Weight

"LJ & Nancy Blodgett" wrote in message
...
Who do I ask? I do think your on the right track.Sence I have the repair
permit and I can change any thing as lone as it's loged,wy not the gross
weight?The one's at the airport say,why not,but so far,no real answer.SO
who DO I ask. LJ

Unless the language of the rules is changed, there may currently be a
conflict between the Sport Pilot regulations and the regs affecting
Experimental/Amateur built. I don't know. It may be better to NOT ask.

Rich "Just my take on it" S.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:10:12 -0700, "Rich S."
wrote:

"LJ & Nancy Blodgett" wrote in message
...
Who do I ask? I do think your on the right track.Sence I have the repair
permit and I can change any thing as lone as it's loged,wy not the gross
weight?The one's at the airport say,why not,but so far,no real answer.SO
who DO I ask. LJ

The person who inspected your airplane and signed off your airworthiness
certificate.

I personally think you'll have a tough row to hoe. You're asking for a
*200-pound* reduction in the gross weight of the aircraft. That's going to
take some fast talkin' to explain *why* such a choice is necessary...other
than to dodge FARs.

It's really going to depend upon the FAA person you talk to. Some are hard
cases and you'll have no chance. Others might be willing to work with you.

Unless the language of the rules is changed, there may currently be a
conflict between the Sport Pilot regulations and the regs affecting
Experimental/Amateur built. I don't know. It may be better to NOT ask.

I think Todd posted the appropriate part of the regs that cover this case:
"since its original certification...." *Original* certification. Yes, we
can make changes, but an airplane is only originally certified once.

If one is desperate, I suppose one could cancel the registration and
airworthiness certificate, then re-apply. With a new N-number and new
serial number, the plane would then undergo a "new" original certification.

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...

I personally think you'll have a tough row to hoe. You're asking for a
*200-pound* reduction in the gross weight of the aircraft. That's going
to
take some fast talkin' to explain *why* such a choice is necessary...other
than to dodge FARs.

Hmmm..... You could say that you lust after a single-place airplane like
that Wanttaja guy has, so you've ripped out the bench seat and installed a
single bucket seat right in the middle.

Rich "No, I didn't infer you have a butt shaped like a bucket!" S.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 19:07:08 -0700, "Rich S."
wrote:

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
.. .

I personally think you'll have a tough row to hoe. You're asking for a
*200-pound* reduction in the gross weight of the aircraft. That's going
to
take some fast talkin' to explain *why* such a choice is necessary...other
than to dodge FARs.

Hmmm..... You could say that you lust after a single-place airplane like
that Wanttaja guy has, so you've ripped out the bench seat and installed a
single bucket seat right in the middle.

Actually, I think you'd have to take an approach like that. Anybody
looking at the plane is going to assume you're going to fill it up, and a
Kitfox 7 has ~300 pounds of useful load left once the seats and tanks are
filled. Most pilots know enough not to stuff 300 pounds of baggage into a
compartment designed for only 100. But if the compartment is merely
*placarded* for 100, and the same plane (unchanged) can legally and safely
fly with 200 additional pounds in there, I don't think I'd hesitate to pack
in a few more brewskis.

If you redesigned and rebuilt the plane as a single-seater, with no
obvious/easy way to reconfigure it back to a two-seater, you'd have a
chance... and a pretty roomy ride.

Rich "No, I didn't infer you have a butt shaped like a bucket!" S.

And I wouldn't be too offended, as long as you're referring to buckets made
by Rubbermaid instead of Massey-Fergusson. :-)

http://lynn-machine-tool.com/rebuilding.htm

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote ...
Actually, I think you'd have to take an approach like that. Anybody
looking at the plane is going to assume you're going to fill it up, and a
Kitfox 7 has ~300 pounds of useful load left once the seats and tanks are
filled. Most pilots know enough not to stuff 300 pounds of baggage into
a
compartment designed for only 100. But if the compartment is merely
*placarded* for 100, and the same plane (unchanged) can legally and safely
fly with 200 additional pounds in there, I don't think I'd hesitate to
pack
in a few more brewskis.

It's rather interesting, if you fly the airplane overloaded won't you be
faced with a violation for flying without a licence?

Rich

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 22:21:54 -0700, "Richard Isakson"
wrote:

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote ...
Actually, I think you'd have to take an approach like that. Anybody
looking at the plane is going to assume you're going to fill it up, and a
Kitfox 7 has ~300 pounds of useful load left once the seats and tanks are
filled. Most pilots know enough not to stuff 300 pounds of baggage into
a
compartment designed for only 100. But if the compartment is merely
*placarded* for 100, and the same plane (unchanged) can legally and safely
fly with 200 additional pounds in there, I don't think I'd hesitate to
pack
in a few more brewskis.

It's rather interesting, if you fly the airplane overloaded won't you be
faced with a violation for flying without a licence?

I suspect it'll be more for exceeding the authorized operation of one's
license, like flying a twin without the appropriate rating or carrying
passengers on a student certificate.

Like the FAA will have trouble finding something to nail you with... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

I don't think I'd hesitate to pack
in a few more brewskis.

Ron, are you talking about increasing the weight of the cargo or the
pilot here?

Mark Hickey

"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
...
Ron Wanttaja wrote:

I don't think I'd hesitate to pack
in a few more brewskis.

Ron, are you talking about increasing the weight of the cargo or the
pilot here?

Reminds me about the time in '78 when we flew a PA-28R to Idaho to pick up a
keg of Coors for a party. Strapped her right there in the back seat! Kids
around here don't remember when you had to smuggle Coors into the state.

Rich "Oh that? It's a ferry tank. . ." S.

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 06:13:27 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

I don't think I'd hesitate to pack
in a few more brewskis.

Ron, are you talking about increasing the weight of the cargo or the
pilot here?

Oh, cargo, of course. You see, my Norwegian ancestors used to live at the
very top of the fjords. It was a hardscrabble existence, with very few
luxuries. The only source of supplies was the tiny village at the base of
the fjord, and when the weather closed in round about October, they were
cut off for about five months.

Being relatives of mine, the thing they missed the worst was booze. They'd
stockpile as much as they could, but the bottles were a tough haul to the
top of the fjord. Being relatives of mine, they usually ran out in
November.

Coupled with the short days, the lack of aquavit and beer really brought on
the depression. The people would fantasize about March, when the weather
would clear enough that they could reach the village below for the year's
first monumental bender.

The two things they HAD in abundance were spare time and wood from the
local forests. So it was natural, I think, that they'd build skis in
anticipation of the first trip downhill to the tavern. They were called,
"brew-skis."

These weren't ordinary skis. With months to lavish on them, they were
ornate in the extreme. Inlays of contrasting wood, ermine-fur straps, iron
blued to a rich blue, and gleaming metal trim hammered and worked from old
coins. Everyone had their own wood stain, with the formulas guarded
jealously. Colors ranged from Coors Light beige to a rich Guiness brown.

But appearance wasn't the only thing. Speed was paramount. Long before the
first wind tunnel, the urgent drive to get down the hill fastest had driven
ski design to its evolutionary peak. They were streamlined, glass-smooth,
and tuned to perfection. And they were fast. There were occasional
exceptions (for instance, Einar Rutanson's odd design with the turned-up
part at the *back* end of the ski), but for the most part, they would blow
past any of the skis used in today's winter olympics.

So when I talk about "packing in a few more brewskis," I am, of course,
referring to these wooden marvels of my heritage.

Ron "Mmmmm....beer....." Wanttaja

They were called,
"brew-skis."

These weren't ordinary skis. With months to lavish on them, they were
ornate in the extreme. Inlays of contrasting wood, ermine-fur straps, iron
blued to a rich blue, and gleaming metal trim hammered and worked from old
coins. Everyone had their own wood stain, with the formulas guarded
jealously. Colors ranged from Coors Light beige to a rich Guiness brown.


And the Pulitzer for Best Creative Tall-Tale Telling goes to... (the crowd goes
wild)