Gelcoat repair

[jeplane]

Visualize a glider on a experimental certificate:

1- Does it take a "pro" (I.E a glider repair shop used to do this on a
regular basis) to redo the gelcoat on a glider legally, or can it be
done by anyone?

2- What needs to be entered in the logbooks, if any?

Thanks

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Nov 18, 7:41*am, jeplane > wrote:
> Visualize a glider on a experimental certificate:
>
> 1- Does it take a "pro" (I.E a glider repair shop used to do this on a
> regular basis) to redo the gelcoat on a glider legally, or can it be
> done by anyone?
>
> 2- What needs to be entered in the logbooks, if any?

In the US, 14CFR43.1(b), Applicability, says that Part 43 applies does
not apply to experimental aircraft. That includes a huge mass of
verbiage about who can perform and sign off various repairs. Ergo,
none (as in not any) of that verbiage applies to experimental
aircraft.

That isn't to say that there aren't any rules, just that they're not
in Part 43. One place where there definitely rules about this is in
the operating limitations that accompany the special airworthiness
certificate issued for the purposes of operating an experimental
aircraft. Those OpLims are actually part of the special AW cert, and
the AW certificate is not valid unless accompanied by them in the
aircraft. So make sure you have your OpLims document and that you have
it in the aircraft. I usually keep two copies in the aircraft; one
folded up and tucked into the clear plastic document holder with the
AW cert and the registration cert, and one tucked under the seat
cushion that I can refer to at need (in flight if necessary).

Personally, if the OpLims do not specifically state that maintenance
and repair must be performed by persons with thus and such
certification (A&P, IA or whatever), I would operate under the
assumption that anybody can do the repair until it is demonstrated
otherwise with a reference to something relevant in the 14CFE or in
the OpLims. If I did the repair, I would document it in the logs with
simple, clear language and sign it with my airman's cert number.

One major control over the maintenance and repair of experimental
aircraft is that the annual condition inspection (not an airworthiness
inspection, by the way) must be signed off by either an A&P mechanic
or an IA or the holder of a repairbeing certificate applicable to the
particular aircraft. If you are the holder of the repaircreature
certificate, no sweat, you hold both the authority and the
responsibility. If you are not said certificate holder, you have to do
the repair in such a way as that you can convince an A&P or IA to sign
off on the condition inspection. If you do a shoddy job and document
it poorly, you might have trouble getting that inspection signoff. So
do good work using good practices such as those described in AC43.13
where applicable, and keep good records of what you did.

Thanks, Bob K.
www.hpaircraft.com

[[email protected]]

On Nov 18, 10:41*am, jeplane > wrote:
> Visualize a glider on a experimental certificate:
>
> 1- Does it take a "pro" (I.E a glider repair shop used to do this on a
> regular basis) to redo the gelcoat on a glider legally, or can it be
> done by anyone?
>
> 2- What needs to be entered in the logbooks, if any?
>
> Thanks

Does not take a "pro" as long as you can accomplish the following
elements.
1 Determine whether gelcoat damage being removed/repaired does not
reach structural layers.
2. Remove correct amount of gelcoat without damaging underlying
structure.
3 Know how to properly evaluated and repair consequences of failing to
do '2" above correctly.
4. Able to do actions required to ensure that control surfaces meet
mass and moment specifications in aircraft
maintenace manual. This almost always requires removal and
reinstallation after weighing. Nobody who has done this very often
leaves surfaces on. This requires logbook entry by qualified
individual- A&P.
5. Able to accomplish appropriate weight and balance record keeping
and revision to operation limits. Logbook entry by A&P.

Many gliders are started on this path by"non pros". The list is long
of those that get completed later by "pros" at greater
expense than hoped. It can be lots more work to fix mistakes and
sometimes permanent damage results.
If you want to do it yourself, please enlist the help and guidance of
soemone known to be skilled in this.
Good Luck
UH

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Nov 18, 9:04*am, wrote:
> ...
> 4. Able to do actions required to ensure that control surfaces meet
> mass and moment specifications in aircraft
> maintenace manual. This almost always requires removal and
> reinstallation after weighing. *Nobody who has done this very often
> leaves surfaces on. This requires logbook entry by qualified
> individual- A&P.

Hank, remember that we are talking about an experimental aircraft,
which 14CFR43.1(b) exempts from everything in part 43. So unless the
OpLims require an A&P signoff, I would [citation needed] any generic
statement about an A&P signoff being required.

> 5. Able to accomplish appropriate weight and balance record keeping
> and revision to operation limits. Logbook entry by A&P.

Same as above.

> Many gliders are started on this path by"non pros". The list is long
> of those that get completed later by "pros" at greater
> expense than hoped.

Many gliders and airplanes have also been built, maintained, and
repaired by "non pros," at lower expense, with greater performance and
utility, and greater enjoyment than hoped.

Bottom line, I agree with the sentiment that you should seek guidance
wisely, and proceed cautiously, when undertaking critical repair and
maintenance operations. But I would disagree with the idea, implied or
explicit, that working on aircraft is too difficult to be left to any
ordinary folks.

Thanks again, Bob K.
www.hpaircraft.com

[[email protected]]

On Nov 18, 1:57*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Nov 18, 9:04*am, wrote:
>
> > ...
> > 4. Able to do actions required to ensure that control surfaces meet
> > mass and moment specifications in aircraft
> > maintenace manual. This almost always requires removal and
> > reinstallation after weighing. *Nobody who has done this very often
> > leaves surfaces on. This requires logbook entry by qualified
> > individual- A&P.
>
> Hank, remember that we are talking about an experimental aircraft,
> which 14CFR43.1(b) exempts from everything in part 43. So unless the
> OpLims require an A&P signoff, I would [citation needed] any generic
> statement about an A&P signoff being required.
>
> > 5. Able to accomplish appropriate weight and balance record keeping
> > and revision to operation limits. Logbook entry by A&P.
>
> Same as above.
>
> > Many gliders are started on this path by"non pros". The list is long
> > of those that get completed later by "pros" at greater
> > expense than hoped.
>
> Many gliders and airplanes have also been built, maintained, and
> repaired by "non pros," at lower expense, with greater performance and
> utility, and greater enjoyment than hoped.
>
> Bottom line, I agree with the sentiment that you should seek guidance
> wisely, and proceed cautiously, when undertaking critical repair and
> maintenance operations. But I would disagree with the idea, implied or
> explicit, that working on aircraft is too difficult to be left to any
> ordinary folks.
>
> Thanks again, Bob K.www.hpaircraft.com

I completely agree that we are not talking about some black art, much
as the FAA would like us to believe it is.
That said, there are some areas where real care needs to be taken, a
couple of which I described before.
FWIW- The limitations on both my Experimental Exhibition and Air
racing licensed gliders specifically mention that maintenance is to be
done in accordance with the manual provided with the glider. It does
not say, in all cases, who can do the work.
All this said, care and conservative wisdom can save heart ache. And
maybe some expensive bills.
It is also true that taking a serious interest in doing a good job
maintaining your glider is a very good thing. A very knowledgeble
owner likely will keep his glider is as good, or better shape than
lots of "pros".
CU
UH

[JJ Sinclair]

On Nov 18, 9:00*am, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Nov 18, 7:41*am, jeplane > wrote:
>
> > Visualize a glider on a experimental certificate:
>
> > 1- Does it take a "pro" (I.E a glider repair shop used to do this on a
> > regular basis) to redo the gelcoat on a glider legally, or can it be
> > done by anyone?
>
> > 2- What needs to be entered in the logbooks, if any?
>
> In the US, 14CFR43.1(b), Applicability, says that Part 43 applies does
> not apply to experimental aircraft. That includes a huge mass of
> verbiage about who can perform and sign off various repairs. Ergo,
> none (as in not any) of that verbiage applies to experimental
> aircraft.
>
> That isn't to say that there aren't any rules, just that they're not
> in Part 43. One place where there definitely rules about this is in
> the operating limitations that accompany the special airworthiness
> certificate issued for the purposes of operating an experimental
> aircraft. Those OpLims are actually part of the special AW cert, and
> the AW certificate is not valid unless accompanied by them in the
> aircraft. So make sure you have your OpLims document and that you have
> it in the aircraft. I usually keep two copies in the aircraft; one
> folded up and tucked into the clear plastic document holder with the
> AW cert and the registration cert, and one tucked under the seat
> cushion that I can refer to at need (in flight if necessary).
>
> Personally, if the OpLims do not specifically state that maintenance
> and repair must be performed by persons with thus and such
> certification (A&P, IA or whatever), I would operate under the
> assumption that anybody can do the repair until it is demonstrated
> otherwise with a reference to something relevant in the 14CFE or in
> the OpLims. If I did the repair, I would document it in the logs with
> simple, clear language and sign it with my airman's cert number.
>
> One major control over the maintenance and repair of experimental
> aircraft is that the annual condition inspection (not an airworthiness
> inspection, by the way) must be signed off by either an A&P mechanic
> or an IA or the holder of a repairbeing certificate applicable to the
> particular aircraft. If you are the holder of the repaircreature
> certificate, no sweat, you hold both the authority and the
> responsibility. If you are not said certificate holder, you have to do
> the repair in such a way as that you can convince an A&P or IA to sign
> off on the condition inspection. If you do a shoddy job and document
> it poorly, you might have trouble getting that inspection signoff. So
> do good work using good practices such as those described in AC43.13
> where applicable, and keep good records of what you did.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.www.hpaircraft.com

Lets not get hung up on the letter of the law, here. Re-painting
control surfaces involves suspending the surface at the hinge point (I
like to hang them on twine) in a horizontal position and measuring the
weight at the trailing edge. Readings (in ounces ) X distanse from
hinge line are then checked against the maximum allowed in the hand
book. If out of tolerance, weight must be secured ahead of the hings
line. This is not something I would trust to unskilled hands. Do it
wrong and you go to flutter city. Been there, done that, and don't
wish to revisit the place. Have a knowledgeable guy hold your hand.
Hope this helps,
JJ

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Nov 18, 1:19*pm, wrote:

> I completely agree that we are not talking about some black art, much
> as the FAA would like us to believe it is...

I fully agree with you, and I agree especially with this point in
particular.

The FAA policy verbiage regarding experimental aircraft in specific,
and general aviation aircraft in general is in some respects at odds
with the actual language in 14CFR. And individual FSDOs are often at
odds with each other about how both the policies and the rules in
14CFR are interpreted and enforced.

My favorite example of this is the language in 14CFR21 that allows
owners of type-certificated aircraft to manufacture replacement parts
for their own aircraft under certain fairly reasonable circumstances.
I've talked with a couple of DERs and DARs who swear up and down that
that cannot possibly be true, and that any part not anointed and
blessed by FAA, TSO, PMA and STC and other TLAs too numerous to
mention is bogus, counterfeit and illegal. And yet there it is in
black and white in 14CFR21.303. Here are my two favorite articles on
this topic:

http://www.faa.gov/news/aviation_news/2001/media/julyAug2001.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/news/aviation_news/2002/media/julyAug2002.pdf

I like to encourage people to understand exactly what the FAA and the
regulations in 14CFR actually do and do not require when it comes to
the maintenance, repair, and modification of experimental aircraft.
And to further understand the authority under which those requirements
are based.

My somewhat paranoid fear is that if we let ourselves believe that an
officially-blessed signoff is required for every little thing, then
some day the FAA may come to believe it as well. And when they find
out it's not true, they will just go ahead and make it true in the
next round of NPRMs.

Thanks again, and best regards to all

Bob K.
www.hpaircraft.com

[Brad[_2_]]

On Nov 18, 2:29*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Nov 18, 1:19*pm, wrote:
>
> > I completely agree that we are not talking about some black art, much
> > as the FAA would like us to believe it is...
>
> I fully agree with you, and I agree especially with this point in
> particular.
>
> The FAA policy verbiage regarding experimental aircraft in specific,
> and general aviation aircraft in general is in some respects at odds
> with the actual language in 14CFR. And individual FSDOs are often at
> odds with each other about how both the policies and the rules in
> 14CFR are interpreted and enforced.
>
> My favorite example of this is the language in 14CFR21 that allows
> owners of type-certificated aircraft to manufacture replacement parts
> for their own aircraft under certain fairly reasonable circumstances.
> I've talked with a couple of DERs and DARs who swear up and down that
> that cannot possibly be true, and that any part not anointed and
> blessed by FAA, TSO, PMA and STC and other TLAs too numerous to
> mention is bogus, counterfeit and illegal. And yet there it is in
> black and white in 14CFR21.303. Here are my two favorite articles on
> this topic:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/news/aviation_news/2001/media/julyAug2001.pdf
>
> http://www.faa.gov/news/aviation_news/2002/media/julyAug2002.pdf
>
> I like to encourage people to understand exactly what the FAA and the
> regulations in 14CFR actually do and do not require when it comes to
> the maintenance, repair, and modification of experimental aircraft.
> And to further understand the authority under which those requirements
> are based.
>
> My somewhat paranoid fear is that if we let ourselves believe that an
> officially-blessed signoff is required for every little thing, then
> some day the FAA may come to believe it as well. And when they find
> out it's not true, they will just go ahead and make it true in the
> next round of NPRMs.
>
> Thanks again, and best regards to all
>
> Bob K.www.hpaircraft.com

Well, my answer to all that goobeldeegook is the build my own
sailplane: Once you get the N-number, the FAA inspection and the
Amateur Built CofA, AND your repairmens certificate, you are on your
own and left alone!

Heck, what's so hard about that......;)

Brad

[glider[_2_]]

The process is very messy and can be hazardous to your health.
And it takes many, many hours of careful preperation.
Labor intensive.
As JJ said, mass balance of controls is very important.
400-1000 hours is possible...no joke.
Polyurethane may be best way to go.
GA

[Craig[_2_]]

On Nov 18, 3:35*pm, glider > wrote:
> *The process is very messy and can be hazardous to your health.
> And it takes many, many hours of careful preperation.
> *Labor intensive.
> *As JJ said, mass balance of controls *is very important.
> * 400-1000 hours is possible...no joke.
> *Polyurethane may be best way to go.
> *GA


Jim Phoenix nicely documented the refinish on his Nimbus 3.
http://www.jimphoenix.com/?page_id=42

Heck, anything less than 18m will seem like a cakewalk. Just don't
plan on having a social life this winter...

Best regards,
Craig Funston

[Uncle Fuzzy]

On Nov 18, 4:12*pm, Craig > wrote:
> On Nov 18, 3:35*pm, glider > wrote:
>
> > *The process is very messy and can be hazardous to your health.
> > And it takes many, many hours of careful preperation.
> > *Labor intensive.
> > *As JJ said, mass balance of controls *is very important.
> > * 400-1000 hours is possible...no joke.
> > *Polyurethane may be best way to go.
> > *GA
>
> Jim Phoenix nicely documented the refinish on his Nimbus 3.http://www.jimphoenix.com/?page_id=42
>
> Heck, anything less than 18m will seem like a cakewalk. *Just don't
> plan on having a social life this winter...
>
> Best regards,
> Craig Funston

Jim Phoenix reads RAS from time to time, so I'll try not to tell any
lies. I corresponded with him quite some time ago, about the time I
was re-finishing a small portion of my fuselage with gelcoat.
Regarding the gelcoat vs poly, I'm pretty sure he said if he had it
to do over again, he wouldn't gelcoat, he'd shoot polyurethane.

[Scott Alexander[_2_]]

> Heck, anything less than 18m will seem like a cakewalk. *Just don't
> plan on having a social life this winter...

I am restoring an LS-1 right now. And I can truely attest to the
amount of work it's taking. I'm taking my time, going very slow and
using the advice from 6 mentors who have repainted a glider before.
One of which is giving me weekly advice, sometimes daily.

My friend Ralph Luebke who has built many gliders before gave me a
peice of a wing that came from a grob twin astir. I would HIGHLY
recommend getting a small peice from a wrecked glider and practing on
that first. This was a great idea that has taught me a bunch. I took
a 3 foot section about mid wing that was sawed off on both sides, then
aggresively took a sander to it to see just how it would look to go
through the gelcoat and into the fiberglass. You can destroy the
bottom side perhaps to learn by pushing the limits of a sander, or you
could take another section and restore it with "no fear" of hurting a
wing. It was great to purposely make a mistake on a wrecked gliders
wing verses accidently making mistake on an airworthy glider like my
LS-1.

If your retired, part time or on an airline pilot schedule like me (20
days off/month)...the amount of work can easily be scheduled as to
avoid interferring with your social life. I have really had alot of
fun in the garage listening to talk radio, listening to my ipod and
spending time on my favorite hobby during a rainy day. So far, it's
alot of work, but enjoyable to see this old glider come back to life!

Anybody got a wrecked fiberglass glider wing (1 to 3 foot section)
they could give to jeplane?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Uncle Fuzzy" > wrote

Jim Phoenix reads RAS from time to time, so I'll try not to tell any
lies. I corresponded with him quite some time ago, about the time I
was re-finishing a small portion of my fuselage with gelcoat.
Regarding the gelcoat vs poly, I'm pretty sure he said if he had it
to do over again, he wouldn't gelcoat, he'd shoot polyurethane.

Is that polly paint, or something else you are talking about? What polly
product builds as thick as jell coat?

I'm still trying to learn about the glass and more exotic composites. I'm a
wood or metal kinda' guy!
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

On Nov 18, 9:17*pm, Uncle Fuzzy > wrote:
> On Nov 18, 4:12*pm, Craig > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 18, 3:35*pm, glider > wrote:
>
> > > *The process is very messy and can be hazardous to your health.
> > > And it takes many, many hours of careful preperation.
> > > *Labor intensive.
> > > *As JJ said, mass balance of controls *is very important.
> > > * 400-1000 hours is possible...no joke.
> > > *Polyurethane may be best way to go.
> > > *GA
>
> > Jim Phoenix nicely documented the refinish on his Nimbus 3.http://www.jimphoenix.com/?page_id=42
>
> > Heck, anything less than 18m will seem like a cakewalk. *Just don't
> > plan on having a social life this winter...
>
> > Best regards,
> > Craig Funston
>
> Jim Phoenix reads RAS from time to time, so I'll try not to tell any
> lies. *I corresponded with him quite some time ago, about the time I
> was re-finishing a small portion of my fuselage with gelcoat.
> Regarding the gelcoat vs poly, *I'm pretty sure he said if he had it
> to do over again, he wouldn't gelcoat, he'd shoot polyurethane.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I've refinished in both Acrylic Urethane and polyester topcoat
(commonly called "gelcoat'). From my experience, each has it's place.
Gelcoat goes on thick and is tolerant of a lot of sins. Amatuer
spraying skills don't make a disaster. It does get hard and takes
quite a bit of work to sand out and polish. Life expectancy, if done
right and stored properly, should be plenty long.
It is comparatively inexpensive- roughly $500 for a 15 meter glider
for material and catalyst.
AU- I use PPG Concept as suggested by JJ and others, requires
excellent preparation and as perfect a surface as you can get because
it does not have much thickness. Gloss is great and is sands easier
than gelcoat.
BUT. Time and effort, from my experience with both is that the extra
time in prep before spraying AU exceeds the difference to sand out and
polish gelcoat.
AU is outstanding in UV protection and far exceeds gelcoat with
respect to weathering.
AU costs about 2 1/2 times as much as gelcoat.
AU must be sprayed in a safer environment and MUST be done using full
positive pressure protection gear as it contains what is essentially a
nerve toxin(aliphatic isocyanate).
Gelcoat is easier for fixing up that occasional ding.
So- long winded- which to use and why.
We did our ASK-21's in AU because of amount of time in weather and
harder life.
We do others in gelcoat for easier touchup, lower cost , and less
toxic exposure.
If you are going to do one glider one time as a beginner, I would
suggest polyester finish.
JJ likes AU but remember he has a huge amount of experience that a new
person won't have. Choice may well also be affected by availability of
experienced help.
FWIW
UH

[Brad[_2_]]

On Nov 19, 5:58*am, wrote:
> On Nov 18, 9:17*pm, Uncle Fuzzy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 18, 4:12*pm, Craig > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 18, 3:35*pm, glider > wrote:
>
> > > > *The process is very messy and can be hazardous to your health.
> > > > And it takes many, many hours of careful preperation.
> > > > *Labor intensive.
> > > > *As JJ said, mass balance of controls *is very important.
> > > > * 400-1000 hours is possible...no joke.
> > > > *Polyurethane may be best way to go.
> > > > *GA
>
> > > Jim Phoenix nicely documented the refinish on his Nimbus 3.http://www..jimphoenix.com/?page_id=42
>
> > > Heck, anything less than 18m will seem like a cakewalk. *Just don't
> > > plan on having a social life this winter...
>
> > > Best regards,
> > > Craig Funston
>
> > Jim Phoenix reads RAS from time to time, so I'll try not to tell any
> > lies. *I corresponded with him quite some time ago, about the time I
> > was re-finishing a small portion of my fuselage with gelcoat.
> > Regarding the gelcoat vs poly, *I'm pretty sure he said if he had it
> > to do over again, he wouldn't gelcoat, he'd shoot polyurethane.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I've refinished in both Acrylic Urethane and polyester topcoat
> (commonly called "gelcoat'). From my experience, each has it's place.
> Gelcoat goes on thick and is tolerant of a lot of sins. Amatuer
> spraying skills don't make a disaster. It does get hard and takes
> quite a bit of work to sand out and polish. Life expectancy, if done
> right and stored properly, should be plenty long.
> It is comparatively inexpensive- roughly $500 for a 15 meter glider
> for material and catalyst.
> AU- I use PPG Concept as suggested by JJ and others, requires
> excellent preparation and as perfect a surface as you can get because
> it does not have much thickness. Gloss is great and is sands easier
> than gelcoat.
> BUT. Time and effort, from my experience with both is that the extra
> time in prep before spraying AU exceeds the difference to sand out and
> polish gelcoat.
> AU is outstanding in UV protection and far exceeds gelcoat with
> respect to weathering.
> AU costs about 2 1/2 times as much as gelcoat.
> AU must be sprayed in a safer environment and MUST be done using full
> positive pressure protection gear as it contains what is essentially a
> nerve toxin(aliphatic isocyanate).
> Gelcoat is easier for fixing up that occasional ding.
> So- long winded- which to use and why.
> We did our ASK-21's in AU because of amount of time in weather and
> harder life.
> We do others in gelcoat for easier touchup, lower cost , and less
> toxic exposure.
> If you are going to do one glider one time as a beginner, I would
> suggest polyester finish.
> JJ likes AU but remember he has a huge amount of experience that a new
> person won't have. Choice may well also be affected by availability of
> experienced help.
> FWIW
> UH

UH,

I am guessing the "gelcoat" is Prestec, made by Simtec Coatings? I
sprayed my Apis with it. I do like using it also. The guys at Simtec
will tell you they call it a "polyester topcoat".

The one nagging problem I can't seem to get away from is that here in
the Pacific NW, my Apis grows nasty blisters in the paint every year
around this time. I have a well insulated trailer, with a vent. But, I
am not able to run power to the trailer for a heat source and a small
fan.

Cheers,
Brad

[Nimbob]

> > Jim Phoenix reads RAS from time to time, so I'll try not to tell
any
> > > lies. *I corresponded with him quite some time ago, about the time I
> > > was re-finishing a small portion of my fuselage with gelcoat.
> > > Regarding the gelcoat vs poly, *I'm pretty sure he said if he had it
> > > to do over again, he wouldn't gelcoat, he'd shoot polyurethane.- Hide quoted text -


Yup, I still believe that. Gelcoat is very forgiving for the amateur
(like me), but I was shocked at how much weight it adds, and when done
poorly, you can add a lot of weight covering up bad spray jobs. Flight
controls expecially get heavy with gelcoat and I ended up shooting the
elevators on the Nmbus with polyurethane because I couldn't get them
mass balanced within limits - very frustrating. If I had to do it
again, I would do the gelcoat removal and sanding and profiling and
priming myself then have a pro shoot on the polyurethane. Polyurethane
is dangerous if not applied in a proper envirnment due to it's
hazards.

With regard to Bob K.s reading of part 43, he's right - almost... 43.1
applicability reads "This part does not apply to any aircraft for
which the FAA has issued an experimental certificate, unless (here's
the fun part) the FAA has issued a different kind of certificate for
that aircraft [Amend #39, eff. 01 SEP 2004].

So what that means is that if your glider was a TC'd model with a
standard airworthiness issued and you somehow got an experimental
certificate for it later, well then part 43 does apply to you. Sounds
kinda crazy I know, but it's happened in the GA world - but is much
more prevalent in the air carrier world when STC developers need to
take a TC'd aircraft and put it into experimental R&D or some such
thing while they perform test flights to satisfy the FAA, then the
aircraft goes back to Standard Airworthiness after the test flights
are done and the STC is approved - bottom line is that 43 continues to
apply throughout the experimental life of the project. Too much info
probably, but hey there ya go.

Jim

[Nimbob]

Oh, yeah also I'm an A&P and was an IA at the time so I could do all
that work myself, the average glider pilot would need to work under
the supervision of an A&P and have it signed off appropriately,
depending (as Bob and Hank have said) on your airworthiness
certificate or ops limitations requirements - seems they are all
different.

Jim

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Nov 19, 9:34*am, Nimbob > wrote:

> ...With regard to Bob K.s reading of part 43, he's right - almost... 43.1
> applicability reads "This part does not apply to any aircraft for
> which the FAA has issued an experimental certificate, unless (here's
> the fun part) the FAA has issued a different kind of certificate for
> that aircraft [Amend #39, eff. 01 SEP 2004].
>
> So what that means is that if your glider was a TC'd model with a
> standard airworthiness issued and you somehow got an experimental
> certificate for it later, well then part 43 does apply to you...

Jim, please help me be sure I understand this:

The way I read the text of 43.1, it states that part 43 does or does
not apply to a certain aircraft depending on the type of airworthiness
certificate issued for _that particular aircraft_.

But the way you are describing your interpretation, you seem to be
saying that 43.1 says that part 43 applies or does not apply to _all
aircraft of a particular type_ depending on whether or not the
manufacturer has obtained type certification for that aircraft type.
Do I understand your interpretation correctly?

This issue is of particular importance for owners of sailplanes where
some units imported into the US were certified as experimental,
racing, and for which a standard airworthiness certificate was never
issued, but for which the factory has obtained type certification for
that model.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Scott Alexander[_2_]]

Anybody ever use PolyLux?

It's what George Applebay uses on all of his aircraft. It can be
sprayed through a regular spray gun. SimTec has to be shot through a
much more expensive spray gun. Also, PolyLux is much cheaper.

[Brad[_2_]]

On Nov 19, 12:46*pm, Scott Alexander >
wrote:
> Anybody ever use PolyLux?
>
> It's what George Applebay uses on all of his aircraft. *It can be
> sprayed through a regular spray gun. *SimTec has to be shot through a
> much more expensive spray gun. *Also, PolyLux is much cheaper.

I've sprayed Prestec successfully using a Laquer gun, and also a HVLP
conversion gun. 1.8mm tip and thinned per specs with Acetone.

That being said, only rarely do I get a non-orange peel finish, but
the stuff cuts easily if you get to it within a day of setting.

Brad

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Nov 19, 12:46*pm, Scott Alexander >
wrote:
> Anybody ever use PolyLux?

I've used a bunch of their 670 primer and their 300 gloss topcoat. The
primer was pretty good but nothing special. I really liked the 300
series, though; it sprayed on nice with a cheapie Harbor Freight
touchup gun and 1.4mm nozzle. Their gelcoat for molded parts was
pretty good, too.

The issue I had in dealing with PolyLux is that they're a small
company with little web presence. I haven't worked with them lately,
but when I last did there was no catalog of products on the web, and
when I needed information I had to actually phone them up. Also, I'd
sometimes call and find that what I wanted wasn't in stock and
wouldn't be batched for several weeks.

Thanks, Bob K.
www.hpaircraft.com

[Craig[_2_]]

On Nov 19, 1:46*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Nov 19, 12:46*pm, Scott Alexander >
> wrote:
>
> > Anybody ever use PolyLux?
>
> I've used a bunch of their 670 primer and their 300 gloss topcoat. The
> primer was pretty good but nothing special. I really liked the 300
> series, though; it sprayed on nice with a cheapie Harbor Freight
> touchup gun and 1.4mm nozzle. Their gelcoat for molded parts was
> pretty good, too.
>
> The issue I had in dealing with PolyLux is that they're a small
> company with little web presence. I haven't worked with them lately,
> but when I last did there was no catalog of products on the web, and
> when I needed information I had to actually phone them up. Also, I'd
> sometimes call and find that what I wanted wasn't in stock and
> wouldn't be batched for several weeks.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.www.hpaircraft.com

I use a standard gun with Prestec also, but thin with a slow or medium
lacquer thinner. Dupont 3602S is my favorite. The slow thinner lets
the finish to flatten out so there's a lot less orange peel. Another
trick is to just fog on the first coat and allow it to tack so that
the following coats don't run off. I run the paint on the thin side
and use multiple lighter coats that tack slightly between coats to
build up a flat finish, sometimes as many as 5 or 6 coats. If I have
concerns about pot life while spraying I'll store the gun in the
fridge between coats. If you're blending into an existing finish
extend the spray area a little each time so the thickness tapers out
onto the existing gelcoat. At the end of spraying you can fog the
feathered edge with thinner only to get it to flatten out.

Craig

[[email protected]]

On Nov 19, 6:20*pm, Craig > wrote:
> On Nov 19, 1:46*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 12:46*pm, Scott Alexander >
> > wrote:
>
> > > Anybody ever use PolyLux?
>
> > I've used a bunch of their 670 primer and their 300 gloss topcoat. The
> > primer was pretty good but nothing special. I really liked the 300
> > series, though; it sprayed on nice with a cheapie Harbor Freight
> > touchup gun and 1.4mm nozzle. Their gelcoat for molded parts was
> > pretty good, too.
>
> > The issue I had in dealing with PolyLux is that they're a small
> > company with little web presence. I haven't worked with them lately,
> > but when I last did there was no catalog of products on the web, and
> > when I needed information I had to actually phone them up. Also, I'd
> > sometimes call and find that what I wanted wasn't in stock and
> > wouldn't be batched for several weeks.
>
> > Thanks, Bob K.www.hpaircraft.com
>
> I use a standard gun with Prestec also, but thin with a slow or medium
> lacquer thinner. Dupont 3602S is my favorite. *The slow thinner lets
> the finish to flatten out so there's a lot less orange peel. *Another
> trick is to just fog on the first coat and allow it to tack so that
> the following coats don't run off. *I run the paint on the thin side
> and use multiple lighter coats that tack slightly between coats to
> build up a flat finish, sometimes as many as 5 or 6 coats. *If I have
> concerns about pot life while spraying I'll store the gun in the
> fridge between coats. *If you're blending into an existing finish
> extend the spray area a little each time so the thickness tapers out
> onto the existing gelcoat. *At the end of spraying you can fog the
> feathered edge with thinner only to get it to flatten out.
>
> Craig- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Std HVLP gun with 1.8 nozzle for Prestec. Note that excess thinning
can increase porisity in finished coats which ain't so good.
UH

[Nimbob]

..
> Jim, please help me be sure I understand this:
>
> The way I read the text of 43.1, it states that part 43 does or does
> not apply to a certain aircraft depending on the type of airworthiness
> certificate issued for _that particular aircraft_.
>
> But the way you are describing your interpretation, you seem to be
> saying that 43.1 says that part 43 applies or does not apply to _all
> aircraft of a particular type_ depending on whether or not the
> manufacturer has obtained type certification for that aircraft type.
> Do I understand your interpretation correctly?
>

>
> Thanks, Bob K.


Bob - I left out the word "previously" when I copied 43.1 - but it
doesn't really change anything, it still means the same. Let's read it
again:

43.1applicability reads "This part does not apply to any aircraft for
which the FAA has issued an experimental certificate, unless (here's
the fun part) the FAA has PREVIOUSLY issued a different kind of
certificate for THAT aircraft [Amend #39, eff. 01 SEP 2004].

If your glider was a U.S. TC'd model with a US standard or "other
special airworthiness certificate" issued and you somehow got an
special airworthiness - experimental certificate for it later, well
then part 43 does apply to you... that is - a U.S. Standard
Airworthiness Certificate (I should have been more clear in my earlier
message).

Now, the other important word I re-typed in all caps is the word THAT.
In this instance the rule means THAT aircraft right there - not that
make, model or series aircraft. This is how the rule actually works.
We've actually had applicants in my FSDO apply for an experimental
certificate for their very modified Cessna 180 for the purpose of
exhibition and racing. If I recall correctly, we sent them over to the
MIDO and they got an experimental for R&D instead, but I may be
thinking of a different deal involving a PA-12, in any case, part 43
still applied to THAT airplane - not all PA-12's or C-180's.

Some gliders are TC'd in other countries, but not in the US (pre-1993
moratorium issue here) but the 43.1 rule does not apply in this case,
because it does not have, nor ever had - a US Airworthiness
Certificate of any kind (there are a few kinds actually). So the
Nimbus can be experimental and part 43 does not apply (unless the Ops
Limitations specifically make it apply - that's yet another story).

A couple of other examples: The PW-5 first came over as experimental,
part 43 does not apply to THOSE original experimental PW-5s because
they were born in Poland, exported to the US and never had a US
airworthiness certificate. Later, PZL obtained US type certification
for the PW-5 and they had standard US airworthiness certs issued to
them and voila part 43 now applies to just those TC'd serial numbers
that came in after the TC was issued.

I believe the 304 was the same thing, originally they all came in
experimental. Then they got a TC for the the 304, and if you bought a
new 304 that was eligible for type certification in the US, you get a
standard airworthiness for it, and part 43 would apply. Or maybe you
want to get an experimental for it, if you can get an experimental
certificate for a foreign built glider after a US TC has been issued -
more power to ya. But I would be surprised if you did.

Now, if you somehow talked an FAA inspector into giving you an
experimental for YOUR TC'd and PREVIOUSLY standard airworthiness 304,
then part 43 would still apply to your glider **that had a previously
issued standard airworthiness**. The only reason someone would get an
experimental for a previouslt standard glider would be to get out of
the annual inspection by and IA requirement, but 43 still applies in
that case, so no joy.

So, your understanding of the rule is correct - we're just boring the
hell out of RAS with this academic discussion is all. This really is
academic because I've personally never seen this applied in the case
of a glider; I believe the rule exists only to keep the aircraft that
are temporarily in experimental R&D or Exp. Show Compliance under part
43 while they fly off the test flight requirements.

I'm not allowed to interpret the rules, so it's only my view, if you
want a real interpretation, you have to ask the professionals in DC,
you can find the link to ask FAA legal a question like this on www.faa.gov.
You can also read the FAA Order 8130.2, I think rev. G is now current
- but it's damned boring reading;-) and like I said before - it's
never really been an issue for any glider I've ever known, just those
crazy power pilots!!

Sorry if I mislead you earlier,

Jim

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Nov 19, 6:09*pm, Nimbob > wrote:

> Bob - I left out the word "previously" when I copied 43.1 - but it
> doesn't really change anything, it still means the same. Let's read it
> again...

Jim, thanks for taking the time to clarify, I do appreciate it!

Bob K.

[Uncle Fuzzy]

On Nov 19, 6:09*pm, Nimbob > wrote:

>
> So, your understanding of the rule is correct - we're just boring the
> hell out of RAS with this academic discussion is all. This really is
> academic because I've personally never seen this applied in the case
> of a glider; I believe the rule exists only to keep the aircraft that
> are temporarily in experimental R&D or Exp. Show Compliance under part
> 43 while they fly off the test flight requirements.
>
> Sorry if I mislead you earlier,
>
> Jim

Jim/Bob
This is NOT boring for me. It is a subject near and dear to my
heart. When I bought my 'Experimental' glider, I had no idea of the
ramifications. Knowing what I know now (or believe), I will NEVER own
a TC'd glider.
Your discussion has clarified/confirmed the conclusion another LVVSA
member came to after hours of research.
Many Thanks!

[Brad[_2_]]

On Nov 20, 8:33*am, Uncle Fuzzy > wrote:
> On Nov 19, 6:09*pm, Nimbob > wrote:
>
>
>
> > So, your understanding of the rule is correct - we're just boring the
> > hell out of RAS with this academic discussion is all. This really is
> > academic because I've personally never seen this applied in the case
> > of a glider; I believe the rule exists only to keep the aircraft that
> > are temporarily in experimental R&D or Exp. Show Compliance under part
> > 43 while they fly off the test flight requirements.
>
> > Sorry if I mislead you earlier,
>
> > Jim
>
> Jim/Bob
> *This is NOT boring for me. *It is a subject near and dear to my
> heart. *When I bought my 'Experimental' glider, I had no idea of the
> ramifications. *Knowing what I know now (or believe), I will NEVER own
> a TC'd glider.
> *Your discussion has clarified/confirmed the conclusion another LVVSA
> member came to after hours of research.
> Many Thanks!

I have to echo this as well. I find RAS vastly informative AND
entertaining! I also will never own a TC'd glider (again). When the
HP-24 is done the plan is for her to be my retirement ship. I'll be
able to do all the work myself and stay as far away from the local A&I
as I can. Of course I have friends who are A&P's and I will always
have a second pair of eyes to look the ship over.

Brad

[Greg Arnold]

On a subject mentioned earlier in this thread, I believe you can
register a TC'ed glider as Experimental. My basis for this conclusion
is that many ASW-27s are registered Experimental despite being TC'ed.
Also, I once had an LS-3 that was registered Experimental despite being
TC'ed.




Brad wrote:
> On Nov 20, 8:33 am, Uncle Fuzzy > wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 6:09 pm, Nimbob > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> So, your understanding of the rule is correct - we're just boring the
>>> hell out of RAS with this academic discussion is all. This really is
>>> academic because I've personally never seen this applied in the case
>>> of a glider; I believe the rule exists only to keep the aircraft that
>>> are temporarily in experimental R&D or Exp. Show Compliance under part
>>> 43 while they fly off the test flight requirements.
>>> Sorry if I mislead you earlier,
>>> Jim
>> Jim/Bob
>> This is NOT boring for me. It is a subject near and dear to my
>> heart. When I bought my 'Experimental' glider, I had no idea of the
>> ramifications. Knowing what I know now (or believe), I will NEVER own
>> a TC'd glider.
>> Your discussion has clarified/confirmed the conclusion another LVVSA
>> member came to after hours of research.
>> Many Thanks!
>
> I have to echo this as well. I find RAS vastly informative AND
> entertaining! I also will never own a TC'd glider (again). When the
> HP-24 is done the plan is for her to be my retirement ship. I'll be
> able to do all the work myself and stay as far away from the local A&I
> as I can. Of course I have friends who are A&P's and I will always
> have a second pair of eyes to look the ship over.
>
> Brad

[Scott Alexander[_2_]]

I just talked with Suzy out there to order some paint.....now I can't
find the phone number that I wrote down. And, I can't find PolyLux
anywhere on the internet. Must be a small company.

Anybody got the phone number to PolyLux?

[[email protected]]

On Nov 20, 2:00*pm, Greg Arnold > wrote:
> On a subject mentioned earlier in this thread, I believe you can
> register a TC'ed glider as Experimental. *My basis for this conclusion
> is that many ASW-27s are registered Experimental despite being TC'ed.
> Also, I once had an LS-3 that was registered Experimental despite being
> TC'ed.
>
>
>
> Brad wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 8:33 am, Uncle Fuzzy > wrote:
> >> On Nov 19, 6:09 pm, Nimbob > wrote:
>
> >>> So, your understanding of the rule is correct - we're just boring the
> >>> hell out of RAS with this academic discussion is all. This really is
> >>> academic because I've personally never seen this applied in the case
> >>> of a glider; I believe the rule exists only to keep the aircraft that
> >>> are temporarily in experimental R&D or Exp. Show Compliance under part
> >>> 43 while they fly off the test flight requirements.
> >>> Sorry if I mislead you earlier,
> >>> Jim
> >> Jim/Bob
> >> *This is NOT boring for me. *It is a subject near and dear to my
> >> heart. *When I bought my 'Experimental' glider, I had no idea of the
> >> ramifications. *Knowing what I know now (or believe), I will NEVER own
> >> a TC'd glider.
> >> *Your discussion has clarified/confirmed the conclusion another LVVSA
> >> member came to after hours of research.
> >> Many Thanks!
>
> > I have to echo this as well. I find RAS vastly informative AND
> > entertaining! I also will never own a TC'd glider (again). When the
> > HP-24 is done the plan is for her to be my retirement ship. I'll be
> > able to do all the work myself and stay as far away from the local A&I
> > as I can. Of course I have friends who are A&P's and I will always
> > have a second pair of eyes to look the ship over.
>
> > Brad- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

My '27, originally licensed Std , is now Ex.
UH

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Nov 20, 11:30*am, Scott Alexander >
wrote:
> I just talked with Suzy out there to order some paint.....now I can't
> find the phone number that I wrote down. *And, I can't find PolyLux
> anywhere on the internet. *Must be a small company.
>
> Anybody got the phone number to PolyLux?

The last tine I synched my phone with Outlook, it was (323)269-7229

Thanks, Bob K.