Light Aircraft Association

Ian Melville wrote:BTW I assume you mean ' not " I have bigger ones for my models

Sorry Ian, I'm "not" with you here - where do you think I mean not

You had typed " as in inches when I think you meant ' as in feet

Not odd quote marks as you thoutht I was rabbiting on about

We're into "Spinal Tap" territory here...

aahh! (and to think I typed ft at first...)

My plans came this morning. What a great build book and very clear plans! These are certainly clearer than many I've seen.


Ivan
________
how to make a vaporizer

I noticed that Engineering have added some clarification about the build situation to the web site: http://lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/e ... esign.html

We have reviewed the plans, build manual and reports on a number of structural tests carried out on the aircraft. We are happy with the overall structure of the aircraft and don't anticipate any major snags in the remainder of the approval process, but there are some items which will require re-design before approval can be granted.

The main components currently identified as requiring re-design are in the flying control system within the fuselage.

I can't find any detail but perhaps someone can enquire.

regards

Colin

Hmmmm!

That is quite contrary to what I was told when I spoke to engineering before ordering my plans! I was told that NO additional costs were likely to be incurred re stress analysis.

I will go ahead with the project having spent ?200 on the plans, as I have faith that the design is outstanding. I am a bit peeved about the bad advice given over the phone only a couple of weeks ago which was pretty misleading. I'm hoping that the required work is purely a case of some strengthening rather than full re-design of the control system, but I'm guessing that even apart from any costs incurred for stress calcs (beyond my maths), each modification will incur the ?22.50 mod fee? Nice little earner eh? I wonder if the required mods be able to be classed as standard so we can pool resources rather than individual ones where we all have to pay?

Here's hoping that this news doesn't kill enthusiasm for the design over here.

Ivan (not a happy chappie this morning)
________
green crack

My caution looks justified

Why has it taken Engineering so long to respond? It looks like I, and many others asked the questions soon after the realease of the magazine request for a prototype builder. Yet they have allowed people to commit themselves. I suspect this forum had kicked them into action. Can't say I too impressed with them(before anyone tells me how busy they are, it doesn't take 5 minutes to respond with a "hold your horses, update soon" message)

Persumeably, If a mod is incorporated into the design, it is no longer a mod? Will Dave T play ball?

Will Dave T play ball?

Why should he? If he's happy with his design and it's selling well elsewhere, why would he want to bother redesigning bits? (he might even feel insulted?) I think this will be down to us

I will speak to engineering (hopefully FD this time) on Monday and see just what IS actually likely to be required.

Ivan
________
Honda RVF750 RC45 history

the flying control system within the fuselage

Could this be "borrowed" from another approved design? Sure, it would still involve a mod fee, but might minimize the recalculations that need to be done.

Well I'm keeping an open mind as the mods I made to my T31 went through easily enough. I'm sure there's a way around any problem and at minimal cost (I hope), but it would have been nice to know from the onset what was involved. I thought that by speaking to engineering and being told the status I was safe. Next time I'll make sure I get it from the horses mouth. Looks like FD being the "one and only" is true yet again

Ivan
________
vaporizer wholesaler

ivanmanley wrote:

Will Dave T play ball?

Why should he? If he's happy with his design and it's selling well elsewhere, why would he want to bother redesigning bits? (he might even feel insulted?) I think this will be down to us

I will speak to engineering (hopefully FD this time) on Monday and see just what IS actually likely to be required.

Ivan

That was exactly why I raised the question

The Thatcher looks like a great design, looking on the website there is three of you registered as builders, good luck to you all.

The new draft of TL 1.07 allows us to recover external engineering costs from subsequent builders, 10% from each new builder, this may be usefull for you as you then at least have a chance of recovering some of the costs.

Hopefully the work wont be that much or the costs to high, you have to inform LAA that you intend to recover costs from future builders.

Good luck with the build.
Ian

Dave Thatcher has offered to help in any way he can and has even offered a free canopy and cowl to the first aircraft likely to fly!

I won't get into the project much before the winter so I doubt I'll be in the running .... then again, do I really need to cover that K8 this year (or the next)?

Having spoken to both Francis and Nigel Bamber who is tasked with the CX4 approval, I am optomistic that any problems can be easily sorted. The LAA seem keen to see the Thatcher CX4 fly over here as it represents a good "back to basics" type project. I see it as a modern equivelent of a VP1 but with a much better performance using the cheap and very cheerful VW. For those who like letters, a VWVPxRV perhaps?

Ivan
________
HERBALAIRE VAPORIZER REVIEW

That's good news

Is the required table 16' (possible problem) or 12'

Now a serious question. How did you order your plan?