Well since you had the FAA do your inspection it doesn't do much good to argue, but that's not right. That's a minimum suggested way to do w&b, but the manufacturer (you) sets the "design" gross weight limits. Using the logic of you local FSDO I technically wouldn't be able to fly my single place one off design because I'm a lot heavier than 170 lbs, which by the way that plane is flying. They've jerked you around quite a bit between that and the instruments but as I said... it is the FAA, so right or wrong the local FSDO has jurisdiction for rule interpretation.
I will say that it is true that it is a requirement to show that the cg is in range through the entire weight envelope yes... it is extremely important...but the manufacturer just gets to pick what that is! The FAA, in my observation, doesn't like us. They are concerned about safety, which is good, but the best way to have no experimental accidents is to make it difficult to get awc's. Planes that don't fly technically can't crash. Its a case of you get what you pay for. My DAR was 400 last year and he helped me immensely, both with the laws and getting through the process. I even had his cell phone so he was on sort of a retainer for a year after and frequently called to see how I was doing with phase 1. It doesn't help you now Sid, bit I suggest to anyone else to spend the extra money and do the DAR route. You get so much more out of it. I do know people that had good luck with the FAA... you just have almost zero recourse with them if they decided to make you dance. Just my opinion of course. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID smwood <smwood at md.metrocast.net> wrote: >The FAA has a procedure where you put in "standard" pilot and passenger >weights (170 pounds each), full fuel and max baggage on the weight and >balance work sheet. The total weight is then your max gross weight. It is >a calculated number. You also have to show that the CG is in the allowable >design range at that weight. That procedure was required for a signed >airworthiness certificate. > >Sid Wood >Tri-gear KR-2 N6242 >Mechanicsville, MD, USA >------------------------------------------------------------ > >At 09:32 PM 5/21/2013, you wrote: >>FAA calculated gross is 1178 pounds for a useful load of 397 pounds. >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >Sid, > >Glad to hear you're making progress toward the next flight. Please >explain "FAA calculated gross". I set the gross on my KR and I don't >recall the FAA having anything to say about it. >I seem to recall setting my gross at 1300 pounds with normal flights >in the 1050 to 1100 pound range. > >Larry Flesner > > > >_______________________________________________ >Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search. >To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org >please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html >see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change >options
