Whose airplane is it anyway?

[Ernest Christley]

I have just been informed by the designer of the aircraft that I am
building that there is a possibility that he may not allow me to use an
alternative engine. Granted that weight and balance, as well as power
requirements must reasonably lie within allowable ranges, what is the
roll of the kit or plans manufacturer in the final homebuilt aircraft?
Will the FAA award him the power to veto my airworthiness certificate?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ernest Christley" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have just been informed by the designer of the aircraft that I am
> building that there is a possibility that he may not allow me to use an
> alternative engine. Granted that weight and balance, as well as power
> requirements must reasonably lie within allowable ranges, what is the roll
> of the kit or plans manufacturer in the final homebuilt aircraft? Will the
> FAA award him the power to veto my airworthiness certificate?

No way he can do anything other than stop supporting you, in any way.

Do you have all of your parts from him? Do you think there is anything that
you will absolutely need to ask him, from here on out, that you can not
complete the airplane without his answers?

If your answers are yes and no, then don't worry about it. All his plans
are is a suggested way to build an airplane. How you build it and what
modifications you make are entirely up to you.

It figures he would pull that crap. I always thought he was a primadonna.
--
Jim in NC

[Ernest Christley]

Morgans wrote:
> "Ernest Christley" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I have just been informed by the designer of the aircraft that I am
>> building that there is a possibility that he may not allow me to use an
>> alternative engine. Granted that weight and balance, as well as power
>> requirements must reasonably lie within allowable ranges, what is the roll
>> of the kit or plans manufacturer in the final homebuilt aircraft? Will the
>> FAA award him the power to veto my airworthiness certificate?
>
> No way he can do anything other than stop supporting you, in any way.
>
> Do you have all of your parts from him? Do you think there is anything that
> you will absolutely need to ask him, from here on out, that you can not
> complete the airplane without his answers?
>
> If your answers are yes and no, then don't worry about it. All his plans
> are is a suggested way to build an airplane. How you build it and what
> modifications you make are entirely up to you.
>
> It figures he would pull that crap. I always thought he was a primadonna.

He never supplied parts, and getting him to answer a technical question
has always been like pulling an eye-tooth.

Follow the plans...but the part isn't made anymore...stick to the
plans...but the measurements contradict...just stick to the plans...

I'm going to call the Greensboro FSDO tomorrow and I've sent an email to
the EAA Headquarters. The idea that I can be cut off after 5years of
building really sticks in my craw. Even the insinuation is unbearable.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ernest Christley" > wrote

>
> I'm going to call the Greensboro FSDO tomorrow and I've sent an email to
> the EAA Headquarters. The idea that I can be cut off after 5years of
> building really sticks in my craw. Even the insinuation is unbearable.

I'm sure you need to hear it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak,
so of course, check with those two organizations.

Rest easy tonight, and until you get your answers, that there are no
problems. Carry on, making your airplane, (making your own decisions-so it
sounds) with the knowledge that all is well.
--
Jim in NC

[john smith]

What are you building?

[Lou]

Isn't this the same problem that the sonex builder
had putting in the corvair engine?
His is flying.
Lou

[Morgans[_2_]]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> What are you building?

It isn't me, building. It is Mr. Christley, and he is building a Dyke
Delta.

Here is a hope page of one of the Dyke Delta's builders.

www.eaa27.org/projects/maher/index.html
--
Jim in NC

[Stuart & Kathryn Fields]

As I recall the little metal tag that FAA wants visible on the aircraft has
a space for the A/C MFR. That is where you put your name. You are the Mfr.
and therefore entitled to do the condition inspections and all modifications
consistant with your airworthiness cert. I didn't find any approval blank
for Canadian Home Rotors when I made modifications to my helicopter. They
did ask me not to call it a Safari if I was making un-approved mods.

Stuart Fields
Experimental Helo magazine
P. O. Box 1585
Inyokern, CA 93527
(760) 377-4478 ph
(760) 408-9747 publication cell
"Ernest Christley" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have just been informed by the designer of the aircraft that I am
> building that there is a possibility that he may not allow me to use an
> alternative engine. Granted that weight and balance, as well as power
> requirements must reasonably lie within allowable ranges, what is the roll
> of the kit or plans manufacturer in the final homebuilt aircraft? Will the
> FAA award him the power to veto my airworthiness certificate?

[COLIN LAMB]

If you build his designed airplane without buying his plans, he has a claim
against you for copyright infringement. That would be his claim against
you. Once he sells you the plans, you can build an airplane. If you do
something that is contrary to his plans, he can refuse to support you - but
he has no other claim.

You are building an experimental aircraft. Experimental aircraft are
experimental.

In fact, if he communicates to the FAA that your airplane is unsafe because
it does not use the engine he has specified and the FAA acts upon that to
deny you an experimental license, you would have a legal claim against him.

Colin

[COLIN LAMB]

Right on.

The manufacturer is Ernest Christley and the proper engine is the one he
specifies. Just before his first flight, he has to look in the engine
compartment and confirm that he has the correct engine.

Colin

[COLIN LAMB]

http://www.eaa.org/homebuilders/list/Dyke%20Delta_La%20Beau.asp

The Delta Dyke referenced above has a fuel injected Mazda engine in it.

[Richard Isakson]

"Richard Riley" wrote ...

> Well, do check with them for your own peace of mind, but there ain't
> nothin - and I do mean nothin - that he can do. It's faintly
> theoretically possible that if you include his name in the registered
> name type of your airplane he could have grounds to sue you, but it's
> never happened and probably never will.
>
> Just to be on the safe side, call it something else when you register
> it.
>
> Frankly, the big change that needs to be done to your airplane is it
> needs fixed main gear and a lower ground attitude. One man's opinion,

Yet, as Lieutenant Edwards found out a great deal of care must be taken when
you're dealing with changes in the center of gravity of flying wings.

Rich

[Ernest Christley]

john smith wrote:
> What are you building?

Dyke Delta.

http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org

[Ernest Christley]

Richard Isakson wrote:
> "Richard Riley" wrote ...
>
>> Well, do check with them for your own peace of mind, but there ain't
>> nothin - and I do mean nothin - that he can do. It's faintly
>> theoretically possible that if you include his name in the registered
>> name type of your airplane he could have grounds to sue you, but it's
>> never happened and probably never will.
>>
>> Just to be on the safe side, call it something else when you register
>> it.
>>
>> Frankly, the big change that needs to be done to your airplane is it
>> needs fixed main gear and a lower ground attitude. One man's opinion,
>
> Yet, as Lieutenant Edwards found out a great deal of care must be taken when
> you're dealing with changes in the center of gravity of flying wings.
>
> Rich
>
>

I've taken painstaking care not to move the CG or change the airfoil,
sweep or angles of the wings. I have made the nosegear fixed. That
saved me 10lbs, lots of complication, and several failure modes. It may
cost me a couple kts, but I consider them kts well spent. If I knew
then what I know now, the main gear would be aluminum leaf springs.
There's lots of weight in the gear retract mechanism, but its fairly
evenly spread forward and aft of the CG.

As for changing the ground attitude...you've got to get it high enough
to put a prop on there. I do have less than 9 degrees nose-up, which is
the limit. It's just under 8, if I recall correctly.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Richard Riley" > wrote
>
> Even 8 is begging for pitch diversion on landing if anything goes
> wrong. A little bounce and you're off to the races. It doesn't have
> to have that high nose attitude - just a longer, fixed nose gear. A
> lot of the gear design is left over from the original design goal of
> making it roadable.

Are you sure about that? Are you taking the delta wing's need to come down
nose high, to slow down to reasonable speeds for landing? How about getting
the nose high enough for takeoff? If the nose were much lower, how fast
would you need to go, to get enough elevon effectiveness to lift the nose
for takeoff?

My guess, and forming an opinion from reading flight reports on the Dyke, is
that the unusual attitude is not a problem. While landing, you land nose
high, and the speed becomes whatever is necessary to get a good sink rate.
You don't come down fast, because you won't, if you are too fast. If
anything, a bounce is a non incident, because you mush right back down after
you bounce back into the air.

That is my take, anyway. I would want to fly one, before I went messing
with the landing gear geometry.

I do think fixing the gear is reasonable, though.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Richard Riley" > wrote

> Without getting into details, I have enough non-reading-flight-reports
> information to be confident about it.

OK, good enough for me.
--
Jim in NC

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Ernest Christley" > wrote in message
...
> john smith wrote:
>> What are you building?
>
> Dyke Delta.
>
> http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org

No, you are building a Christley delta that somewhat resembles the Dyke
Delta.

Has there ever, in the history of mankind, been a "plans built" homebuilt
that exactly followed the plans?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Ernest Christley]

Morgans wrote:
> "Richard Riley" > wrote
>> Even 8 is begging for pitch diversion on landing if anything goes
>> wrong. A little bounce and you're off to the races. It doesn't have
>> to have that high nose attitude - just a longer, fixed nose gear. A
>> lot of the gear design is left over from the original design goal of
>> making it roadable.
>
> Are you sure about that? Are you taking the delta wing's need to come down
> nose high, to slow down to reasonable speeds for landing? How about getting
> the nose high enough for takeoff? If the nose were much lower, how fast
> would you need to go, to get enough elevon effectiveness to lift the nose
> for takeoff?
>
> My guess, and forming an opinion from reading flight reports on the Dyke, is
> that the unusual attitude is not a problem. While landing, you land nose
> high, and the speed becomes whatever is necessary to get a good sink rate.
> You don't come down fast, because you won't, if you are too fast. If
> anything, a bounce is a non incident, because you mush right back down after
> you bounce back into the air.
>
> That is my take, anyway. I would want to fly one, before I went messing
> with the landing gear geometry.
>

I have an Xplane model. Not the real thing, but eh...

[Peter Dohm]

> >> What are you building?
> >
> > Dyke Delta.
> >
>
> No, you are building a Christley delta that somewhat resembles the Dyke
> Delta.
>
> Has there ever, in the history of mankind, been a "plans built" homebuilt
> that exactly followed the plans?
>
> --
There must have been, somewhere. But I never saw it. :-)

[Peter Dohm]

> >> Even 8 is begging for pitch diversion on landing if anything goes
> >> wrong. A little bounce and you're off to the races. It doesn't have
> >> to have that high nose attitude - just a longer, fixed nose gear. A
> >> lot of the gear design is left over from the original design goal of
> >> making it roadable.
> >
> > Are you sure about that? Are you taking the delta wing's need to come
down
> > nose high, to slow down to reasonable speeds for landing? How about
getting
> > the nose high enough for takeoff? If the nose were much lower, how fast
> > would you need to go, to get enough elevon effectiveness to lift the
nose
> > for takeoff?
> >
> > My guess, and forming an opinion from reading flight reports on the
Dyke, is
> > that the unusual attitude is not a problem. While landing, you land
nose
> > high, and the speed becomes whatever is necessary to get a good sink
rate.
> > You don't come down fast, because you won't, if you are too fast. If
> > anything, a bounce is a non incident, because you mush right back down
after
> > you bounce back into the air.
> >
> > That is my take, anyway. I would want to fly one, before I went messing
> > with the landing gear geometry.
> >
>
> I have an Xplane model. Not the real thing, but eh...

I don't know the reason, but every delta winged aircraft that I can recall
ever having seen pictured has had a pronounced nose high attitude while at
rest.

From that observation, it is easy to infer reasons--and, of course, to be
wrong!

If anyone here actually knows the real reason, please post it. (Inquiring
minds want to know.)

Peter

[Ernest Christley]

Peter Dohm wrote:

> I don't know the reason, but every delta winged aircraft that I can recall
> ever having seen pictured has had a pronounced nose high attitude while at
> rest.
>
> From that observation, it is easy to infer reasons--and, of course, to be
> wrong!
>
> If anyone here actually knows the real reason, please post it. (Inquiring
> minds want to know.)
>
> Peter
>
>

You have to get the nose off the ground if you're going to put a prop
out there.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote
>
> I don't know the reason, but every delta winged aircraft that I can recall
> ever having seen pictured has had a pronounced nose high attitude while at
> rest.
>
> From that observation, it is easy to infer reasons--and, of course, to be
> wrong!
>
> If anyone here actually knows the real reason, please post it. (Inquiring
> minds want to know.)

Delta wings don't really stall; they go into a "mushing flight" mode. That
is why they can land with the nose way up. To get slow, they need to get
the nose up. Also, the maximum lift coefficients are the highest with a
large angle of attack.

Taking off, the nose high attitude lets it "fly off" the runway when a
decent speed is reached. They would need to go very fast to bring the nose
up from a level attitude, because the elevons are not way back there on a
fuselage with a long moment, like standard wing plan forms. Without the
long moment, the elevons need all the help they can get, initiating
rotation, and the nose high attitude does just that.

You may have noticed that delta wings with a big canard (Mirage,
Eurofighter) do not have such a nose high attitude. The canard provides the
long lever (moment) needed to rotate the wing.
--
Jim in NC

[cavelamb himself]

Add to that:

http://www.aerodyn.org/Wings/larw.html

The high alpha is a side effect of low aspect ratio wings.

Richard

[Roger[_4_]]

On 18 Mar 2007 16:10:20 -0700, "Lou" > wrote:

>Isn't this the same problem that the sonex builder
>had putting in the corvair engine?

We have one (Sonex) on the field getting a VW engine and no one's
complained about that so far.

>His is flying.
> Lou
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 23:25:24 -0400, Ernest Christley
> wrote:

>Richard Isakson wrote:
>> "Richard Riley" wrote ...
>>
>>> Well, do check with them for your own peace of mind, but there ain't
>>> nothin - and I do mean nothin - that he can do. It's faintly
>>> theoretically possible that if you include his name in the registered
>>> name type of your airplane he could have grounds to sue you, but it's
>>> never happened and probably never will.
>>>
>>> Just to be on the safe side, call it something else when you register
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Frankly, the big change that needs to be done to your airplane is it
>>> needs fixed main gear and a lower ground attitude. One man's opinion,
>>
>> Yet, as Lieutenant Edwards found out a great deal of care must be taken when
>> you're dealing with changes in the center of gravity of flying wings.
>>
>> Rich
>>
>>
>
>I've taken painstaking care not to move the CG or change the airfoil,
>sweep or angles of the wings. I have made the nosegear fixed. That

Lordy, When I flew Jack Yoder's Barracuda, there wasn't much he hadn't
changed and it flew well. The wind root sections that contain the gear
were modified to symetrical air foild as he went to wide profile tires
for dirt strips and the root thickness wasn't enough to hold the
wheels. I'm not sure if he moved the wing a bit on that one due to CG
of not. If the CG falls in the correct place on the wing it's usually
considered a good thing.

OTOH he put a 260 HP 6 on a GP4 designed for a 180 HP 4. It was a fun
air plane to fly. It took some doing with no break out force or stick
gradient in pitch. Roll forces were just fine. He had moved the wing
but it could still end up in an aft CG situation. Tiny tail and aft
CG is not a good combination.

>saved me 10lbs, lots of complication, and several failure modes. It may
>cost me a couple kts, but I consider them kts well spent. If I knew
>then what I know now, the main gear would be aluminum leaf springs.
>There's lots of weight in the gear retract mechanism, but its fairly
>evenly spread forward and aft of the CG.
>
>As for changing the ground attitude...you've got to get it high enough
>to put a prop on there. I do have less than 9 degrees nose-up, which is
>the limit. It's just under 8, if I recall correctly.

Much nose up attitude when on the gear can make for some interesting
take offs in *some* planes.

Actually in some areas we have a lot of leeway and onthers very
little.
On some planes you can move the wing fore, or aft to fine tune the CG
with no problem and on others the change in coupleing can be
pronounced.

Any time you change something from the original design you may end up
in untested territory, unless it's a popular mod.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Ernest Christley]

Roger wrote:

> Actually in some areas we have a lot of leeway and onthers very
> little.
> On some planes you can move the wing fore, or aft to fine tune the CG
> with no problem and on others the change in coupleing can be
> pronounced.
>
> Any time you change something from the original design you may end up
> in untested territory, unless it's a popular mod.


Bingo, Roger.
It's important to know what you don't know. I don't know enough to
predict what will happen, and don't want to take the time to do the
proper experiments to find out. The wings on a Dyke Delta aren't easy
to adjust. Impossible really, as it would entail rebuilding the entire
wing. The stall progression on the swept delta wing is also different
than a conventional wing. Lots of variables. Just enough knowledge to
know the variables exits. Leave well enough alone, I say. 8*)

As for switching the engine, there's a decade(s) of flying data that I
can dig into and feed off of. Maybe I'll learn as much about
aerodynamics and structures and design my own delta some day, or maybe
I'll finish this one and have enough fun to forget about it. 8*)

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

All the designer can do is send you certified mail, and all its good for is
covering his six if you buy the farm in the airplane you built in deviation
from his plans, etc. There's nothing he can do to stop you from flying it.

"Ernest Christley" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have just been informed by the designer of the aircraft that I am
> building that there is a possibility that he may not allow me to use an
> alternative engine. Granted that weight and balance, as well as power
> requirements must reasonably lie within allowable ranges, what is the roll
> of the kit or plans manufacturer in the final homebuilt aircraft? Will the
> FAA award him the power to veto my airworthiness certificate?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Alphonse Le Creur[_1_]]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in
:

> All the designer can do is send you certified mail, and all its good
> for is covering his six if you buy the farm in the airplane you built
> in deviation from his plans, etc. There's nothing he can do to stop
> you from flying it.

Or, in your case, not flying it.



ALC