Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Vans motor mount SB

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

drfred(at)suddenlinkmail.
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:57 am Post subject: Vans motor mount SB

Question:



Has anybody run into problems getting the RV 10 certified as "airworthy" 

when they have installed a modified (increased horsepower) Lycoming 

engine?   Does this continue to fall under the experimental regs of 

building our own aircraft?  



Fred Williams

40515

- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

rvbuilder(at)sausen.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:27 am Post subject: Vans motor mount SB

Experimental, is experimental, is experimental.  No such limitation.



Michael



--

- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

james.k.hovis(at)gmail.co
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:58 am Post subject: Vans motor mount SB

Fred,

  I think ultimately you can get a "hotrodded" RV approved. It would

depend on how comfortable and familiar the FAA DAR or Inspector is

with the modification, the original design, and the level the

modification deviates from the original. As an experimental aircraft,

if you can figure how to install one or two turbine powerplants to an

RV-10, you are free to do so (an extreme example I know). The key will

be how many hoops your FAA rep will make you go through to "prove"

your ship is airworthy. One of the good things about buying a kit from

Van's you get the design and engineering work they put into the

original airframe as a basis for your ship and if yours is within the

design limits studied by Van's, then I think you have an easier time

with your paperwork. The further away from a "standard" RV-10 you go,

don't be surprized that the FAA reps will want to see some engineering

analysis to support the re-design and don't look to Van's to support

you either partly due to the "cover my ass" syndrome.

   There's a couple points that should be considered why Van's has a

"CMA" attitude towards "major" modifications: 1) They spent a lot of

time and money developing an airframe that conforms to a certain set

of criteria. Van's could incur considerable expense studying each

deviation request coming in from the builder community. The results

could drastically affect one or more aspect of the original design,

which in Van's opinion could be detrimental to the overall utility of

the airframe. 2) As kit airplanes become an increasing percentage of

the overall GA fleet, especially those aircraft 18 years and newer,

it's increasingly likely that some ambulance chaser is salivating at

the chance to go after a kit manufacturer. A modification that greatly

degraded some part of the performance criteria of the airframe

originally set by Van's and was supported by analysis by Van's could

be blood in the water to the legal sharks should that aircraft crash.

For now, the 51% rule shields Van's, and that theuy probably don't

have the corporate deep pockets like Cessna or Beechcraft, but other

support services may not see such protection.

   Does anyone know if Van's faced a threat of lawsuit from the

Arlington crash mentioned in a previous post? If it wasn't then, I

feel sooner or later a kit maker will see a liability suit as a result

of a crash. I think liability concerns may affect all kit makers and

could kill the industry as it helped depress the production industry

way back when. Hopefully this won't happen until after I begin work on

my own airplane.

    Bottom-line is I see valid reasons for Van's position to

modifications beyond the original design criteria of its airframes.

And on the otherhand, I support those experimenters who want

improvements for their own personal birds, it is EXPERIMENTING

afterall. But, don't go whining when the Feds want you to support your

modifications with rational analysis and Van's tells you you're on

your own.



JKH.



On 1/23/07, Fred Williams, M.D. <drfred(at)suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <drfred(at)suddenlinkmail.com>



 Question:



 Has anybody run into problems getting the RV 10 certified as "airworthy"

 when they have installed a modified (increased horsepower) Lycoming

 engine?   Does this continue to fall under the experimental regs of

 building our own aircraft?



 Fred Williams

 40515

- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

rv10builder(at)verizon.ne
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:11 am Post subject: Vans motor mount SB

The only issue is maybe the FAA/DAR telling you 40hrs versus 25 hour test 

fly-off. Otherwise that's it.

---

- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

drfred(at)suddenlinkmail.
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:24 pm Post subject: Vans Motor mount SB

James :



Thanks for your thoughtful reply.  All of those issues were running 

through my thoughts.  I understand Van's point of view and legal 

responsibilties.  I am a gynecologist and well aware of the legal 

ramifications of something done "outside of the standard of care."  

After having talked with Mr Barrett at Oshgosh last year I am leaning 

toward having him build me an engine.  I see a lot of benefits in his 

designs.  The changes make sense.  But again, not being an engineer and 

being truely able to back up with documentation any significant 

powerplant changes, I do not want to invest 150K on this airplane and 

have a paperwork fight to get it certified. 



I have followed the posts and know that if I put a "stock"  Lycoming  in 

my 10 I will have a great airplane that will last me for 20 years. 



I appreciate all of the input from the previous builders.  It's 

discussion of these issues that move things forward and make it safer 

for all of us.  We better know the questions to ask. 



I just read the last couple of posts before I sent this reply.  All this 

is because of Deems pushing the wrong button?      He sure knows how 

to stir the pot.  

Fred Williams

Money rapidly leaving the checkbook

Hey, the fuselage is here, fiberglass and all.

- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum