|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 Previous Item - Garner's Splash-in is ON
This will go to the previous thread in this topic. | 
Favorite option: If you want this item to be marked as a favorite, click on the black heart.
Looking for Searey w/912S or 914 |
|  Next Item - SNF
This will go to the next thread in this topic. |
|
|
|
 |
Rudy Wolfs - Jan 25,2004
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
Please send me the specs and digital photos.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />Rudy Wolfs<br />rudy@wolfpak.org
| | |
|
Dan Nickens - Jan 25,2004
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
Why not consider one with a 912, Rudy? It may be cost effective to trade the 912 in on a 912S if your heart is set on 100 hp. The change out is easy.
| | |
|
Rudy Wolfs - Jan 25,2004
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
I am 220lbs and have a 912S Aventura II right now - I have not flown an 912 but i'm told by many it won't satisfy me. I guess it's a matter of preference. I can be talked into a 912.<br /><br />My investigations projected the costs to about 8-9K (912S + Titan) PLUS 40 hours FAA recert process. So if I insist on a 912S or 914 package, the price of a 912 Searey will need to be lean.
| | |
|
Don Maxwell - Jan 25,2004
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
You could get a 912 SeaRey and swap engines with your Aventura II.
| | |
|
Rudy Wolfs - Jan 25,2004
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
Thanks Don. I did consider this but I would then have 40 hr FAA recert process on both planes and it would reduce the selling value of the Aventura II. I guess it could work out cheaper to do it this way....
| | |
|
Dan Nickens - Jan 25,2004
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
Are you refering to the re-issuance of the unlimited Special Airworthiness Certificate, Rudy? This required an inspection by a DAR following a major modification prior to an updating of the rule. When I completed major modifications to my SeaRey in 2001 the inspector specified 5 hours of test flight. With the new rule any major modification I now make would not require re-inspection, just an entry in the logbook and another 5 hours of testing. The real issue is this: is the switch from a 912 to a 912S a 'major modification' under the regulation?
| | |
|
Jim Ratte - Jan 25,2004
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
Yes, this would be consider a major modification by FAA. Been through it before with customers. A major mod is considered:<br /><br />-Physical wing change changeout or other major airframe part<br />-Engine change is not, if the engine is changed out for a like engine i.e. Rotax 912 runout is changed with a new 912. Changing to a different horsepower or engine brand is considered a major change.<br />-Prop change: Changing an Ivoprop to a Warp Drive is a major change (or changing same brand with a different length)<br /><br />There is also more to it then just making an entry into the logs after a major change:<br /><br />-Local FSDO must be notified in advance<br />-They will then re-issue a flight test area with restrictions in Phase I ops (no passengers)<br />-FSDO will then re-issue new operating limitations when all is completed<br />-New entries in the appropriate logs pputs you back in Phase II
| | |
|
Rudy Wolfs - Jan 25,2004
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
Yes Don - that is what I'm referring to... I had heard a DAR could require anywhere from 5 to 40 hours - so I was expecting the worst. Sounds like it might in the 5 hour range... I will amend my search to include a Searey with a 912!
| | |
|
Dan Nickens - Jan 25,2004
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
What you describe for getting the airplane back into service, Jim, is the “way it was.” With new operating limitations the rules have changed. An airplane owner with the newer version of the limitations doesn't have to deal with the FAA.<br /><br />Here’s what my current (2001) operating limitations say:<br /><br />“After incorporating a major change as described in Section 21.93 the aircraft owner is required to re-establish compliance with FAR 91.319(b). All operations will be conducted day VFR in a sparsely populated area. The aircraft must remain in flight test for a minimum of 5 hours. Persons non-essential to the flight shall not be carried. The aircraft owner shall make a detailed log book entry describing the change prior to the test flight. Following satisfactory completion of the required number of flight hours in the flight test area, the pilot shall certify in the records that the aircraft has been shown to comply with FAR 91.319(b). Compliance with FAR 91.319(b) shall be recorded in the aircraft records with the following or a similarly worded statement: (I won’t bore you any further with the exact wording.)<br /><br />Earlier versions of the operating limitations required that the aircraft be re-inspected as you indicated.<br /><br />Note that FAR 91.319(b) only pertains to hazardous flight characteristics. (§91.319 Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations. (b) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate outside of an area assigned by the Administrator until it is shown that -- (1) The aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and throughout all the maneuvers to be executed; and (2) The aircraft has no hazardous operating characteristics or design features.)<br /><br />The definition of a major modification can be found in FAR 21.93. This is what it says: § 21.93 Classification of changes in type design. (a) In addition to changes in type design specified in paragraph (b) of this section, changes in type design are classified as minor and major. A 'minor change' is one that has no appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the airworthiness of the product. All other changes are 'major changes' (except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section).<br /><br />It is obvious that changing from a 912 to a 912S would be a major modification.<br /><br />There is another provision that relates to operations after maintenance. It is FAR 91.407:<br /><br />§91.407 Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration. <br />(a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless -- <br />(1) It has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under §43.7 of this chapter; and <br />(2) The maintenance record entry required by §43.9 or §43.11, as applicable, of this chapter has been made. <br />(b) No person may carry any person (other than crewmembers) in an aircraft that has been maintained, rebuilt, or altered in a manner that may have appreciably changed its flight characteristics or substantially affected its operation in flight until an appropriately rated pilot with at least a private pilot certificate flies the aircraft, makes an operational check of the maintenance performed or alteration made, and logs the flight in the aircraft records. <br />(c) The aircraft does not have to be flown as required by paragraph (b) of this section if, prior to flight, ground tests, inspection, or both show conclusively that the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration has not appreciably changed the flight characteristics or substantially affected the flight operation of the aircraft. <br /><br />Subsection (c) indicates that ground tests or inspection or both can prove there has been no major change in flight characteristics. From the history that has now been developed I think it can be argued that changing the prop from an IVO to a Warp Drive would be a minor change and approved on the basis of a “ground test” or inspection. Caveat Emptor: I don’t know that for a fact.<br /><br />
| | |
|
Jim Ratte - Jan 26,2004
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
Dan,<br /><br />I know how it use to be, and is now (been in this 13 yrs now). We just had a Searey inspected 6 weeks ago. DAR explicited has the information I provided right in the Operating Limitations that were issued. I don't have the aircraft here right now to copy the wording, its now in its new home. Jim
| | |
|
Dan Nickens - Jan 26,2004
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
Your reference to the specific operating limitations is absolutely key, Jim. The specified 'operating limitations' language is what allows our amateur built aircraft to fly the legal skies. As it turns out, the newest language specifies that the FSDO must be notified before conducting the flight tests. There was, however, a two or three year period during which a lot of SeaReys got operating limitations that don't require any such notice. So, some of us are just lucky that way. Any buyer should read the aircraft's operating limitations to see what is required.
| | |
|
Bret Smith - Jan 27,2004
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
Hi Rudy. One Testimonial on the 80 hp, 912UL and the SeaRey. Mine has one and its doing fine with its 1450 lbs placarded MGW. I’m 245lbs and 6’5” and the wife is _______…. lets just say she’s your average American girl according to the airlines.<br /><br />We travel just fine in our bird. Last summer we went camping in the SeaRey for a night with no support. Tent, sleeping bags, folding chairs, 2 ribeyes and tators, clothes, fishing pole, 5 lb Danforth anchor, the usual flying gear, a hat and a bottle of wine… and we had a ball.<br /><br />She’s empty at 953 and we took off at 1449 lbs. Do I want more power? Yes! Do I need more power? No. The extra power would just be there for pucker situation salvation.<br /><br />The cruise was about 85 mph and like Frank might say, “we got no business going much faster”… If you don’t get into a tight situation it could be argued that you will never need more than 80 hp in a SeaRey.<br />
| | |
|
Dan Nickens - Jan 27,2004
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
Bret, Bret, Bret. Not only is your hat too big, but your imaginary cattle have mad cow disease. The recommended Maximum Gross Weight for the SeaRey is 1370 pounds. Thinking that you can arbitrarily set a higher MGW than recommended by Progressive’s eminently qualified aeronautical engineer is, well, er, #$$@!&&**@# (this is, after all, a “family” site). Until the airplane is redesigned the MGW isn’t going to increase no matter how fast middle age spread sets in. Somehow you did, however, manage to make a very good point. There is no more reliable engine than the basic 912. Having flown a light SeaRey with an 80 hp engine for 550 hours I found the flying to be just fine. It’s just like Clint said, “a pilot has just gotta know his limitations.”
| | |
|
Tom Lansing - Jan 29,2004
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
I have read (or was dreaming) a letter from Kerry R. that ststes the aircraft design is conservative in wing loading & safe at a higher TOMGW (1450???) Don't quote me but I am sure I have read this.
| | |
|
Dan Nickens - Jan 29,2004
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
According to the only competent aeronautical engineer to review the issue, the SeaRey will mostly (but not completely) meet the theoretical requirements for a MGW of 1370 pounds.
| | |
|
Bret Smith - Jan 27,2004
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
I hear you Dan and you have a point. I don't recommend that you fly over the recommended 1370. I rekon I'm glad I got my SeaRey after the recommendation went from 1250 to 1370. I am happy about that.
| | |
|
John Robert Dunlop - Jan 27,2004
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
Dan, I'm not going to walk down the MTOW path because it is true that the stress/failure curve does increase exponentially as the weight increases.<br />I registered my aircraft in Canada (with designer's permission) at a MTOW of 1500 lbs. For three reasons.<br />1. PA's demo aircraft with many hours under its belt, is regularly operating above that weight.<br />2. I wanted to take my 6'5' son flying in my SeaRey (and could not afford a SeaBee.)<br />3. I wanted to protect my estate from any finding of having exceeded the MTOW prior to my demise!<br /><br />Perhaps I missed something but I doubt switching from a 912 to a 912s exacerbates anything other than the known gearbox and cold starting issues. I don't think that the larger starter and slipper clutch add much weight..
| | |
|
Robert Lee - Jan 27,2004
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if PA has carried out a destructive test of the typical Searey wing? Would not that be required to receive the certification in Australia? If so, does anyone know at what weight the structure yielded?
| | |
|
Rick Oreair - Jan 27,2004
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
Robert, I don't think a destructive test has been done. I think they're afraid of what they might find. I do know where there is an complete set of wings at X61!! I would like to know for sure.<br />
| | |
|
Chris Vernon-Jarvis - Jan 27,2004
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
You'll have to hang the wing from the ceiling by the strut attachments and the wing roots, otherwise it would be only knowing the distribution of pressure etc. Also, while I think about it I expect that most of the lift on the upper surface is aqbsorbed in tension in the fabric between the front and rear spars, not quite cricket just to load up the lower ribs because that's not how the load is distributed in flight.
| | |
|
John Robert Dunlop - Jan 27,2004
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
I suppose you could load the wing's weakest point (most leaverage), probably an upward force on the wing tips until deformation occurs. Perhaps Eduardo could help..<br />I wonder if anyone has ever directly asked Kerry if they ever had to replace a structural member on their first 1000 hour bird? It certainly took lots of training abuse..<br />Then again, you could just be patient till my aircraft gets a few more hours on it..
| | |
|
Don Maxwell - Jan 27,2004
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
I think we'll just have to get someone who really, REALLY wants to know to pull a lot of g's in his SeaRey and see at what load the wings fold up. He can radio us the results on the way down. Of course, to be sure, it'll have to be someone with two SeaReys so he can do it again inverted.<br /><br />I also think this discussion is best continued on STS.
| | |
|
Greg Spires - Jan 28,2004
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
Great opportunity to test a ballistic parachute installation too.
| | |
|
Bret Smith - Jan 28,2004
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
I'm with Frank. Lets get together and buy a wing and then bust it. That’s as articulate as I can get. I am game to put in some $ for such a project.<br /><br />In the mean time, we’ll just have to endeavor to appreciate that there is somebody out there who will always tell you that you are well, er, #$$@!&&**@# (this is, after all, a “family” site), if you fly over 1370, do glassy water landings, or fly in marginal weather conditions.<br />
| | |
|
Stephen Monteith Albers - Jan 30,2004
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
Rudy,<br /><br />I have a one of a kind 914 Searey kit the MAY be for sale. Built out it will undoubtedly result in the finest Searey ever produced. If you are interested in some details just give me a call.<br /><br />Stephen Albers<br />251-928-1473
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
- About Searey.us -
- Contact Searey.us -
|
- Privacy Statement -
- Terms of service -
|
Copyright © 2024 Searey.us & Brevard Web Pro, Inc. -
Copyrights may also be reserved
by posters and used by license on this site. See Terms of Service for more information.
|
| |
- Please visit our NEW
Chapter Place Website at: chapterplace.com or
Free Chapter Management Website at: ourchapter.org. Good for all chapters, groups or families. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
