Gelcoat repair

On Nov 19, 6:09*pm, Nimbob wrote:


So, your understanding of the rule is correct - we're just boring the
hell out of RAS with this academic discussion is all. This really is
academic because I've personally never seen this applied in the case
of a glider; I believe the rule exists only to keep the aircraft that
are temporarily in experimental R&D or Exp. Show Compliance under part
43 while they fly off the test flight requirements.

Sorry if I mislead you earlier,

Jim

Jim/Bob
This is NOT boring for me. It is a subject near and dear to my
heart. When I bought my 'Experimental' glider, I had no idea of the
ramifications. Knowing what I know now (or believe), I will NEVER own
a TC'd glider.
Your discussion has clarified/confirmed the conclusion another LVVSA
member came to after hours of research.
Many Thanks!

On Nov 20, 8:33*am, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
On Nov 19, 6:09*pm, Nimbob wrote:



So, your understanding of the rule is correct - we're just boring the
hell out of RAS with this academic discussion is all. This really is
academic because I've personally never seen this applied in the case
of a glider; I believe the rule exists only to keep the aircraft that
are temporarily in experimental R&D or Exp. Show Compliance under part
43 while they fly off the test flight requirements.

Sorry if I mislead you earlier,

Jim

Jim/Bob
*This is NOT boring for me. *It is a subject near and dear to my
heart. *When I bought my 'Experimental' glider, I had no idea of the
ramifications. *Knowing what I know now (or believe), I will NEVER own
a TC'd glider.
*Your discussion has clarified/confirmed the conclusion another LVVSA
member came to after hours of research.
Many Thanks!

I have to echo this as well. I find RAS vastly informative AND
entertaining! I also will never own a TC'd glider (again). When the
HP-24 is done the plan is for her to be my retirement ship. I'll be
able to do all the work myself and stay as far away from the local A&I
as I can. Of course I have friends who are A&P's and I will always
have a second pair of eyes to look the ship over.

Brad

On a subject mentioned earlier in this thread, I believe you can
register a TC'ed glider as Experimental. My basis for this conclusion
is that many ASW-27s are registered Experimental despite being TC'ed.
Also, I once had an LS-3 that was registered Experimental despite being
TC'ed.




Brad wrote:
On Nov 20, 8:33 am, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
On Nov 19, 6:09 pm, Nimbob wrote:



So, your understanding of the rule is correct - we're just boring the
hell out of RAS with this academic discussion is all. This really is
academic because I've personally never seen this applied in the case
of a glider; I believe the rule exists only to keep the aircraft that
are temporarily in experimental R&D or Exp. Show Compliance under part
43 while they fly off the test flight requirements.
Sorry if I mislead you earlier,
Jim
Jim/Bob
This is NOT boring for me. It is a subject near and dear to my
heart. When I bought my 'Experimental' glider, I had no idea of the
ramifications. Knowing what I know now (or believe), I will NEVER own
a TC'd glider.
Your discussion has clarified/confirmed the conclusion another LVVSA
member came to after hours of research.
Many Thanks!

I have to echo this as well. I find RAS vastly informative AND
entertaining! I also will never own a TC'd glider (again). When the
HP-24 is done the plan is for her to be my retirement ship. I'll be
able to do all the work myself and stay as far away from the local A&I
as I can. Of course I have friends who are A&P's and I will always
have a second pair of eyes to look the ship over.

Brad

On Nov 20, 2:00*pm, Greg Arnold wrote:
On a subject mentioned earlier in this thread, I believe you can
register a TC'ed glider as Experimental. *My basis for this conclusion
is that many ASW-27s are registered Experimental despite being TC'ed.
Also, I once had an LS-3 that was registered Experimental despite being
TC'ed.



Brad wrote:
On Nov 20, 8:33 am, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
On Nov 19, 6:09 pm, Nimbob wrote:

So, your understanding of the rule is correct - we're just boring the
hell out of RAS with this academic discussion is all. This really is
academic because I've personally never seen this applied in the case
of a glider; I believe the rule exists only to keep the aircraft that
are temporarily in experimental R&D or Exp. Show Compliance under part
43 while they fly off the test flight requirements.
Sorry if I mislead you earlier,
Jim
Jim/Bob
*This is NOT boring for me. *It is a subject near and dear to my
heart. *When I bought my 'Experimental' glider, I had no idea of the
ramifications. *Knowing what I know now (or believe), I will NEVER own
a TC'd glider.
*Your discussion has clarified/confirmed the conclusion another LVVSA
member came to after hours of research.
Many Thanks!

I have to echo this as well. I find RAS vastly informative AND
entertaining! I also will never own a TC'd glider (again). When the
HP-24 is done the plan is for her to be my retirement ship. I'll be
able to do all the work myself and stay as far away from the local A&I
as I can. Of course I have friends who are A&P's and I will always
have a second pair of eyes to look the ship over.

Brad- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My '27, originally licensed Std , is now Ex.
UH