Quote:
I've never met a homebuilder that cut corners
Try looking at the aftermath of the crashes of experimental aircraft? You'd be surprised how many aircraft have some manner of deviation from the original design. Most of them are minor but then again the point about
Quote:
You are very wrong.
One has to dig into the numbers to find out the truth, but the high wreck rate in Experimentals has a lot to do with order of ownership once past the test phase of flight.
Or...that's the comfortable excuse that we tell ourselves. That doesn't explain why "loss of engine power for undetermined reasons" or "loss of engine power due to fuel starvation due to *insert mechanical issue with fuel supply system*" are more common in experimentals (even those still in the hands of the first owner) than in commercially built aircraft. It's not a pleasant realization, but instead of ignoring it and putting forward wishy-washy excuses without any technical data or evidence to back it up to try to make it easier to sleep at night when it came to my design I decided to avoid the potential issues that have plagued the homebuilt community. It's not that I think I'm smarter, better or more talented than the next guy out there. It's that I realize I'll never live long enough (or through) making all the mistakes myself so I try to learn from those who have gone before me.
Trust me, when it comes to "digging into the numbers", you are talking to someone who does it as a career.
Quote:
I'm a member of AOPA to protect the GA side of piloting.
I'm a member of EAA to protect the Homebuilder side of piloting.
On 99% of stuff they agree and work together. That's a good thing. When they disagree, my support goes to whichever benefits me the most!
Agreed. That I could not have said better myself.
Quote:
Here's a prime example - my aircraft, which is a just-over-ultralight open cockpit WWI replica biplane, andwill have (ready to cringe) motorcycle engine with redrive pulling it through the air.
There are no suitable certified engines that meet the requirements of the aircraft.
Which is surprising given the increasing size of the market. Personally, I'd take that as an argument not to build a scaled down aircraft especially given the marginal glide ratios of WWI aircraft even at full size. Rickenbacker once stated in a magazine interview that a power-off landing in a Neiuport or similar aircraft was akin to riding a barrel over Niagara Falls: you'd better hope luck is on your side. Each and to their own. I really like WWI replicas, but if I were building one, it would be full-size and I'd enlarge the cockpit opening to be able to wear a parachute.
Quote:
Statistically, if I make it through the 40 test period I have no more chance of mishap than any other pilot of a GA single engine piston driven fixed gear aircraft when number of landings is normalized.
Well....there's a couple of issues with that argument.
1. "Normalizing the number of landings": We really don't have good and inherently valid data beyond best guesses at the number of landings the "average" plane (experimental or standard certification) does in a given year. Trying to skew the numbers to a "guess" is a good way to give a false sense of security.
2. All-cause risk vs. specific issues: I agree that the all cause risk and the specific cause risk (such as someone who botches putting in a fuel line or something like that) drops off somewhat once we get past the test period, I will state that even once we are past that, we still have a rate of engine loss of power issues (and a few others) that are above the other non-turboprop side of GA. It's not an indictment of experimentals. It's simply a hurdle to overcome. I look at it in the same way you look at scaling your design to fit you're 95% percentile frame: a challenge to work on.
Quote:
The supposition that the EAA should "pass" a third of its membership (homebuilders and restorers) to cater to a very tiny wedge (one percent, if we're going to be generous?) of the membership that has even partial ownership of a multi-million dollar turbine spam can is precisely what keeps this thread going....
You missed the part where I said we all can have our little corners. Hell, to be quite honest, we don't even have to really talk to one another if that's what suits us. I don't believe that anyone should be run off, but I think the minority of folks with some Pollyanna view of the past and an almost pathological aversion to anything that doesn't fit it are endangering the one thing we do have control over so far as the EAA goes: the future. I've received a lot of PMs on here about folks not wanting to be part of the EAA or go to AirVenture because of the whining, bickering and grandstanding on threads like this one. It's not exactly productive. Like someone pointed out in the "do we need military jets at Oshkosh?" thread: The high-speed whizzbang stuff attracts people. Let's use it as a marketing ploy if nothing else. Then you get that kid or dad who came to the show (or bought the magazine) for the spam cans or the afterburner earsplitters to look at starting out in an RV or whatever. Instead of seeing it as an enemy or detraction, let's reign it in but still use it to our advantage.
Quote:
One thing we do a lousy job of in the aviation world is transition training. This isn't just with experimentals; lots of LSA's are getting creamed not because they're unsafe - it's because the guy who's used to his C172 hops into a CTLS without transistion. The wing loading and power bands are different; crosswinds are trickier, and the effect of flaps may be disconcerting.
Agreed 100%. The fatal accident rate is also a bit higher because of in the interest of keeping the weight below the LSA cutoff, some of the first things to go are adequate structural integrity around the cockpit, seats that are designed to absorb force rather than transmit it to the spine of the occupant and several other issues that are beyond the scope of this discussion. It's not limited to LSAs as several of the standard commercial designs have huge issues with these problems and more, but if we want to move forward as a hobby there is more to new design or retrofits than getting a few more knots or a lower GPH rate. Injury biomechanics and crash survivability are my fortes so when it comes to discussing the particulars of engine issues, I know enough to get by but when it comes to occupant protection you're talking my language.
Quote:
But I'll still drool over the fancy stuff of your plane (real corinthian leather!) and watch you grin as I get you to wear the flying helmet and silk scarf while sitting in mine!
Is that an offer for a chance to fly? ;)
Quote:
I'm as alien to the notion of the 100,000 dollar homebuilt with the TSO'd everything as you are of a 560 pound one seat no luggage compartment tube and fabric biplane.
What's funny is that I'm actually kicking around the idea of designing an LSA after I get done with my current design. More to prove a point and as an academic exercise than anything else, but I don't have any specific aversion to them other than just not being my thing.
Quote:
On TSO'd instruments, we'll reach agreement pretty quickly once we define mission. If I were building an aircraft that I anticipated doing scheduled cross country or IFR stuff in I'd be right with you. What about a "putter around" plane that will probably never go over 4,000 AGL, faster than 60 MPH, and will only fly in "fun" VFR conditions at uncontrolled airfields?
Likewise. The one thing I will never settle for though is an uncertified engine. That's a deal breaker. When it comes time to build my day VFR bug smasher, I'm going with Dynon avionics though. Love them.
Quote:
You gonna use 100LL or Jet-A??
100LL or 80-octane. Why do you think I'm going with a turboprop more than anything else? Reduced risk of post crash fire secondary to the use of a kerosene based fuel instead of gasoline. ;)