KR> Experimental aviation outside the US
Mark, As always, great posting with this information! I might ad that the LAA puts out a magazine that is very nearly on par with the EAA magazine. I am a member of the LAA due to the aircraft I am building (Streak Shadow) and I am always interested in anything that is going on around the world aircraft wise. I have skimmed over some of the political issues (gag) mentioned in the LAA magazine and the only part I can see that has an advantage is the LAA have engineers available to get "improvements" approved. I don't know what these engineers cost to utilize, but believe this could be a good thing for running ideas past to see if there is a flaw in the thinking. As I have seen you mention, I have seen some experimental airplanes that are so poorly built or designed that I wouldn't haul them home if they were just down the street and given to me! Another set of eyes even if from a local EAA chapter is a very good thing. Constructive criticism is a good thing and we shouldn't be so thin skinned as to not listen. I must mention I have seen experimental aircraft that blow the mind on fit and finish. I try to work toward this level, but never seem to succeed. It is funny we are talking about the British aircraft/magazine as the Taylor Monoplane that the KR was arguably derived from was designed and built in England. We go full circle. Check out the LAA. I think you will be glad you did, though about $90 a year lighter. Kevin Golden Harrisonville, MO "Streak Shadow" and the spin off of it "Wizard" In a message dated 12/15/2013 2:58:18 P.M. Central Standard Time, ml at n56ml.com writes: Yesterday I wrote: > As for the extra hinges, I did that because I made my horizontal > stabilizer and rudder are longer, and later heard that the Aussie > government was requiring the same for KR builders down under. It's not clear from this sentence, but what I meant was the Aussie government requires more hinges, not longer horizontal stab or rudder, as far as I know. And like the Brits, they are less flexible about gross weight than the FAA, requiring you to stick with what's published in the plans, unless you can back up your changes with real engineering drawings. The UK is the same way, "conservative to a fault" to us yanks. I lived in England for 7 months in 2009, and while I was there I spent as much time as I could with experimental builders, pilots, Corvair guys, designers, and otherwise like-minded airplanes nuts like us, and the recurring theme was that they were hamstrung almost to the point of stifling the experimental aircraft world. The LAA (Light Aircraft Association, formerly the Popular Flying Association) is similar to the EAA, an organization founded in the interest of furthering experimental and light aircraft construction and aviation. At some point, they assumed the duty of also regulating that sector of aviation for the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority), in an effort to keep the sport alive, I'm sure. My understanding is that the LAA is between a rock and a hard place with the CAA...they have to maintain high standards and safety commensurate with what the CAA would do, while still trying to further the interests of the aviation community. But the result is a system that is far more restrictive than what we have in the US, requiring far more red tape to get any kind of waiver approved. One could argue that red tape in the form of proof of safety is not a bad thing, but I'm not talking about something as major as raising the gross weight, but far more minor details, such as real improvements to areas like control systems or engine details, but professional engineering drawings are required to make changes that are already flight proven in the US. And as we all know, there's never been a structural failure of a KR in flight (despite our gross weight latitudes) Many other countries are in a similar situation, or worse. I didn't start this to be a diatribe against the LAA...they are a great organization run by fervent aviators who are doing their best to keep their sport alive, while walking a fine line between regulation and recreation. Perhaps my point is that we don't know how good we have it in the US. Having written the above, I asked Mike Mold of England to check my thoughts on this. He should know, as he's very involved with the LAA, and his comments are below. I visited with Mike several times while there, and got the grand tour of several air fields, as well as met some new friends. We still tag up at SNF whenever possible. --- That sums up the situation well but I'd add a caveat that in the last month we've had some news that has given rise to some optimism with the announcement that our CAA has had a wide-reaching review and has set up a specialist GA department, headed up by an ex director of the LAA. And
KR> Experimental aviation outside the US
> Perhaps my point is that we don't know how good we have it in the US. >Mark Langford +++ Thanks, Mark. It's good to be reminded occasionally of just how good we have it here in the good ol' USA. My 0-200 has been running a bit rough lately so I took it down for the annual inspection, due this month, and installed a new set of plugs. The old plugs had 500+ hours on them and were showing a bit of errosion. I did a compression check and checked mag timing. Still a bit on the rough side, same on either mag, so I guess I'll start checking the induction system for leaks next. If I don't find anything there I'll seek the help / advise of the local University professor that teaches engine / carb systems. There has to be an answer to my problem. I just hope it's not too costly. Larry Flesner
KR> Experimental aviation outside the US
Yesterday I wrote: > As for the extra hinges, I did that because I made my horizontal > stabilizer and rudder are longer, and later heard that the Aussie > government was requiring the same for KR builders down under. It's not clear from this sentence, but what I meant was the Aussie government requires more hinges, not longer horizontal stab or rudder, as far as I know. And like the Brits, they are less flexible about gross weight than the FAA, requiring you to stick with what's published in the plans, unless you can back up your changes with real engineering drawings. The UK is the same way, "conservative to a fault" to us yanks. I lived in England for 7 months in 2009, and while I was there I spent as much time as I could with experimental builders, pilots, Corvair guys, designers, and otherwise like-minded airplanes nuts like us, and the recurring theme was that they were hamstrung almost to the point of stifling the experimental aircraft world. The LAA (Light Aircraft Association, formerly the Popular Flying Association) is similar to the EAA, an organization founded in the interest of furthering experimental and light aircraft construction and aviation. At some point, they assumed the duty of also regulating that sector of aviation for the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority), in an effort to keep the sport alive, I'm sure. My understanding is that the LAA is between a rock and a hard place with the CAA...they have to maintain high standards and safety commensurate with what the CAA would do, while still trying to further the interests of the aviation community. But the result is a system that is far more restrictive than what we have in the US, requiring far more red tape to get any kind of waiver approved. One could argue that red tape in the form of proof of safety is not a bad thing, but I'm not talking about something as major as raising the gross weight, but far more minor details, such as real improvements to areas like control systems or engine details, but professional engineering drawings are required to make changes that are already flight proven in the US. And as we all know, there's never been a structural failure of a KR in flight (despite our gross weight latitudes) Many other countries are in a similar situation, or worse. I didn't start this to be a diatribe against the LAA...they are a great organization run by fervent aviators who are doing their best to keep their sport alive, while walking a fine line between regulation and recreation. Perhaps my point is that we don't know how good we have it in the US. Having written the above, I asked Mike Mold of England to check my thoughts on this. He should know, as he's very involved with the LAA, and his comments are below. I visited with Mike several times while there, and got the grand tour of several air fields, as well as met some new friends. We still tag up at SNF whenever possible. --- That sums up the situation well but I'd add a caveat that in the last month we've had some news that has given rise to some optimism with the announcement that our CAA has had a wide-reaching review and has set up a specialist GA department, headed up by an ex director of the LAA. And we've seen the first fruits of their labours with the intended complete deregulation of single seat ultra-lights (i.e. no need for proof of design or engineering integrity nor compliance with any annual maintenance regimes etc. All left to the responsibility of the a/c designer / owner). This is being seen as an opportunity for innovation at the very light end of our hobby and might encourage new designs and business opportunities. The recent European requirement for all newly fitted a/c radios now (and all radios from 2017) to be at 8.33 kHz frequency spacing represents a huge financial burden on the GA fleet (to satisfy the allocation of airway frequencies across European). The most economical radios for LAA type a/c are seen as handhelds that can be panel mounted but so far, most manufacturers, including Icom, had avoided the expense of going through the additional approval processes required by European legislation, as being not cost-effective. In response, a very recent CAA announcement has been the approval of use of hand-held radios in aircraft and is a breath of fresh air for UK a/c owners, albeit we'll still need to buy new radios and junk our perfectly serviceable existing ones. (The 8.33kHz spacing is not a requirement in the USA so you might be seeing quite a few Icoms appearing on eBay and at the SnF flea market!). Over recent years the LAA has been working behind the scenes to convince the CAA of our competence as an airworthiness, engineering and regulatory partner and it is being rumoured that LAA Engineering is being offered the opportunity to take over the airworthiness regulation of much more of he UK GA fleet. Additionally, the UK government has run a
KR> The need for Dr. Dean hinges
The plan calls for 3 on the elevator and 2 on rudder??? I think ?? I am with Mark. 500 plus hours on REB hinges, 5 on elevator and 3 elevator. Phil Matheson >but why would you need more than 4, 2 for the horiz and 2 >for the rudder? 3 on the rudder 5 on the elevator ___ Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search. To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change options
