Murphy 1800 Amphib's user info required

Walter Klatt · Post by **Walter Klatt** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:23 pm

Well, since your Elite on the 2200's weighs close to 250 more
empty than my Rebel, my 1900 load would be more like yours at
2150. Like I said, weight makes a big difference on mine. I
really notice a passenger or when I have full fuel. So I can see
why you need that 0360. There is a formula for translating excess
hp into climb rate, but forgot what it is. But you should
actually be able to calculate how many extra pounds can be
carried with 20 or 30 more hp.

All I can say about mine is, I want more hp... But not more
weight.

Walter

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com
[mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com]On Behalf Of
Alan Hepburn
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 4:34 PM
To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Subject: Re: Murphy 1800 Amphib's user info required

Walter:

I was meaning that at 2,200 the 1800s might get a
little bogged down. I'd
imagine they might be kind of sluggish getting onto
the step. But of
course, your Rebel will probably carry as much load at
1900 as my Elite will
at maybe 2050. I seem to take about 12 seconds solo,
and about 35 seconds
at the 2,200 gross, all on pretty hot days. It was
like that this ummer in
Ontario.

On the drop testing at 2200 lbs for the Montanas,
Transport simply said that
they had not approved a Murphy on Montanas before, and
had no "installation
information" on them. I guess if they'd checked with
their YVR office,
they'd have found that the prototype Elite floatplane
used them. Anyway, I
was able to pass them an Email from Montana quoting
this drop test, and that
seemed to satisfy them. Whether they'd have been
satisfied with less, who
knows?

Al
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Klatt" <Walter.Klatt@shaw.ca>
To: <rebel-builders@dcsol.com>
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 9:58 AM
Subject: RE: Murphy 1800 Amphib's user info required

Al, not sure what the toll is with lighter buoyancy.
Is it harder
to get on the step or longer take-off runs? My Rebel is also
registered at 1900 pounds, and can tell you that is
not a heavy
load for it. The only times when my Rebel has struggled on
take-off is at higher altitudes with a good load. At near sea
level I have yet to find any sort of limit. Weight
certainly does
make a difference. I can take off solo in 10 seconds
or less, but
that increases to over 20 seconds with a heavy load.
Of course
glassy water lengthens a run, too. But 30 seconds
would be a long
run for me (excluding high altitude lakes). Climb
rate goes from
1100 fpm solo to 600 fpm with a heavy load (again at near sea
level).

The only time I don't like heavy loads is when I
have to land in
rough water, and for that matter, light loads are not good
either. Not sure if more buoyancy would help with
that. I think
that's where longer floats help.

As for the gear, it is stronger than it looks. So
far no problems
with mine. Don't think I would want to drop it from
too far, but
I just try to keep my landings gentle, which is
pretty easy with
a little power.

Walter

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com
[mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com]On Behalf Of
Alan Hepburn
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 5:26 AM
To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Subject: Re: Murphy 1800 Amphib's user info required

In Canada, there is a formula for determining the max
gross, which has wing
area, flap area, power etc. as inputs. Of course,
there is also the issue
of g loading, but on floats I do not believe this is a
concern, as the
airplane flies so much slower. Let's say it's 25%
slower. That makes the
peak gust loading 50% less, so the stress on a
floatplane when hitting a
gust will actually be less than for the same landplane
at factory gross.

Transport Canada also wanted to know that the gear
could take it.
Fortunately, the Montana floats have been drop tested
at 2,200 lbs. I don't
know if an equivalent number exists for the Murphy
1800s, so that might be a
problem. Anyway, I think the lack of buoyancy would
really start to take a
toll with the smaller displacement.

Al
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Davis" <mike.davis@dcsol.com>
To: <rebel-builders@dcsol.com>
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 2:44 AM
Subject: Re: Murphy 1800 Amphib's user info required

US when applying for
your gross weight on the Murphy Aircraft. There
is you must supply the
gross Rebel on 1800 amphibs This gives me a legal
load "factory" rated gross Although the Elite and Rebel my Rebel that heavy, lbs. has to hurt weight the factory lot of documentation to inspected my 2 kits would might like to consider the lbs, and have been
drop 2,200 lbs gross. I was with Transport Canada, what goes on in the my airplane came out
at Canadian rules (which
require claimed number of than just round the about 25 lbs left to
paint lbs less than the they're apparently who control
experimental permission from them to fit finished, and to satisfy relevant bits at the experience of operating 1800 direct with the following
and experience to
hopefully required guy's :-) ) both floats and float have any contact
details -------------------------------------------------------
------------------
- attempt to clear them of identical floats in unusual or undesirable on identical floats
used higher, and with the also need an
in-service validated in some way.
One service on aircraft types operation flown on
high-time mailshot to ask them the
hours negotiate on this
point exceed 2500 hours. excess of 300 hours of analysis or load testing
data such as FAR 23. Murphy Aircraft, but if
you analysis for the Elite is gross weight value? It -------------------------------------------------------
---------- -------------------------------------------------------
----------
-------------------------------------------------------
---------- -------------------------------------------------------
---------- -------------------------------------------------------
---------- -------------------------------------------------------
----------
-------------------------------------------------------
---------- -------------------------------------------------------
----------

-------------------------------------------------------
----------
List archives located at: https://www.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Subscription services located at:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.htm
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-------------------------------------------------------
----------

-------------------------------------------------------
----------
List archives located at: https://www.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Subscription services located at:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.htm
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com

-------------------------------------------------------
----------

-------------------------------------------------------
----------
List archives located at: https://www.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Subscription services located at:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.htm
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-------------------------------------------------------
----------

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Mike Davis · Post by **Mike Davis** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:23 pm

When I went through this last time there wasn't a single FAA employee at the
Fairbanks FSDO that had ever been through the registration process for an
experimental aircraft. I spent as much time educating them as I did
preparing the required paperwork! The first examiner they gave me called me
a day after I contacted him to tell me that I couldn't register my MX
because it wasn't on the 51% list... wrong! He was educated, and my MX was
registered.

I guess what I'm saying is... just because the FAA guys says it's so,
doesn't make it so. It's up to you though to find the documentation to make
your case... because he's not going to admit he's wrong until you show it to
him in writing.

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Georgen" <bgeorgen@peoplepc.com>
To: <rebel-builders@dcsol.com>
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: Murphy 1800 Amphib's user info required

Hi Mike,

I wasn't aware of that, about the gross weight in the US, but I know the
FAA inspector (not a designated examiner) would of had a problem with me
changing the factory numbers. Maybe it was just him but he's the guy you
have to sell.

Bruce

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Hepburn <ahepburn@renc.igs.net>
Sent: Nov 28, 2005 8:18 AM
To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Subject: Re: Murphy 1800 Amphib's user info required

The factory gross for the Elite is 1890# (1800 plus 5% for floats, per
Email
from the factory). Of course, at 2,200 the performance is down. I have
only done one water takeoff at that weight, and we were off in about 35
seconds in a moderate wind on a 28C day, so it's still quite usable. An
remember, that was with two up, 59 gallons of fuel, and 30 lbs of baggage,
so a very useful load. The climb test at this weight still showed 500
fpm,
also at 28C.

Al
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Georgen" <bgeorgen@peoplepc.com>
To: <rebel-builders@dcsol.com>
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 2:21 AM
Subject: Re: Murphy 1800 Amphib's user info required

Al,

Those numbers give you a 770 lbs. useful load. My Rebel on 1800 amphibs
with a 0320 came in less than 1200 lbs. empty. This gives me a legal load
of
around 550 lbs. Does the Elite have the same "factory" rated gross weight
of
1733 lbs as the Rebel on amphibs? Although the Elite and Rebel may be good
for 2200 lbs. gross ( I've never flown my Rebel that heavy, but I
understand
some have) that extra 230 plus lbs. has to hurt performance, even with the
extra 20/30 HP of an 0360.
In the US, we are not allowed to change the gross weight the factory
imposes on the airplane, at least not without a lot of documentation to
support it. I know the two FAA examiners that inspected my 2 kits would
not
have issued me a flight certificate otherwise.
Bruce

---Original Message-----
From: Alan Hepburn <ahepburn@renc.igs.net>
Sent: Nov 26, 2005 11:37 PM
To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Subject: Re: Murphy 1800 Amphib's user info required

Nigel:

If you haven't bought the floats already, you might like to consider the
Montana 2200s, which have a displacement of 2,200 lbs, and have been drop
tested as part of a certification program at the 2,200 lbs gross. I was
able to get my gross on the Elite up to 2,200 lbs with Transport Canada,
theough you Brits probably don't think much of what goes on in the
colonies!
If you can't get an increased gross, forget it, as my airplane came out
at
1,430 lbs empty and unpainted. According to Canadian rules (which
require
you to compute a minimum takeoff weight based on claimed number of
passengers, plus enough fuel to get you further than just round the
circuit,
with a factory gross of 1,890 lbs, that left me about 25 lbs left to
paint
the thing! Even with 1800s, which weigh about 100 lbs less than the
Montanas, the legal margins must be very slim, and they're apparently
marginal on buoyancy for the Elite.

Al

----- Original Message -----
From: "N.Smith" <admin@airnig.co.uk>
To: <rebel-builders@dcsol.com>
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 11:53 AM
Subject: Murphy 1800 Amphib's user info required

Hi All

I've just had a letter this morning from the PFA who control
experimental
type aircraft in the UK. I've applied for permission from them to fit
MAM1800 amphib's to my Elite when it's finally finished, and to satisfy
them
they are asking for more data (I've copied the relevant bits at the
bottom).
It would be a great help if anyone with experience of operating 1800
amphib's on a Rebel or Elite could email me direct with the following
and
I'll be about to put together the required field experience to
hopefully
satisfy the powers that be.

Registration
Type (Rebel or Elite)
Max operating weight (no more than 1890 lbs required guy's :-) )
Hours aircraft has operated on floats
Years (or months) since fitting amphib's
A statement of No Structural problems to date for both floats and float
strut's (if applicable)

Many thanks for your help, and if you can let me have any contact
details
for anyone not on the group I'll contact them direct.

Nigel
745E
Merry Olde England ;-)

admin@airnig.co.uk

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
------------------------
Regarding the floats, then one option would be to attempt to clear them
based on satisfactory in-
service experience abroad, if there are a number of identical floats in
service. To do this, we will need
to obtain a set of drawings to review for any unusual or undesirable
design
features. Then, we will
need a summary of in-service experience built up on identical floats
used
on
aircraft of the same
weight or higher, with the same landing speeds or higher, and with the
same
wing loading or higher.
To clear the float struts by this method, we will also need an
in-service
experience breakdown for the
high-weight Rebel on these floats.

Clearly the in-service experience needs to be validated in some way.
One
way
of doing this would be
to ask the manufacturer to give:

. A summary of the number of float sets in service on aircraft types
stipulated above.

. A summary of the hours flown and types of operation flown on
high-time
examples known to the
designer, while operating on these floats.

. A list of other customers who you could mailshot to ask them the
hours
flown on their examples
while on floats.

The target values to aim for are:

. A fleet size of 25 aircraft (we are prepared to negotiate on this
point
depending on the hours built
up on the fleet).

. Total fleet hours while on these floats to exceed 2500 hours.

. With at least one example having achieved in excess of 300 hours of
operation.

. No accidents attributable to design defects.

The alternative would be to ask for stress analysis or load testing
data
with loads derived from a suitable design code such as FAR 23.

I am not sure whether you are in contact with Murphy Aircraft, but if
you
are, perhaps you could ask them if a stress analysis for the Elite is
available so that we can work towards the higher gross weight value? It
seems a shame to limit the aircraft to 1650 lb.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://www.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Subscription services located at:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.htm
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://www.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Subscription services located at:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.htm
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

________________________________________
PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://www.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Subscription services located at:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.htm
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://www.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Subscription services located at:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.htm
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

________________________________________
PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://www.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Subscription services located at:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.htm
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:33 pm

Curt (or anyone)
Below is an old post.
Anybody know of a source for these thimble inserts to prevent the
thimbles from collapsing. Several guys have mentioned that this is a
problem. I thought I would machine up round 'C' shaped inserts but the
opening is too small for what I want. A triangle insert would work but
is a lot more manufacturing effort so if anybody knows of a source or
has a description it would be appreciated...
thanks
Ken

Rebflyer@aol.com wrote:

HI Nigel,
I thought I'd post this separately.
First off I want to reinforce the number of landings. That is no
exaggeration. I do have Wayne's recommended firewall braces. I also have Angus' STOL
kit with the Fife tips. I guess the only stretch is the weight. I'm 1104 empty
so that's 1404 full of fuel. I'm 210lbs. So are most of my friends. + or -
30 lbs. Then the baggage I've never weighed. It still performs wonderfully!
All attach points are the same as the day I installed them. The one thing I'd
do differently is I found an insert that goes inside the thimble to prevent
any elongation. I did have to tighten the cables a couple of times in the
beginning, but I made no adjustments to them this year. Good luck, and floats are
a blast!!!
Curt
N97MR

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------