Professionally built?

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:55:55 +0000, Scott
wrote:

I wouldn't sweat the Feds in this case since I would have my builder's
log and a couple of reams worth of photos taken during construction, so
it meets amateur built rules, but like was noted by somebody else, it
would be built to "professional" standards

I'm building my own because I want'd something better than that.:-))
Professionaly built would included Cessnas, Pipers, etc...

Roger (K8RI)


Scott


Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Scott wrote:

The word "professionally" can be pretty vague. When I build my second
RV-4, I will sell it in Trade A Plane as "Professionally Built" since
I will be a "pro" at it having built one previously.



I don't know if I'd do that. It seems that it should be just a matter of
time until somebody at FAA get's a hair up their ass and sends down a memo
to all the FSDOs to investigate all such claims. Not that you would be in
violation of the law but why stir the pot?

Scott wrote:
The word "professionally" can be pretty vague. When I build my second
RV-4, I will sell it in Trade A Plane as "Professionally Built" since I
will be a "pro" at it having built one previously.

Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)


Actualy, (in the olde days) that would diswualify you from being able
to license or sell the second one.

It makes you a "manufacturer".

All amateur builders are considered "manufacturers" in the eyes of the
FAA. That's why there's never been an AD on a Van's RV-4 built by
someone other than Van...they are registered as Nelson RV-4, Smith RV-4,
etc. (glad I don't have a common name like Nelson or Smith!!)

Scott


cavelamb himself wrote:

Scott wrote:

The word "professionally" can be pretty vague. When I build my second
RV-4, I will sell it in Trade A Plane as "Professionally Built" since
I will be a "pro" at it having built one previously.

Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)


Actualy, (in the olde days) that would diswualify you from being able
to license or sell the second one.

It makes you a "manufacturer".

--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

Scott wrote:
All amateur builders are considered "manufacturers" in the eyes of the
FAA. That's why there's never been an AD on a Van's RV-4 built by
someone other than Van...they are registered as Nelson RV-4, Smith RV-4,
etc. (glad I don't have a common name like Nelson or Smith!!)

Scott


Of course, but they used to make a very sharp distinction here.

You would not have been allowed to register the second copy as
experimental - amateur built.

Richard




cavelamb himself wrote:

Scott wrote:

The word "professionally" can be pretty vague. When I build my
second RV-4, I will sell it in Trade A Plane as "Professionally
Built" since I will be a "pro" at it having built one previously.

Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)


Actualy, (in the olde days) that would diswualify you from being able
to license or sell the second one.

It makes you a "manufacturer".

"es330td" wrote in message
...
I searched controller.com for lancair and found an entry that says
"Professionally built." Now I know that a homebuilt owner does not
have to build the entire thing themself but I thought it still had to
be an amateur undertaking. How does this pass muster with the FAA?

I have no idea who is selling the aircraft you mention, but "professionally
built" is often just a buzz word used in attempt to say the builder of the
particular aircraft was "special" compared to most. I have seen this stated
because an A&P had built the aircraft. He felt it was professionally built
because he works on aircraft every day for a living. As opposed to an
experimental that has been built by a postal worker, lawyer, doctor, etc. I
think the main thing to remember is when it comes to what you will be
receiving, it might not mean zip! The quality of every experimental airplane
comes down to the skill, integrity and interest in "whoever" built it, and
has little to do with what they do for a living. Just think of it as a
laundry detergent that is "new and improved", or "fortified", etc. You know
the drill. Walk through a supermarket.

In article ,
"Maxwell" wrote:

"es330td" wrote in message
...
I searched controller.com for lancair and found an entry that says
"Professionally built." Now I know that a homebuilt owner does not
have to build the entire thing themself but I thought it still had to
be an amateur undertaking. How does this pass muster with the FAA?

I have no idea who is selling the aircraft you mention, but "professionally
built" is often just a buzz word used in attempt to say the builder of the
particular aircraft was "special" compared to most. I have seen this stated
because an A&P had built the aircraft. He felt it was professionally built
because he works on aircraft every day for a living. As opposed to an
experimental that has been built by a postal worker, lawyer, doctor, etc. I
think the main thing to remember is when it comes to what you will be
receiving, it might not mean zip! The quality of every experimental airplane
comes down to the skill, integrity and interest in "whoever" built it, and
has little to do with what they do for a living. Just think of it as a
laundry detergent that is "new and improved", or "fortified", etc. You know
the drill. Walk through a supermarket.

The "professionally built" term really doesn't amount to a hill of
beans. A friend here bought a Harmon Rocket that an A&P built. The metal
work was good, but the engine installation was very poor. I coined the
term "flyable but not airworthy" to describe the plane as purchased.

He could not maintain cruise power in vevel flight without overtemping
the oil. Our "Spruce Creek Skunk Works" took on the job of sorting it
out.

What we found (and corrected):

1. The oil cooler had insufficient airflow (both in and out). Remember
-- any cooling MUST provide an exit path for the air, as well as an
entry path. This installaltion had neither.

2. There was no blockage of cooling air in the nose bowl behind the
spinner, allowing air to exit behind the spinner. We installed the
appropriate baffles and seals there.

3. The air entering the cowling inlets passed over a sharp lip behind
the inlets. We added some internal fairing to the inlets.

4. Baffle seals were poorly thought out, allowing air to leak out the
top of the baffles, rather than passing over the cylinder fins.

5. Exhaust pipes were cantilevered, creating the opportunity for fatigue
failure. We added some support to reduce stress there.

6. The owner had the pipes ceramic coated, both inside and out, to
reduce heat transfer into the engine compartment. IMHO, it is more
important to coat the INSIDE of an exhaust pipe than the outside -- to
reduce heat transfer into the metal.

Result: The plane runs cool and FAST!

In a previous article, Orval Fairbairn said:
What we found (and corrected):

1. The oil cooler had insufficient airflow (both in and out). Remember
-- any cooling MUST provide an exit path for the air, as well as an
entry path. This installaltion had neither.

2. There was no blockage of cooling air in the nose bowl behind the
spinner, allowing air to exit behind the spinner. We installed the
appropriate baffles and seals there.

[etc]

Ok, this is where I get confused. I'm not a builder (yet). Don't the
plans or kit instructions tell you how to do all this? Do people diverge
that much from the plans, and if so, why?


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
Microsoft: bringing the world to your desktop -- and your desktop to
the world.
-- Peter Gutmann

Paul Tomblin wrote:


Ok, this is where I get confused. I'm not a builder (yet). Don't the
plans or kit instructions tell you how to do all this? Do people
diverge that much from the plans, and if so, why?

On many if not most kits the FWF instructions is not as nearly as complete
as the airframe instructions/plans. One reason for this is simple, The kit
maker also has little to do with the engine used in a lot of planes. For
example in the Zenith 601XL there are people that have installed multiple
flavors of Conts & Lycs, and Rotaxs, Jabirus, Subaru's, Corvairs, Suzukis,
and even Harley Davidsons.

In article ,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

In a previous article, Orval Fairbairn said:
What we found (and corrected):

1. The oil cooler had insufficient airflow (both in and out). Remember
-- any cooling MUST provide an exit path for the air, as well as an
entry path. This installaltion had neither.

2. There was no blockage of cooling air in the nose bowl behind the
spinner, allowing air to exit behind the spinner. We installed the
appropriate baffles and seals there.

[etc]

Ok, this is where I get confused. I'm not a builder (yet). Don't the
plans or kit instructions tell you how to do all this? Do people diverge
that much from the plans, and if so, why?

As "gig601builder" pointed out, a lot of plans are sketchy, at best, FWF.

That said, there are some decent books out there on FWF installations,
plus the exercise of common sense.

The biggest mistakes relate to airflow management, as on my friend's
plane.

A few basic principles:

1. Air must have a path out, as well as in. I have seen oil coolers
mounted with only 1/2 inch clearance between firewall and the aft face
of the cooler. No matter how much air you blow at the front side, it
cannot escape the back.

2. Use all of the air that comes in for cooling. Make sure that baffles
and their seals fit tight and that there are no gaps on their periphery.

3. You need blast tubes on the mags and alternator, as well as the oil
cooler.

4. Air inside the cowl will seek the lowest pressure areas to exit. A
common place is the front of the cowl, behind the spinner. That air
creates unnecessary drag and doe no cooling work. Baffle that area and
force the air past the cylinders, oil cooler, etc.

5. Exhaust pipes are an excellent heat source inside the bottom of the
cowl. You need some airflow there.

6. The more eyes that see your plane before it flies, the better. It is
far better to discover your errors (remember -- everybody makes some) on
the ground than to have them discover YOU in flight!

7. Get active with your local EAA Chapter and get to know the wise ones
-- they can save you a lot of grief!

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
The "professionally built" term really doesn't amount to a hill of
beans. A friend here bought a Harmon Rocket that an A&P built. The metal
work was good, but the engine installation was very poor. I coined the
term "flyable but not airworthy" to describe the plane as purchased.

He could not maintain cruise power in vevel flight without overtemping
the oil. Our "Spruce Creek Skunk Works" took on the job of sorting it
out.

What we found (and corrected):

1. The oil cooler had insufficient airflow (both in and out). Remember
-- any cooling MUST provide an exit path for the air, as well as an
entry path. This installaltion had neither.

2. There was no blockage of cooling air in the nose bowl behind the
spinner, allowing air to exit behind the spinner. We installed the
appropriate baffles and seals there.

3. The air entering the cowling inlets passed over a sharp lip behind
the inlets. We added some internal fairing to the inlets.

4. Baffle seals were poorly thought out, allowing air to leak out the
top of the baffles, rather than passing over the cylinder fins.

5. Exhaust pipes were cantilevered, creating the opportunity for fatigue
failure. We added some support to reduce stress there.

6. The owner had the pipes ceramic coated, both inside and out, to
reduce heat transfer into the engine compartment. IMHO, it is more
important to coat the INSIDE of an exhaust pipe than the outside -- to
reduce heat transfer into the metal.

Result: The plane runs cool and FAST!

Very good example Orval. The phrase might mean a lot or it could mean
nothing. Based on the rules for constructing amateur built aircraft, it
"certifies" absolutely nothing.