Jump to content

FlyingMonkey

Members
  • Content count

    6,253
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    50

Blog Comments posted by FlyingMonkey

  1. [[Template blog/front/global/commentTableHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

    Form 337 is a field approval for changes to an aircraft certified under Part 23.  S-LSA are certified under ASTM consensus standards, not part 23, so a form 337 does nothing for an S-LSA.  You need and LoA for MRA from the manufacturer, which serves the same purpose as a 337 for a Part 23 airplane.

     

    Most FAA docs you read will assume certified airplanes, and not give much regard to LSA or experimental airplanes, so you can't always follow the guidance in those publications.

  2. [[Template blog/front/global/commentTableHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

    9 hours ago, garrettgee2001 said:

    Thank you FlyingMonkey.  I thought I had seen a post somewhere where you had mentioned that.  Curiosity question, was that difficult to get a DAR to approve?  If you are willing, I may PM you one day and ask a few questions related to going experimental.  I have a basic understanding through some research, but haven't really looked into the "fine details" yet.  Still trying to decide if I want to take the plunge or not.  In your opinion, is it worth it?

    I didn't ask for it, the DAR just added it in.  I think he said he puts in all limitations that the FAA allows when he does a conversion.  Other inspectors certsinly do things differently.

    I think the ELSA change was one of the best decisions I ever made.  I know longer have to ask factory permission to put in a different type of battery or other part, and having taken the 16 hour repairman course, I can do any maintenance I'm comfortable doing, including condition inspections.  I have not yet seen a downside, but any impact to perceived value would only be seen at sale time.

  3. [[Template blog/front/global/commentTableHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

    My ELSA operating limitations allow IFR flight if the airplane is properly equipped.  Just saying.

    I'm a SP so not for me, but that GPS unit would not be overkill if I were a PP interested in IFR.

  4. [[Template blog/front/global/commentTableHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

    3 hours ago, andyb said:

    On his comment re the parachute, he didn't mention the 40+ knots of forward speed (3,900 feet per minute) associated with his off-airport landing.  I realize that there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the decision to use the parachute, versus an off-airport landing.  And he had a successful outcome, which speaks for itself.  However, in terms of the energy issue, it goes beyond just the vertical speed.  150 foot/minute vertical speed plus 40 knot forward speed has much more energy associated with it than 1,000 foot/per minute vertical speed. 

    That's exactly the point I wanted to make.  Not second guessing the pilot, especially since it turned out well, but the energy involved in a 40kt (46mph) touchdown with 150-300fpm descent (4-8mph) is a lot higher than one at 1000fpm (24mph) and essentially zero forward airspeed.  The gear is designed to absorb such impacts, the engine/firewall is not.

×