example of this is the
                            > > > > Ercoupe. You cannot take a 415-E with a max gross weight
                            > > > > of 1400 pounds and just say I am going to limit the gross
                            > > > > weight to 1320 and fly it as a LSA. . . .
                            > > >
                            > > > If the individual builder and their one plane defines the LSA then maybe the builder could 'declare' that it meets the LSA requirements and fly what is otherwise a Dragonfly. In truth, I've only gotten a casual understanding of how LSA is handled and administered . . . being distracted by my current project. <grins>
                            > > >
                            > > > Thanks,
                            > > > Bob Wilson
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > >
                            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            > >
                            >
                            >


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Chad Burrell
                            I  myself will have done more than 50% on this plane alown by he time I finish with out the other builders and I have built the all the parts of my other
                            Message 13 of 28 , Jan 4, 2012
                              I  myself will have done more than 50% on this plane alown by he time I finish with out the other builders and I have built the all the parts of my other dragonfly

                               and the fuselage is near glassing the out side  it may not count with the FAA but between the two I definitely  have built  More than 95% of a dragonfly


                              ________________________________
                              From: texasquadj <jeffrey.letempt@...>
                              To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com 
                              Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 2:53 PM
                              Subject: [Dragonflylist] Repairman's Certificate


                               
                              Chad,

                              I think most people misunderstand the 51% rule thing. In order for an aircraft to be considered an amateur built aircraft, the majority of the aircraft (hence the term 51% rule) has to be built by amateur builders. This 51% does not have to be by just one person, it can be built by several different people. You do not have to personally build 51% of the aircraft yourself, you just have to be able to document that at least 51% of the aircraft was built by amateurs. Not sure this is important for you if your airplane already has an airworthiness certificate.

                              If you have purchased an amateur built experimental aircraft with an existing AW certificate, you can perform any modification, repair, or maintenance you want to, you just cannot sign off the annual condition inspection unless you have your A&P certificate. If you do any major alteration, you have to notify the FAA and enter an abbreviated restricted test program for the airplane (I think it is generally 5 hours).

                              FAA AC 20-27G details the certification and operation of amateur built aircraft.

                              Jeff

                              --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, Chad Burrell <kodamacarpentry37@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > not to change the subject but dose anyone know the FAA's stand on restoring what was at one time a flying dragonfly with 200 hrs on the Hobbs and and the 51% rule I ask because I will have way more than the 51% with the restoration and upgrades but am i going to be allowed to do the maintenance   and annuals or do i just scrap the airworthiness/tail # N24DF and  and start over 
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > ________________________________
                              > From: Jon Goslee <jngoslee@...>
                              > To: "Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com" <Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com>
                              > Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 3:42 PM
                              > Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] Re: The Dragonfly and LSA
                              >
                              >
                              >  
                              > I could not see a person with 20 hours flying a dragonfly, but that just me.
                              >
                              > Jon Goslee
                              >
                              > On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:15 PM, "Bob" <bwilson4web@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > > I see merit in your thinking:
                              > >
                              > > --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, "texasquadj" <jeffrey.letempt@> wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > . . . I
                              > > > think the intent of this is for airplanes that clearly did not
                              > > > meet the LSA requirements and had flown that way that you
                              > > > cannot administratively place new limitations or make
                              > > > modifications to the airplane so it will meet the LSA
                              > > > requirements and call it good. An example of this is the
                              > > > Ercoupe. You cannot take a 415-E with a max gross weight
                              > > > of 1400 pounds and just say I am going to limit the gross
                              > > > weight to 1320 and fly it as a LSA. . . .
                              > >
                              > > If the individual builder and their one plane defines the LSA then maybe the builder could 'declare' that it meets the LSA requirements and fly what is otherwise a Dragonfly. In truth, I've only gotten a casual understanding of how LSA is handled and administered . . . being distracted by my current project. <grins>
                              > >
                              > > Thanks,
                              > > Bob Wilson
                              > >
                              > >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >




                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • texasquadj
                              Chad, I think depending on how the FAA in your area interprets paragraph 17a in AC 20-27G they have some flexibility with issuing you a repairman s certificate
                              Message 14 of 28 , Jan 4, 2012
                                Chad,

                                I think depending on how the FAA in your area interprets paragraph 17a in AC 20-27G they have some flexibility with issuing you a repairman's certificate as long as you can demonstrate that you have a good understanding of the systems and construction. Worst case for an amateur built experimental that already has an AW certificate is that you have to pay someone a little money every year to perform the annual condition inspection. Doesn't need to be an IA, just an A&P.

                                At some point (maybe after I retire) I would certainly entertain assisting people like you who need an A&P to sign off an annual, but right now I am so busy with work and personal stuff that I do not have the time.

                                Jeff


                                --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, Chad Burrell <kodamacarpentry37@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > I  myself will have done more than 50% on this plane alown by he time I finish with out the other builders and I have built the all the parts of my other dragonfly
                                >
                                >  and the fuselage is near glassing the out side  it may not count with the FAA but between the two I definitely  have built  More than 95% of a dragonfly
                                >
                                >
                                > ________________________________
                                > From: texasquadj <jeffrey.letempt@...>
                                > To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com 
                                > Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 2:53 PM
                                > Subject: [Dragonflylist] Repairman's Certificate
                                >
                                >
                                >  
                                > Chad,
                                >
                                > I think most people misunderstand the 51% rule thing. In order for an aircraft to be considered an amateur built aircraft, the majority of the aircraft (hence the term 51% rule) has to be built by amateur builders. This 51% does not have to be by just one person, it can be built by several different people. You do not have to personally build 51% of the aircraft yourself, you just have to be able to document that at least 51% of the aircraft was built by amateurs. Not sure this is important for you if your airplane already has an airworthiness certificate.
                                >
                                > If you have purchased an amateur built experimental aircraft with an existing AW certificate, you can perform any modification, repair, or maintenance you want to, you just cannot sign off the annual condition inspection unless you have your A&P certificate. If you do any major alteration, you have to notify the FAA and enter an abbreviated restricted test program for the airplane (I think it is generally 5 hours).
                                >
                                > FAA AC 20-27G details the certification and operation of amateur built aircraft.
                                >
                                > Jeff
                                >
                                > --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, Chad Burrell <kodamacarpentry37@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > not to change the subject but dose anyone know the FAA's stand on restoring what was at one time a flying dragonfly with 200 hrs on the Hobbs and and the 51% rule I ask because I will have way more than the 51% with the restoration and upgrades but am i going to be allowed to do the maintenance   and annuals or do i just scrap the airworthiness/tail # N24DF and  and start over 
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > ________________________________
                                > > From: Jon Goslee <jngoslee@>
                                > > To: "Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com" <Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com>
                                > > Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 3:42 PM
                                > > Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] Re: The Dragonfly and LSA
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >  
                                > > I could not see a person with 20 hours flying a dragonfly, but that just me.
                                > >
                                > > Jon Goslee
                                > >
                                > > On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:15 PM, "Bob" <bwilson4web@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > > I see merit in your thinking:
                                > > >
                                > > > --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, "texasquadj" <jeffrey.letempt@> wrote:
                                > > > >
                                > > > > . . . I
                                > > > > think the intent of this is for airplanes that clearly did not
                                > > > > meet the LSA requirements and had flown that way that you
                                > > > > cannot administratively place new limitations or make
                                > > > > modifications to the airplane so it will meet the LSA
                                > > > > requirements and call it good. An example of this is the
                                > > > > Ercoupe. You cannot take a 415-E with a max gross weight
                                > > > > of 1400 pounds and just say I am going to limit the gross
                                > > > > weight to 1320 and fly it as a LSA. . . .
                                > > >
                                > > > If the individual builder and their one plane defines the LSA then maybe the builder could 'declare' that it meets the LSA requirements and fly what is otherwise a Dragonfly. In truth, I've only gotten a casual understanding of how LSA is handled and administered . . . being distracted by my current project. <grins>
                                > > >
                                > > > Thanks,
                                > > > Bob Wilson
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > >
                                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                > >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                              • Patrick Panzera
                                Here s the rule: http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2009-10_51percent.asp Pat On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Chad Burrell ... [Non-text portions of
                                Message 15 of 28 , Jan 4, 2012
                                  Here's the rule:

                                  http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2009-10_51percent.asp

                                  Pat

                                  On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Chad Burrell
                                  <kodamacarpentry37@...>wrote:

                                  > **
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > I myself will have done more than 50% on this plane alown by he time I
                                  > finish with out the other builders and I have built the all the parts of my
                                  > other dragonfly
                                  >
                                  > and the fuselage is near glassing the out side it may not count with the
                                  > FAA but between the two I definitely have built More than 95% of a
                                  > dragonfly
                                  >


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Chad Burrell
                                  Thats good to know my father is an A&P but his IA is not current and he says he will never take that test again it was Days long
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Jan 4, 2012
                                    Thats good to know my father is an A&P but his IA is not current and he says he will never take that test again it was Days long


                                    ________________________________
                                    From: texasquadj <jeffrey.letempt@...>
                                    To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 4:06 PM
                                    Subject: [Dragonflylist] Re: Repairman's Certificate


                                     
                                    Chad,

                                    I think depending on how the FAA in your area interprets paragraph 17a in AC 20-27G they have some flexibility with issuing you a repairman's certificate as long as you can demonstrate that you have a good understanding of the systems and construction. Worst case for an amateur built experimental that already has an AW certificate is that you have to pay someone a little money every year to perform the annual condition inspection. Doesn't need to be an IA, just an A&P.

                                    At some point (maybe after I retire) I would certainly entertain assisting people like you who need an A&P to sign off an annual, but right now I am so busy with work and personal stuff that I do not have the time.

                                    Jeff

                                    --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, Chad Burrell <kodamacarpentry37@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > I  myself will have done more than 50% on this plane alown by he time I finish with out the other builders and I have built the all the parts of my other dragonfly
                                    >
                                    >  and the fuselage is near glassing the out side  it may not count with the FAA but between the two I definitely  have built  More than 95% of a dragonfly
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > ________________________________
                                    > From: texasquadj <jeffrey.letempt@...>
                                    > To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com 
                                    > Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 2:53 PM
                                    > Subject: [Dragonflylist] Repairman's Certificate
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >  
                                    > Chad,
                                    >
                                    > I think most people misunderstand the 51% rule thing. In order for an aircraft to be considered an amateur built aircraft, the majority of the aircraft (hence the term 51% rule) has to be built by amateur builders. This 51% does not have to be by just one person, it can be built by several different people. You do not have to personally build 51% of the aircraft yourself, you just have to be able to document that at least 51% of the aircraft was built by amateurs. Not sure this is important for you if your airplane already has an airworthiness certificate.
                                    >
                                    > If you have purchased an amateur built experimental aircraft with an existing AW certificate, you can perform any modification, repair, or maintenance you want to, you just cannot sign off the annual condition inspection unless you have your A&P certificate. If you do any major alteration, you have to notify the FAA and enter an abbreviated restricted test program for the airplane (I think it is generally 5 hours).
                                    >
                                    > FAA AC 20-27G details the certification and operation of amateur built aircraft.
                                    >
                                    > Jeff
                                    >
                                    > --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, Chad Burrell <kodamacarpentry37@> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > not to change the subject but dose anyone know the FAA's stand on restoring what was at one time a flying dragonfly with 200 hrs on the Hobbs and and the 51% rule I ask because I will have way more than the 51% with the restoration and upgrades but am i going to be allowed to do the maintenance   and annuals or do i just scrap the airworthiness/tail # N24DF and  and start over 
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > ________________________________
                                    > > From: Jon Goslee <jngoslee@>
                                    > > To: "Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com" <Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com>
                                    > > Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 3:42 PM
                                    > > Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] Re: The Dragonfly and LSA
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >  
                                    > > I could not see a person with 20 hours flying a dragonfly, but that just me.
                                    > >
                                    > > Jon Goslee
                                    > >
                                    > > On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:15 PM, "Bob" <bwilson4web@> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > > I see merit in your thinking:
                                    > > >
                                    > > > --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, "texasquadj" <jeffrey.letempt@> wrote:
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > . . . I
                                    > > > > think the intent of this is for airplanes that clearly did not
                                    > > > > meet the LSA requirements and had flown that way that you
                                    > > > > cannot administratively place new limitations or make
                                    > > > > modifications to the airplane so it will meet the LSA
                                    > > > > requirements and call it good. An example of this is the
                                    > > > > Ercoupe. You cannot take a 415-E with a max gross weight
                                    > > > > of 1400 pounds and just say I am going to limit the gross
                                    > > > > weight to 1320 and fly it as a LSA. . . .
                                    > > >
                                    > > > If the individual builder and their one plane defines the LSA then maybe the builder could 'declare' that it meets the LSA requirements and fly what is otherwise a Dragonfly. In truth, I've only gotten a casual understanding of how LSA is handled and administered . . . being distracted by my current project. <grins>
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Thanks,
                                    > > > Bob Wilson
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > >
                                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >




                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • oneskydog@aol.com
                                    No IA required for an amateur built condition inspection. Just current A&P. Regards, Charlie Johnson Ogden, Utah In a message dated 1/4/2012 2:28:18 P.M.
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Jan 4, 2012
                                      No IA required for an amateur built condition inspection. Just current A&P.

                                      Regards,
                                      Charlie Johnson
                                      Ogden, Utah


                                      In a message dated 1/4/2012 2:28:18 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
                                      kodamacarpentry37@... writes:

                                      Thats good to know my father is an A&P but his IA is not current and he
                                      says he will never take that test again it was Days long


                                      ________________________________
                                      From: texasquadj <jeffrey.letempt@...>
                                      To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com
                                      Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 4:06 PM
                                      Subject: [Dragonflylist] Re: Repairman's Certificate



                                      Chad,

                                      I think depending on how the FAA in your area interprets paragraph 17a in
                                      AC 20-27G they have some flexibility with issuing you a repairman's
                                      certificate as long as you can demonstrate that you have a good understanding of
                                      the systems and construction. Worst case for an amateur built experimental
                                      that already has an AW certificate is that you have to pay someone a little
                                      money every year to perform the annual condition inspection. Doesn't need
                                      to be an IA, just an A&P.

                                      At some point (maybe after I retire) I would certainly entertain assisting
                                      people like you who need an A&P to sign off an annual, but right now I am
                                      so busy with work and personal stuff that I do not have the time.

                                      Jeff

                                      --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, Chad Burrell <kodamacarpentry37@...>
                                      wrote:
                                      >
                                      > IÂ myself will have done more than 50% on this plane alown by he time I
                                      finish with out the other builders and I have built the all the parts of
                                      my other dragonfly
                                      >
                                      >  and the fuselage is near glassing the out side it may not count with
                                      the FAA but between the two I definitely have built More than 95% of a
                                      dragonfly
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > ________________________________
                                      > From: texasquadj <jeffrey.letempt@...>
                                      > To: Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.comÂ
                                      > Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 2:53 PM
                                      > Subject: [Dragonflylist] Repairman's Certificate
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Â
                                      > Chad,
                                      >
                                      > I think most people misunderstand the 51% rule thing. In order for an
                                      aircraft to be considered an amateur built aircraft, the majority of the
                                      aircraft (hence the term 51% rule) has to be built by amateur builders. This
                                      51% does not have to be by just one person, it can be built by several
                                      different people. You do not have to personally build 51% of the aircraft
                                      yourself, you just have to be able to document that at least 51% of the
                                      aircraft was built by amateurs. Not sure this is important for you if your
                                      airplane already has an airworthiness certificate.
                                      >
                                      > If you have purchased an amateur built experimental aircraft with an
                                      existing AW certificate, you can perform any modification, repair, or
                                      maintenance you want to, you just cannot sign off the annual condition inspection
                                      unless you have your A&P certificate. If you do any major alteration, you
                                      have to notify the FAA and enter an abbreviated restricted test program for
                                      the airplane (I think it is generally 5 hours).
                                      >
                                      > FAA AC 20-27G details the certification and operation of amateur built
                                      aircraft.
                                      >
                                      > Jeff
                                      >
                                      > --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, Chad Burrell <kodamacarpentry37@>
                                      wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > not to change the subject but dose anyone know the FAA's stand on
                                      restoring what was at one time a flying dragonfly with 200 hrs on the Hobbs
                                      and and the 51% rule I ask because I will have way more than the 51% with
                                      the restoration and upgrades but am i going to be allowed to do the
                                      maintenance  and annuals or do i just scrap the airworthiness/tail # N24DF andÂ
                                       and start overÂÂ
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > ________________________________
                                      > > From: Jon Goslee <jngoslee@>
                                      > > To: "Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com" <Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com>
                                      > > Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2012 3:42 PM
                                      > > Subject: Re: [Dragonflylist] Re: The Dragonfly and LSA
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > ÂÂ
                                      > > I could not see a person with 20 hours flying a dragonfly, but that
                                      just me.
                                      > >
                                      > > Jon Goslee
                                      > >
                                      > > On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:15 PM, "Bob" <bwilson4web@> wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > > I see merit in your thinking:
                                      > > >
                                      > > > --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, "texasquadj"
                                      <jeffrey.letempt@> wrote:
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > . . . I
                                      > > > > think the intent of this is for airplanes that clearly did not
                                      > > > > meet the LSA requirements and had flown that way that you
                                      > > > > cannot administratively place new limitations or make
                                      > > > > modifications to the airplane so it will meet the LSA
                                      > > > > requirements and call it good. An example of this is the
                                      > > > > Ercoupe. You cannot take a 415-E with a max gross weight
                                      > > > > of 1400 pounds and just say I am going to limit the gross
                                      > > > > weight to 1320 and fly it as a LSA. . . .
                                      > > >
                                      > > > If the individual builder and their one plane defines the LSA then
                                      maybe the builder could 'declare' that it meets the LSA requirements and fly
                                      what is otherwise a Dragonfly. In truth, I've only gotten a casual
                                      understanding of how LSA is handled and administered . . . being distracted by my
                                      current project. <grins>
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Thanks,
                                      > > > Bob Wilson
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > >
                                      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >




                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                                      ------------------------------------

                                      Yahoo! Groups Links





                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Bob
                                      Hi Chad, ... I bought N19WT in October and like your plane, it has 150 hrs on the airframe. So I m building a storage shed into an airplane repair hangar and
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Jan 5, 2012
                                        Hi Chad,

                                        --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, Chad Burrell <kodamacarpentry37@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > not to change the subject but dose anyone know the FAA's stand on restoring
                                        > what was at one time a flying dragonfly with 200 hrs on the Hobbs and and
                                        > the 51% rule? I ask because I will have way more than the 51% with the restoration
                                        > and upgrades but am i going to be allowed to do the maintenance   and annuals
                                        > or do i just scrap the airworthiness/tail # N24DF and  and start over 

                                        I bought N19WT in October and like your plane, it has 150 hrs on the airframe. So I'm building a storage shed into an airplane repair hangar and learning what I'll have to do to get it in the air again. Right now, I'm making a study of:

                                        o Part 43 - http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/ric/local_more/media/seminars/Part%2043.ppt

                                        o FAA Form 337 - http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/orl/local_more/media/ppt/337.ppt

                                        I am planning to hire an A&P to supervise my work. I am also making sure I follow the current rules on documenting my work. I've also spoken with my area FAA and will send him a follow-up e-mail later today with some questions.

                                        There are things I want to do with N19WT that improve safety such as a fuselage forward access hatch (inspection of rudder pedals, brake cylinders, firewall forward interfaces and back-side instruments) and VGs on the canard (increases in stall-buck speed from rain or bug contamination.)

                                        If it comes to a choice between safety issue versus paperwork, I'd rather scrap the part I can't get approved even if it means I'll wind up scraping the plane in parts and building out a whole new Dragonfly. But I'll make sure everyone involved has the facts and data.

                                        Bob Wilson
                                      • texasquadj
                                        FAR Part 43 is not applicable to amateur built experimental aircraft, neither is the 337. The only part of FAR Part 43 that is sort of applicable to amateur
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Jan 5, 2012
                                          FAR Part 43 is not applicable to amateur built experimental aircraft, neither is the 337. The only part of FAR Part 43 that is sort of applicable to amateur built experimental aircraft is that the scope of the annual conditional inspection should be in line with what is required in Appendix D.

                                          Here is what it specifically says in the applicability paragraph of FAR Part 43:

                                          (b) This part does not apply to—

                                          (1) Any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different kind of airworthiness certificate for that aircraft; or

                                          Jeff


                                          --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, "Bob" <bwilson4web@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Hi Chad,
                                          >
                                          > --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, Chad Burrell <kodamacarpentry37@> wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > not to change the subject but dose anyone know the FAA's stand on restoring
                                          > > what was at one time a flying dragonfly with 200 hrs on the Hobbs and and
                                          > > the 51% rule? I ask because I will have way more than the 51% with the restoration
                                          > > and upgrades but am i going to be allowed to do the maintenance   and annuals
                                          > > or do i just scrap the airworthiness/tail # N24DF and  and start over 
                                          >
                                          > I bought N19WT in October and like your plane, it has 150 hrs on the airframe. So I'm building a storage shed into an airplane repair hangar and learning what I'll have to do to get it in the air again. Right now, I'm making a study of:
                                          >
                                          > o Part 43 - http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/ric/local_more/media/seminars/Part%2043.ppt
                                          >
                                          > o FAA Form 337 - http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/orl/local_more/media/ppt/337.ppt
                                          >
                                          > I am planning to hire an A&P to supervise my work. I am also making sure I follow the current rules on documenting my work. I've also spoken with my area FAA and will send him a follow-up e-mail later today with some questions.
                                          >
                                          > There are things I want to do with N19WT that improve safety such as a fuselage forward access hatch (inspection of rudder pedals, brake cylinders, firewall forward interfaces and back-side instruments) and VGs on the canard (increases in stall-buck speed from rain or bug contamination.)
                                          >
                                          > If it comes to a choice between safety issue versus paperwork, I'd rather scrap the part I can't get approved even if it means I'll wind up scraping the plane in parts and building out a whole new Dragonfly. But I'll make sure everyone involved has the facts and data.
                                          >
                                          > Bob Wilson
                                          >
                                        • Bob
                                          Hi Jeff, ... So now I am a little confused. Because I bought N19WT, 3d owner, I m ineligible for a repairman s certificate. I knew this and expected an A&P
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Jan 5, 2012
                                            Hi Jeff,

                                            --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, "texasquadj" <jeffrey.letempt@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > FAR Part 43 is not applicable to amateur built
                                            > experimental aircraft, neither is the 337. The only
                                            > part of FAR Part 43 that is sort of applicable to amateur
                                            > built experimental aircraft is that the scope of the
                                            > annual conditional inspection should be in line with
                                            > what is required in Appendix D.
                                            >
                                            > Here is what it specifically says in the applicability
                                            > paragraph of FAR Part 43:
                                            >
                                            > (b) This part does not apply to—
                                            >
                                            > (1) Any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an
                                            > experimental certificate, unless the FAA has previously
                                            > issued a different kind of airworthiness certificate for
                                            > that aircraft; or

                                            So now I am a little confused. Because I bought N19WT, 3d owner, I'm ineligible for a "repairman's" certificate. I knew this and expected an A&P to sign-off on the annual. But does this mean I and the A&P are free from form 337 requirements?

                                            For example, this is my short list of what I need to do to get N19WT up to a state where I will feel happy flying it:

                                            o replace HAPI 1835 cc engine
                                            o relocate and replace engine controls to center console using Ellison recommended linkages for throttle and mixture. Carb heat will move too but may use existing cable.
                                            o 4-to-1 exhaust manifold instead of 2-to-1 rusted pipes
                                            o fuselage forward hatch
                                            o relocate rudders and brake cylinders to canard lift bulkhead area
                                            o vortex generators
                                            o antenna change
                                            o LED navigation and cabin lights
                                            . . .

                                            I can do these without supporting form 337 with just the A&P supervision and sign off . . . everything is good?

                                            Thanks,
                                            Bob Wilson
                                          • texasquadj
                                            Bob, You do not need A&P supervision for anything related to the repair or alteration of your amateur built experimental aircraft. The only thing you will
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Jan 5, 2012
                                              Bob,

                                              You do not need A&P supervision for anything related to the repair or alteration of your amateur built experimental aircraft. The only thing you will need to do (if you cannot get a repairman's certificate for your airplane - not all that likely) is hire an A&P to sign off the annual condition inspection. Just make the appropriate entries in your aircraft and/or engine logbook to document what you did.

                                              As I stated yesterday, if you make a major alteration you have to notify the FAA (not with a 337) and enter a brief test flight period. I would not consider anything you described a major alteration, but I would need to do a little more research to say for sure. This is the real beauty of an amateur built experimental aircraft. As the owner of the airplane you are the certifier of the parts (with a few exceptions like IFR certified navigation equipment and similar) and the you can do all the work yourself. When the A&P performs the annual condition inspection, within the general scope of FAR Part 43 Appendix D, he/she will verify the airworthiness of the airplane. I would certainly encourage you to consult someone knowledgable with regards to the work you are doing if you are not absolutely confident with what you are going to do, but that is what you are doing on this list. I just need to hop in my Dragonfly some day and make a trip to Huntsvill for a visit some day. I landed at Hazel Green on my way to Air Venture in 2009.

                                              Jeff

                                              --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, "Bob" <bwilson4web@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > Hi Jeff,
                                              >
                                              > --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, "texasquadj" <jeffrey.letempt@> wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > > FAR Part 43 is not applicable to amateur built
                                              > > experimental aircraft, neither is the 337. The only
                                              > > part of FAR Part 43 that is sort of applicable to amateur
                                              > > built experimental aircraft is that the scope of the
                                              > > annual conditional inspection should be in line with
                                              > > what is required in Appendix D.
                                              > >
                                              > > Here is what it specifically says in the applicability
                                              > > paragraph of FAR Part 43:
                                              > >
                                              > > (b) This part does not apply to—
                                              > >
                                              > > (1) Any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an
                                              > > experimental certificate, unless the FAA has previously
                                              > > issued a different kind of airworthiness certificate for
                                              > > that aircraft; or
                                              >
                                              > So now I am a little confused. Because I bought N19WT, 3d owner, I'm ineligible for a "repairman's" certificate. I knew this and expected an A&P to sign-off on the annual. But does this mean I and the A&P are free from form 337 requirements?
                                              >
                                              > For example, this is my short list of what I need to do to get N19WT up to a state where I will feel happy flying it:
                                              >
                                              > o replace HAPI 1835 cc engine
                                              > o relocate and replace engine controls to center console using Ellison recommended linkages for throttle and mixture. Carb heat will move too but may use existing cable.
                                              > o 4-to-1 exhaust manifold instead of 2-to-1 rusted pipes
                                              > o fuselage forward hatch
                                              > o relocate rudders and brake cylinders to canard lift bulkhead area
                                              > o vortex generators
                                              > o antenna change
                                              > o LED navigation and cabin lights
                                              > . . .
                                              >
                                              > I can do these without supporting form 337 with just the A&P supervision and sign off . . . everything is good?
                                              >
                                              > Thanks,
                                              > Bob Wilson
                                              >
                                            • Bob
                                              This is good news! ... What I did is contact Baxter Castelberry of the Birmingham FAA office when I bought the plane and called him again in December. We were
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Jan 5, 2012
                                                This is good news!

                                                --- In Dragonflylist@yahoogroups.com, "texasquadj" <jeffrey.letempt@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > Bob,
                                                >
                                                > You do not need A&P supervision for anything related to the
                                                > repair or alteration of your amateur built experimental
                                                > aircraft. The only thing you will need to do (if you cannot
                                                > get a repairman's certificate for your airplane - not all
                                                > that likely) is hire an A&P to sign off the annual
                                                > condition inspection. Just make the appropriate entries
                                                > in your aircraft and/or engine logbook to document what you did.
                                                >
                                                > As I stated yesterday, if you make a major alteration you have
                                                > to notify the FAA (not with a 337) and enter a brief test
                                                > flight period. I would not consider anything you described
                                                > a major alteration, but I would need to do a little more
                                                > research to say for sure.

                                                What I did is contact Baxter Castelberry of the Birmingham FAA office when I bought the plane and called him again in December. We were both busy with the holiday's but I warned him I was sending a note with some questions (see e-mail below my signature.) I understand Baxter is the 'go to guy' for amateur built planes so I've been using him as my 'FAA rep.'

                                                > . . This is the real beauty of an amateur built
                                                > experimental aircraft. As the owner of the airplane you are
                                                > the certifier of the parts (with a few exceptions like
                                                > IFR certified navigation equipment and similar) and the you
                                                > can do all the work yourself. When the A&P performs the
                                                > annual condition inspection, within the general scope of
                                                > FAR Part 43 Appendix D, he/she will verify the airworthiness
                                                > of the airplane.

                                                One good thing is I should have all of the work well documented anyway. I'll still find my A&P before getting too far into the project to make sure we're on the same page. Then I expect him to help me get the completed plane off the trailer with wing and canard and everything else ready for inspection and testing.

                                                > . . .I would certainly encourage you to consult
                                                > someone knowledgable with regards to the work you are doing
                                                > if you are not absolutely confident with what you are going
                                                > to do, but that is what you are doing on this list.

                                                Not to worry, I'm not suicidal. If you haven't noticed, I'm kinda of chatty too and my ears work too. <grins>

                                                > . . I just need to hop in my Dragonfly some day and make a trip
                                                > to Huntsville for a visit some day. I landed at Hazel Green
                                                > on my way to Air Venture in 2009.

                                                It is an open invitation to the list. Let me know and if it is ad hoc, send me a note or call my cell phone: 256 652 3618

                                                Thanks,
                                                Bob Wilson

                                                ps. This is the note I sent Baxter at the Birmingham FAA office:

                                                I am slowly getting my rented work shed configured:
                                                http://hiwaay.net/~bzwilson/dragonfly/

                                                The web page has links to the digitized Aircraft and Engine logbooks
                                                and extensive photos of everything done to date. I've also started
                                                collecting existing documentation for a "Pilot's Operating Handbook" .
                                                . . something more professional than a stack of loose papers!

                                                Tuesday January 3d the registration still shows the late Waldo Born as
                                                the owner. I submitted the paperwork to OKC the first of December but
                                                I'm not going to get anxious until sometime in February. I know these
                                                things take time and meanwhile I have a lot of prep work to keep me
                                                busy which is the purpose of this note.

                                                I found two FAA PowerPoint training charts on Part 43 and Form 337.
                                                Does the FAA periodically offer either of these training sessions open
                                                to pilot/owners?

                                                I know the rework/repair of N19WT needs to comply with both and
                                                possibly include the checklist of HBAW98-18. Right now I don't have an
                                                A&P under contract to supervise my work so I thought I'll ask you some
                                                questions. There is no rush on the answers but I'll need to understand
                                                what we'll have to do to get N19WT safe and airworthy again:

                                                Q1. Is there any need for post-modification form 337?

                                                I noticed Waldo and the builder, Walter Triplett, made no references
                                                to Form 337 for the work they did. For example, Walter added wheel
                                                pants and later Waldo removed them. I found the plane without wheel
                                                pants in my inspection. Furthermore, I learned there were other
                                                post-certification changes mentioned in the aircraft log book.Do we
                                                just take what we've got since I won't be able to get the dearly
                                                departed to come back and sign the forms?

                                                Q2. How are form 337s tracked?

                                                Are they assigned a tracking number or just stored via an index a
                                                plane "paper folder" at OKC. It is safe to assume that lacking a
                                                aircraft log entry, there are no form 337s for N19WT or should I
                                                contact OKC and request a search/lookup?

                                                Q3. Should an engine change with modifications be one Form 337 or a set?

                                                The original HAPI engine had a number of problems of which some were
                                                fixed and others we have no documentation. Eventually, the engine
                                                builder, Rex Taylor, went out of business when his over-sized engine
                                                was found to have a major problem, weak crankshaft. Regardless, I plan
                                                to replace the 1835 cc engine with a new one from Great Plains. But
                                                there are other technologies the engine needs:

                                                - All electric ignition with backup battery system. The Slick magneto
                                                on the original engine has 150 hours with a 250 hour overhaul
                                                interval. But it does not generate as hot of a spark as the electronic
                                                ignition systems which now have much improved spark advance logic. I
                                                would like to go with single-spark, single-electronic ignition, with
                                                dual power sources include a backup battery wire-ORed via Schottky
                                                diodes. This saves weight and is better able to deal with 100LL plug
                                                fouling risk. I have no problem with adding a redundant electronic
                                                ignition to a second set of spark plugs and running each from separate
                                                12V power sources. Would this ignition change just be part of the
                                                engine swap Form 337 or separate?

                                                - Replace left side, cable, throttle, mixture, and carb heat controls
                                                with linkage, center panel. This allows either the pilot or passenger
                                                to operate them. Furthermore, Ellison recommends use of linkage
                                                carburetor controls as did the A&P who handled the sale. This means
                                                adding a fire-safe, access port through the firewall as well as the
                                                various linkages and knobs. Would this fall under a single engine Form
                                                337 or separate for the fuselage?

                                                - New 4-to-1 exhaust manifold instead of the rusted pair of 2-to-1
                                                pipes. This allows adding a noise control 'stinger' or glass-pack.
                                                Also, should 100LL become impossible and we have to use ethanol
                                                augmented gas, a low-boost pressure turbocharger can restore _RATED_
                                                power. I do not plan on a turbo-booster at this time but want the
                                                exhaust pipes ready IF it become necessary in the future.

                                                So what makes most sense, one Form 337 that covers the complete engine
                                                swap and upgrade including the throttle/mixture/carb heat linkages or
                                                break them into a set of Form 337s?

                                                Q4. Part 43 allows someone "under A&P supervision" to do the normal
                                                annual work but does this also apply to the Form 337 work?

                                                I know it sounds like a nit but sometimes paper work has a 'mind of
                                                its own.' My plan is to interview and hire an A&P and pre-pay for his
                                                time. Our contract will state that payment for his service is not to
                                                ever be a factor in his judgement about the work I do. Quality of
                                                professional advice will never be a reason for ending our agreement.

                                                Q5. Should the disassembly and towing to Huntsville be an aircraft
                                                logbook entry that as owner I can (and should) make?

                                                Q6. Form 337 for adding a fuselage forward inspection hatch?

                                                Walter Tippet weighed 140 lbs and stood 5' 9". In contrast, I'm 6'
                                                with long legs and currently at 260 lbs headed towards 220 by the time
                                                all of the work is done. The late Waldo Born made a logbook entry
                                                about changing the rudder pedals for his length but his son had put in
                                                a removable foam pad because his knees hit the bottom of the
                                                instrument panel. I did a 'fit' test and without the seat pads, I'm OK
                                                . . . like fitting in some of my smaller pants. IMHO, the rudder
                                                pedals and brake cylinders are in an area impossible for anyone but
                                                smaller people to reach.

                                                I understand from the newsletter that two Dragonfly owners have added
                                                an access hatch in the area between the firewall and cockpit. This is
                                                a major modification and I would expect to do a fairly extensive Form
                                                337 for N19WT. Including stress analysis and strain measurement under
                                                load. But I get the impression this would require a longer approval as
                                                it may need to go beyond the regional Aviation Safety Inspector's
                                                view.

                                                Of all the changes, this is the one that I see as being the greatest
                                                risk and longest review. I'll start this effort early so we can 'start
                                                the clock' once I have my A&P hired. But I wanted your thoughts.

                                                Q7. Relocation of rudder pedals and brake cylinders to fuselage from canard?

                                                Another Dragonfly owner relocated the rudder pedals and brakes to the
                                                area just beyond the canard lift bulkhead. Currently N19WT has the
                                                rudder pedals and brake cylinders located over the canard which made
                                                my initial inspection of that area impossible. Once we removed the
                                                canard, I was able to confirm those are not brake fluid stains but a
                                                darker epoxy batch (it happens.) Having the rudder pedals and brake
                                                cylinders moved from the canard means the rudder linkages would stay
                                                within the fuselage and further complicate inspecting the brake
                                                cylinders unless I can get approval for the inspection hatch.

                                                I would expect both major changes to be individually covered under
                                                separate Form 337s. Does this make sense?

                                                Q7. To whom or how will my A&P submit the Form 337s?

                                                Do they go to you, someone in your office, or directly to OKC? I know
                                                they need to be done in triplicate with me "the owner" getting one
                                                copy. Of all the proposed changes and repairs, I see the fuselage
                                                hatch as being the most invasive that might need to be kicked to a
                                                review board. Would the engine, rudder pedal and less invasive repairs
                                                and changes be handled out of Birmingham?

                                                Q8. Do these sound like Form 337 changes?
                                                - Canard vortex generators :: to reduce rain and bug splatter impacts
                                                that increase stall-buck speed. It has become a common practice on
                                                several Dragonflies documented in the newsletters.
                                                - LED navigation lights :: new technology not available in 1987 when
                                                N19WT was certified.
                                                - Gear fairing and wheel pants :: they were removed w/o Form 337 and
                                                I may want to put them or something more sensible back on. But the
                                                aircraft log does not reference a Form 337 when they were installed .
                                                . . or removed.
                                                - Antenna adapter :: using an RF filter allows the navigation light,
                                                power wires, 11' in each wing, to work as the antenna so the non-Form
                                                337 Cessna antenna in the fuselage can be removed saving weight and
                                                improving performance.
                                                - Elevator anti-lift tab :: called "sparrow strainers" the existing
                                                ones were 'removed.' There is a better design that anchors to both top
                                                and bottom of the elevators and is ground adjustable. To minimize
                                                weight and avoid moving the elevator center of gravity away from the
                                                hing-line, I would like to build them from carbon fiber.
                                                - Move pilot's stick from center to left side :: the passenger side
                                                already has a control stick on the right fuselage. Moving the pilot's
                                                control stick to the left means flying is left handed (aka., Cessna,
                                                Piiper style) and the center mounted engine controls are available to
                                                both pilot and passenger. This also reduces the risk of a 'bump' while
                                                a chart or lunch is being served.
                                                - Weld-up elevator tube-in-tube linkages :: one of the earliest
                                                modifications discussed in the newsletter, someone had the
                                                bolt-through-tube elongate and suffered elevator flutter due to the
                                                slop. I have not looked at that area but if I don't find it already
                                                done, I plan to Form 337 the change.
                                                - Elevator and aileron gap seals :: well known in the sailplane
                                                world, the seals should improve elevator and aileron authority.

                                                I am still going through all of the paper work that came with the
                                                plane . . . haven't found the radio station license, yet. Also the
                                                "Pilot's Operating Handbook" is notable by its absence so this is on
                                                my list. If you can't tell, I'm interested in working with the FAA and
                                                my A&P to make sure this plane is SAFE and we have the documentation
                                                to prove we did everything needed. Nobody is sticking their necks and
                                                careers out for N19WT.

                                                BTW, I'm planning on an "Open Hanger" event February 20, President's
                                                Day Monday. If you happen to be in the Huntsville area you and any of
                                                your co-workers are welcome to come up and visit. Alternatively, if
                                                you happen to be coming to the Huntsville area, let me know and I'd be
                                                happy to give you a tour of the work shed and my project.
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.