What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Pop rivet -4

Status
Not open for further replies.
AC20-27G is a great starting point as well as order 8130.2H... This is a kit with plans, acceptable to FAA classifications and listed on the FAA List of Amateur-Built Aircraft Kits. as such, we are to follow those plans exclusively or seek professional assistance if we deviate and notify the FAA of those deviations during the certification process .

Be specific. Quote the verbiage from regulation, or AC, or other document stating we're required to build to the kit manufacturer's "design spec" or similar, in order to qualify for an EAB AW certificate.
 
OK Mr. McKay. Time to get a few things squared away here. The FAA approved kit list only means that if built according to the plans, it will meet the Major Portion rule. It has nothing to do with airworthiness. If you deviate from the plans, you must submit a checklist showing that the aircraft does indeed meet the amateur-built regulations. Again, it has nothing to do with airworthiness.

The only time a DAR is required to confirm that the aircraft was built in accordance with the plans is with an Experimental Light-Sport Aircraft.

The only requirement the DAR has is to confirm that the aircraft meets the amateur-built regulations. He does NOT sign off the aircraft as airworthy.
The builder signs a statement that the aircraft has been inspected in accordance with the scope & detail of FAA Part 43 Appendix D.

Most DARs also inspect the aircraft for build quality and to see that common practices were followed. THIS IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THE DAR!
The DAR has the right to deny the airworthiness certificate for anything he/she determined to be unsafe. Deviation from the plans does NOT mean that the aircraft is un-airworthy.

BTW, Experimental aircraft are never "Airworthy" in the U.S. The term used is that the aircraft is "in a condition for safe operation". The definition for "Airworthy" is that the aircraft meet it's Type Design. Amateur-built aircraft have no "Type Design".

I hope this clears things up a little.
 
Last edited:
426 rivets start soft but harden substantially when driven, let’s not forget the aircraft is not airworthy no matter how many experimental mechanics tell us so. It does not meet design spec period. There is no way around that. There is also the fact that if it has N numbers, the FAA has failed. This is one of my big issues with the FAA giving repair cents to builders after a build, yes they know how to pound rivits and that deserves great respect but almost none knows the hows or whys something is built the way it is or how to diagnose, troubleshoot, or properly repair their aircraft or even has a basic understanding of the systems involved. The same hold true for all the DER’s and DAR,s I’ve dealt with in the last 30 something years, great respect for their function, but none I’ve met could carry out the repairs or modifications they designed.

Off my soap box now...
Holy snappin' duckpoo, you mean my RV-9 IS NOT AIRWORTHY?!? Guess I better stop flying it then.

Never mind the fact that the research I did, and the data I hold demonstrates that the materials I used are suitable for their intended purpose. MY RV-9A IS NOT AIRWORTHY BECAUSE YOU SAY SO.

Give me a break.....:rolleyes:

The entire concept of Experimental is that you can build something that does not have a type certificate to your own design. There is nothing in the regulations, except the ooooooolllllddd ANR's in Australia (and probably a few other countries) that required you to build an 'Experimental' aircraft to a recognised design, but those days (here at least) are long gone. You can bolt a rocket to a barn door and the CASA AP must issue you a Certificate of Airworthiness (if the paperwork & admin side of things are in order). Though where they get you, if you are fool enough to force them to with a patently unsafe design, is the assignment of your flight test area.

The above being said, there is nothing wrong with building an entire RV out of blind rivets, if you can demonstrate with data, that those rivets are functionally equivalent to solid rivets. That's the magic of the Experimental category.

Where titanhawk may struggle with this RV-4, is determining the type of rivets, and from that, assessing whether they are in fact a suitable replacement.
 
Last edited:
Considering how many people that have contacted me wanting to buy this thing, it must have value to someone. I am going to bring it to the shop, do some research and decide what to do with it. It may go the way of the famous rv8 youtube video at the wrecking yard, but not if i can determine if it is safe or repairable. I am a very experienced ap/ia with 30 years of experience in experimental aircraft and a youtube channel and this thing is still making me question it if is economically feasible to make it fly again.

I am closing the thread.

I appreciate the mel’s, danh’s and kraviator’s etc and their constructive criticism and data.

Some others have no concept of experimental airplanes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top