Grounded - Where to get rid of the Building Materials? [Archive]

R.W. Behan

July 10th 06, 04:26 AM

Well, bummer, Rocketeer. But you pushed it to the limit, and that commands
a lot of respect. Most people hang it up long before they're told to, timid
and hesitant and halting. Take your spirit and apply it to something new
and challenging. Maybe build a sailboat and take it offshore....

Cheers, and thanks for a great example,

Dick Behan

"Rocketeer" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi Folks:
>
> The FAA made it official, and I appealed all the way, but the heart
> monitor put the stake in the plans I made. I am grounded. I was going
> to build a Renegade, Charlie Lasher's Formula V from the 80's.
>
> So, I have to forget building the plane. I have $300.00 of Wicks
> chrome-moly 4130 in 6' lengths, of 4 different diameters. Where can I
> get this stuff sold?
>
> And I have the plans, if anyone is interested.
>
> Curtis Scholl
>
>

Dave S

July 10th 06, 09:34 AM

John Kimmel wrote:
> Rocketeer wrote:
>
>> Hi Folks:
you don't
> need to pass the FAA physical to fly an airplane.

Maybe to fly on his terms, he does...

Sorry to hear you are hanging up your hat, rocketeer..

Stealth Pilot

July 10th 06, 02:49 PM

On 9 Jul 2006 12:36:40 -0700, "Rocketeer" > wrote:

>Hi Folks:
>
> The FAA made it official, and I appealed all the way, but the heart
>monitor put the stake in the plans I made. I am grounded. I was going
>to build a Renegade, Charlie Lasher's Formula V from the 80's.
>
> So, I have to forget building the plane. I have $300.00 of Wicks
>chrome-moly 4130 in 6' lengths, of 4 different diameters. Where can I
>get this stuff sold?
>
> And I have the plans, if anyone is interested.
>
>Curtis Scholl

have you ever thought that posting the details here might just have
the solution you seek?

$300 of 4130 in 6ft lengths. that is a dumb post really.
what diameters? what number of lengths? what price?
what wall thicknesses? any corrosion?
and as the other chap posted, where in the world are you?

Stealth Pilot

Richard Craig

July 11th 06, 05:01 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stealth Pilot" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: Grounded - Where to get rid of the Building Materials?

> $300 of 4130 in 6ft lengths. that is a dumb post really.
> what diameters? what number of lengths? what price?
> what wall thicknesses? any corrosion?
> and as the other chap posted, where in the world are you?
>
> Stealth Pilot

Stealth Pilot - Trying to make new friends, are we? You're in Australia,
right? If Rocketeer ordered from Wicks, I'd bet the tubing is somewhere in
North America. Are you really interested in it, considering the likely
expense to get it to you? If you are interested, why the attitude? If
you're not interested, why comment at all?

Dick Craig

Morgans[_3_]

July 11th 06, 07:03 PM

"Richard Craig" > wrote
>
> Stealth Pilot - Trying to make new friends, are we? You're in Australia,
> right? If Rocketeer ordered from Wicks, I'd bet the tubing is somewhere
in
> North America. Are you really interested in it, considering the likely
> expense to get it to you? If you are interested, why the attitude? If
> you're not interested, why comment at all?

Perhaps he was saying what everyone else was too shy to post?

All he said really NEEDED to be said, if someone were to going to have an
interest in it.
--
Jim in NC

Tom Wait

July 12th 06, 04:29 PM

"Rocketeer" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi Folks:
>
> The FAA made it official, and I appealed all the way, but the heart
> monitor put the stake in the plans I made. I am grounded. I was going
> to build a Renegade, Charlie Lasher's Formula V from the 80's.
>
> So, I have to forget building the plane. I have $300.00 of Wicks
> chrome-moly 4130 in 6' lengths, of 4 different diameters. Where can I
> get this stuff sold?
>
> And I have the plans, if anyone is interested.
>
> Curtis Scholl
>
The obvious place is OSH at the Areo-Mart. If your not going, maybe someone
in your chapter is. You do belong to a chapter, don't you?
Tom
>
>

[email protected]

July 13th 06, 05:55 AM

Brother, I am sorry it didn't work out for you. I CAN relate.

I accumulated the materials amd plans to build a Bounsall Super
Prospector, all the tubing (I live right over the hill from
Dillsburg, so tubing was mill-length), spar blanks, and rib material.
But vertigo has become my constant companion. I took the whole works
to the local chapter hanger and donated it all - around $700 worth.
Maybe it will be used to teach some young people to build and fly..

Flash

I

Rocketeer wrote:
> Hi Folks:
>
> The FAA made it official, and I appealed all the way, but the heart
> monitor put the stake in the plans I made. I am grounded. I was going
> to build a Renegade, Charlie Lasher's Formula V from the 80's.
>
> So, I have to forget building the plane. I have $300.00 of Wicks
> chrome-moly 4130 in 6' lengths, of 4 different diameters. Where can I
> get this stuff sold?
>
> And I have the plans, if anyone is interested.
>
> Curtis Scholl
>

Rocketeer

July 13th 06, 04:54 PM

Anthony:

Yep, you are correct sir. I am in the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti, Michigan
area. So that would help a bit.

The chrome-moly is .030 wall in 3/4, 5/8, 1/2 and 3/8 and maybe 1/4.
I will measure get the steel out and measure the diameters again to be
sure.

Stealth Pilot:

You are showing your usual demeanor I see.

Curtis Scholl

Curtis S>
Anthony W wrote:
> Rocketeer wrote:
> > Hi Folks:
> >
> > The FAA made it official, and I appealed all the way, but the heart
> > monitor put the stake in the plans I made. I am grounded. I was going
> > to build a Renegade, Charlie Lasher's Formula V from the 80's.
> >
> > So, I have to forget building the plane. I have $300.00 of Wicks
> > chrome-moly 4130 in 6' lengths, of 4 different diameters. Where can I
> > get this stuff sold?
> >
> > And I have the plans, if anyone is interested.
> >
> > Curtis Scholl
> >
>
> I would help if you posted your location. Odds are some one local would
> want to get it less shipping.
>
> Tony

Rocketeer

July 13th 06, 05:02 PM

John:

One in 5 is the normal number. And I was serious. But there are
other items in my life now that take precedence since the FAA said no.
If I am going to build an aircraft, I would like to be the one to
fly it. Since a single place unit can not be flown by an unlicensed
pilot, legally, then I can not build it. The plane was to be a get away
plane. Alone get away. And I have no interest in building a 2 placer.
I have the pilot license, I have a place I can get into a 172 if I
really want to and ..>>choke<<.. with an instructor. So that will not
go away. I just don't feel the need now.

Curtis Scholl

John Kimmel wrote:
> Rocketeer wrote:
> > Hi Folks:
> >
> > The FAA made it official, and I appealed all the way, but the heart
> > monitor put the stake in the plans I made. I am grounded. I was going
> > to build a Renegade, Charlie Lasher's Formula V from the 80's.
> >
> > So, I have to forget building the plane. I have $300.00 of Wicks
> > chrome-moly 4130 in 6' lengths, of 4 different diameters. Where can I
> > get this stuff sold?
> >
> > And I have the plans, if anyone is interested.
> >
> > Curtis Scholl
> >
> >
> You don't need to pass the FAA physical to build an airplane, you don't
> need to pass the FAA physical to fly an airplane. You do, however, need
> considerable persistence to be the one person in five who completes the
> homebuilt aircraft he starts.
>
> --
> John Kimmel
>
> remove x
>
> "He's dead, Jim."

Rocketeer

July 13th 06, 05:04 PM

Dave:

I will still go flying when I want to, just have to have the
instructor or another pilot that will let me take the stick. So all is
not lost.

Curtis S>

Dave S wrote:
> John Kimmel wrote:
> > Rocketeer wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Folks:
> you don't
> > need to pass the FAA physical to fly an airplane.
>
> Maybe to fly on his terms, he does...
>
> Sorry to hear you are hanging up your hat, rocketeer..

Rocketeer

July 13th 06, 05:07 PM

Stealth Pilot:

Thanks for your concern. I see you have not changed a bit since I
last saw a post from you.

Curtis Scholl.

Rocketeer

July 13th 06, 05:11 PM

Lou wrote:
> Can't you return it to wicks for a restocking fee?

Yes, that is an option. I will call them and check it out.

Curtis S>

Rocketeer

July 13th 06, 05:14 PM

Folks, I have received an email already, so, all I needed to do was
mention it. Those that want can email me. I said all I needed to say,
despite Steath Pilot's assertions.

Curtis Scholl

Morgans wrote:
> "Richard Craig" > wrote
> >
> > Stealth Pilot - Trying to make new friends, are we? You're in Australia,
> > right? If Rocketeer ordered from Wicks, I'd bet the tubing is somewhere
> in
> > North America. Are you really interested in it, considering the likely
> > expense to get it to you? If you are interested, why the attitude? If
> > you're not interested, why comment at all?
>
> Perhaps he was saying what everyone else was too shy to post?
>
> All he said really NEEDED to be said, if someone were to going to have an
> interest in it.
> --
> Jim in NC

Morgans[_3_]

July 13th 06, 06:40 PM

"Rocketeer" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Dave:
>
> I will still go flying when I want to, just have to have the
> instructor or another pilot that will let me take the stick. So all is
> not lost.

How about sailplanes, or motorgliders? Those do not have the catch 22 with
the medical, right?
--
Jim in NC

Rocketeer

July 13th 06, 10:57 PM

Jim in NC

Why yes, sailplanes! And there is a sailplane port not far from here.
And NO MEDICAL REQUIRED!! Not for student or pilot.

Thanks for making me look that up!

But if they sent me the certified letter, is that for ONLY powered
planes? I will have to have them answer that one for me cause the
letter sounded awful hard against any flying.

Curtis S>

Morgans wrote:
> "Rocketeer" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Dave:
> >
> > I will still go flying when I want to, just have to have the
> > instructor or another pilot that will let me take the stick. So all is
> > not lost.
>
> How about sailplanes, or motorgliders? Those do not have the catch 22 with
> the medical, right?
> --
> Jim in NC

Morgans[_3_]

July 14th 06, 03:16 AM

"Rocketeer" > wrote

> Why yes, sailplanes! And there is a sailplane port not far from here.
> And NO MEDICAL REQUIRED!! Not for student or pilot.
>
> Thanks for making me look that up!
>
> But if they sent me the certified letter, is that for ONLY powered
> planes? I will have to have them answer that one for me cause the
> letter sounded awful hard against any flying.

There is a gotcha in the sport pilot rating, in that there is no medical
required IF you have not been turned down at your last FAA medical. That is
your condition, so no sport pilot for you.

For sailplanes, there is NO medical of any kind required for it. It does
not matter if you have been turned down in the past. You are self
certifying, before every flight, that you have no condition that is going to
cause a safety problem during that flight. It would seem to me, that is
your only catch. You must be honest enough to be aware of your limitations.

The sailplane ticket also allow for self launch, or motor gliders. There
are definitions that have to be met to call it a motor glider, but at least
with an engine, you can go somewhere when the lift is marginal.

Here is a link with most of the vital information.
<http://webpages.charter.net/engreenwell/ASA/Motorglider_criteria_2004.pdf>
--
Jim in NC

cavelamb

July 14th 06, 04:51 AM

Rocketeer wrote:

> R.W.
>
> I do sail, just not in a while....Good Idea! I think maybe a stitch and
> tape ply sail boat, small at first, to get started.
>
> Curtis S>
>
> Curtis S>
> R.W. Behan wrote:
>

Curtis,

It sux when the letter arrives.

But you are right, they can't stop you from sailing.

Same thing applies to boats.

"If you want to build, build.
If you wnat to fly, buy".

Richard

mark

July 14th 06, 04:52 AM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rocketeer" > wrote
>
>> Why yes, sailplanes! And there is a sailplane port not far from here.
>> And NO MEDICAL REQUIRED!! Not for student or pilot.
>>
>> Thanks for making me look that up!
>>
>> But if they sent me the certified letter, is that for ONLY powered
>> planes? I will have to have them answer that one for me cause the
>> letter sounded awful hard against any flying.
>
> There is a gotcha in the sport pilot rating, in that there is no medical
> required IF you have not been turned down at your last FAA medical. That
> is
> your condition, so no sport pilot for you.
>
> For sailplanes, there is NO medical of any kind required for it. It does
> not matter if you have been turned down in the past. You are self
> certifying, before every flight, that you have no condition that is going
> to
> cause a safety problem during that flight. It would seem to me, that is
> your only catch. You must be honest enough to be aware of your
> limitations.
>
> The sailplane ticket also allow for self launch, or motor gliders. There
> are definitions that have to be met to call it a motor glider, but at
> least
> with an engine, you can go somewhere when the lift is marginal.
>
> Here is a link with most of the vital information.
> <http://webpages.charter.net/engreenwell/ASA/Motorglider_criteria_2004.pdf>
> --
> Jim in NC
>

You also have FAR part 103 ultralights, and one other possibility for you
depending on your condition. If it wasn't done during the intital attempt
at getting a medical, and I doubt it was in that Light Sport is very new,
you can ask that they review your medical certification again for Light
Sport only. It wouldn't be a 3rd class, but a review to see if you could
safely operate an LSA. Many homebuilts can fall into that category. To
deal with these types of issues AOPA is the place to call and ask for the
medical certification dept.

Morgans[_3_]

July 14th 06, 06:22 AM

"mark" > wrote

> You also have FAR part 103 ultralights, and one other possibility for you
> depending on your condition. If it wasn't done during the intital attempt
> at getting a medical, and I doubt it was in that Light Sport is very new,
> you can ask that they review your medical certification again for Light
> Sport only.

What on earth are you talking about? There is only one minimum level of
medical that will do; at least a 3rd class medical, that he can let expire.
There is no light sport medical review.
--
Jim in NC

mark

July 14th 06, 07:07 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "mark" > wrote
>
>> You also have FAR part 103 ultralights, and one other possibility for you
>> depending on your condition. If it wasn't done during the intital
>> attempt
>> at getting a medical, and I doubt it was in that Light Sport is very new,
>> you can ask that they review your medical certification again for Light
>> Sport only.
>
> What on earth are you talking about? There is only one minimum level of
> medical that will do; at least a 3rd class medical, that he can let
> expire.
> There is no light sport medical review.
> --
> Jim in NC

He can not just let his medical expire. If I understood correctly he
attempted to get a 3rd class and was denied. That means the self certify
does not apply to him, but the FAA will review the file again if it has not
already done so, for allowing him to fly Light Sport Aircraft only. Once
they review the file they could possibly issue a letter giving him the ok to
self certify for LSA or under what conditions he would have to meet to fly
LSA. Its also possible that they could turn him down again for LSA. That
would limit him to 103 and possibly gliders.

Its really one of the big catch 22's in LSA. If you attempt to get a
medical and find a problem or if you try to jump through the hoops and
someone say no, you lose the light sport as an option without more hoops.
>

Morgans[_3_]

July 14th 06, 08:37 PM

"mark" > wrote

> He can not just let his medical expire. If I understood correctly he
> attempted to get a 3rd class and was denied.

Correct

> That means the self certify
> does not apply to him, but the FAA will review the file again if it has
not
> already done so, for allowing him to fly Light Sport Aircraft only.

Where have you ever heard of reviewing an application for allowing sport
pilot only? You are proposing a procedure that is not in place.

> Once
> they review the file they could possibly issue a letter giving him the ok
to
> self certify for LSA or under what conditions he would have to meet to fly
> LSA. Its also possible that they could turn him down again for LSA.

They have already turned him down for LSA by turning down his medical. His
medical MUST be reinstated fully, to fly, then he can let it expire and fly
LSA.

If you know of a procedure other than full medical reinstatement like you
have posted, explain fully, and post cites. Until then, don't get some
people's hopes up.
--
Jim in NC

mark

July 15th 06, 01:18 AM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "mark" > wrote
>
>> He can not just let his medical expire. If I understood correctly he
>> attempted to get a 3rd class and was denied.
>
> Correct
>
>> That means the self certify
>> does not apply to him, but the FAA will review the file again if it has
> not
>> already done so, for allowing him to fly Light Sport Aircraft only.
>
> Where have you ever heard of reviewing an application for allowing sport
> pilot only? You are proposing a procedure that is not in place.
>
>> Once
>> they review the file they could possibly issue a letter giving him the ok
> to
>> self certify for LSA or under what conditions he would have to meet to
>> fly
>> LSA. Its also possible that they could turn him down again for LSA.
>
> They have already turned him down for LSA by turning down his medical.
> His
> medical MUST be reinstated fully, to fly, then he can let it expire and
> fly
> LSA.
>
> If you know of a procedure other than full medical reinstatement like you
> have posted, explain fully, and post cites. Until then, don't get some
> people's hopes up.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
It is not the full medical. I wouldn't be getting peoples hopes up if I
wasn't positive. The full review with the appeals likely was for the 3rd
class. Third class has no restrictions on size, speed or type of airplane.
Its perfectly legal with the right paperwork and pilot certificates to fly
ANY certified airplane with a class 3. High perfomance twins, turbocharged
and pressurized airplanes complex and high speed airplanes are all fair game
with a class 3 and medically that affects both the operating environment and
the risks involved with flight with various conditions.

The review for light sport only puts very definate speed and weight
restrictions on the pilots. Those restrictions most certainly lower the
risks of flight involved to others. The procedure is in place, but must be
requested if it was not done so with the request of the class 3. A class 3
request does not automatically call for a review for light sport
qualifications. Once requested, the FAA can review the file and then make a
determination as to his or her safety based on the lower performance of the
aircraft and the lower demands on the pilot for the slower airplanes. That
can be as simple as a letter to the applicant stating that his or her file
has been reviewed and that they are now approved to self certify. It may
also require other conditions like a phyisical from an AME every so often,
and maybe specfic procedures to be done at that interval just as they can do
now with a 3rd or any other class of medical certificate that might have an
issue which would be a potential problem. It also can be a denial. They
have great latitude. AOPA medical certification department 1 800 872 2672
(join if not a member its worth it) and AME's have the proper information
available on how to make such a request and how such a request might be
looked upon.

Yes this is an option that can be explored and has been since the
implementation of LSA. Hopefully in time this review will be automatic with
the denial of a 3rd or any other class. Like many things though how you ask
matters and its so new many AME's are just learning the ropes too.

Rich S.[_1_]

July 15th 06, 01:25 AM

"mark" > wrote in message
news:SvWtg.816$WF6.188@trndny06...
>
> <snip> The review for light sport only puts very definate speed and weight
> restrictions on the pilots. <snip>

Mark.............

This sounds wonderful, however you still fail to give any reference in the
FAR's for such a procedure. I have read them carefully from day one and do
not remember any such clause.

Would you please give chapter and verse. This information would be eagerly
received by many.

Rich S.

Morgans[_3_]

July 15th 06, 02:29 AM

"mark" > wrote

> It is not the full medical. I wouldn't be getting peoples hopes up if I
> wasn't positive.
>
> The review for light sport only puts very definate speed and weight
> restrictions on the pilots. Those restrictions most certainly lower the
> risks of flight involved to others. The procedure is in place, but must
be
> requested if it was not done so with the request of the class 3. A class
3
> request does not automatically call for a review for light sport
> qualifications. Once requested, the FAA can review the file and then make
a
> determination as to his or her safety based on the lower performance of
the
> aircraft and the lower demands on the pilot for the slower airplanes.

How did you find out about this procedure? Do you know anyone who has been
successful with the review?

If this is a viable procedure, there must be a written record, as to how it
is done, what it's limitations and requirements are, ect. The FAA does not
do anything that is not on paper. Can you point to a reg., circular, or
something on paper?

Anyone else out there ever hear of this?

I, for one, am still skeptical, but would *love* to be proven wrong, by
seeing it in print, in a government record.

Thanks for keeping this as a civil discussion.
--
Jim in NC

mark

July 15th 06, 06:02 AM

Its there but I have to dig it out. If you are interested in doing the
research for yourself it probably won't be in 67 yet. Look in LSA pamplets.
AOPA has chapter and verse as to where its found. Anyone in that situation
should be joining for their advise in these types of matters.

Knowing how to fill out the paperwork is 3/4 ths of the battle. They know
far better than any of us unless maybe there is an AME here that can quote
straight from their manual.

FWIW I researched it for my own purposes a while back.
"Rich S." > wrote in message
. ..
> "mark" > wrote in message
> news:SvWtg.816$WF6.188@trndny06...
>>
>> <snip> The review for light sport only puts very definate speed and
>> weight restrictions on the pilots. <snip>
>
> Mark.............
>
> This sounds wonderful, however you still fail to give any reference in the
> FAR's for such a procedure. I have read them carefully from day one and do
> not remember any such clause.
>
> Would you please give chapter and verse. This information would be eagerly
> received by many.
>
> Rich S.
>

mark

July 15th 06, 06:12 AM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "mark" > wrote
>
>> It is not the full medical. I wouldn't be getting peoples hopes up if I
>> wasn't positive.
>>
>> The review for light sport only puts very definate speed and weight
>> restrictions on the pilots. Those restrictions most certainly lower the
>> risks of flight involved to others. The procedure is in place, but must
> be
>> requested if it was not done so with the request of the class 3. A class
> 3
>> request does not automatically call for a review for light sport
>> qualifications. Once requested, the FAA can review the file and then
>> make
> a
>> determination as to his or her safety based on the lower performance of
> the
>> aircraft and the lower demands on the pilot for the slower airplanes.
>
> How did you find out about this procedure? Do you know anyone who has
> been
> successful with the review?
>
> If this is a viable procedure, there must be a written record, as to how
> it
> is done, what it's limitations and requirements are, ect. The FAA does
> not
> do anything that is not on paper. Can you point to a reg., circular, or
> something on paper?
>
> Anyone else out there ever hear of this?
>
> I, for one, am still skeptical, but would *love* to be proven wrong, by
> seeing it in print, in a government record.
>
> Thanks for keeping this as a civil discussion.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
Jim one of the issues with this type of procedure is that its a case by case
basis. I did the research a while back because of my own health issues.
They are still new so as I said they are not in 67 yet. They should be LSA
information or the Aviation Medical Examiners manual. It will be several
days for me to dig it out. It really isn't anything more than they do on
any other medical. It is effectively a special issuance for the ability to
fly LSA. I gave the AOPA number in a previous post. Don't take my word for
it. Call them yourself.

It is very possible that this request might have been done for the orginal
poster with the inital application. Its also possible it wasn't. Only he
would know and its none of our business the nature of the medical issue.
Anyone that wants to fly that bad and is willing to press his medical that
far, is someone I hope can be safe, approved and legal.

[email protected]

July 17th 06, 03:54 PM

Morgans wrote:
> "Rocketeer" > wrote
>
> > Why yes, sailplanes! And there is a sailplane port not far from here.
> > And NO MEDICAL REQUIRED!! Not for student or pilot.
> >
> > Thanks for making me look that up!
> >
> > But if they sent me the certified letter, is that for ONLY powered
> > planes? I will have to have them answer that one for me cause the
> > letter sounded awful hard against any flying.

The single msot important consideration is to what extend you
would be at greater risk than a pilot with a current medical.

>
> There is a gotcha in the sport pilot rating, in that there is no medical
> required IF you have not been turned down at your last FAA medical. That is
> your condition, so no sport pilot for you.

Keeping the above consideration in mind, you might look into this
strategy, described by "Jim" on the yahoo Texas Parasol group:

Last year the FAA presented details of the medical rules at the
Illinois Safety Seminar in Springfield.

Here is a key item. If your last medical was not cancelled, you can
then use your drivers license. And is here the way around your last
cancellation per the FAA. Request a single flight medical for a ferry
flight of a short distance. Almost always granted. Now your last
medical is not a failure. You dont need to actually make the flight,
just have permission.

Your request of course would be for a single flight, VFR, no
passengers, etc so there is no danger to anyone.

I have no first hand experience at this, but am quoting an FAA
employee from Oklahoma who addressed the crowd of 500
with this method.

Please keep in mind those are Jim's words above, not mine.

But again, the single most important consideration is if and to what
extent your medical condition puts you (and the public) at increased
risk should you fly.

--

FF

[email protected]

July 18th 06, 04:51 AM

Rocketeer wrote:
> OK, the new skinny from the Medical People at CAMI:
>
> I sent them the details and they stated:
> ********
> Dear Mr. Scholl - if piloting a glider or balloon does not require an
> FAA
> airman medical certificate, then you would be legal to do so. However,
> I
> would strongly recommend you discuss with your attending physician the
> advisability of doing so given your medical conditions and safety
> considerations.
>
> Unfortunately, in light of your having received a formal denial from
> the
> FAA, you are not eligible to operate Light Sport Aircraft.
>
> Nestor Kowalsky, M.D.
> Regional Flight Surgeon AGL-300
> Great Lakes Region
>
> ***********
> My doc already suggested I go that route. So Dr. Kowalsky need not be
> too concerned.
>
> So, I am going to check it out further. I would not mind a sailplane
> rating. And if the aircraft is rated as a sailplane and self launching,
> then I can get those endorsements as well. The "motor glider" can not
> weigh more than 1836 pounds and can not have a loading of more than .62
> lbs, that is weight to span squared.
>
> Now to research what aircraft are rated as sailplane, self launching
> and has all that. But I would be just as happy unpowered. Flying is
> Flying, whether powered or unpowered.
>

Two extremes of ultralight glider homebuilding:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Airchairgroup/

http://www.marskeaircraft.com/

--

FF

Wayne Paul

July 18th 06, 05:33 AM

> wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Rocketeer wrote:
>>
>> Now to research what aircraft are rated as sailplane, self launching
>> and has all that. But I would be just as happy unpowered. Flying is
>> Flying, whether powered or unpowered.
>>
>
> Two extremes of ultralight glider homebuilding:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Airchairgroup/
>
> http://www.marskeaircraft.com/
>
> --
>

Or you could restore one of the 1960s-'70s classic Schreder homebuilt
designs.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-14/N990/N990.html

[email protected]

July 18th 06, 05:33 PM

Keeping in mind than an _ultralight_ glider is restricted to less than
155lbs,
with no other restrictions:

What regulatory differences, if any, would a homebuilder encounter
when building a sailplane or motorglider in stead of an experimental
airplane?

Does the 51% rule still apply? ( I would guess so.) Would one be
able to get an airworthiness cert for a prototype or one-off design,
as one would for an airplane?

--

FF

Morgans[_3_]

July 18th 06, 07:41 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Keeping in mind than an _ultralight_ glider is restricted to less than
> 155lbs,
> with no other restrictions:
>
> What regulatory differences, if any, would a homebuilder encounter
> when building a sailplane or motorglider in stead of an experimental
> airplane?
>
> Does the 51% rule still apply? ( I would guess so.) Would one be
> able to get an airworthiness cert for a prototype or one-off design,
> as one would for an airplane?

Yep, and yep.
--
Jim in NC

Wayne Paul

July 18th 06, 11:47 PM

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>>What regulatory differences, if any, would a homebuilder encounter
>>when building a sailplane or motorglider in stead of an experimental
>>airplane?
>
> There are essentially no "regulatory" differences, but there
> are some applicable FAA Orders that control what FAA
> inspectors will approve. For an unpowered sailplane, they
> leave you pretty much free to build anything. However, if
> it has an engine, you'll encounter problems calling it a
> motorglider if it's got more than two seats or is above a
> certain wingloading (which I don't have at my fingertips).
> I suspect they don't want you bypassing the medical rules by
> labeling it a motorglider.
>
Todd,

If my memory serves me correctly it is not a wing-loading limitation. It is
a number that is computed by dividing the gross weight by wing-span squared.
I wonder where the FAA came up with that calculation and its' aero-dynamics
significance?

However, if you check the FAA database you will find there are Windrose
gliders kits that have been registered as "gliders" and others registered as
"airplanes." In such cases a pilot your qualifications must match the
airworthiness certificate.

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder

Rich S.[_1_]

July 19th 06, 12:10 AM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Does the 51% rule still apply?

What 51% rule?

Think about that before answering.

Rich S.

Rocketeer

July 19th 06, 12:24 AM

Hi Gang:

Thanks for all the encouragement. I am going to go for the
sailplane/ultralight sailplane fun.

All the metal for the Cassutt/Renegade is on the Barnstormer's
website. There are 2 other ads, one for a set of CASSUTT plans and one
for the plans for a Texas Parasol. The Renegade plans stay with me
cause my wife bought em as a Birthday Present loooong ago 1981.

The GOAT3 Armchair is intriguing, but I think I will just rent the
time. Building is a long way off what with school and all now. So a
2-32 may be the only avenue right now.

I am moving over to the rec.aviation.sailplanes newsgroup for further
fun. See ya'll later!

Curtis Scholl

Morgans[_3_]

July 19th 06, 01:17 AM

"Wayne Paul" > wrote
> Todd,
>
> If my memory serves me correctly it is not a wing-loading limitation. It
is
> a number that is computed by dividing the gross weight by wing-span
squared.
> I wonder where the FAA came up with that calculation and its'
aero-dynamics
> significance?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A “powered glider” has specific Type Certification Criteria.
In FAA Advisory Circular 21.17-2A, these criteria are listed:
The maximum WEIGHT does not exceed 1874 pounds (850 kilograms).
The maximum SPAN LOADING (weight to wing span squared) does not exceed 0.62
pounds per square foot (3.0 kg / square meter).
The number of occupants does not exceed two.

I had previously clipped this.
--
Jim in NC

[email protected]

July 19th 06, 01:24 AM

Wayne Paul wrote:
> "T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
> ...
> > wrote:
> >
> >>What regulatory differences, if any, would a homebuilder encounter
> >>when building a sailplane or motorglider in stead of an experimental
> >>airplane?
> >
> > There are essentially no "regulatory" differences, but there
> > are some applicable FAA Orders that control what FAA
> > inspectors will approve. For an unpowered sailplane, they
> > leave you pretty much free to build anything. However, if
> > it has an engine, you'll encounter problems calling it a
> > motorglider if it's got more than two seats or is above a
> > certain wingloading (which I don't have at my fingertips).
> > I suspect they don't want you bypassing the medical rules by
> > labeling it a motorglider.

I'm quite sure they don't. The only homebuilt unpowered gliders
I've run accross have been ultralight gliders.

> >
> Todd,
>
> If my memory serves me correctly it is not a wing-loading limitation. It is
> a number that is computed by dividing the gross weight by wing-span squared.
> I wonder where the FAA came up with that calculation and its' aero-dynamics
> significance?
>

the FAA "Powered glider" criteria are:

not over 1874 pounds.
not more than two occupants
Span Loading not more than 0.82 psi

Span Loading is the weight divided by the wingspan squared.

--

FF

[email protected]

July 19th 06, 03:52 AM

wrote:
>
> Span Loading not more than 0.82 psi
>
>

Sorry! That was a typo. Should have been:

Span Loading not more than 0.62 psf

--

FF

Big John

July 19th 06, 04:24 AM

Cutis

Are you pacemaker dependent? My first pacemaker (single lead) only
fired about 40% of the time and if it quit I just had an erratic heart
beat that I could feel.

If I had been flying I could have landed at my destination and got
fixed.

I now have a dual lead pacemaker and they burned the inside of my
heart and I am now rated pacemaker dependent.

I am looking at flying gliders as soon as my shoulder operation for
detached rotator cuff heals.

I drive, drink and raise hell so can't see why flying should be any
problem in a glider of any type.

If you are not pacemaker dependent, get your Flight Surgeon to so
state and try to run through again and show while you have one it is
not a life or death situation.

Talk to AOPA and others to see if that approach would sell.

Ask them how many pilots who have pacemakers have crashed. What data
are they basing their turn down on?

A STRONG letter from your Flight Surgeon would help a lot if you can
get him to sign. Along with a copy of your heart rythem.

Best of luck either way you go.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````

On 9 Jul 2006 12:36:40 -0700, "Rocketeer" > wrote:

>Hi Folks:
>
> The FAA made it official, and I appealed all the way, but the heart
>monitor put the stake in the plans I made. I am grounded. I was going
>to build a Renegade, Charlie Lasher's Formula V from the 80's.
>
> So, I have to forget building the plane. I have $300.00 of Wicks
>chrome-moly 4130 in 6' lengths, of 4 different diameters. Where can I
>get this stuff sold?
>
> And I have the plans, if anyone is interested.
>
>Curtis Scholl

Wayne Paul

July 19th 06, 04:25 AM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>> > I suspect they don't want you bypassing the medical rules by
>> > labeling it a motorglider.
>
> I'm quite sure they don't. The only homebuilt unpowered gliders
> I've run accross have been ultralight gliders.
>
FF,

I fly a homebuilt unpowered glider that isn't an ultralight (gross weight
810 lbs.) It was one of the many homebuilt designed by Richard Schreder.
(http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-14/N990/N990.html) Dick sold over 400
kits. Many of which are still flying.

In the 1960s Dick's kits were world class competition sailplanes. Extensive
information about Schreder designs can be found at
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder. This site archives almost 100 megs of
Schreder related data. Dick's most popular designs are the HP-11, HP-14,
RS-15, HP-16 and HP-18.

The tradition of Schreder's creativity is being continued by Bob Kuykendall.
(http://www.hpaircraft.com) He is currently developing the HP-24 and a nice
self-launch sailplane.

Jim Maske makes two sailplanes. The Monarch is an ultralight and the
Pioneer II is not. ( http://www.marskeaircraft.com/index.html)

And then there is the Duster, Cherokee, Woodstock, Windrose, etc. These are
all US designs. However, there are, also, several kits European kits on the
market.

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/

[email protected]

July 19th 06, 04:33 AM

Rich S. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Does the 51% rule still apply?
>
> What 51% rule?
>

Perhaps you'll find this helpful:

http://www.wanttaja.com/avlinks/FAQ.HTM

I'm sure most questions you might still have can be answered
by the folks who frequent this newsgroup.

--

FF

R.W. Behan

July 19th 06, 04:14 PM

Curtis,

I'm going the other way. Sailed a Westsail 32 for years, but had to give it
up at age 73. So now I'm interested in taking up flying, and maybe building
a Zenith CH 801.

If you're truly interested in building a boat, check out the Glen-L line;
simple designs intended for home builders.

Fair winds and blue skies to you, sir.

Dick

"Rocketeer" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> R.W.
>
> I do sail, just not in a while....Good Idea! I think maybe a stitch and
> tape ply sail boat, small at first, to get started.
>
> Curtis S>
>
> Curtis S>
> R.W. Behan wrote:
>> Well, bummer, Rocketeer. But you pushed it to the limit, and that
>> commands
>> a lot of respect. Most people hang it up long before they're told to,
>> timid
>> and hesitant and halting. Take your spirit and apply it to something new
>> and challenging. Maybe build a sailboat and take it offshore....
>>
>> Cheers, and thanks for a great example,
>>
>> Dick Behan
>>
>>
>> "Rocketeer" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > Hi Folks:
>> >
>> > The FAA made it official, and I appealed all the way, but the heart
>> > monitor put the stake in the plans I made. I am grounded. I was going
>> > to build a Renegade, Charlie Lasher's Formula V from the 80's.
>> >
>> > So, I have to forget building the plane. I have $300.00 of Wicks
>> > chrome-moly 4130 in 6' lengths, of 4 different diameters. Where can I
>> > get this stuff sold?
>> >
>> > And I have the plans, if anyone is interested.
>> >
>> > Curtis Scholl
>> >
>> >
>

Wayne Paul

July 19th 06, 08:09 PM

"R.W. Behan" > wrote in message
om...
> Curtis,
>
> If you're truly interested in building a boat, check out the Glen-L line;
> simple designs intended for home builders.
>
> Fair winds and blue skies to you, sir.
>
Dick,

I built a Glen-L 17 sailboat back in the early 1960s from a frame kit. The
family really enjoyed it during several sailing/camping trips in
Washington's San Juan Islands.

Are these kits still available?

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/

Montblack[_1_]

July 19th 06, 09:29 PM

("T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote)
> I assume the weight/span**2 limit was chosen to force long wings even at
> lighter weights, without requiring unreasonably long wings at the maximum
> weight limit.

1,874 lbs MTOW
(0.62) Maximum SPAN LOADING (weight to wing span squared)

(#1)
50 ft wings (**2) = 2,500
1,874 lbs MTOW ÷ 2,500 = 0.7496 ....(NO)

(#2)
55 ft wings (**2) = 3,025
1,874 lbs MTOW ÷ 3,025 = 0.6195 ....(YES)

(#3)
40 ft wings (**2) = 1,600
1,000 lbs MTOW ÷ 1,600 = 0.625 .....(SURE)
[Easy to remember numbers]

(#5)
30 ft wings (**2) = 900
550 lbs MTOW ÷ 900 = 0.6111 .......(YES)

(#6)
30 ft wings (**2) = 900
600 lbs MTOW ÷ 900 = 0.666 .........(NO)

550 lb (MTOW) with 30 ft wing span:
............................................
300 lb (plane)
200 lb (pilot and gear)
050 lb (Fuel @ 8 gal)

Montblack
(Alt + 0247 for.... ÷ )