Murphy 1800 Amphib's user info required

[N.Smith]

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

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

From PFA engineering, England.

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:

[Wayne G. O'Shea]

Garry Wright should be able to dig some good numbers out for you Nig (sorry
to volunteer you Garry!) as FOKM has been on amphibs for many years. I'll
get Howard's number for you and the fact that even though his floats are
crumpled toast and his fuselage suffered some pretty good damage....
surprisingly the small steamline vertical material/or associated mounting
fittings that MAM uses did not suffer any damage what so ever and as matter
of fact it will be used in it's entiretly for his new float installation in
the spring. The only thing I am replacing is the x wires to be 100% sure.

Wayne

----- 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

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

--

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

From PFA engineering, England.

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

[Rebflyer]

Hi Nigel,
My aircraft is N97MR a Rebel. 0-320 powered.
It has been on the floats since August of 2001
Max operating weight is 1890 lbs.
I now have over 200 hrs on the aircraft on floats with no signs of stress
or deformation in any of the attaching areas or in the attach points.
I believe that I well exceed the normal average of number of water
landings per hour as a normal 1 hr flight consists of 9 water landings and 1
asphalt. I have landed and taken off in winds exceeding 20kts, frequently near gross
weight.
It has been used and has performed beyond my expectations in a wide
variety of conditions with no signs of structural weakness.

Cheerfully submitted,
Curtis Martin
2245 Wiggen Ln
White Lake, Michigan,
48386 USA






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

[Rebflyer]

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

[wrightdg]

Nigel,

If your powers that be are most concerned about the struts, attach
points and x-wires, I'm your guy. I did a little destructive testing on
FOKM's floats this summer with a bad glassy water landing. Both aircraft
and floats suffered damage but none to the attach rigging except for a
bit of stretch to the front x-wire caused by slight flattening of the
thimble under significant stress.

The aircraft landed hard on the right float, pitched forward and the
left float tip dug in. The aircraft snapped 90 degrees left and skidded
to a halt upright within a few meters. All this from 70 mph. The floor
pan forward of the front attach points buckled, as did 3 of the corner
wraps and one side panel(right).

This set of floats was originally a pair of Murphy 1500's but Wayne
stretched them to 1800's. There is little to distinguish them from
standard 1800's except Wayne made the extension section with a lid for
storage. They were first put on FOKM when the plane was equipped with an
O-200 and stretched in 2001 with the change to an O-320.

1500's were originally installed in July 96 at 190 hours on the
airframe. It was land based and while on 1500's did only 135.8 hours
flying time, not much on the water. The 1800's were re-installed at
349.7 hours. Accident occurred at 405.8 hours so there are 56.1 hours
of flying on these extended floats. The amount of water work actually
experienced by the aircraft is relatively small.

If you need more clarification just give me a whistle. Cheers



On Fri, 2005-25-11 at 14:11 -0500, Wayne G. O'Shea wrote:

Garry Wright should be able to dig some good numbers out for you Nig (sorry
to volunteer you Garry!) as FOKM has been on amphibs for many years. I'll
get Howard's number for you and the fact that even though his floats are
crumpled toast and his fuselage suffered some pretty good damage....
surprisingly the small steamline vertical material/or associated mounting
fittings that MAM uses did not suffer any damage what so ever and as matter
of fact it will be used in it's entiretly for his new float installation in
the spring. The only thing I am replacing is the x wires to be 100% sure.

Wayne

----- 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

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

--

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

From PFA engineering, England.

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

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

[ray.mason]

"It seems a shame to limit the aircraft to 1650 lb."

Second on that, and is that from an enginner?



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

[N.Smith]

Yes Ray

Deputy Chief Engineer of the UK PFA

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com [mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com]On Behalf Of
ray.mason@dcsol.com
Sent: 26 November 2005 04:55
To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Subject: RE: Murphy 1800 Amphib's user info required


"It seems a shame to limit the aircraft to 1650 lb."

Second on that, and is that from an enginner?



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

[Alan Hepburn]

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

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

--

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

From PFA engineering, England.

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

[Bruce Georgen]

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

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

--

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

From PFA engineering, England.

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

[Mike Davis]

Don't know about your examiner's Bruce, but in the US when applying for your
special airworthiness certificate, you can put any gross weight on the
aircraft you want. You are the manufacturer, not Murphy Aircraft. There is
nothing in the FAA regulations that indicate that you must supply the gross
weight numbers that the kit designer came up with.

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Georgen" <bgeorgen@peoplepc.com>
To: <rebel-builders@dcsol.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 10:21 PM
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

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

--

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

From PFA engineering, England.

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

[Alan Hepburn]

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

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

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

From PFA engineering, England.

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

[Alan Hepburn]

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

Don't know about your examiner's Bruce, but in the US when applying for

your

special airworthiness certificate, you can put any gross weight on the
aircraft you want. You are the manufacturer, not Murphy Aircraft. There

is

nothing in the FAA regulations that indicate that you must supply the

gross

weight numbers that the kit designer came up with.

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Georgen" <bgeorgen@peoplepc.com>
To: <rebel-builders@dcsol.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 10:21 PM
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------

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

[Walter Klatt]

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

Don't know about your examiner's Bruce, but in the

US when applying for
your

special airworthiness certificate, you can put any

gross weight on the

aircraft you want. You are the manufacturer, not

Murphy Aircraft. There
is

nothing in the FAA regulations that indicate that

you must supply the
gross

weight numbers that the kit designer came up with.

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Georgen" <bgeorgen@peoplepc.com>
To: <rebel-builders@dcsol.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 10:21 PM
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

who control
experimental

permission from them to fit

finished, and to satisfy

them

relevant bits at the

bottom).

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

design

on identical floats
used

on

higher, and with the

same

also need an
in-service

validated in some way.
One

way

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

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

________________________________________
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

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





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

[Alan Hepburn]

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

Don't know about your examiner's Bruce, but in the

US when applying for
your

special airworthiness certificate, you can put any

gross weight on the

aircraft you want. You are the manufacturer, not

Murphy Aircraft. There
is

nothing in the FAA regulations that indicate that

you must supply the
gross

weight numbers that the kit designer came up with.

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Georgen" <bgeorgen@peoplepc.com>
To: <rebel-builders@dcsol.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 10:21 PM
Subject: Re: Murphy 1800 Amphib's user info required

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

[Bruce Georgen]

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

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

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

From PFA engineering, England.

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