Anyone have pro’s/con’s on the Chelton Flight System. Using the “boxes in the sky” seems like a great application for approaches. They also have quite a R&D effort with several new products close to market launch.
IMHO, it’s the best GA product currently on the market in terms of info presented and capabilities. It’s roots are in military HUD technology and it shows.
A bigger and more readable display would be nice though.
I will be interested to see their info/displays at Sun & Fun. I thought so too—and would like to hear from someone who is actually using the equipment.
It is interesting to see such a great technology, but strange that we do not hear or read much about it. ? Maybe they have a lousy marketing effort?
A good friend of mine just did an avionics overhaul on his King AIr C90B and installed the complete Chelton system. He’s flying up Saturday and we are going for a spin. It certainly looks great in the magazines and at the shows, but I’m anxious to see how it in in real life. My friend loves it, but he just paid $100k for the whole system, so he better love it!
I will file a PIREP this weekend.
In reply to:
It is interesting to see such a great technology, but strange that we do not hear or read much about it. ? Maybe they have a lousy marketing effort?
Tom,
The following is completely hearsay, but when I visited Maverick Jets (a currently floundering program) last year, one of the “higher-ups” mentioned that they had a very hard time working with Chelton, which is why they switched to a custom avionics system. Don’t know how true that is, but evidently, it affected the avionics decision on the Maverick Leader.
In reply to:
…when I visited Maverick Jets (a currently floundering program) last year…
Andy,
Small world… see this post. I visited them nearly four years ago. Back then, Bob Bornhofen (the real father of the Maverick), tried to get me involved in designing a part of that project (servo control for the throttle). I didn’t want to pursue that, but he almost persuaded me to put a deposit on one. Lucky I didn’t on both counts!
Are they still in the same place - Fremont County, Colorado?
- Mike.
Mike,
It is a small world! The Maverick Leader (formerly TwinJet) would be such a neat aircraft program if it were not horribly mismanaged. They are now based in Melbourne, FL. Here is a link to a story that ANN did about them last May. The owner Jim McCotter has no background in aviation, and I believe he thinks he can just make things happen instantly in aviation just like he has in real-estate and broadcasting. DonÂ’t work that way, though.[:)]
I don’t have any recent information about Maverick. The website is the type that tells you something without really telling you anything. They were supposed to be at Oshkosh last year as they had a “double-wide” space reserved, and then they didn’t even show up. About two weeks after the show, Maverick posted a press-release saying that their “presence was felt even stronger in their absence from the show” Talk about a load of BS.
If Maverick still has a viable program, I think the best thing that could happen to them is to be bought by a group experienced with aircraft manufacturing, because the Leader seems like a great aircraft.
You definitely made the right choice in staying away from the company.
Really look forward to the report!!! Hopefully you can shoot an approach or two and “fly the box in the sky”.
I’ve been somewhat following the Mavjet story…and want to see if I understand their strategy. It appears that a customer comes to them with a check for a kit. Maverick does 49% of the work, and just happens to have a relationship with another company who the customer will contract with directly to do the 51%.
This seems to be what many IVP “builders” are doing…with the exception that Lancair probably isn’t shoehorning people into one shop, and that there probably aren’t any under-the-table agreements in Lancair’s case. That and there are probably 10 shops that will build your 51% in the case of the IVP.
I haven’t seen any news from Maverick in probably a year (outside of the ANN article). Is any work truly being done there, or is it a vaporjet?
Marty
It’s my understanding that the owner has to actually personally perform 51% of the work to be legal. Contracting out that 51% is, I’m fairly certain, against the rules.
Unless, maybe, the 51% contractor actually buys the plane, then sells it back after they’ve done the work. But in that case I think they’d be considered a manufacturer, not a hobbyist, so I don’t think that would be kosher either.
That said, I’m sure many people do it, and get away with it.
In reply to:
This seems to be what many IVP “builders” are doing…with the exception that Lancair probably isn’t shoehorning people into one shop, and that there probably aren’t any under-the-table agreements in Lancair’s case.
Marty,
You hit it on the head with this statement. At the end of the day, Lancair really does just sell a kit IV-P (with some legitimate fast-build parts or a few-week builder’s assistance program as options). Maverick, on the other hand, was even at NBAA in 2002 pushing the Leader as a “corporate” jet, and, “oh, by the way, this aircraft is not actually production certified.” Here is an interesting link about the NBAA event.
I am a die-hard supporter of kit-built aircraft. We owe our current “ride” to this industry. However, where Lancair and enterprising builders have found a good balance with the “51-Percent” rule, I believe that Maverick has crossed the line in it’s representation of the Leader.
In reply to:
I haven’t seen any news from Maverick in probably a year (outside of the ANN article). Is any work truly being done there, or is it a vaporjet?
I finally found some information on AINÂ’s website. You have to scroll down a ways on the page to find Maverick.
I want to believe, because the Leader is a great aircraft, and it is certainly more than a “concept.” However, a lot of things must happen (including full production certification) before I would seriously consider buying one. Not because I distrust the aircraft design or kitbuilts in general (I helped a guy build a Glasair IIFT 10 years ago, and I have considered building a IV-P), but Maverick’s management has a long way to go in convincing me that they can handle a project this big. It would be just great to “take delivery” of a Leader and then have the company go under due to poor management leaving you with a virtually unsupportable aircraft.
IÂ’m looking forward to see if Maverick can pull it off. I sincerely hope they do.
In reply to:
It’s my understanding that the owner has to actually personally perform 51% of the work to be legal.
It is my understanding; you only have to perform 51% of the work if you want to be able to perform your own repairs and inspection. If you are willing to hire an A&P to do the work you don’t have to do any of the construction yourself.
In reply to:
In reply to:
It’s my understanding that the owner has to actually personally perform 51% of the work to be legal.
It is my understanding; you only have to perform 51% of the work if you want to be able to perform your own repairs and inspection. If you are willing to hire an A&P to do the work you don’t have to do any of the construction yourself.
The plane must be AMATEUR built to qualify for an airworthiness certificate. Hiring someone to build it is a no-no.
The repaiman cert. is a separate issue, and will be issued to a single person, usually the builder who did the most in the case of multiple builders.
FWIW
AC-20-139 has pretty good info.
In reply to:
The plane must be AMATEUR built to qualify for an airworthiness certificate. Hiring someone to build it is a no-no.
Are you saying that a plane built by an experienced builder is not airworthy, but a plane built by an armature is?
In reply to:
Are you saying that a plane built by an experienced builder is not airworthy, but a plane built by an armature is?
In this context, “amateur” does not imply skill level, but rather someone who does the work without compensation.
To operate under Part 91, an airplane needs an airworthiness certificate. In the case of “certified” aircraft, like the Cirrus SR20 and SR22, the airplane’s manufacturer has obtained a type certificate, which means the FAA has approved the design as airworthy, and a production certificate, which means that the FAA has approved the manufacturer to produce aircraft in accordance with the type certificate.
If a Part 91 aircraft does not have a type certificate, it can get an airworthiness certificate as an Experimental aircraft. For instance, a warbird might get an airworthiness certificate as “Experimental - Exhibition”.
Usually, when people talk about Experimental aircraft, they are referring to “Experimental - Amateur Built”. These are the aircraft to which the 51% rule applies. The 51% applies to the aircraft as a whole, not the portion left to the builder. Kit manufacturers are careful to get the FAA to sign off on the kit, so there is no question that the builder has done at least 51% of the work in building the aircraft.
You can have as many people as you want contributing to the building, as long as you are not compensating them for the work. Exceptions are made for certain things, like painting, for which you can hire professionals.
If you wish, one of the builders can be issued a repairman’s certificate, which allows that person to sign off an annual on that aircraft. The repairman’s certificate is not transferrable, but the certificate holder does not have to own the aircraft to do the signoff.
Any owner of the amateur-built aircraft can do any repairs or inspections, short of signing off an annual inspection. A repairman’s certificate is not required to do repairs, nor is an A & P certificate.
If you do any major modifications (for example, changing to a different type of engine) to the aircraft, the FAA has to sign off on the changes, since the original airworthiness certificate no longer applies.
So, is is legal to hire someone to build your Lancair IV, or your Maverick Jet? No. Is it legal to buy a completed amateur-built aircraft from someone else? Yes.
-Mike
HereHere is the rule as interpreted by a company that actually does “pro” builds.
I am not going to pass judgment, because this does seem like a “grey” area. Specifically, the grey comes from how some companies interpret the 51% rule to mean that as long as the “builder” spends a little time on each of the required fabrication & assembly operations, that they can be wholly credited for each operation.
Kind of like the guy at a building demolition site who turns the detonation key (pushes the lever, presses the button, or however they do it these days). You could say that guy was wholly responsible for bringing the building down. However, what is left out of this scenario is that the explosives actually did all the work.[:)] Maverick Jets blows right through the grey, but other companies seem to provide genuine professional assistance.
IÂ’m not saying it is right, but this is how they get away with it. It is no secret what these companies do, so would the FAA turn a blind eye to it if they had a major problem with what was going on? I donÂ’t know the answer to that, but it is what makes me inclined to believe that it is a grey area.
In reply to:
In reply to:
Are you saying that a plane built by an experienced builder is not airworthy, but a plane built by an armature is?
I’m not saying it, the FAA is. CFR 14 21.191, aircraft certification:
(g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation.
AC-20-27 and AC-20-139 describe the process in detail, and describe what parts the builder can have done by a professional and not jeopardize the certification (avionics installation is a good example of something you can have done professionally and not get in hot water)
To get an airwothiness certificate, form 8130-12 must be fille out, signed, notarized. It is a federal crime (literally) to falsify this document, with 10K fine and 5 yr imprisonment as possible penalties.
Sure people lie on it. FAA doesn’t like “hired gun” builders, and EAA does not support the practice, so you won’t find a lot of support if you get caught. You can spend hundreds of thousands on your hired-gun built kit, have no aiworthiness cert. and get thrown in jail. Some folks like to live on the edge. I personally don’t like the risk/benefit ratio.
All of the above ACs and CFR 21 can be found at http://www.faa.gov . The individual links are too long to embed here.
Please don’t take this as being argumentative. I’m a builder, and find the subject intersting.
FWIW
In reply to:
All of the above ACs and CFR 21 can be found at http://www.faa.gov . The individual links are too long to embed here.
Please don’t take this as being argumentative.
I don’t. Rules is rules.