User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/24/2014 2:29:55 PM EDT
[#1]
1. Why home built planes are dangerous unless they are thouroughly checked by an A&P other than yourself if you are one.
2. Why you should wear a rig if you test flying or in the early stages of completing a build. 3. Don't fly home built planes. 4. Hate to hear about anyone dying, no matter what they're flying. RIP |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2014 3:23:32 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1. Why home built planes are dangerous unless they are thouroughly checked by an A&P other than yourself if you are one. 2. Why you should wear a rig if you test flying or in the early stages of completing a build. 3. Don't fly home built planes. 4. Hate to hear about anyone dying, no matter what they're flying. RIP #3 is a personal rule of mine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2014 4:13:24 PM EDT
[#3]
don't show the wife, just started and RV8; already having a hard time convincing her it is safe.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2014 7:01:55 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
don't show the wife, just started and RV8; already having a hard time convincing her it is safe. A Lohle P-51 knock off is nothing like an RV8. Next door neighbor at the airport had one. It's not like the firewall there is bad -- there *is* no firewall. With the lower cowling off, you could see from the front of the engine back to the front seat in the cockpit. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2014 7:33:20 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A Lohle P-51 knock off is nothing like an RV8. Next door neighbor at the airport had one. It's not like the firewall there is bad -- there *is* no firewall. With the lower cowling off, you could see from the front of the engine back to the front seat in the cockpit.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
don't show the wife, just started and RV8; already having a hard time convincing her it is safe. A Lohle P-51 knock off is nothing like an RV8. Next door neighbor at the airport had one. It's not like the firewall there is bad -- there *is* no firewall. With the lower cowling off, you could see from the front of the engine back to the front seat in the cockpit.
How the heck could that be approved by the FAA, even for Experimental category aircraft? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2014 7:40:04 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A Lohle P-51 knock off is nothing like an RV8. Next door neighbor at the airport had one. It's not like the firewall there is bad -- there *is* no firewall. With the lower cowling off, you could see from the front of the engine back to the front seat in the cockpit.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
don't show the wife, just started and RV8; already having a hard time convincing her it is safe. A Lohle P-51 knock off is nothing like an RV8. Next door neighbor at the airport had one. It's not like the firewall there is bad -- there *is* no firewall. With the lower cowling off, you could see from the front of the engine back to the front seat in the cockpit.
Fuck. That. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2014 1:04:30 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1. Don't fly home built planes. 2. Don't fly home built planes. 3. Don't fly home built planes. 4. Hate to hear about anyone dying, no matter what they're flying. RIP |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2014 5:22:25 PM EDT
[#8]
Regardless of WHO made the plane, what in anyone's mind could make a person think they could could SURVIVE a 1000' fall??
I understand fear of burning, but damn... fly the plane to the ground, burning or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2014 8:14:09 PM EDT
[#9]
what was he thinking?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2014 9:00:11 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Regardless of WHO made the plane, what in anyone's mind could make a person think they could could SURVIVE a 1000' fall?? I understand fear of burning, but damn... fly the plane to the ground, burning or not. I'm assuming he made up his mind that was his day to depart this world and simply made the snap judgement to take the less painful of two routes out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2014 9:07:24 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Regardless of WHO made the plane, what in anyone's mind could make a person think they could could SURVIVE a 1000' fall?? I understand fear of burning, but damn... fly the plane to the ground, burning or not. Having your ass cooked will do that. Ever see the jumpers out of the twin towers? Just like that I'd imagine. Poor guy. He should have known better though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2014 6:27:28 AM EDT
[#12]
No homebuilts for me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2014 10:12:08 AM EDT
[#13]
You guys need to quit with the 'never fly homebuilts' stuff. Homebuilt ('experimental' category) airplanes are just as safe as certified designs, if built according to the plans by an experienced builder with patience and attention to details. Having an A&P check it out before it is flown is a requirement, as well as the 40 hours of 'proving runs' required before it can carry passengers.
The Burt Rutan designs are a great example of wonderful aircraft that have a good safety record. So are the Van's RVs, which I've flown quite a bit and helped build more than one. They are excellent little airplanes and perform far better than any similar certified design. What gets people into trouble is when they take shortcuts, or deviate from the plans without a clear understanding of what they're doing. For the most part, experimental aircraft are designed by experienced, professional engineers who know exactly what they're doing. Most of them are extremely gifted in their fields. Would you fly in a Columbia 400 (Now the Cessna Corvallis TT), but not a 300, which was the homebuilt precursor? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2014 10:15:55 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Regardless of WHO made the plane, what in anyone's mind could make a person think they could could SURVIVE a 1000' fall?? I understand fear of burning, but damn... fly the plane to the ground, burning or not. Easy to say without the smell of your own burning flesh in your nostrils. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2014 10:19:26 AM EDT
[#15]
Bad pair of choices to make; either jump to your death or burn alive.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2014 11:09:28 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys need to quit with the 'never fly homebuilts' stuff. Homebuilt ('experimental' category) airplanes are just as safe as certified designs, if built according to the plans by an experienced builder with patience and attention to details. Having an A&P check it out before it is flown is a requirement, as well as the 40 hours of 'proving runs' required before it can carry passengers. The Burt Rutan designs are a great example of wonderful aircraft that have a good safety record. So are the Van's RVs, which I've flown quite a bit and helped build more than one. They are excellent little airplanes and perform far better than any similar certified design. What gets people into trouble is when they take shortcuts, or deviate from the plans without a clear understanding of what they're doing. For the most part, experimental aircraft are designed by experienced, professional engineers who know exactly what they're doing. Most of them are extremely gifted in their fields. Would you fly in a Columbia 400 (Now the Cessna Corvallis TT), but not a 300, which was the homebuilt precursor? So how does one know if the builder followed all of the procedures with an attention to details if they did not personally build it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2014 12:04:47 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So how does one know if the builder followed all of the procedures with an attention to details if they did not personally build it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You guys need to quit with the 'never fly homebuilts' stuff. Homebuilt ('experimental' category) airplanes are just as safe as certified designs, if built according to the plans by an experienced builder with patience and attention to details. Having an A&P check it out before it is flown is a requirement, as well as the 40 hours of 'proving runs' required before it can carry passengers. The Burt Rutan designs are a great example of wonderful aircraft that have a good safety record. So are the Van's RVs, which I've flown quite a bit and helped build more than one. They are excellent little airplanes and perform far better than any similar certified design. What gets people into trouble is when they take shortcuts, or deviate from the plans without a clear understanding of what they're doing. For the most part, experimental aircraft are designed by experienced, professional engineers who know exactly what they're doing. Most of them are extremely gifted in their fields. Would you fly in a Columbia 400 (Now the Cessna Corvallis TT), but not a 300, which was the homebuilt precursor? So how does one know if the builder followed all of the procedures with an attention to details if they did not personally build it? Extremely sceptical pre-buy. Ideally the A&P/IA that does the initial inspection would do so thoroughly enough to make that determination based on the airframe. I know when the RV-4 was built, the inspection took the entire day, and had every fairing and access plate removed the entire time. To put it into perspective, my company used to manage a Hawker 850 XP. When they performed an inspection on it, after operating it since new for 2 years, they were shocked to find that both leading edges had been mis-drilled, and then redrilled, figure-eighting all of the holes. Every single one holding on the leading edge was that way. Hawker was informed immediately, and overnighted an entire new leading edge under warranty. Apparently ours was one of four airframes that went out like that. That's a mid-size corporate jet that the manufacturer allowed it to leave the factory floor in a way that I would never have allowed on my airplane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2014 12:45:55 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So how does one know if the builder followed all of the procedures with an attention to details if they did not personally build it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You guys need to quit with the 'never fly homebuilts' stuff. Homebuilt ('experimental' category) airplanes are just as safe as certified designs, if built according to the plans by an experienced builder with patience and attention to details. Having an A&P check it out before it is flown is a requirement, as well as the 40 hours of 'proving runs' required before it can carry passengers. The Burt Rutan designs are a great example of wonderful aircraft that have a good safety record. So are the Van's RVs, which I've flown quite a bit and helped build more than one. They are excellent little airplanes and perform far better than any similar certified design. What gets people into trouble is when they take shortcuts, or deviate from the plans without a clear understanding of what they're doing. For the most part, experimental aircraft are designed by experienced, professional engineers who know exactly what they're doing. Most of them are extremely gifted in their fields. Would you fly in a Columbia 400 (Now the Cessna Corvallis TT), but not a 300, which was the homebuilt precursor? So how does one know if the builder followed all of the procedures with an attention to details if they did not personally build it? or build it yourself, and do it correctly. It seems every time I take a car to a mechanic or body shop they cut corners or break something. I've yet to find anyone else who cares about my stuff more than me, but maybe I am just unlucky. I haven't built my plane yet, or even begun. I do plan on flying in it someday so I will keep that in mind. I've know an A&P or mech who has cut corners, forgot stuff, or just not care. They are in the minority in my field, but it does occur. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2014 1:58:02 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
or build it yourself, and do it correctly. It seems every time I take a car to a mechanic or body shop they cut corners or break something. I've yet to find anyone else who cares about my stuff more than me, but maybe I am just unlucky. I haven't built my plane yet, or even begun. I do plan on flying in it someday so I will keep that in mind. I've know an A&P or mech who has cut corners, forgot stuff, or just not care. They are in the minority in my field, but it does occur. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You guys need to quit with the 'never fly homebuilts' stuff. Homebuilt ('experimental' category) airplanes are just as safe as certified designs, if built according to the plans by an experienced builder with patience and attention to details. Having an A&P check it out before it is flown is a requirement, as well as the 40 hours of 'proving runs' required before it can carry passengers. The Burt Rutan designs are a great example of wonderful aircraft that have a good safety record. So are the Van's RVs, which I've flown quite a bit and helped build more than one. They are excellent little airplanes and perform far better than any similar certified design. What gets people into trouble is when they take shortcuts, or deviate from the plans without a clear understanding of what they're doing. For the most part, experimental aircraft are designed by experienced, professional engineers who know exactly what they're doing. Most of them are extremely gifted in their fields. Would you fly in a Columbia 400 (Now the Cessna Corvallis TT), but not a 300, which was the homebuilt precursor? So how does one know if the builder followed all of the procedures with an attention to details if they did not personally build it? or build it yourself, and do it correctly. It seems every time I take a car to a mechanic or body shop they cut corners or break something. I've yet to find anyone else who cares about my stuff more than me, but maybe I am just unlucky. I haven't built my plane yet, or even begun. I do plan on flying in it someday so I will keep that in mind. I've know an A&P or mech who has cut corners, forgot stuff, or just not care. They are in the minority in my field, but it does occur. Exactly. I take care of my airplane because my ass flies in it. An airplane I build will get my full attention to detail in each and ever aspect during the entire build, because once again, it's my ass that flies in it. If I don't know how to do something, I'm not going to bullshit my way through it. I'm going to do what every other builder I know has done: seek someone out in the community who does have expertise in that area. If there's no one that does, then I go attend a builder's class to educate myself in that area. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2014 5:23:47 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
or build it yourself, and do it correctly. It seems every time I take a car to a mechanic or body shop they cut corners or break something. I've yet to find anyone else who cares about my stuff more than me, but maybe I am just unlucky. I haven't built my plane yet, or even begun. I do plan on flying in it someday so I will keep that in mind. I've know an A&P or mech who has cut corners, forgot stuff, or just not care. They are in the minority in my field, but it does occur. This. Without exception, every "I'd never fly a homebuilt guy" I've personally met has never looked into the construction of his own airplane. Stuff that would *never* pass muster for a homebuilt is found commonly on the PIpers/Cessnas commonly found around today. For example... - No fire sleeve on fuel lines FWF on multiple aircraft? Seen it. - 30' of extra wiring, tied up with a piece of wire and left laying the tailcone of an Arrow? Seen it. - Loose vertical stab (as in grab it, it moves) on an Archer? Seen it. - Cracked exhaust header on a Warrior but still considered "airworthy" by an "A&P"? Seen it. - Badly & obviously misrigged ailerons that were countered by drooping the flaps instead of fixing the actual issue? Seen it. You get the idea. Being "certified" doesn't mean much else except that it met the specifications of the type certificate. Especially once the aircraft has been through an owner or two and a half dozen annuals by "A&Ps". |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2014 7:20:37 PM EDT
[#21]
I have no doubt about the certified stuff. Homebuilts have much better designs aerodynamically speaking, it's just not for me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2014 3:26:50 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
don't show the wife, just started and RV8; already having a hard time convincing her it is safe. How far along are you? Just finished the stabilizers for my RV-7. 
And i'll echo what some of the above posters said....the RV series is the most popular homebuilt aircraft of all time. They don't fall out of the sky because of design/build flaws, they fall out of the sky because of dumb pilots. I've seen some very questionable work certified aircraft as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2014 4:15:29 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How far along are you? Just finished the stabilizers for my RV-7. https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/p180x540/10489718_10103804368407148_189641253495365637_n.jpg And i'll echo what some of the above posters said....the RV series is the most popular homebuilt aircraft of all time. They don't fall out of the sky because of design/build flaws, they fall out of the sky because of dumb pilots. I've seen some very questionable work certified aircraft as well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
don't show the wife, just started and RV8; already having a hard time convincing her it is safe. How far along are you? Just finished the stabilizers for my RV-7. https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/p180x540/10489718_10103804368407148_189641253495365637_n.jpg And i'll echo what some of the above posters said....the RV series is the most popular homebuilt aircraft of all time. They don't fall out of the sky because of design/build flaws, they fall out of the sky because of dumb pilots. I've seen some very questionable work certified aircraft as well. One guy from here managed to flip one on a grass strip in Iowa. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2014 4:49:01 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One guy from here managed to flip one on a grass strip in Iowa. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
don't show the wife, just started and RV8; already having a hard time convincing her it is safe. How far along are you? Just finished the stabilizers for my RV-7. https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/p180x540/10489718_10103804368407148_189641253495365637_n.jpg And i'll echo what some of the above posters said....the RV series is the most popular homebuilt aircraft of all time. They don't fall out of the sky because of design/build flaws, they fall out of the sky because of dumb pilots. I've seen some very questionable work certified aircraft as well. One guy from here managed to flip one on a grass strip in Iowa. Is that a trait specific to EAB aircraft? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2014 5:17:50 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is that a trait specific to EAB aircraft? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
don't show the wife, just started and RV8; already having a hard time convincing her it is safe. How far along are you? Just finished the stabilizers for my RV-7. https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/p180x540/10489718_10103804368407148_189641253495365637_n.jpg And i'll echo what some of the above posters said....the RV series is the most popular homebuilt aircraft of all time. They don't fall out of the sky because of design/build flaws, they fall out of the sky because of dumb pilots. I've seen some very questionable work certified aircraft as well. One guy from here managed to flip one on a grass strip in Iowa. Is that a trait specific to EAB aircraft? Nope. Plenty of Cessnas have ended up on their backs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2014 6:23:17 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope. Plenty of Cessnas have ended up on their backs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
don't show the wife, just started and RV8; already having a hard time convincing her it is safe. How far along are you? Just finished the stabilizers for my RV-7. https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/p180x540/10489718_10103804368407148_189641253495365637_n.jpg And i'll echo what some of the above posters said....the RV series is the most popular homebuilt aircraft of all time. They don't fall out of the sky because of design/build flaws, they fall out of the sky because of dumb pilots. I've seen some very questionable work certified aircraft as well. One guy from here managed to flip one on a grass strip in Iowa. Is that a trait specific to EAB aircraft? Nope. Plenty of Cessnas have ended up on their backs. Watched one land on it's back two years ago. Cessna 170 that the guy landed with the brakes held on. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2014 6:46:31 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Watched one land on it's back two years ago. Cessna 170 that the guy landed with the brakes held on.
He live? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2014 6:46:32 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He live? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Watched one land on it's back two years ago. Cessna 170 that the guy landed with the brakes held on.
He live? Oh yeah. Wasn't even technically an accident since it didn't cause "substantial" damage. Touchdown speed for a wheel landing on the old 170 was about 55-60 mph with the flaps. He just kinda touched down and did a backflip. Wound up hanging in his harness, thanking God for Hooker. Landed on the vertical stab, needed some repair there and a new skin on top of the wing, new wing tips and antennae. Prop straightened and an engine tear-down of course. Pilot got out without a scratch. Sold it and went back to a 172 shortly thereafter. Decided he needed the training wheels after all, I suppose! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2014 8:33:59 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys need to quit with the 'never fly homebuilts' stuff. Homebuilt ('experimental' category) airplanes are just as safe as certified designs, if built according to the plans by an experienced builder with patience and attention to details. Having an A&P check it out before it is flown is a requirement, as well as the 40 hours of 'proving runs' required before it can carry passengers. The Burt Rutan designs are a great example of wonderful aircraft that have a good safety record. So are the Van's RVs, which I've flown quite a bit and helped build more than one. They are excellent little airplanes and perform far better than any similar certified design. What gets people into trouble is when they take shortcuts, or deviate from the plans without a clear understanding of what they're doing. For the most part, experimental aircraft are designed by experienced, professional engineers who know exactly what they're doing. Most of them are extremely gifted in their fields. Would you fly in a Columbia 400 (Now the Cessna Corvallis TT), but not a 300, which was the homebuilt precursor? Lots of qualifiers in your statement. Would you accept a <insert your favorite manufacturer here> built plane with the same qualifications to those who built the airframe or powerplant? I wouldn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2014 10:42:02 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. Without exception, every "I'd never fly a homebuilt guy" I've personally met has never looked into the construction of his own airplane. Stuff that would *never* pass muster for a homebuilt is found commonly on the PIpers/Cessnas commonly found around today. For example... - No fire sleeve on fuel lines FWF on multiple aircraft? Seen it. - 30' of extra wiring, tied up with a piece of wire and left laying the tailcone of an Arrow? Seen it. - Loose vertical stab (as in grab it, it moves) on an Archer? Seen it. - Cracked exhaust header on a Warrior but still considered "airworthy" by an "A&P"? Seen it. - Badly & obviously misrigged ailerons that were countered by drooping the flaps instead of fixing the actual issue? Seen it. You get the idea. Being "certified" doesn't mean much else except that it met the specifications of the type certificate. Especially once the aircraft has been through an owner or two and a half dozen annuals by "A&Ps". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
or build it yourself, and do it correctly. It seems every time I take a car to a mechanic or body shop they cut corners or break something. I've yet to find anyone else who cares about my stuff more than me, but maybe I am just unlucky. I haven't built my plane yet, or even begun. I do plan on flying in it someday so I will keep that in mind. I've know an A&P or mech who has cut corners, forgot stuff, or just not care. They are in the minority in my field, but it does occur. This. Without exception, every "I'd never fly a homebuilt guy" I've personally met has never looked into the construction of his own airplane. Stuff that would *never* pass muster for a homebuilt is found commonly on the PIpers/Cessnas commonly found around today. For example... - No fire sleeve on fuel lines FWF on multiple aircraft? Seen it. - 30' of extra wiring, tied up with a piece of wire and left laying the tailcone of an Arrow? Seen it. - Loose vertical stab (as in grab it, it moves) on an Archer? Seen it. - Cracked exhaust header on a Warrior but still considered "airworthy" by an "A&P"? Seen it. - Badly & obviously misrigged ailerons that were countered by drooping the flaps instead of fixing the actual issue? Seen it. You get the idea. Being "certified" doesn't mean much else except that it met the specifications of the type certificate. Especially once the aircraft has been through an owner or two and a half dozen annuals by "A&Ps". I've seen a great deal of that too, in my GA years, and I was lucky to live though it. 
but it doesn't change the fact that homebuilts are extraordinarily dangerous. Lots of reasons for it, beyond just the mechanical ones. I've been tempted many times, but I wouldn't indulge in it until my kids are grown and I have my affairs in order. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2014 10:52:45 AM EDT
[#31]
Considering how long it's taking me to build a relatively simple AC Cobra replica, I doubt I could finish a properly built airplane in my lifetime.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2014 12:15:36 PM EDT
[#32]
I would trust the well engineered (Vans, etc) kits, powered by good certificated engines built according to plans by meticulous builders just as much as some of the ratty Cessnas available for rent. These plane kits are in name only experimental. Hell, several of them allow you to build them at the factory now.
I hear so much about experimental engines (auto conversions, etc) and shoddy workmanship causing most of the problems. Then again, that is why they are called experimentals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2014 3:40:27 PM EDT
[#33]
S,
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How far along are you? Just finished the stabilizers for my RV-7. https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/p180x540/10489718_10103804368407148_189641253495365637_n.jpg And i'll echo what some of the above posters said....the RV series is the most popular homebuilt aircraft of all time. They don't fall out of the sky because of design/build flaws, they fall out of the sky because of dumb pilots. I've seen some very questionable work certified aircraft as well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
don't show the wife, just started and RV8; already having a hard time convincing her it is safe. How far along are you? Just finished the stabilizers for my RV-7. https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/p180x540/10489718_10103804368407148_189641253495365637_n.jpg And i'll echo what some of the above posters said....the RV series is the most popular homebuilt aircraft of all time. They don't fall out of the sky because of design/build flaws, they fall out of the sky because of dumb pilots. I've seen some very questionable work certified aircraft as well. I bought a kit started by someone else. The stabs are done. He had a thorough log with many pics. I have a friend who worked for a company who put RVs together. He is going to inspect the parts that are done and I will lean on him throughput the build. For the price I got it if the stabs are junk, I can buy a new tail kit and still be well ahead. I did an inventory when I purchased. It aslo had a a tool kit. I haven't rea gotten much further than unloading in the garage and combing through his log looking for issues. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2014 5:58:55 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've seen a great deal of that too, in my GA years, and I was lucky to live though it.
but it doesn't change the fact that homebuilts are extraordinarily dangerous. Lots of reasons for it, beyond just the mechanical ones. I've been tempted many times, but I wouldn't indulge in it until my kids are grown and I have my affairs in order. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
or build it yourself, and do it correctly. It seems every time I take a car to a mechanic or body shop they cut corners or break something. I've yet to find anyone else who cares about my stuff more than me, but maybe I am just unlucky. I haven't built my plane yet, or even begun. I do plan on flying in it someday so I will keep that in mind. I've know an A&P or mech who has cut corners, forgot stuff, or just not care. They are in the minority in my field, but it does occur. This. Without exception, every "I'd never fly a homebuilt guy" I've personally met has never looked into the construction of his own airplane. Stuff that would *never* pass muster for a homebuilt is found commonly on the PIpers/Cessnas commonly found around today. For example... - No fire sleeve on fuel lines FWF on multiple aircraft? Seen it. - 30' of extra wiring, tied up with a piece of wire and left laying the tailcone of an Arrow? Seen it. - Loose vertical stab (as in grab it, it moves) on an Archer? Seen it. - Cracked exhaust header on a Warrior but still considered "airworthy" by an "A&P"? Seen it. - Badly & obviously misrigged ailerons that were countered by drooping the flaps instead of fixing the actual issue? Seen it. You get the idea. Being "certified" doesn't mean much else except that it met the specifications of the type certificate. Especially once the aircraft has been through an owner or two and a half dozen annuals by "A&Ps". I've seen a great deal of that too, in my GA years, and I was lucky to live though it.
but it doesn't change the fact that homebuilts are extraordinarily dangerous. Lots of reasons for it, beyond just the mechanical ones. I've been tempted many times, but I wouldn't indulge in it until my kids are grown and I have my affairs in order. Have you ridden in the Van's RV series of aircraft? You'll never want to fly in a spam can ever again. My RV-7 should do 200+ mph on under 10gph, will accept mogas, land and takeoff under 600ft, ceiling in the flight levels, will be +6/-3, and IFR certified (dual Skyview/G3X with dual ADAHRS, synthetic vision, flight director, fully coupled autopilot) for well under 100k. What other aircraft on the market can do that? If built to plans with an aircraft engine they're not extraordinarily dangerous as you claim. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 6:01:40 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1. Why home built planes are dangerous unless they are thouroughly checked by an A&P other than yourself if you are one. 2. Why you should wear a rig if you test flying or in the early stages of completing a build. 3. Don't fly home built planes. 4. Hate to hear about anyone dying, no matter what they're flying. RIP EAB planes can be great… Owned one, still own another one. 
1. Why home built planes are dangerous unless they are thouroughly checked by an A&P other than yourself if you are one. They are no more dangerous than a certified plane that has not been looked at by an A&P. Both certified and experimental have to be looked out once a year by an A&P, or the builder (EAB) or by an IA (certified) 2. Why you should wear a rig if you test flying or in the early stages of completing a build. This is the same theory about why you should carry a spare pistol if you are even going to bother carrying one for self defense. You should also carry a knife and a flashlight… I'll be honest, I don't carry a spare gun, spare mag, or a flashlight most of the time. 3. Don't fly home built planes. Home builds can be built BETTER than certified planes. I enjoy my homebuilt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2K0tFqm_tg&list=UU-zHE7n4iIQfFFPlwFODLEw The issue in most EAB planes is either not following instructions, or engine issues (normally fuel related). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2014 6:17:23 AM EDT
[#36]
I thought certified production aircraft had their stuff wired a little tighter until I joined a flying club.
We have a couple of late model C172's and the FBO allows owners to do some of the grunt work during annuals to save time/money. I've seen some things that I'd never let happen if I was building my own plane. Things like: masking tape securing wires, wrong sized screws crossthreaded on inspection panels, coiled lengths of wire, sloppy caulking around fuel tanks/wing roots, etc.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2014 7:09:20 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought certified production aircraft had their stuff wired a little tighter until I joined a flying club. We have a couple of late model C172's and the FBO allows owners to do some of the grunt work during annuals to save time/money. I've seen some things that I'd never let happen if I was building my own plane. Things like: masking tape securing wires, wrong sized screws crossthreaded on inspection panels, coiled lengths of wire, sloppy caulking around fuel tanks/wing roots, etc.. Ain't that the truth. Here's a rivet job by an A&P/IA on a certified aircraft belonging to my club. The first rivets I ever set on my RV-7 project were 100x better than this. I'll take my homebuilt aircraft over certified aircraft and these types of repairs any day of the week. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2014 8:16:56 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ain't that the truth. Here's a rivet job by an A&P/IA on a certified aircraft belonging to my club. The first rivets I ever set on my RV-7 project were 100x better than this. I'll take my homebuilt aircraft over certified aircraft and these types of repairs any day of the week. http://i.imgur.com/jN1BXrA.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I thought certified production aircraft had their stuff wired a little tighter until I joined a flying club. We have a couple of late model C172's and the FBO allows owners to do some of the grunt work during annuals to save time/money. I've seen some things that I'd never let happen if I was building my own plane. Things like: masking tape securing wires, wrong sized screws crossthreaded on inspection panels, coiled lengths of wire, sloppy caulking around fuel tanks/wing roots, etc.. Ain't that the truth. Here's a rivet job by an A&P/IA on a certified aircraft belonging to my club. The first rivets I ever set on my RV-7 project were 100x better than this. I'll take my homebuilt aircraft over certified aircraft and these types of repairs any day of the week. http://i.imgur.com/jN1BXrA.jpg Damn, I mean if they were going to half ass it like that, why even put the rivets in? At that point I think some epoxy or duct tape would have done a better job.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2014 8:48:47 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Damn, I mean I'd they were going to half ass it like that, why even put the rivets in? At that point I think some epoxy or duct tape would have done a better job.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought certified production aircraft had their stuff wired a little tighter until I joined a flying club. We have a couple of late model C172's and the FBO allows owners to do some of the grunt work during annuals to save time/money. I've seen some things that I'd never let happen if I was building my own plane. Things like: masking tape securing wires, wrong sized screws crossthreaded on inspection panels, coiled lengths of wire, sloppy caulking around fuel tanks/wing roots, etc.. Ain't that the truth. Here's a rivet job by an A&P/IA on a certified aircraft belonging to my club. The first rivets I ever set on my RV-7 project were 100x better than this. I'll take my homebuilt aircraft over certified aircraft and these types of repairs any day of the week. http://i.imgur.com/jN1BXrA.jpg Damn, I mean I'd they were going to half ass it like that, why even put the rivets in? At that point I think some epoxy or duct tape would have done a better job.
The worst part is that I can't legally fix this for the club as I'm not an A&P. 5 minute repair job for me....a few minutes to drill out the bad rivets and about 30 seconds to squeeze new ones :( I'd hate to see what a shop would charge to fix this... |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
