50+:1 15m sailplanes

Mark James Boyd wrote:
$10 extra a launch
in fuel is better than sending the testy ASH-26 engine
back to the factory for six months (talk to Bill Gawthrop).

Puhleease... I'm sure Bill is testy about his engine (six months is too
long, I think), but the engine used in the ASH 26 E has a very good
record, at least equal to the Solo used in the other gliders (a better
record, in my opinion).
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

(Bob Kuykendall) wrote in message . com...
Earlier, (Kirk Stant) wrote:

One question: how do you buy a factory-
built Sparrowhawk and register it if it
isn't certified yet?

As Experimental, Racing or Experimental, Exhibition, just like an ASW-20.

Bob K.


Disagree; there is a big difference between my LS6s
EXPERIMENTAL-RACING certificate and the Sparrowhawks (as I understand
it): My LS6 is certified by the German LBA (their FAA) in the Utility
category per JAR certification requirements, this is accepted by the
FAA with the caveat that it be registered EXPERIMENTAL RACING with a
few limitations - basically comply with the operating limitation
letter, and Annuals by an A&P. Otherwise, not much difference from an
Utility category certified glider.

The Sparrowhawh is not certified by anybody, just registered in the
EXPERIMENTAL-RACING or EXHIBITION category. (Am I correct on this?)

Back to the original question - is it sold as an ultralight (no
registration needed) - then the owner adds 6 lbs of instruments and
re-registers it in the EXPERIMENTAL category? Sneaky! You must have
a friendly FSDO in the neighborhood! Top marks in "working the
system".

(good FAA info at http://www1.faa.gov/certification/ai...ry_General.htm)

Please note that this isn't a slam of the glider, or of the way it is
registered, just trying to understand what is going on.

Kirk
bemused old-fashioned glider guider

Earlier, (Kirk Stant) wrote:

Disagree; there is a big difference
between my LS6s EXPERIMENTAL-RACING
certificate and the Sparrowhawks
(as I understand it): My LS6 is
certified by the German LBA (their
FAA) in the Utility category per
JAR certification requirements,
this is accepted by the FAA with
the caveat that it be registered
EXPERIMENTAL RACING with a few
limitations - basically comply with
the operating limitation letter,
and Annuals by an A&P. Otherwise,
not much difference from an Utility
category certified glider.

That does not match my understanding of 14 CFR parts 21 and 23. The
way I see it, there is no difference between an Experimental, Racing
special airworthiness certificate for a German LBA-certificated glider
and an Experimental, Racing special airworthiness certificate for a
not-type-certificated-anywhere Applebay Zuni. That's based on a survey
of 14 CFR Parts 21 and 23, on my own brief interactions with the FAA
while obtaining a revised Special Airworthiness certificate, and on my
conversations with George Applebay, who sold a couple dozen Zunis that
were operated under Experimental, Racing AW certificates.

However, I know enough logic to refrain from trying to prove a
negative. If you can demonstrate the "big difference," or even point
to where I can find it myself, I'd be much obliged. Really; that is
definitely something I need to be aware of. But otherwise, we'll have
to agree to disagree.

Back to the original question - is it
sold as an ultralight (no registration
needed) - then the owner adds 6 lbs
of instruments and re-registers it in
the EXPERIMENTAL category? Sneaky!
You must have a friendly FSDO in the
neighborhood! Top marks in "working
the system".

WWP can manufacture and sell SparrowHawks of any weight they want - it
is after all a free country. However, the owners of the heavy ones
have to obtain Special Airworthiness certificates for them just like
owners of ASW-20s, Russias, and Zunis.

Thanks, and best regards

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

Additional support of Bob's positions can be found in the 20 or so Concept
70s that were built in the early 1970s. (The first one flew in 1971.)

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder



"Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message
om...
Earlier, (Kirk Stant) wrote:

Disagree; there is a big difference
between my LS6s EXPERIMENTAL-RACING
certificate and the Sparrowhawks
(as I understand it): My LS6 is
certified by the German LBA (their
FAA) in the Utility category per
JAR certification requirements,
this is accepted by the FAA with
the caveat that it be registered
EXPERIMENTAL RACING with a few
limitations - basically comply with
the operating limitation letter,
and Annuals by an A&P. Otherwise,
not much difference from an Utility
category certified glider.

That does not match my understanding of 14 CFR parts 21 and 23. The
way I see it, there is no difference between an Experimental, Racing
special airworthiness certificate for a German LBA-certificated glider
and an Experimental, Racing special airworthiness certificate for a
not-type-certificated-anywhere Applebay Zuni. That's based on a survey
of 14 CFR Parts 21 and 23, on my own brief interactions with the FAA
while obtaining a revised Special Airworthiness certificate, and on my
conversations with George Applebay, who sold a couple dozen Zunis that
were operated under Experimental, Racing AW certificates.

However, I know enough logic to refrain from trying to prove a
negative. If you can demonstrate the "big difference," or even point
to where I can find it myself, I'd be much obliged. Really; that is
definitely something I need to be aware of. But otherwise, we'll have
to agree to disagree.

Back to the original question - is it
sold as an ultralight (no registration
needed) - then the owner adds 6 lbs
of instruments and re-registers it in
the EXPERIMENTAL category? Sneaky!
You must have a friendly FSDO in the
neighborhood! Top marks in "working
the system".

WWP can manufacture and sell SparrowHawks of any weight they want - it
is after all a free country. However, the owners of the heavy ones
have to obtain Special Airworthiness certificates for them just like
owners of ASW-20s, Russias, and Zunis.

Thanks, and best regards

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

"Wayne Paul" wrote in message ...
Additional support of Bob's positions can be found in the 20 or so Concept
70s that were built in the early 1970s. (The first one flew in 1971.)

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder



"Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message
om...
Earlier, (Kirk Stant) wrote:

Disagree; there is a big difference
between my LS6s EXPERIMENTAL-RACING
certificate and the Sparrowhawks
(as I understand it): My LS6 is
certified by the German LBA (their
FAA) in the Utility category per
JAR certification requirements,
this is accepted by the FAA with
the caveat that it be registered
EXPERIMENTAL RACING with a few
limitations - basically comply with
the operating limitation letter,
and Annuals by an A&P. Otherwise,
not much difference from an Utility
category certified glider.

That does not match my understanding of 14 CFR parts 21 and 23. The
way I see it, there is no difference between an Experimental, Racing
special airworthiness certificate for a German LBA-certificated glider
and an Experimental, Racing special airworthiness certificate for a
not-type-certificated-anywhere Applebay Zuni. That's based on a survey
of 14 CFR Parts 21 and 23, on my own brief interactions with the FAA
while obtaining a revised Special Airworthiness certificate, and on my
conversations with George Applebay, who sold a couple dozen Zunis that
were operated under Experimental, Racing AW certificates.

However, I know enough logic to refrain from trying to prove a
negative. If you can demonstrate the "big difference," or even point
to where I can find it myself, I'd be much obliged. Really; that is
definitely something I need to be aware of. But otherwise, we'll have
to agree to disagree.

Back to the original question - is it
sold as an ultralight (no registration
needed) - then the owner adds 6 lbs
of instruments and re-registers it in
the EXPERIMENTAL category? Sneaky!
You must have a friendly FSDO in the
neighborhood! Top marks in "working
the system".

WWP can manufacture and sell SparrowHawks of any weight they want - it
is after all a free country. However, the owners of the heavy ones
have to obtain Special Airworthiness certificates for them just like
owners of ASW-20s, Russias, and Zunis.

Thanks, and best regards

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

Bob's right, and the answer to all these sort of experimental
certification questions lie in the FAA Order 8130.2E. Fascinating
reading and available free on-line at faa.gov

Don't all rush there at once, youll overload the server!

Jim

(Bob Kuykendall) wrote in message . com...

That does not match my understanding of 14 CFR parts 21 and 23. The
way I see it, there is no difference between an Experimental, Racing
special airworthiness certificate for a German LBA-certificated glider
and an Experimental, Racing special airworthiness certificate for a
not-type-certificated-anywhere Applebay Zuni. That's based on a survey
of 14 CFR Parts 21 and 23, on my own brief interactions with the FAA
while obtaining a revised Special Airworthiness certificate, and on my
conversations with George Applebay, who sold a couple dozen Zunis that
were operated under Experimental, Racing AW certificates.

However, I know enough logic to refrain from trying to prove a
negative. If you can demonstrate the "big difference," or even point
to where I can find it myself, I'd be much obliged. Really; that is
definitely something I need to be aware of. But otherwise, we'll have
to agree to disagree.

WWP can manufacture and sell SparrowHawks of any weight they want - it
is after all a free country. However, the owners of the heavy ones
have to obtain Special Airworthiness certificates for them just like
owners of ASW-20s, Russias, and Zunis.

Thanks, and best regards

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

OK, I see your point - It's just a bit surprising given all the hoopla
that airplane manufacturers put our about the "huge cost of
certification", etc. Then why does any builder of sport aircraft
worry about certification? Why aren't there a bunch of factory-built
RV-8s running around with EXPERIMENTAL on them? Does it have to do
with commercial use of the plane? Insurance? Airplane vs Glider? I
think I may have to dig a little to see what is in the regs.

I will stand by my opinion that there is a difference between a glider
that is certified in one country but not in the US being given an
EXPERIMENTAL, and a glider built anywhere without any certification
(FAA, JAR, whatever) getting that same EXPERIMENTAL - the difference
is the actual certification testing conducted on the glider - but in
practical terms it doesn't (and shouldn't!) mean much, assuming the
manufacturer does his job right. Of course, there can always be cases
like the American Falcon and Spirit; remember that fiasco?.

Fun discussion. Anything that increases my understanding of our
simple aviation rules is helpful...

Regards,

Kirk

Kirk Stant wrote
'Fun discussion. Anything that increases my understanding
of our
simple aviation rules is helpful...'

Interestingly I have one of the last special Air worthness
certificates that the FSDO's were willing to give without
special conditions! Such as where you can fly. Mine
just states 'Exhibition and Racing' with no restrictions
on where!
And when I lost it I was able to get the exact replacement
a few years ago. Must have been my lucky day!

Cliff

OK, I see your point - It's just a bit surprising given all the hoopla
that airplane manufacturers put our about the "huge cost of
certification", etc. Then why does any builder of sport aircraft
worry about certification? Why aren't there a bunch of factory-built
RV-8s running around with EXPERIMENTAL on them? Does it have to do
with commercial use of the plane? Insurance? Airplane vs Glider? I
think I may have to dig a little to see what is in the regs.

I'd guess that Van's doesn't wholly manufacture aircraft for liability
reasons more than anything else.

In the case of the foriegn built gliders, they already have a
manufacturer that can be sued, so that isn't the thing stopping them.
Since the glider (PW6 for example) is already to JAR standards,
there isn't much additional cost for US certification.
And the upside is that they can sell to commercial, for profit
operators in the US.

As far as why US builders of sport aircraft care about certification,
there are big differences in "hassle" and cost passed on to the
customer between an ultralight, a "light-sport aircraft," an
experimental, or a standard aircraft. And there are continuing
costs associated with the ongoing maintenance/pilot
licensing standards.

I suspect forcing the customer to accept more
costs is less marketable than giving the customer the option of
certifying the aircraft in one of the more restrictive categories,
after purchase, at their leisure.

"Kirk Stant" wrote in message
om...
(Bob Kuykendall) wrote in message
. com...


OK, I see your point - It's just a bit surprising given all the hoopla
that airplane manufacturers put our about the "huge cost of
certification", etc. Then why does any builder of sport aircraft
worry about certification? Why aren't there a bunch of factory-built
RV-8s running around with EXPERIMENTAL on them? Does it have to do
with commercial use of the plane? Insurance? Airplane vs Glider? I
think I may have to dig a little to see what is in the regs.

Because RV-8's are not generally used for exhibition and racing. There are
other categories for EXPERIMENTAL certification, like "Marketing Demo",
"Development", and "Amateur/Home Built" but these would also be unlikely to
apply to a typical factory built RV-8 (or Cezzna, or whatever). You can't
get an EXPERIMENTAL certificate just because you (as a manufacture) don't
want to bother with certification. This is one of the reasons that I am
amused by the vocal "anti-racing" crowd that occasionally pipes up; if it
wasn't for sailplane racing the basis of the EXPERIMENTAL certifications of
most US gliders would be questionable.

mm

OK.I have stayed out of this discussion and probably should still.....
but I will agree with everyone (almost) to soem degree
Yes....the experimental certificates are "experimental certificates"
regardless of who or how they are made...means that as far as the FAA is
concerned, you are taking additional risks at your own choosing, that's fine
with the FAA...same goes for ultra-lites, the FAA more or less steps away
from these and says if it's under the weights ect you can go it alone at
your own risk..just don't mix in with the FAA air traffic control
system...much the same as with homebuilt.....you have extra risks and some
loss of airspace use, FAA systems and obligations....not much different
than operating an ATV or snowmobile on private lands...
Now as for Experimental based on (foreign certificated aircraft), in order
to be certified in almost any country there are far more stringent rules and
requirements. You need to use approved materials and follow far more
rigorous testing procedures.....build and test to destruction components and
so on...so there is likely a lot of benefit to owning (and paying extra for)
this type.
Certificated aircraft and those recognized in for instance the USA and the
country where they were built and certified is even more stringent, meaning
you have to meet or exceed the requirements in both courtiers to gain this
certification, you also have no special restrictions on airspace regarding
the certificate and you are also part of the FAA notification system for
AD's (not always a bad thing to know when someone else's part failed) that
you will not get if it's experimental in any category. So there is a lot
more the manufacturers must do to comply and support their aircraft and the
system....
Boils down to this.....anyone could design and sell an air vehicle and save
themselves thousands of dollars or euros and probably find buyers....buyers
that may in fact be willing to accept, or at least say they do accept the
responsibility themselves...you decide for yourself if there really is a
difference...prudence says there probably is...
tim

"Kirk Stant" wrote in message
Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

OK, I see your point - It's just a bit surprising given all the hoopla
that airplane manufacturers put our about the "huge cost of
certification", etc. Then why does any builder of sport aircraft
worry about certification? Why aren't there a bunch of factory-built
RV-8s running around with EXPERIMENTAL on them? Does it have to do
with commercial use of the plane? Insurance? Airplane vs Glider? I
think I may have to dig a little to see what is in the regs.

I will stand by my opinion that there is a difference between a glider
that is certified in one country but not in the US being given an
EXPERIMENTAL, and a glider built anywhere without any certification
(FAA, JAR, whatever) getting that same EXPERIMENTAL - the difference
is the actual certification testing conducted on the glider - but in
practical terms it doesn't (and shouldn't!) mean much, assuming the
manufacturer does his job right. Of course, there can always be cases
like the American Falcon and Spirit; remember that fiasco?.

Fun discussion. Anything that increases my understanding of our
simple aviation rules is helpful...

Regards,

Kirk