Page 100 of 109 FirstFirst ... 50909899100101102 ... LastLast
Results 991 to 1,000 of 1083

Thread: Building a Nieuport 11...

  1. #991

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    27

    Rebuild

    Good to hear you are OK,
    good to hear you will continue flying.

    If I would not live on the other side of the Atlantic then I would be very pleased to donate all the kit parts I did not use on my N11;
    that is the least I could do for enjoying your posts that were useful during my build.

    How is the lady of the house taking it ?

    take care

    Johan

  2. #992

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,236
    Oh, the wife knew what she was getting right out of the box.

    Indeed, she had her pick of Safe Men and went the other way in accepting my offer for her hand; her only request is that I keep things as safe as I can within the constraints of what I'm doing.

    When I called her from the landing site and told her I was okay she took it in stride. Of course she called back about two minutes later to ask what "okay" meant, and reckoned that a broken rib fell somewhere below "all okay" and above "all busted up;" but I should have mentioned it in the first call.

    It was about three days after it she looked at me, sat up ramrod straight, and said "you could have been killed," to which I replied, "yeah, but not that day."

    Between overhearing the NTSB guy say that I did pretty much everything right and my Army buddies making light of it (considering the number of times I should have bought it or been maimed) she's shrugging it off as just another one of my adventures.

    She's been nothing but supportive of my Aviation Quest from start to now.
    The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

  3. #993
    planecrazzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Brrrmidji , Minne-SNOW-ta
    Posts
    216
    Whelp, this last Saturday I had an engine out and had to put my little Babette into the trees.
    HOLY COW Frank,
    I just heard about this .
    Glad your alright , Sad the plane isn't
    And like others , glad you're not giving up!!!!!!!!

    Gotta Fly...

    PS Hobbs time ?

  4. #994

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,236
    Hobbs time is around 65 hours.

    So she went about median average for actual WWI aircraft.

    I'm healed up enough to where this weekend I can go up to the airport, untangle the bent wings from the fuselage, remove the engine, strip the fuselage and see what's there.
    The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

  5. #995
    planecrazzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Brrrmidji , Minne-SNOW-ta
    Posts
    216
    .
    Winter is coming...Always a good time to FIND time to work on it.
    .
    After flying my first plane for a while...I missed the building process.

    This will help you fill that desire...
    .
    I'm guessing you'll need to fly off some time after the re-build ? 25 hrs ? another 40 ?
    .
    Maybe you can take a picture where you landed and plopped out ?

    and your crumpled baby...( Oh, I backed up and saw the site...and your goggles )

    Gotta Fly...
    .
    Last edited by planecrazzzy; 09-06-2019 at 03:05 AM.

  6. #996
    DaleB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    KMLE
    Posts
    654
    Quote Originally Posted by planecrazzzy View Post
    I'm guessing you'll need to fly off some time after the re-build ? 25 hrs ? another 40 ?
    Don't take this the wrong way, but in this particular case -- what does it matter? It's a single seat airplane that never gets flown far from its home field. How is Phase I testing different than normal flying for Frank?
    Measure twice, cut once...
    scratch head, shrug, shim to fit.

    Flying an RV-12. I am building a Fisher Celebrity, slowly.

  7. #997
    Sam Buchanan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    KDCU
    Posts
    567
    Quote Originally Posted by planecrazzzy View Post
    .
    .
    I'm guessing you'll need to fly off some time after the re-build ? 25 hrs ? another 40 ?
    .
    A new Phase 1 "fly-off" is only required after major modifications. Repairs do not require the aircraft to be placed back into Phase 1.

    Frank is considering a repair.
    Sam Buchanan
    The RV Journal RV-6 build log
    Fokker D.VII semi-replica build log

  8. #998
    Airmutt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    NW. Atlanta GA
    Posts
    560
    So during the rebuild he must not make any changes that effect the weight or structural strength otherwise it’s a violation of the 21.93 definition of minor change. Additionally any propeller change or modification to the engine is also considered a major change and drives you back to Phase 1, right??
    Dave Shaw
    EAA 67180 Lifetime
    Learn to Build, Build to Fly, Fly for Fun

  9. #999
    Sam Buchanan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    KDCU
    Posts
    567
    Quote Originally Posted by Airmutt View Post
    So during the rebuild he must not make any changes that effect the weight or structural strength otherwise it’s a violation of the 21.93 definition of minor change. Additionally any propeller change or modification to the engine is also considered a major change and drives you back to Phase 1, right??
    Yes, major changes require reentry into Phase 1.

    But Frank is intending to return an exact clone of his little bird to the air.

    Replacing a prop with an identical unit or simply repairing an engine is not a major change. But Frank didn't break his prop! If Frank installs a constant speed prop or a turbine on his repaired fighter....that would be a major change.
    Last edited by Sam Buchanan; 09-06-2019 at 07:11 PM.
    Sam Buchanan
    The RV Journal RV-6 build log
    Fokker D.VII semi-replica build log

  10. #1000

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,236
    I'm glad the thread is going in a more generalist direction - this is how I learn!

    To the particulars of my airplane:

    1) I asked the FAA man about this very topic when he came out for the initial investigation, and he said it was at my discretion, saying that five to ten hours would be prudent and I need not involve their offices. I suspect he was speaking ex cathedra, though, and I'll talk to my FDSO when she's ready to fly again. The absolute worst they can say is the whole nut roll, which leads us to number two:

    2) It is very accurate to say that 99% of my flying is within the original test phase area regardless of whether or not it's actually in test phase, so the impact of it is minimal. However, I do like the option of flying to fields farther than 25 nm from my base. If they say go to Phase I with 40 hours, I'll simply ask for a larger test area. Again, if that's denied, well, okay...sight seeing along the Coosa River it is; I'll just have to be happy to be thrown into the briar patch.

    3) While it's a repair back to original (same engine, prop, plans), replacing the fuselage, gear, and two wings along with an engine tear down is a bit more than altering the tail wheel design. By the regulation it's not a major change, but I'm treating it as one in practice.

    If there's any frustration on my part it's that for all the fun I poke at myself as a builder and pilot, I'm actually very scrupulous when it comes to both. Even very minor things like covering the wheels with fabric were put in the airframe log, and when I put the fuel sight gauge in I had a trusted builder help and inspect the work before buttoning it up. For the latter, I flew the first hour close to the field and a couple more carefully to validate it's accuracy.

    Since there is no weight and balance concerns when it comes to fuel, I always take off from my home field with a full tank of gas. Yes, in the Summertime that means my take off roll is five hundred feet rather than four, and my landing is six hundred rather than five, but these are laughable differences since I'm landing on mile long runways, and the reduced climb rate is the same in practical practice.

    On the day in question I darned near over-filled the tank that morning, and the first leg was fifty miles, flown in just under an hour. The gauge gave me right at seven gallons on landing, which is the expected fuel consumption. No way I burned through seven gallons in forty minutes - there had to have been a fuel leak, no doubt caused by the high turbulence. Whether I kicked the stupid fuel sump connection or there was a leak somewhere else, there was a leak.

    To put a bit of humor in the post, I will no longer accept the statement that when one runs out of gas it's not like one can pull the plane over to the side of the road, as that is precisely what I did.
    The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •