FAA 51% rules change - Important

[Mike Schallmann]

The two airplanes that I built were from RAW materials-One from plans and one of my own design. All of my gyros have been from RAW materials I DESIGNED and literally built everything on the first two -including the rotorheads! -the Rotorblades were bought as were the engines props ,nuts bolts etc. My current gyro is from raw materials and my design also --but this time I bought the rotorhead from Ernie and the blades from Neil Carnes --all of the rest was FABRICATED by me--Im currently gathering material for a two placer --again my design --It will be built from RAW materials...my gawd this isnt rocket science--Im no newbie to building things--heres a partial list spanning 50 years--

Two power boats
Several sailing dinghes
Several HUNDRED 16' mini cruising sailboats
A dozen or so boat trailers--
One 32' sailboat
My current home -3000Sq Ft --5000sq ft under roof
2100 sq ft shop--

plus assorted other projects including a couple of tree houses for my kids and grandkids!

with the exception of the shop (which was prefabricated) I designed an built all of these things including all mechanical ,electrical and plumbing--!!

Tom Carlise has seen my house and shop --ask him what he thinks of it--design an constructionwise that is!

 

[Resasi]

Mike you are obviously a proud and accomplished craftsman. Very commendable.

I do think however you are looking at the gyro movement from a very personal perspective, and not for the good of the whole movement.

A bit selfish, a bit self indulgent and considering only your own perspective on what is achievable by the majority of people who wish to pursue the sport who perhaps to not have your expertise, the time or the inclination.

Try to include others in your views on what effects many in our sport and passion and I would find it easier to go along with your views on the subject

 

[rfsolutions]

What about technology advances? If someone without Mike's "Skills" uses a CAD tool and sends the files to a CNC shop to do the "physical" work to hog out finished parts to bolt together, who gets the credit for "Fabrication"? You could theoretically fabricate the entire design on a computer and have a CNC machine produce every part to build the aircraft. You can even CNC the plug to make molds for a composite body. Who gets the credit for fabrication? The CAD designer or the person loading the CNC machine?

Today, you don't have to know know how to chuck a bit in a drill press to produce really nice piece of hardware. Does that mean you're any less talented than the person that can scratch build a machine using a micrometer, slide rule, lathe and mill?

Maybe we should limit the fabrication to 10% of the materials being mined and smelted by the builder. May as well require them to grow the tree to carve a prop too.

Maybe the FAA could limit the use of computers to assist builder? Hell, the Wright brothers did it without one! They built their own engine & props too! Maybe that should be the new requirement? 20% of every major component needs to be fabricated by the builder.

The only downside I see is the accident rate going through the roof--but that is not necessarily a bad thing--right Mike?

 

[Mike Schallmann]

What a load of crap--there is no "Gyro Movement". Gyros are not mainstream aviation --in reality they are accecpted by few in the aviation comunity. The bottom line is that they are slow draggy machines that are flown for FUN. Until one recieves type certification they cant legally be used to earn a dime in the US. I am talking about EXPERIMENTAL AMATEUR BUILT --not PROFESSIONALLY BUILT AIRCRAFT. Groen Bros has tried to market the Hawk to the aviation community --to my knowledge they have not sold one single unit of their gyrocopters. Their market was aimed at Government agencies --which can use uncertified aircraft--( funny isnt it how the government can fly anything --but the general population have to fly certificated aircraft. )

If the pros or anybody else wants to spend a boatload of money on developing new techniques and materials they let them go at it--Im for free enterprise --but they need to play by the rules--and the rules I am talking about are the Experimental AMATEUR Built ones--

Selfish an self indulgent -- well possibly -- but IMHO if you dont have the time inclination or skills to build an AMATEUR built aircraft you shouldnt be involved in AMATEUR BUILT AIRCRAFT --there are many other area of aviation that you can spend your money and achieve your flying goals--

Marv -Whether you use CAD or the old fashion Drafting table --unless you actually fabricate and build an item you are a designer or engineer -period!! DaVinci designed a lot of things --he built several also --but for the most part he was a talented artist (in every sense of the word) most of the stuff that he actually built was in all probability done under his supervision though--
In todays world you can use a computer and CNC equipment to fully design and fabricate all of the parts for a gyro --hell then you can design a robotic plant to assemble the finished gyro -- but I wouldnt call it amateur built --if you would you must have more money than Bill Gates!

Lets get back to the main topic---I really dont care what technology or materials that you use to build an AMATEUR Aircraft --it really isnt that hard to FABRICATE 20% of it and build 51% of it--thats what EAB is ALL about--

ON EDIT: Taking a thought from the FW guys --maybe this change will INCREASE the use of builder assit programs as it will allow the builder to fabricate the 20% under the direct supervision of factory or professional people. This will meet the intent and letter of the rule --while insuring that safety issues are not compromised. It may raise the cost a bit but hey when your spending 70-80K for a gyro whats a couple of thou extra---

 

[gyrogreg]

You may find the old 1971 article Jukka Tervamaki sent to me recently. These articles, importatn to other subjects, do address some issues with the criticallity of "fabrication" of gyroplane components.

Go to 1971 Article - gyro stability and safety

thanks, Greg Gremminger

 

[barnstorm2]

Bump / Update / Important

Bump / Update / Important

Bump / Update / Important

Because of a paperwork messup by the FAA we have been given an extention of the comment peroid on this!!!

Please if you have not yet commented Please Do So Now.

If you have writers cramp just cut and past some of Greg Gremmingers comments in.


Comments MUST be in by Dec 15th

.

 

[barnstorm2]

We DO make a difference

We DO make a difference

Wooo Hooo!!

It is NOT official YET, but things sound good!!!

Thank you Greg and the PRA for gathering the troops to comment on this!

The EAA just put this on the news feed:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodbye, 20/20/11

As was announced during AirVenture 2009, the ARC’s final report calls for doing away with the so-called “20/20/11” formula that had many aircraft builders up in arms when first proposed by the FAA in 2008. It would have required amateur builders to prove that at least 20 percent of the amateur-built project involved “fabrication,” that another 20 percent involved “assembly,” and that the remaining 11 percent (up to a total of 51 percent) involved any combination of fabrication and assembly.

EAA and a groundswell of member and amateur-builder support rallied to defend the “homebuilt” movement. They argued that the 20/20/11 formula would be unnecessarily complicated and would do little to curb abuses of the 51 Percent Rule.