what's the process to change the up weight on a Kitfox 7 to the Sport
weight of 1320#.Thanks LJ

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:43:59 -0700, LJ & Nancy Blodgett
> wrote:

>what's the process to change the up weight on a Kitfox 7 to the Sport
>weight of 1320#.Thanks LJ

Enter a gross weight of 1320# on the form when you register it.


================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

Unfortunately you cannot lower a Gross weight to meet Sport Plane Standards
once an aircraft has been certified at a higher gross weight. Has your plane
already been certified (not the same as registered).

Lyman

Thank Del. The plane is all ready registered at 1550#,I want to lower
it to 1320# for a sport plane.It is one of the 15 planes we built as a
group. Thanks for any help. LJ

Del Rawlins wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:43:59 -0700, LJ & Nancy Blodgett
> > wrote:
>
>
>>what's the process to change the up weight on a Kitfox 7 to the Sport
>>weight of 1320#.Thanks LJ
>
>
> Enter a gross weight of 1320# on the form when you register it.
>
>
> ================================================== ==
> Del Rawlins--
> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
> Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

"Hatz Lyman C" > wrote in message
...
> Unfortunately you cannot lower a Gross weight to meet Sport Plane
> Standards
> once an aircraft has been certified at a higher gross weight. Has your
> plane
> already been certified (not the same as registered).
>
> Lyman

May I ask for your reference? Specifically for a reference that pertains to
an aircraft in the Experimental - Amateur Built category, not a production,
Type-Certificated design.

Rich S.

It has been fying and has about 80 hour now.It is registered.certified,I
don't understand.What would that intail(sp)? LJ

Hatz Lyman C wrote:

> Unfortunately you cannot lower a Gross weight to meet Sport Plane Standards
> once an aircraft has been certified at a higher gross weight. Has your plane
> already been certified (not the same as registered).
>
> Lyman

Here is my take that might work.

Ask that the listed gross weight is reduced. Why? because during the testing
phase, the plane didn't perform as expected. You felt unsafe at your tested
gross weight. For safety, please lower the gross weight to 1329.

Isn't the testing phase designed for checking out the plane's parameters so
it can be safely flown? If it isn't, why have a testing phase at all.

My Bellanca has a red line of 216 MPH. Why such a weird number? It is 90%
of the demonstrated test speed of 240 MPH. (240-24). For safety the CAA
dropped off 10%. You should be able to do the same from your testing
program.

--
Cy Galley
EAA Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot


"LJ & Nancy Blodgett" > wrote in message
...
> Todd,I don't know that it has been certified? It has been registered and
> the 40 hours flowen off.If at all possible I would like to change the
> weight,as the plane dose meet the Light Sport Plane in every way.
>
> Todd Pattist wrote:
>
> > "Rich S." > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Unfortunately you cannot lower a Gross weight to meet Sport Plane
> >>>Standards once an aircraft has been certified at a higher gross weight.
> >>
> >>May I ask for your reference? Specifically for a reference that pertains
to
> >>an aircraft in the Experimental - Amateur Built category, not a
production,
> >>Type-Certificated design.
> >
> >
> > He's referring to the "since its original certification"
> > language below:
> >
> > §1.1 General definitions.
> > * * * * *
> > Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a
> > helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original
> > certification, has continued to meet the following:
> > (1) A maximum takeoff weight of not more than--
> > ...
> > (ii) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) ...
> > Todd Pattist
> > (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
> > ___
> > Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
> > Share what you learn.
>

Todd,I don't know that it has been certified? It has been registered and
the 40 hours flowen off.If at all possible I would like to change the
weight,as the plane dose meet the Light Sport Plane in every way.

Todd Pattist wrote:

> "Rich S." > wrote:
>
>
>>>Unfortunately you cannot lower a Gross weight to meet Sport Plane
>>>Standards once an aircraft has been certified at a higher gross weight.
>>
>>May I ask for your reference? Specifically for a reference that pertains to
>>an aircraft in the Experimental - Amateur Built category, not a production,
>>Type-Certificated design.
>
>
> He's referring to the "since its original certification"
> language below:
>
> §1.1 General definitions.
> * * * * *
> Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a
> helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original
> certification, has continued to meet the following:
> (1) A maximum takeoff weight of not more than––
> ...
> (ii) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) ...
> Todd Pattist
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
> ___
> Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
> Share what you learn.

"Cy Galley" > wrote in message
news:aJk4d.91311$D%.90322@attbi_s51...
> Here is my take that might work.
>
> Ask that the listed gross weight is reduced. Why? because during the
> testing
> phase, the plane didn't perform as expected. You felt unsafe at your
> tested
> gross weight. For safety, please lower the gross weight to 1329.
>
> Isn't the testing phase designed for checking out the plane's parameters
> so
> it can be safely flown? If it isn't, why have a testing phase at all.
>
> My Bellanca has a red line of 216 MPH. Why such a weird number? It is 90%
> of the demonstrated test speed of 240 MPH. (240-24). For safety the CAA
> dropped off 10%. You should be able to do the same from your testing
> program.

Cy...........

I feel somewhat the same about the "specified" gross weight of an
Experimental - Amateur Built aircraft. I'm not even sure the gross weight is
recorded with the FAA. I'm sure that the other parameters are not, such as
stall spped, max speed (Vh), propeller type, cabin pressurization - even
retractable gear.

Then too, there is the proviso that one may make changes - even major
changes - to an airplane of this class.

I will agree that the new regs do say in order to be certified as a LSA, the
aircraft must have, since it's original certification, continued to meet the
limitations. But in this case, we are not alking about changing the
certification of the aircraft. We are simply trying to meet the intent of
this statement:

"Aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate that meet above
specifications may be flown by sport pilots. However, that airworthiness
certification category will not be changed to a light-sport aircraft.
Holders of a sport pilot certificate may fly an aircraft with a standard
airworthiness certificate if it meets the definition of a light-sport
aircraft."

It is a small point perhaps and one that may be better left unquestioned. It
is my feeling that the particular wording was adopted at the behest of the
existing and hopeful LSA aircraft manufacturers in order to sell more new
airplanes. I have no basis for this opinion except an assumption of avarice.
Letting the people who stand to make a buck set the rules of the game
doesn't seem kosher.

I suppose there is always the option of abandoning the certification of an
airplane and then going through the process again with a lower gross on the
data plate. Oh, BTW I would ask for 1319# - not 1329" :o)

Rich S.

"LJ & Nancy Blodgett" > wrote in message
...
> Who do I ask? I do think your on the right track.Sence I have the repair
> permit and I can change any thing as lone as it's loged,wy not the gross
> weight?The one's at the airport say,why not,but so far,no real answer.SO
> who DO I ask. LJ

Unless the language of the rules is changed, there may currently be a
conflict between the Sport Pilot regulations and the regs affecting
Experimental/Amateur built. I don't know. It may be better to NOT ask.

Rich "Just my take on it" S.

>SO who DO I ask.

You might start with the person who issued the Airworthiness Certificate. I am
not sure if a change in Gross weight would require a new certificate. Could be
that it is just too soon to tell.

Lyman

Who do I ask? I do think your on the right track.Sence I have the repair
permit and I can change any thing as lone as it's loged,wy not the
gross weight?The one's at the airport say,why not,but so far,no real
answer.SO who DO I ask. LJ
Rich S. wrote:

> "Cy Galley" > wrote in message
> news:aJk4d.91311$D%.90322@attbi_s51...
>
>>Here is my take that might work.
>>
>>Ask that the listed gross weight is reduced. Why? because during the
>>testing
>>phase, the plane didn't perform as expected. You felt unsafe at your
>>tested
>>gross weight. For safety, please lower the gross weight to 1329.
>>
>>Isn't the testing phase designed for checking out the plane's parameters
>>so
>>it can be safely flown? If it isn't, why have a testing phase at all.
>>
>>My Bellanca has a red line of 216 MPH. Why such a weird number? It is 90%
>>of the demonstrated test speed of 240 MPH. (240-24). For safety the CAA
>>dropped off 10%. You should be able to do the same from your testing
>>program.
>
>
> Cy...........
>
> I feel somewhat the same about the "specified" gross weight of an
> Experimental - Amateur Built aircraft. I'm not even sure the gross weight is
> recorded with the FAA. I'm sure that the other parameters are not, such as
> stall spped, max speed (Vh), propeller type, cabin pressurization - even
> retractable gear.
>
> Then too, there is the proviso that one may make changes - even major
> changes - to an airplane of this class.
>
> I will agree that the new regs do say in order to be certified as a LSA, the
> aircraft must have, since it's original certification, continued to meet the
> limitations. But in this case, we are not alking about changing the
> certification of the aircraft. We are simply trying to meet the intent of
> this statement:
>
> "Aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate that meet above
> specifications may be flown by sport pilots. However, that airworthiness
> certification category will not be changed to a light-sport aircraft.
> Holders of a sport pilot certificate may fly an aircraft with a standard
> airworthiness certificate if it meets the definition of a light-sport
> aircraft."
>
> It is a small point perhaps and one that may be better left unquestioned. It
> is my feeling that the particular wording was adopted at the behest of the
> existing and hopeful LSA aircraft manufacturers in order to sell more new
> airplanes. I have no basis for this opinion except an assumption of avarice.
> Letting the people who stand to make a buck set the rules of the game
> doesn't seem kosher.
>
> I suppose there is always the option of abandoning the certification of an
> airplane and then going through the process again with a lower gross on the
> data plate. Oh, BTW I would ask for 1319# - not 1329" :o)
>
> Rich S.
>
>

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:10:12 -0700, "Rich S." >
wrote:

>"LJ & Nancy Blodgett" > wrote in message
...
>> Who do I ask? I do think your on the right track.Sence I have the repair
>> permit and I can change any thing as lone as it's loged,wy not the gross
>> weight?The one's at the airport say,why not,but so far,no real answer.SO
>> who DO I ask. LJ

The person who inspected your airplane and signed off your airworthiness
certificate.

I personally think you'll have a tough row to hoe. You're asking for a
*200-pound* reduction in the gross weight of the aircraft. That's going to
take some fast talkin' to explain *why* such a choice is necessary...other
than to dodge FARs.

It's really going to depend upon the FAA person you talk to. Some are hard
cases and you'll have no chance. Others might be willing to work with you.

>Unless the language of the rules is changed, there may currently be a
>conflict between the Sport Pilot regulations and the regs affecting
>Experimental/Amateur built. I don't know. It may be better to NOT ask.

I think Todd posted the appropriate part of the regs that cover this case:
"since its original certification...." *Original* certification. Yes, we
can make changes, but an airplane is only originally certified once.

If one is desperate, I suppose one could cancel the registration and
airworthiness certificate, then re-apply. With a new N-number and new
serial number, the plane would then undergo a "new" original certification.

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...

> I personally think you'll have a tough row to hoe. You're asking for a
> *200-pound* reduction in the gross weight of the aircraft. That's going
> to
> take some fast talkin' to explain *why* such a choice is necessary...other
> than to dodge FARs.

Hmmm..... You could say that you lust after a single-place airplane like
that Wanttaja guy has, so you've ripped out the bench seat and installed a
single bucket seat right in the middle.

Rich "No, I didn't infer you have a butt shaped like a bucket!" S.

Just some notes from the accepted planes list on EAA site, don't know if it
follows the exact FAA guidelines yet but I think it may help with an answer.
"Aeronca 7EC's are normally certificated at either 1450 or 1500 lbs
gross weight, which disqualifies them for operation by sport pilots.
However, there are some 7EC's certificated at 1300 lbs gross weight. These
aircraft are eligible for operation by sport pilots."
From this it looks like the original certificate will be the "weight"
sticker. and it would probably take an act of Congress to change the
original certificate.

"Hatz Lyman C" > wrote in message
...
> >SO who DO I ask.
>
> You might start with the person who issued the Airworthiness Certificate.
I am
> not sure if a change in Gross weight would require a new certificate.
Could be
> that it is just too soon to tell.
>
> Lyman

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 19:07:08 -0700, "Rich S." >
wrote:

>"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>
>> I personally think you'll have a tough row to hoe. You're asking for a
>> *200-pound* reduction in the gross weight of the aircraft. That's going
>> to
>> take some fast talkin' to explain *why* such a choice is necessary...other
>> than to dodge FARs.
>
>Hmmm..... You could say that you lust after a single-place airplane like
>that Wanttaja guy has, so you've ripped out the bench seat and installed a
>single bucket seat right in the middle.

Actually, I think you'd have to take an approach like that. Anybody
looking at the plane is going to assume you're going to fill it up, and a
Kitfox 7 has ~300 pounds of useful load left once the seats and tanks are
filled. Most pilots know enough not to stuff 300 pounds of baggage into a
compartment designed for only 100. But if the compartment is merely
*placarded* for 100, and the same plane (unchanged) can legally and safely
fly with 200 additional pounds in there, I don't think I'd hesitate to pack
in a few more brewskis.

If you redesigned and rebuilt the plane as a single-seater, with no
obvious/easy way to reconfigure it back to a two-seater, you'd have a
chance... and a pretty roomy ride.

>Rich "No, I didn't infer you have a butt shaped like a bucket!" S.

And I wouldn't be too offended, as long as you're referring to buckets made
by Rubbermaid instead of Massey-Fergusson. :-)

http://lynn-machine-tool.com/rebuilding.htm

Ron Wanttaja

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Just some notes from the accepted planes list on EAA site, don't know if
> it
> follows the exact FAA guidelines yet but I think it may help with an
> answer.
> "Aeronca 7EC's are normally certificated at either 1450 or 1500 lbs
> gross weight, which disqualifies them for operation by sport pilots.
> However, there are some 7EC's certificated at 1300 lbs gross weight. These
> aircraft are eligible for operation by sport pilots."
> From this it looks like the original certificate will be the "weight"
> sticker. and it would probably take an act of Congress to change the
> original certificate.

One difference is that is a Type Certificate, not a Special Airworthiness
Certificate as is issued to LSA's and Experimentals, among others.

Rich S.

I think I'm caught between a rock and a hard spot.Although you would
think it would be ok to lower the weight than raise it.I thank every one
for the replies. LJ

Rich S. wrote:
> "LJ & Nancy Blodgett" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Who do I ask? I do think your on the right track.Sence I have the repair
>>permit and I can change any thing as lone as it's loged,wy not the gross
>>weight?The one's at the airport say,why not,but so far,no real answer.SO
>>who DO I ask. LJ
>
>
> Unless the language of the rules is changed, there may currently be a
> conflict between the Sport Pilot regulations and the regs affecting
> Experimental/Amateur built. I don't know. It may be better to NOT ask.
>
> Rich "Just my take on it" S.
>
>

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote ...
> Actually, I think you'd have to take an approach like that. Anybody
> looking at the plane is going to assume you're going to fill it up, and a
> Kitfox 7 has ~300 pounds of useful load left once the seats and tanks are
> filled. Most pilots know enough not to stuff 300 pounds of baggage into
a
> compartment designed for only 100. But if the compartment is merely
> *placarded* for 100, and the same plane (unchanged) can legally and safely
> fly with 200 additional pounds in there, I don't think I'd hesitate to
pack
> in a few more brewskis.

It's rather interesting, if you fly the airplane overloaded won't you be
faced with a violation for flying without a licence?

Rich

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 22:21:54 -0700, "Richard Isakson" >
wrote:

>"Ron Wanttaja" wrote ...
>> Actually, I think you'd have to take an approach like that. Anybody
>> looking at the plane is going to assume you're going to fill it up, and a
>> Kitfox 7 has ~300 pounds of useful load left once the seats and tanks are
>> filled. Most pilots know enough not to stuff 300 pounds of baggage into
>a
>> compartment designed for only 100. But if the compartment is merely
>> *placarded* for 100, and the same plane (unchanged) can legally and safely
>> fly with 200 additional pounds in there, I don't think I'd hesitate to
>pack
>> in a few more brewskis.
>
>It's rather interesting, if you fly the airplane overloaded won't you be
>faced with a violation for flying without a licence?

I suspect it'll be more for exceeding the authorized operation of one's
license, like flying a twin without the appropriate rating or carrying
passengers on a student certificate.

Like the FAA will have trouble finding something to nail you with... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja > wrote:

>I don't think I'd hesitate to pack
>in a few more brewskis.

Ron, are you talking about increasing the weight of the cargo or the
pilot here?

Mark Hickey

"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>
>>I don't think I'd hesitate to pack
>>in a few more brewskis.
>
> Ron, are you talking about increasing the weight of the cargo or the
> pilot here?

Reminds me about the time in '78 when we flew a PA-28R to Idaho to pick up a
keg of Coors for a party. Strapped her right there in the back seat! Kids
around here don't remember when you had to smuggle Coors into the state.

Rich "Oh that? It's a ferry tank. . ." S.

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 06:13:27 -0700, Mark Hickey > wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>
>>I don't think I'd hesitate to pack
>>in a few more brewskis.
>
>Ron, are you talking about increasing the weight of the cargo or the
>pilot here?

Oh, cargo, of course. You see, my Norwegian ancestors used to live at the
very top of the fjords. It was a hardscrabble existence, with very few
luxuries. The only source of supplies was the tiny village at the base of
the fjord, and when the weather closed in round about October, they were
cut off for about five months.

Being relatives of mine, the thing they missed the worst was booze. They'd
stockpile as much as they could, but the bottles were a tough haul to the
top of the fjord. Being relatives of mine, they usually ran out in
November.

Coupled with the short days, the lack of aquavit and beer really brought on
the depression. The people would fantasize about March, when the weather
would clear enough that they could reach the village below for the year's
first monumental bender.

The two things they HAD in abundance were spare time and wood from the
local forests. So it was natural, I think, that they'd build skis in
anticipation of the first trip downhill to the tavern. They were called,
"brew-skis."

These weren't ordinary skis. With months to lavish on them, they were
ornate in the extreme. Inlays of contrasting wood, ermine-fur straps, iron
blued to a rich blue, and gleaming metal trim hammered and worked from old
coins. Everyone had their own wood stain, with the formulas guarded
jealously. Colors ranged from Coors Light beige to a rich Guiness brown.

But appearance wasn't the only thing. Speed was paramount. Long before the
first wind tunnel, the urgent drive to get down the hill fastest had driven
ski design to its evolutionary peak. They were streamlined, glass-smooth,
and tuned to perfection. And they were fast. There were occasional
exceptions (for instance, Einar Rutanson's odd design with the turned-up
part at the *back* end of the ski), but for the most part, they would blow
past any of the skis used in today's winter olympics.

So when I talk about "packing in a few more brewskis," I am, of course,
referring to these wooden marvels of my heritage.

Ron "Mmmmm....beer....." Wanttaja

> They were called,
>"brew-skis."
>
>These weren't ordinary skis. With months to lavish on them, they were
>ornate in the extreme. Inlays of contrasting wood, ermine-fur straps, iron
>blued to a rich blue, and gleaming metal trim hammered and worked from old
>coins. Everyone had their own wood stain, with the formulas guarded
>jealously. Colors ranged from Coors Light beige to a rich Guiness brown.
>

And the Pulitzer for Best Creative Tall-Tale Telling goes to... (the crowd goes
wild)