Pipistrel Kit Aircraft now FAA 51% Accepted

They could still get a Experimental-Exhibition tho right? Not quite the
freedom a Amateur built COFA gives, but can still fly it.

The 2 sailplane kits I built and had inspected went thru the inspection
without any hassles. I was quite worried about the first kit; as it was
the first I ever built, and seemed to me to be quite complete when it
came out of the box. But, as you know, that manufacturer-builder check
list can be quite a handy tool!

I also want to give KUDO's to the Seattle MIDO, the two gentlemen I
worked with were quite professional, and very helpful.........hopefully
the next aircraft I build will be inspected by one of these fellows.

Cheers,
Brad


Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On 24 Nov 2006 19:33:22 -0800, "Brad" wrote:

BTW.......when did you last hear of a kit that wasn't accepted as
amateur built by the FAA?

Christen Eagle is the only one I know about, but that was way back in the dawn
o' time. Otherwise, companies are not likely to advertise that they flunked. I
suspect the FAA is usually specific enough where the company knows what they
have to do for their plane to pass. Many companies undoubtedly work with the
FAA as they develop the kit...for instance, I'm sure Van's worked it all out
with the Feds before they started having the contractor partially complete kits
for delivery as quick-build kits.

The big thing, of course, is that the type's inclusion on the approved 51% list
is *not* a pre-requisite to a homebuilt getting certified. The only thing it
does is offer some protection against capricious FSDO decisions.

Ron Wanttaja

"Brad" wrote in message
oups.com...
They could still get a Experimental-Exhibition tho right? Not quite the
freedom a Amateur built COFA gives, but can still fly it.

That depends where they stick you in the Exp/Exh structure. Some of the
subcategories are more restrictive than others.



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

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:20:28 -0400, "Juan Jimenez" wrote:


"Brad" wrote in message
roups.com...
They could still get a Experimental-Exhibition tho right? Not quite the
freedom a Amateur built COFA gives, but can still fly it.

That depends where they stick you in the Exp/Exh structure. Some of the
subcategories are more restrictive than others.

The guys building the Me262s in Washington State came within a gnat's eyelash of
getting them Experimental/Amateur-Built. The DAR was going to sign them off,
but the local FSDO refused to allow it. They've got Exp/Exh, but with pretty
loose restrictions.

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:20:28 -0400, "Juan Jimenez" wrote:


"Brad" wrote in message
groups.com...
They could still get a Experimental-Exhibition tho right? Not quite the
freedom a Amateur built COFA gives, but can still fly it.

That depends where they stick you in the Exp/Exh structure. Some of the
subcategories are more restrictive than others.

The guys building the Me262s in Washington State came within a gnat's eyelash
of
getting them Experimental/Amateur-Built. The DAR was going to sign them off,
but the local FSDO refused to allow it. They've got Exp/Exh, but with pretty
loose restrictions.

I thought they were going to get the same classification as other warbirds,
since they were built according to factory plans, or is that what the other
warbirds get?
--
Jim in NC

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 00:47:51 -0500, "Morgans" wrote:


"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
.. .

The guys building the Me262s in Washington State came within a gnat's eyelash
of getting them Experimental/Amateur-Built. The DAR was going to sign them off,
but the local FSDO refused to allow it. They've got Exp/Exh, but with pretty
loose restrictions.

I thought they were going to get the same classification as other warbirds,
since they were built according to factory plans, or is that what the other
warbirds get?

You're probably right. The head of the operation is a member of EAA 26 (past
president, in fact) and he gave a talk at the last meeting, including the tale
of the certification process. Afterwards, I asked how bad his restrictions
were, and they sounded little different from Exp/Am-Built. They are permanent,
too, they don't have to be renewed every year like some of the Exp/Exh
airplanes. IIRC, he said it took them four months to get the first 262
licensed, and two weeks for the second. Beyond that, I can't tell you the
operating limitations.

The planes aren't just built to factory plans, they are considered factory
aircraft. Daimler Benz Aerospace assigned them the next five serial numbers on
from the wartime records. Other than critical safety issues (modern engines,
modern alloys, etc.), these planes are built the same as the wartime aircraft.
They've got steel where the WWII models had steel (LOTS of steel) and wood where
Messerschmitt used wood. They've even got dummy guns (needed for CG) and have
tankage for only 60-90 minutes of fuel.

One landing gear leg collapsed on the second landing, and it turned out to be a
manifestation of a common wartime fault (a built-up of tolerances in the
mechanism). After it happened, one of the old-time Messerschmitt mechanics
called from Germany to tell them exactly what to look for....

Ron Wanttaja

("Ron Wanttaja" wrote)
Beyond that, I can't tell you the operating limitations.

The planes aren't just built to factory plans, they are considered factory
aircraft. Daimler Benz Aerospace assigned them the next five serial
numbers on from the wartime records.


I would hope one of the operating limitations would be: No crossing state
borders in support of ground forces.


Montblack
Now, if we can also limit the number of Minnesota bound U-boats heading up
the Mississippi River...

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:58:31 -0600, "Montblack"
wrote:

("Ron Wanttaja" wrote)
Beyond that, I can't tell you the operating limitations.

The planes aren't just built to factory plans, they are considered factory
aircraft. Daimler Benz Aerospace assigned them the next five serial
numbers on from the wartime records.


I would hope one of the operating limitations would be: No crossing state
borders in support of ground forces.


Montblack
Now, if we can also limit the number of Minnesota bound U-boats heading up
the Mississippi River...

Don't worry you're safe now that your coast guard has promised live
ammo practice on the great lakes. If that doesn't scare them away, are
depth charges part of their arsenal?

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:20:28 -0400, "Juan Jimenez"
wrote:


"Brad" wrote in message
groups.com...
They could still get a Experimental-Exhibition tho right? Not quite the
freedom a Amateur built COFA gives, but can still fly it.

That depends where they stick you in the Exp/Exh structure. Some of the
subcategories are more restrictive than others.

The guys building the Me262s in Washington State came within a gnat's
eyelash of
getting them Experimental/Amateur-Built. The DAR was going to sign them
off,
but the local FSDO refused to allow it. They've got Exp/Exh, but with
pretty
loose restrictions.

You wouldn't have a copy of their op limitations, do ya?



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