The Murphy Builders Site

Roland,

To ever operate as an LSA, the airplane's GW must always be 1320 lbs. or
less. You cannot start with say, a 1650 lbs. GW, and later change it to 1320
lbs. when you put in a light engine. So... unless you're willing and able to
operate with an O-320 under 1320 lbs. GW (not likely) you don't want to
start with a O-320 engine, because the GW cannot be reduced to qualify as an
LSA at a later time.

To reiterate, if you ever want to fly it as an LSA, you must start with the
GW in the intial weight and balance documentation at 1320 lbs. or less, and
keep it there. Weight-wise, backtracking is not allowed for an LSA.

Ron
254R



On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Roland Kriening <kriening@rogers.com>wrote:

Hi Bob,

I have read Darryl's message about moving the firewall depending on engine.
As you know I am a few months away from installing my firewall and would
love the option of a 320 now which could be changed out to a Rotax later to
meet the sport pilot category if needed. I am hopeful that the Canadian
rules will change a bit to allow for an easy transition from homebuilt to
sport pilot should we adopt that.

...




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

Thanks Ron, I seem to remember that now. Thanks for reminding me. So to
Bob's point about deciding about the engine at a later time, I would think
one would need to decide before the firewall installation. Are there many
builders who run a 320 with the firewall position unchanged?

Roland
R56

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com [mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Shannon
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 4:15 PM
To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Subject: Re: [rebel-builders] 320 or Rotax and Position of firewall

Roland,

To ever operate as an LSA, the airplane's GW must always be 1320 lbs. or
less. You cannot start with say, a 1650 lbs. GW, and later change it to 1320
lbs. when you put in a light engine. So... unless you're willing and able to
operate with an O-320 under 1320 lbs. GW (not likely) you don't want to
start with a O-320 engine, because the GW cannot be reduced to qualify as an
LSA at a later time.

To reiterate, if you ever want to fly it as an LSA, you must start with the
GW in the intial weight and balance documentation at 1320 lbs. or less, and
keep it there. Weight-wise, backtracking is not allowed for an LSA.

Ron
254R



On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Roland Kriening
<kriening@rogers.com>wrote:

Hi Bob,

I have read Darryl's message about moving the firewall depending on

engine.

As you know I am a few months away from installing my firewall and would
love the option of a 320 now which could be changed out to a Rotax later

to

meet the sport pilot category if needed. I am hopeful that the Canadian
rules will change a bit to allow for an easy transition from homebuilt to
sport pilot should we adopt that.

...




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







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

There has been a lot of discussion about the pro's and con's of cutting the
FW back 3" for an O-320 (+) size engine installation. In addition to
considering Darryl's memo, you should review the message archives by
searching for "O-320" or "320", etc. Opinions are all over the lot, and I
can't add to the discussions that are already there.

However, this is a good time to suggest/remind again that if you have not
yet mounted the FW to the fuselage, IMHO you should mount the FW with its
flanges to the rear, not facing forward. There are at least two significant
advantages. First, you gain an extra 1/2" or so of space behind the panel,
which is priceless. Without it, the antenna connectors on the rear of a
standard depth Garmin stack will be almost literally jammed against the rear
of the FW, causing a lot of skinned knuckles and bad words when attempting
to attach antenna connectors, etc. Second, the downward flow of cooling air
exiting out the bottom rear of the cowl isn't disturbed by the FW flange lip
-- making for smoother airflow and better cooling. I don't recall any
significant disadvantages.

Ron
254R


On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Roland Kriening <kriening@rogers.com>wrote:

Thanks Ron, I seem to remember that now. Thanks for reminding me. So to
Bob's point about deciding about the engine at a later time, I would think
one would need to decide before the firewall installation. Are there many
builders who run a 320 with the firewall position unchanged?

Roland
R56

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

Hi Roland !

Ron is correct WRT the AMERICAN LSA rules - does NOT apply to Canada !

Here, a builder can modify his Amateur-Built aircraft and re-register
at any suitable gross weight, up OR down, as long as that weight satisfies
the Transport Canada calculations - which are pretty bizarre on their own,
but easy to meet !
(something about wing area / horsepower x your hat size ... ;-) )

In fact, you do not even need to change the registered gross weight -
if you are flying a Rebel at less than 1,200 lb. take off weight, in Canada,
you can legally fly it with an Ultralight Licence, even though the registered
gross weight is still 1,650 lb. This is easy to do if you have a Rotax 912,
less than full fuel, and are solo.

It really puzzles me how the FAA can stop someone from reducing their
gross weight on an EXPERIMENTAL, if it has been substantially modified !
Sounds like it could be a safety issue --- but - it's not our problem ....

ALL of the US Rebels have been built as EXPERIMENTAL - those
registered at 1,320 lb. gross ALSO meet Sport Pilot requirements.

As far as the firewall - Ron mentions one big disadvantage - if it is
3" back, there's less room for radios, unless you modify the panel too.

Many builders do not move the firewall because it permanently limits
your engine choices. Mine, and Wayne's, and many others, are in
the original position, and we fly happily with O-320's. It can be argued
that we might cruise a bit faster with it moved ..... but our C of G's
are in the same position as others who have moved the firewall -
thanks to rear battery positions. If you have the same C of G, you
should have similar handling....

If you put the firewall in reversed, as Ron suggests, it would be
good to trim the fuselage sides back about 1/2" or so - because
reversing the firewall effectively moves it forward about 1/2" + .
This would move the engine forward that much... which might
not be desirable with an older, heavier engine & prop.

--
......bobp
bobp@prosumers.ca
http://www.amway.ca/BobPatterson
http://bpatterson.qhealthbeauty.com
http://apatterson2.ordermygift.com

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender
and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other entities or persons.
Any action taken as a result of the contents of this email is totally the
responsibility of the reader.

On March 27, 2010 04:45:26 pm Roland Kriening wrote:

Thanks Ron, I seem to remember that now. Thanks for reminding me. So to
Bob's point about deciding about the engine at a later time, I would think
one would need to decide before the firewall installation. Are there many
builders who run a 320 with the firewall position unchanged?

Roland
R56

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com [mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Shannon
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 4:15 PM
To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Subject: Re: [rebel-builders] 320 or Rotax and Position of firewall

Roland,

To ever operate as an LSA, the airplane's GW must always be 1320 lbs. or
less. You cannot start with say, a 1650 lbs. GW, and later change it to
1320 lbs. when you put in a light engine. So... unless you're willing and
able to operate with an O-320 under 1320 lbs. GW (not likely) you don't
want to start with a O-320 engine, because the GW cannot be reduced to
qualify as an LSA at a later time.

To reiterate, if you ever want to fly it as an LSA, you must start with the
GW in the intial weight and balance documentation at 1320 lbs. or less, and
keep it there. Weight-wise, backtracking is not allowed for an LSA.

Ron
254R



On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Roland Kriening

<kriening@rogers.com>wrote:

Hi Bob,

I have read Darryl's message about moving the firewall depending on

engine.

As you know I am a few months away from installing my firewall and would
love the option of a 320 now which could be changed out to a Rotax later

to

meet the sport pilot category if needed. I am hopeful that the Canadian
rules will change a bit to allow for an easy transition from homebuilt to
sport pilot should we adopt that.

...

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

Turning the firewall around also makes cowling attachment a PITA. I'd rather
make a profiled lower lip cover if you find that the temps are a bit high,
than to have cowling attachments/anchor nuts and such on the inside of the
cabin..versus simple and easy on the firewall lip. With the lip not there it
also means you'll have to add tabs if you want any strength for the cowl
structure if going nose bowl and doors. With the firewall lip there... you
put the flat sheet on the outside and the angle on the inside and pull the
two together with the fwall lip sandwiched between them. You can't do that
with the firewall reversed.

Wayne



----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Patterson" <bobp@prosumers.ca>
To: <rebel-builders@dcsol.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: [rebel-builders] 320 or Rotax and Position of firewall

Hi Roland !

Ron is correct WRT the AMERICAN LSA rules - does NOT apply to Canada !

Here, a builder can modify his Amateur-Built aircraft and re-register
at any suitable gross weight, up OR down, as long as that weight satisfies
the Transport Canada calculations - which are pretty bizarre on their own,
but easy to meet !
(something about wing area / horsepower x your hat size ... ;-) )

In fact, you do not even need to change the registered gross weight -
if you are flying a Rebel at less than 1,200 lb. take off weight, in
Canada,
you can legally fly it with an Ultralight Licence, even though the
registered
gross weight is still 1,650 lb. This is easy to do if you have a Rotax
912,
less than full fuel, and are solo.

It really puzzles me how the FAA can stop someone from reducing their
gross weight on an EXPERIMENTAL, if it has been substantially modified !
Sounds like it could be a safety issue --- but - it's not our problem ....

ALL of the US Rebels have been built as EXPERIMENTAL - those
registered at 1,320 lb. gross ALSO meet Sport Pilot requirements.

As far as the firewall - Ron mentions one big disadvantage - if it is
3" back, there's less room for radios, unless you modify the panel too.

Many builders do not move the firewall because it permanently limits
your engine choices. Mine, and Wayne's, and many others, are in
the original position, and we fly happily with O-320's. It can be argued
that we might cruise a bit faster with it moved ..... but our C of G's
are in the same position as others who have moved the firewall -
thanks to rear battery positions. If you have the same C of G, you
should have similar handling....

If you put the firewall in reversed, as Ron suggests, it would be
good to trim the fuselage sides back about 1/2" or so - because
reversing the firewall effectively moves it forward about 1/2" + .
This would move the engine forward that much... which might
not be desirable with an older, heavier engine & prop.

--
......bobp
bobp@prosumers.ca
http://www.amway.ca/BobPatterson
http://bpatterson.qhealthbeauty.com
http://apatterson2.ordermygift.com

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender
and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other entities or persons.
Any action taken as a result of the contents of this email is totally the
responsibility of the reader.

On March 27, 2010 04:45:26 pm Roland Kriening wrote:

Thanks Ron, I seem to remember that now. Thanks for reminding me. So to
Bob's point about deciding about the engine at a later time, I would
think
one would need to decide before the firewall installation. Are there many
builders who run a 320 with the firewall position unchanged?

Roland
R56

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com [mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Shannon
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 4:15 PM
To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Subject: Re: [rebel-builders] 320 or Rotax and Position of firewall

Roland,

To ever operate as an LSA, the airplane's GW must always be 1320 lbs. or
less. You cannot start with say, a 1650 lbs. GW, and later change it to
1320 lbs. when you put in a light engine. So... unless you're willing and
able to operate with an O-320 under 1320 lbs. GW (not likely) you don't
want to start with a O-320 engine, because the GW cannot be reduced to
qualify as an LSA at a later time.

To reiterate, if you ever want to fly it as an LSA, you must start with
the
GW in the intial weight and balance documentation at 1320 lbs. or less,
and
keep it there. Weight-wise, backtracking is not allowed for an LSA.

Ron
254R



On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Roland Kriening

<kriening@rogers.com>wrote:

Hi Bob,

I have read Darryl's message about moving the firewall depending on

engine.

As you know I am a few months away from installing my firewall and
would
love the option of a 320 now which could be changed out to a Rotax
later

to

meet the sport pilot category if needed. I am hopeful that the Canadian
rules will change a bit to allow for an easy transition from homebuilt
to
sport pilot should we adopt that.

...

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

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

Greeting to the group.
Tomorrow I plan on drafting an email to this group to update them on the
progress of our Rebel.

But first, I want to jump in on this discussion about O-320 engines, O-235
engines, and weights.

Some time ago I was told that the original plan for the Rebel was that it
would fly behind a Lycoming O-235 engine.

However, pilots being like they are, some people put in Lycoming O-320's in
an effort to go faster, get off quicker, go higher, burn more gas... etc.

Then the issue of weight and balance comes into play. The conventional
wisdom suggests that if you use an O-320, then you should relocate the
firewall so as to keep the c of g from ending up too far forward.

I understand the concept. However, and here is where I may need some
correction, it seems from some of the info on the Type Certificates on the
Lycoming web site, the O-235 and the O-320 are within pounds of each other.
Total weight.
What is not clear is the location of the engines c of g. The data I am
looking at does not compare apples to apples.

What do you think?

Tim Hickey
R808




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

"What do I think"...

.. I think 15 years and 800+ hours of flying numerous O-320's with the
firewall in the original position shows that it works just fine. Even with
the engine out there.. and empty C of G's of even 9" aft of the leading edge
(8.7 in Bobp's case)... it's still pretty easy on floats to load a few days
worth of supplies into the bird and have the airplane unable to rotate
forward onto the step. If the firewall was moved back.. and the revised 12.
what ever" suggested empty c of g was followed you'd be really pressed to
carry anything significant back there and would need the heavy stuff at your
passengers feet. The original empty c of g range of 7.7 to 19.7 works just
fine... and LOADED c of g's in the 11 to 17" range fly great.

Wayne


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Hickey" <tjhickey@iowatelecom.net>
To: <rebel-builders@dcsol.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: [rebel-builders] 320 or Rotax and Position of firewall

Greeting to the group.
Tomorrow I plan on drafting an email to this group to update them on the
progress of our Rebel.

But first, I want to jump in on this discussion about O-320 engines, O-235
engines, and weights.

Some time ago I was told that the original plan for the Rebel was that it
would fly behind a Lycoming O-235 engine.

However, pilots being like they are, some people put in Lycoming O-320's
in
an effort to go faster, get off quicker, go higher, burn more gas... etc.

Then the issue of weight and balance comes into play. The conventional
wisdom suggests that if you use an O-320, then you should relocate the
firewall so as to keep the c of g from ending up too far forward.

I understand the concept. However, and here is where I may need some
correction, it seems from some of the info on the Type Certificates on the
Lycoming web site, the O-235 and the O-320 are within pounds of each
other.
Total weight.
What is not clear is the location of the engines c of g. The data I am
looking at does not compare apples to apples.

What do you think?

Tim Hickey
R808




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

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

Here's a simple, easy to make lip cover..

http://www.irishfield.on.ca/gallery/fir ... amline.jpg

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne G. O'Shea" <oifa@irishfield.on.ca>
To: <rebel-builders@dcsol.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: [rebel-builders] 320 or Rotax and Position of firewall

Turning the firewall around also makes cowling attachment a PITA. I'd
rather
make a profiled lower lip cover if you find that the temps are a bit high,
than to have cowling attachments/anchor nuts and such on the inside of the
cabin..versus simple and easy on the firewall lip. With the lip not there
it
also means you'll have to add tabs if you want any strength for the cowl
structure if going nose bowl and doors. With the firewall lip there...
you
put the flat sheet on the outside and the angle on the inside and pull the
two together with the fwall lip sandwiched between them. You can't do
that
with the firewall reversed.

Wayne



----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Patterson" <bobp@prosumers.ca>
To: <rebel-builders@dcsol.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: [rebel-builders] 320 or Rotax and Position of firewall

Hi Roland !

Ron is correct WRT the AMERICAN LSA rules - does NOT apply to Canada !

Here, a builder can modify his Amateur-Built aircraft and re-register
at any suitable gross weight, up OR down, as long as that weight
satisfies
the Transport Canada calculations - which are pretty bizarre on their
own,
but easy to meet !
(something about wing area / horsepower x your hat size ... ;-) )

In fact, you do not even need to change the registered gross weight -
if you are flying a Rebel at less than 1,200 lb. take off weight, in
Canada,
you can legally fly it with an Ultralight Licence, even though the
registered
gross weight is still 1,650 lb. This is easy to do if you have a Rotax
912,
less than full fuel, and are solo.

It really puzzles me how the FAA can stop someone from reducing their
gross weight on an EXPERIMENTAL, if it has been substantially modified !
Sounds like it could be a safety issue --- but - it's not our problem
....

ALL of the US Rebels have been built as EXPERIMENTAL - those
registered at 1,320 lb. gross ALSO meet Sport Pilot requirements.

As far as the firewall - Ron mentions one big disadvantage - if it is
3" back, there's less room for radios, unless you modify the panel too.

Many builders do not move the firewall because it permanently limits
your engine choices. Mine, and Wayne's, and many others, are in
the original position, and we fly happily with O-320's. It can be argued
that we might cruise a bit faster with it moved ..... but our C of G's
are in the same position as others who have moved the firewall -
thanks to rear battery positions. If you have the same C of G, you
should have similar handling....

If you put the firewall in reversed, as Ron suggests, it would be
good to trim the fuselage sides back about 1/2" or so - because
reversing the firewall effectively moves it forward about 1/2" + .
This would move the engine forward that much... which might
not be desirable with an older, heavier engine & prop.

--
......bobp
bobp@prosumers.ca
http://www.amway.ca/BobPatterson
http://bpatterson.qhealthbeauty.com
http://apatterson2.ordermygift.com

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender
and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other entities or
persons.
Any action taken as a result of the contents of this email is totally the
responsibility of the reader.

On March 27, 2010 04:45:26 pm Roland Kriening wrote:

Thanks Ron, I seem to remember that now. Thanks for reminding me. So to
Bob's point about deciding about the engine at a later time, I would
think
one would need to decide before the firewall installation. Are there
many
builders who run a 320 with the firewall position unchanged?

Roland
R56

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com [mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com] On Behalf Of
Ron
Shannon
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 4:15 PM
To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Subject: Re: [rebel-builders] 320 or Rotax and Position of firewall

Roland,

To ever operate as an LSA, the airplane's GW must always be 1320 lbs. or
less. You cannot start with say, a 1650 lbs. GW, and later change it to
1320 lbs. when you put in a light engine. So... unless you're willing
and
able to operate with an O-320 under 1320 lbs. GW (not likely) you don't
want to start with a O-320 engine, because the GW cannot be reduced to
qualify as an LSA at a later time.

To reiterate, if you ever want to fly it as an LSA, you must start with
the
GW in the intial weight and balance documentation at 1320 lbs. or less,
and
keep it there. Weight-wise, backtracking is not allowed for an LSA.

Ron
254R



On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Roland Kriening

<kriening@rogers.com>wrote: engine.
to
...

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

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

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

Thanks for the photo. I am planning on adding a similar lip cover if cooling
is an issue.

I missed the cowl-mounting tabs issue. I have a 2-piece nose bowl + 4-door
cowl, and the side beams are screwed to C/S nutplates in the FW flange. The
whole thing very strong without special tabs, but then the cowl for the
Jabiru 3300 is pretty small and lightweight too.

Ron
254R



On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Wayne G. O'Shea <oifa@irishfield.on.ca>wrote:

Here's a simple, easy to make lip cover..

http://www.irishfield.on.ca/gallery/fir ... amline.jpg

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

With my old engine and cowl, I initially had a lot of cooling problems. One
of the things I tried was rounding that bottom lip similar to Wayne's pic,
but using aluminum tape. It was easier to do, although eventually came
undone with oil contaminating the glue.

However, I did not notice any appreciable cooling improvement, so can't say
for sure that it helped. There were some other things I did that made a much
bigger difference.

Walter

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com [mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Shannon
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 9:33 PM
To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Subject: Re: [rebel-builders] 320 or Rotax and Position of firewall

Thanks for the photo. I am planning on adding a similar lip cover if cooling
is an issue.

I missed the cowl-mounting tabs issue. I have a 2-piece nose bowl + 4-door
cowl, and the side beams are screwed to C/S nutplates in the FW flange. The
whole thing very strong without special tabs, but then the cowl for the
Jabiru 3300 is pretty small and lightweight too.

Ron
254R



On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Wayne G. O'Shea
<oifa@irishfield.on.ca>wrote:

Here's a simple, easy to make lip cover..

http://www.irishfield.on.ca/gallery/fir ... amline.jpg

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






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

According to calculations it should reduce the drag on your
airplane from 4 to 6 pounds (out of 475 lbs). Every little
bit counts. But that is only 1%. It also depends on how your
cooling air exits the cowling. Probably a good idea though.

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com [mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com] On Behalf Of Walter
Klatt
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 9:28 AM
To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Subject: RE: [rebel-builders] 320 or Rotax and Position of firewall

With my old engine and cowl, I initially had a lot of cooling problems. One
of the things I tried was rounding that bottom lip similar to Wayne's pic,
but using aluminum tape. It was easier to do, although eventually came
undone with oil contaminating the glue.

However, I did not notice any appreciable cooling improvement, so can't say
for sure that it helped. There were some other things I did that made a much
bigger difference.

Walter

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com [mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Shannon
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 9:33 PM
To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Subject: Re: [rebel-builders] 320 or Rotax and Position of firewall

Thanks for the photo. I am planning on adding a similar lip cover if cooling
is an issue.

I missed the cowl-mounting tabs issue. I have a 2-piece nose bowl + 4-door
cowl, and the side beams are screwed to C/S nutplates in the FW flange. The
whole thing very strong without special tabs, but then the cowl for the
Jabiru 3300 is pretty small and lightweight too.

Ron
254R



On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Wayne G. O'Shea
<oifa@irishfield.on.ca>wrote:

Here's a simple, easy to make lip cover..

http://www.irishfield.on.ca/gallery/fir ... amline.jpg

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






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






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

Thanks Bob,

That is a relief. Now I have future options if my medical changes. Will just
have to watch how heavy I build the rest of the plane.

Roland
R56


-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com [mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com] On Behalf Of Bob
Patterson
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 7:49 PM
To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Subject: Re: [rebel-builders] 320 or Rotax and Position of firewall


Hi Roland !

Ron is correct WRT the AMERICAN LSA rules - does NOT apply to Canada !

Here, a builder can modify his Amateur-Built aircraft and re-register
at any suitable gross weight, up OR down, as long as that weight satisfies
the Transport Canada calculations - which are pretty bizarre on their own,
but easy to meet !
(something about wing area / horsepower x your hat size ... ;-) )

In fact, you do not even need to change the registered gross weight -
if you are flying a Rebel at less than 1,200 lb. take off weight, in Canada,
you can legally fly it with an Ultralight Licence, even though the
registered
gross weight is still 1,650 lb. This is easy to do if you have a Rotax 912,
less than full fuel, and are solo.

It really puzzles me how the FAA can stop someone from reducing their
gross weight on an EXPERIMENTAL, if it has been substantially modified !
Sounds like it could be a safety issue --- but - it's not our problem ....

ALL of the US Rebels have been built as EXPERIMENTAL - those
registered at 1,320 lb. gross ALSO meet Sport Pilot requirements.

As far as the firewall - Ron mentions one big disadvantage - if it is
3" back, there's less room for radios, unless you modify the panel too.

Many builders do not move the firewall because it permanently limits
your engine choices. Mine, and Wayne's, and many others, are in
the original position, and we fly happily with O-320's. It can be argued
that we might cruise a bit faster with it moved ..... but our C of G's
are in the same position as others who have moved the firewall -
thanks to rear battery positions. If you have the same C of G, you
should have similar handling....

If you put the firewall in reversed, as Ron suggests, it would be
good to trim the fuselage sides back about 1/2" or so - because
reversing the firewall effectively moves it forward about 1/2" + .
This would move the engine forward that much... which might
not be desirable with an older, heavier engine & prop.

--
......bobp
bobp@prosumers.ca
http://www.amway.ca/BobPatterson
http://bpatterson.qhealthbeauty.com
http://apatterson2.ordermygift.com

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender
and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other entities or persons.
Any action taken as a result of the contents of this email is totally the
responsibility of the reader.

On March 27, 2010 04:45:26 pm Roland Kriening wrote:

Thanks Ron, I seem to remember that now. Thanks for reminding me. So to
Bob's point about deciding about the engine at a later time, I would think
one would need to decide before the firewall installation. Are there many
builders who run a 320 with the firewall position unchanged?

Roland
R56

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com [mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Shannon
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 4:15 PM
To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Subject: Re: [rebel-builders] 320 or Rotax and Position of firewall

Roland,

To ever operate as an LSA, the airplane's GW must always be 1320 lbs. or
less. You cannot start with say, a 1650 lbs. GW, and later change it to
1320 lbs. when you put in a light engine. So... unless you're willing and
able to operate with an O-320 under 1320 lbs. GW (not likely) you don't
want to start with a O-320 engine, because the GW cannot be reduced to
qualify as an LSA at a later time.

To reiterate, if you ever want to fly it as an LSA, you must start with

the

GW in the intial weight and balance documentation at 1320 lbs. or less,

and

keep it there. Weight-wise, backtracking is not allowed for an LSA.

Ron
254R



On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Roland Kriening

<kriening@rogers.com>wrote:

Hi Bob,

I have read Darryl's message about moving the firewall depending on

engine.

As you know I am a few months away from installing my firewall and would
love the option of a 320 now which could be changed out to a Rotax later

to

meet the sport pilot category if needed. I am hopeful that the Canadian
rules will change a bit to allow for an easy transition from homebuilt

to

sport pilot should we adopt that.

...

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







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

Bob and Roland,
I am not entirely sure that flying a plane at 1200 or less when the plane
is registered at a higher weight allows the PIC to do this with a PP-UL.
Every time I have dealt with Transport Canada on the privileges of the PP-UL
the important matter has been the gross weight at which the plane is
registered, not the weight at which it is being flown.

This became very apparent lately when a pilot had a Zenith 701 that had a
gross weight of 1201 pounds on floats. The pilot held a PP-UL and it looked
as if he was going to be the subject of an enforcement action. Fortunately
the plane was on wheels the whole time he had been flying it and the gross
in his logbook for wheels was 960. When this was pointed out the inspector
backed off but if he had wished to charge the fellow it looks as if he would
have been successful.

The test is always to go to a Tribunal, but the downside is that if the
pilot loses it stays on his record forever and also it becomes a public
matter. I can check with Ottawa to get a ruling but in the meantime do not
make your decisions about firewall position based on whether you might later
be able to downgrade your license to a PP-UL.

Gary Wolf
RAA Canada


----- Original Message -----
From: "Roland Kriening" <kriening@rogers.com>
To: <rebel-builders@dcsol.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 12:57 PM
Subject: RE: [rebel-builders] 320 or Rotax and Position of firewall

Thanks Bob,

That is a relief. Now I have future options if my medical changes. Will
just
have to watch how heavy I build the rest of the plane.

Roland
R56

Here, a builder can modify his Amateur-Built aircraft and re-register
at any suitable gross weight, up OR down, as long as that weight satisfies
the Transport Canada calculations - which are pretty bizarre on their own,
but easy to meet !
(something about wing area / horsepower x your hat size ... ;-) )

In fact, you do not even need to change the registered gross weight -
if you are flying a Rebel at less than 1,200 lb. take off weight, in
Canada,
you can legally fly it with an Ultralight Licence, even though the
registered
gross weight is still 1,650 lb. This is easy to do if you have a Rotax
912,
less than full fuel, and are solo.

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

Interesting, Gary !

It still isn't a biggie - after changing the engine and other mods,
the Rebel could be re-registered at 1200 lb. .... not that the PP-UL
gives any really great advantage in Canada, unlike the Sport Pilot freedom
from medicals. :-( Actually, a Recreational Licence would be more
useful, I would think....

--
......bobp
bobp@prosumers.ca
http://www.amway.ca/BobPatterson
http://bpatterson.qhealthbeauty.com
http://apatterson2.ordermygift.com

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender
and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other entities or persons.
Any action taken as a result of the contents of this email is totally the
responsibility of the reader.

On March 28, 2010 06:30:58 pm Gary Wolf wrote:

Bob and Roland,
I am not entirely sure that flying a plane at 1200 or less when the
plane is registered at a higher weight allows the PIC to do this with a
PP-UL. Every time I have dealt with Transport Canada on the privileges of
the PP-UL the important matter has been the gross weight at which the
plane is registered, not the weight at which it is being flown.

This became very apparent lately when a pilot had a Zenith 701 that had
a gross weight of 1201 pounds on floats. The pilot held a PP-UL and it
looked as if he was going to be the subject of an enforcement action.
Fortunately the plane was on wheels the whole time he had been flying it
and the gross in his logbook for wheels was 960. When this was pointed out
the inspector backed off but if he had wished to charge the fellow it
looks as if he would have been successful.

The test is always to go to a Tribunal, but the downside is that if the
pilot loses it stays on his record forever and also it becomes a public
matter. I can check with Ottawa to get a ruling but in the meantime do not
make your decisions about firewall position based on whether you might
later be able to downgrade your license to a PP-UL.

Gary Wolf
RAA Canada


----- Original Message -----
From: "Roland Kriening" <kriening@rogers.com>
To: <rebel-builders@dcsol.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 12:57 PM
Subject: RE: [rebel-builders] 320 or Rotax and Position of firewall

Thanks Bob,

That is a relief. Now I have future options if my medical changes. Will
just
have to watch how heavy I build the rest of the plane.

Roland
R56

Here, a builder can modify his Amateur-Built aircraft and re-register

at any suitable gross weight, up OR down, as long as that weight
satisfies the Transport Canada calculations - which are pretty bizarre
on their own, but easy to meet !
(something about wing area / horsepower x your hat size ... ;-) )

In fact, you do not even need to change the registered gross weight -

if you are flying a Rebel at less than 1,200 lb. take off weight, in
Canada,
you can legally fly it with an Ultralight Licence, even though the
registered
gross weight is still 1,650 lb. This is easy to do if you have a Rotax
912,
less than full fuel, and are solo.

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

FWI Gary,

You can have infractions removed from your licence after two (2) years; as
long as you have not had any other infractions during this time period.

Cheers,
Jeff


On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Gary Wolf <garywolf@rogers.com> wrote:

Bob and Roland,
I am not entirely sure that flying a plane at 1200 or less when the plane
is registered at a higher weight allows the PIC to do this with a PP-UL.
Every time I have dealt with Transport Canada on the privileges of the
PP-UL
the important matter has been the gross weight at which the plane is
registered, not the weight at which it is being flown.

This became very apparent lately when a pilot had a Zenith 701 that had a
gross weight of 1201 pounds on floats. The pilot held a PP-UL and it looked
as if he was going to be the subject of an enforcement action. Fortunately
the plane was on wheels the whole time he had been flying it and the gross
in his logbook for wheels was 960. When this was pointed out the inspector
backed off but if he had wished to charge the fellow it looks as if he
would
have been successful.

The test is always to go to a Tribunal, but the downside is that if the
pilot loses it stays on his record forever and also it becomes a public
matter. I can check with Ottawa to get a ruling but in the meantime do not
make your decisions about firewall position based on whether you might
later
be able to downgrade your license to a PP-UL.

Gary Wolf
RAA Canada


----- Original Message -----
From: "Roland Kriening" <kriening@rogers.com>
To: <rebel-builders@dcsol.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 12:57 PM
Subject: RE: [rebel-builders] 320 or Rotax and Position of firewall

Thanks Bob,

That is a relief. Now I have future options if my medical changes. Will
just
have to watch how heavy I build the rest of the plane.

Roland
R56

Here, a builder can modify his Amateur-Built aircraft and re-register
at any suitable gross weight, up OR down, as long as that weight

satisfies

the Transport Canada calculations - which are pretty bizarre on their

own,

but easy to meet !
(something about wing area / horsepower x your hat size ... ;-) )

In fact, you do not even need to change the registered gross weight -
if you are flying a Rebel at less than 1,200 lb. take off weight, in
Canada,
you can legally fly it with an Ultralight Licence, even though the
registered
gross weight is still 1,650 lb. This is easy to do if you have a Rotax
912,
less than full fuel, and are solo.

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

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