Kent Ashton

Saw this plaintive post on FB (pic). Been there, sort of. I bought a Cozy III when I was about 210 (and 5'-10.5") and flew it a number of years. Eventually I flew it without seat cushions to get a little more hip room. It was fun but the C-III is not an airplane for big people. With two persons, it's like flying an EZ with two people in the front seat. Contemplate that! 🙂 Just look at the thickness of those seat cushions! They look like booster seats for a child. Whoever owned it last was Puffer-sized, for sure. That, my friends, is an original C-III panel. Lowrance hasn't made avionics for a decade. At 240, he is probably a bit large even for a C-IV. I always point those folks towards a Bearhawk or Murphy Moose.

When Rutan debuted "Moldless Composite Construction" in the 70s, it was a revelation how easy (EZ) it became to build near-perfect airfoils and aero shapes. And it does not take 1000 hours of sanding--maybe a week or two of normal work after the structure is built. I respectfully suggest you're going backward from that. First you have to come up with perfect, finished airfoil skins built around wing spars, control linkages, attach points for ailerons, and attach points for the wings themselves. There's 1000 hours of work right there. Then the skins, spars and the rest must be jigged and held in the correct shape while you inject (expanding?) foam in the voids with some sort of machine you have yet to develop and do it evenly without distorting the structure. A "better way" to make wings is to pull them from molds or used matched-hole metal construction but that ignores the 10,000 hours it takes to make the molds or the $10,000 it takes to buy the hole-punching computer and equipment. There is no free lunch.

The stupid FAA does not make it easy. This site appears to let you search for all the registrations in a state https://www.aircraftone.com/searchindex.asp You can download the entire FAA database here and search within it with a word processor program. https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/releasable_aircraft_download/ You could do a "Name" search (sorted by N-number) here for "Dragonfly" https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Aircraft_Inquiry.aspx That will return 32 N-numbered Dragonflys. Then you can do an N-number search for each N-number and see the owner information. Or do a Make/Model search for Model "Dragonfly" which will return 323 Dragonfly entries with Manufacturer names, see pic below. If the "Manufacturer" in the 3rd colum is an individual [builder/owner] like Bailey Robert E do an individual Name Inquiry for his name (use the same name format). That will return the N-number for that owner which you can search for all the info. If the 2nd column has highlighted info like NORTH CAROLINA - 1, click on that and it will show you N-number info. If the Manufacturer is a commercial name like AVRO none of this works. Yeah, easy right 😞 Sometimes I see an airplane on craigslist. I do a Wiki search for the Craigslist town and find out what county it in, then I do a State/County search in the registry and see all the aircraft in the county. I can usually find the airplane and the N-number Or you might get lucky with a Google Verbatim search https://www.google.com/webhp?tbs=li:1

Here's another one that makes you just shake your head. Tri-pacer had not flown since 1996. The AI that signed off the the annual did not supervise the owner's inspection. The 68 year old pilot and his passenger on their way to get a Wt & Bal at another airport landed in a cornfield when the engine failed. Inspection found an ancient, leaking fuel line, fuel valve that only opened 25%, debris in the gascolator, and a large insect nest in the engine compartment. Maybe the owner didn't want to disturb the wasps. 🙂 http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2020/07/piper-pa-22-150-tri-pacer-n7208d.html

Here is a sticky on how to find canard owners. Good luck. https://www.canardzone.com/forums/topic/33309-varieze-builderpilot-wanted/?do=findComment&comment=63092

Just reading this Mooney crash right after takeoff. Foggy day, 600 and 3/4 mile viz, older pilot (75). The day before he asked another pilot about instrument departures from RW 29. Next day, he told ATC he would take off from RW 29. He announced taxi to RW 29 and that he was taking-off from RW29, however, he was actually using RW 11. A helpful observer told him "Runway 11" on the freq as he made his initial call to ATC. Pilot said "Thanks for the help" but never contacted ATC and flew into the ground after about 180 degrees of turn. http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2020/07/loss-of-control-in-flight-mooney-m20j.html https://goo.gl/maps/BWCzC58DCtk6WjVq8 I feel for the guy. Been there myself in cases where your mind is quite certain of your present situation but the actual situation is much different. There is a second for the mind to grasp the new understanding and reorient. The flight path indicates he knew he needed to turn around. I imagine he was shuffling papers or fingering instrument departure pages and just did not keep track of the airplane. I has been my habit at strange fields to know the first heading after takeoff and visualize which direction it will take me. Maybe if this pilot had looked out the window and thought "My first heading is 290 and 290 is . . . wait!? Behind me?" BTW, I recommend this guy who does a great job of discussing recent accidents like the Pakistani airliner that did a gear-up touch-and-go recently (then crashed)

Ok, this is getting fun: You are planning to buy an experimental helicopter built from a Rotorway kit by a gent called Limor Nachshon, who called it a "Gyroplane" right? ATC does not look at your registration forms when you make an inbound call. All they know is the aircraft type you filed in your flight plan or what you say when you call in, or what they see out the window. It appears you would file Aircraft Type ZZZZ. When you call in you would use terminology "Experimental Helicopter N162NL" to the tower and "Helicopter N162NL" to other ATC. ATC would also understand "Rotorway N162NL" although strictly speaking, Rotorway was not the manufacturer. Nobody in ATC cares about the model number, the engine, or that the registration says "gyroplane". Change it if you like but it won't matter to anyone but you. https://support.foreflight.com/hc/en-us/articles/204480765-What-model-or-type-designation-should-I-use-for-my-aircraft-when-filing-?mobile_site=true https://www.icao.int/publications/DOC8643/Pages/SpecialDesignators.aspx But to answer your question, if you filed your flight plan as aircraft type "BALL" (balloon), and called in as "Balloon N162NL, you might have them scratching their heads. 🙂

Yes there are minor differences in way the two aircraft (N162NL and N99TE) are identified but the differences are inconsequential. The registration for N162NL is not "incorrect", just different. The FAA does not generally dictate what a builder calls his experimental airplane or how he identifies his [non-certified] engine. Within reason, what the builder puts in the forms is what the FAA clerks enter into the database. It appears to me that N162F was properly registered and certificated and has been flying for 237 hours.

Found an excellent website on Ellisons/Rotecs and rebuilding them. http://www.miravim.org/4RE/ I have never taken mine apart but might try it if I needed to.

Sorry but I’m lost. If It is not your plane why do care? I don’t know what you’re trying to correct, or why, on what airplane. You referred to a complete gyrocopter registration for N162nl but you say it’s a helicopter. Either way, that doesn’t matter. The registration for N162nl is complete and acceptable to the FAA. There is no reason to change it that I can see. There is nothing wrong with “naming the model of the airplane after the engine”. A builder can use anything he wants for a model name. The model number of N162nl is a “162F”. Perfectly acceptable.

Is N162NL your plane? As far as I can tell N162NL is in order. https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=162NL It says "Unknown engine" but the FAA issued an Airworthiness Certificate. If it has Operating Limitations assigned and the proper logbook entries, it looks OK to me. There is no difference in the operation and maintenance of a plans or kit-built airplane (unless it is Light Sport about which am ill-informed). Once they are registered, get their A.C.and their Operating Limitations, they are all about the same although the Operating Limitations can be tailored to the particular airplane, as the DAR/FAA sees fit. It comes down to the fact that anyone can maintain and modify an "Experimental-Amateur Built" airplane (plans- or kit-built) in accordance with the Ops Limits for _that_ airplane AND you can also perform the annual condition inspection if you are an A&P or were issued a Repairman Certificate for that particular airplane. But you have to read the O.Ls carefully. For example my 2002-vintage O.L.s do not say anything about informing the FAA if I wanted to change the engine. I just have to treat it as a major change and make the appropriate tests and logbook entries. I guess the recent O.L.s have added requirements to inform the FAA and fill out a form. BTW, my registration and A.C. do not show what engine I'm using. Thanks for the kind words. 🙂

Need more info on the first question. Is this an actual FAA registration, i.e. an FAA Form 8050-3 and does the aircraft have an Airworthiness Certificate? A pic of the registration or link to the N-number in the FAA Registry would help to understand what you have. Registration information can be corrected if you own the airplane https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/ An engine change is a major change. Your Ops Limits should say what to do but it is discussed here in Appendix D, Table D-1 https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/1031547 i.e., Letter to the FAA, fill out a form 8130-6, logbook entry, test for 5+ hrs, certify compliance in the logbook. It is usually wise to update your Ops limits to the latest version--they have gotten more liberal over the years. Your insurance company may care about the exact engine too so probably wise to send them a letter.

Not practical. No way to determine the expansion and the foam can be very porous. A long airfoil could have voids. i used some minimal expanding foam around some house windows and they are so tight I can barely open them 😞