Sport Aviation Magazine

[Frank Giger]

Point of information!

Experimental status is, and this may come as a shock to some and a perceived slight to others, not an invitation to cut corners or try to save a few buck on construction.

Cutting corners and saving a few bucks on construction are mutually exclusive goals.

I've never met a homebuilder that cut corners - but every single one of them looks at how to make a safe plane at the lowest cost. Homebuilding is at its very core an effort to arrive at a product at a lower cost, mostly through the use of their own time as labor.

I may very well be wrong, but then again if all things are equal with the "eh, it works" approach to construction, why do experimental aircraft have such a bigger issue with loss of engine power incidents and crashes (as an example)?

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.

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.

Now then, I'm building it for me - a very tall 6'2" 180 pound pilot. Well, when one scales me up from 7/8ths scale to match the aircraft to 1:1, anyway. In reality, everything will be customized for my 5'7" 145 pound body. I will know every thing about the engine and redrive from installation to maintenance. The non-adjustable seat will be set for me. The non-adjustable rudders will be set for me.

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.

The problem comes from when I sell the plane. The next guy might not be close to my height or weight and skirt the CG one way or the other. He may not be aware of how to inspect a redrive or what maintenance to do on the airframe and engine. Danger, Will Robinson.

Worse is when that second guy sells the aircraft. He won't get the "lemme tell you about my baby" briefing the first buyer got. He may be wildly off of my size.

He may have never flown a short wheel based light tail dragger. He might not know that the brakes are only to be used at a very slow taxi speed, being put in place solely to hold the aircraft at start, runup, and to finish off a power off coasting at the hanger when done.

Add in the maintenance mystery. One does not consult an A&P to maintain a V-twin; one consults a motorcycle mechanic.

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.

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?

In my aircraft about the only thing on the panel I'll be watching is the slip indicator, volt meter, oil temp and pressure guages with real interest. Glance at the altimeter when getting ready to approach an airport for landing.

Just like I do in the Champ, which is all nicely certified and TSO'd.

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....

I'll agree that it's "big tent" in the EAA. 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. 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!

[edit]

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!

And sometimes they fight dumb issues that shouldn't be fought.

When the organizations become too similar one of them is redundant. We see this in politics all the time. When given a choice between voting for a Democrat or a politician that sounds like a Democrat, people will vote for the Democrat.*

* Insert any political party, as it holds true regardless.

[Jalsup]

I think they should renegotiate Mac's contract in such a way that he MUST build something flyable in his garage; scratch or kit.

We'll see if his direction turns.

This would actually be a pretty neat deal. I would love, as a condition of Mac's employment, for him to be required to fly something like a Flybaby, a Pietenpol, and do a Pirep on it. Also to build one would be great.

Again, I go back to what I have previously said. It will probably step on some toes and hurt some feelings, but I feel its the truth. This whole thread is what's wrong with EAA today, and why if it continues down the path it's on, it will die. This is nothing but old guys sitting around, complaining that since it isn't exactly what the EAA was 30 years ago, it's wrong. Progress happens. Either accept it or get out of the way (or EAA may come to a crashing halt in a short time period).

Not saying I like seeing TBM articles at all - I don't - but, this thread is one thing that seems "right" with EAA. We have 32 pages of bashing the editor-in-chief and the overall direction of the organization. Contrast that with FLYING magazine for a moment: There was an online letter to the editor type forum and an aeronautical engineer brought up some excellent points to counter-act one of Robert Goyers 1000 word ejaculations about the latest and greatest glass cockpit thing and how those were so much safer and technologically advanced aircraft were the greatest thing since sliced bread. This aero-engineer pretty much deconstructed Goyer (respectfully) within two paragraphs and I was extremely excited to see what Goyers response would be. His response - the excellent comment was removed. When the author of that comment, as well as a post I wrote a post that both said "Where's the post?" those were removed as well. So, at least the forum gives voice to the frustration and is not an example of what's "wrong" in my view - it's an example of what's still "right".

[Bill Berson]

Since the EAA mission statement does not now include factory new aircraft of any kind, will EAA change the mission statement to include factory new aircraft?

And what percentage of SPORT AVIATION will be dedicated to factory new aircraft?
Bill

[Jalsup]

One thing I'd like to see - and it was something that occurred with AOPA - is this. There was a controversy last year sometime with AVWEB pulling up AOPA financial information and publishing it - and getting some things wrong. Well, this caused an excrement storm on the AOPA forums with many members complaining of payrolls, etc. To his enormous credit, Craig Fuller got ON THE FORUM and addressed this things and rebutted some of the misconceptions of members. It turned the whole discussion around pretty much. It was great that he would do this.

Now, I'm of the opinion "Give Mac and chance". Not because I care about business av, or because I want to read about ANYTHING that doesn't have a tailwheel...but, in the interest of fairness, I always give people a chance. That's just me. That said, it would show a lot for Mac to show up on the forums and mix it up with us. Other EAA staffers are facing the wrath (to their credit) - I'd like Mac to come here and mix it up with us that don't want, can't afford, and have no interest in TBM's and other such nonsense. Let him state his vision and we can then engage him. Just a thought. If Craig Fuller can do it, so can Mac.

On a side note, I'm personally distressed. I had a subscription to FLYING but let it run out because I was tired of hearing Mac and then Goyer wax orgasmic about plastic airplanes with parachutes or the latest and greatest biz jet. The only thing I miss from flying is Martha. I quit AOPA because I was sick of reading about plastic airplanes with parachutes and bizjets. I joined EAA because I wanted to join Vintage, but also used to like Sport Aviation when I'd read my barbers copy. Now that I join EAA...I get articles by Mac about turbine powered airplanes. I'm afraid it is ME. I'm to blame - the minute I join EAA it turns into a gross hybrid of AOPA Pilot and FLYING. I apologize for that. I told the guys at the National Waco Club forum (One of the two GREATEST aviation organizations on earth) that if I saw an article in the newsletter about a replica AVN-8 (the tri-geared Waco) powered by a PT-6 and with a glass cockpit that I would set myself ablaze like a protesting Buddhist monk.

[Mike Switzer]

I told the guys at the National Waco Club forum (One of the two GREATEST aviation organizations on earth) that if I saw an article in the newsletter about a replica AVN-8 (the tri-geared Waco) powered by a PT-6 and with a glass cockpit that I would set myself ablaze like a protesting Buddhist monk.

You gonna use 100LL or Jet-A??

[Jalsup]

You gonna use 100LL or Jet-A??

In keeping with my vintage preference, I'm going to find some 80 octane!

[steveinindy]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Kyle Boatright]

I'm sensing thread drift.... ;-)

[steveinindy]

I'm sensing thread drift.... ;-)

This thing had a direction to begin with? It seemed more like a bunch of uncoordinated whining from the word go. LOL Like I said....welcome to Occupy Sport Aviation.

[Spindrift]

After reading all 32 pages of this thread, skimming over the posts that attempted thread drift, I find the discussion very interesting. I surfed over to EAA after reading the similarly passionate thread on Vansairforce.net. I'm not going to rehash the many good points made, but just add one more to the camp of not liking the direction SA has taken recently, especially the past two issues. I used to find SA my favorite aviation mag of the 4 I have subscriptions to (AOPA Pilot, Plane&Pilot, Kitplanes), but lately that is not the case. I travel frequently, and enjoy reading flying mags in the back of the tube when electronics are not allowed. I also pass them on to fellow passengers, either directly, or by leaving them somewhere (like the Skyclub) where they might inspire someone else's passion for aviation. I also flip through FLYING at airport newsstands, and rarely see anything that interests me enough to buy a copy.

Hopefully the shift for December that Chad mentioned is a good one. Some of the changes wouldn't have to be great to calm the uproar. Some ideas: an article on the history of Socata and the restoration of an early model, with a sidebar about the latest/greatest TBM 750. An article about how building a Mosquito ultralight helicopter inspired someone to step up to a classic Bell, or at least a sidebar about AB helicopters. A story about a memorable flight by someone other than JMac, or maybe, at least, his memorable experience of getting his TW endorsement instead of yet another IFR flight.

I don't mind some certified info sprinkled in, but the November issue was weighted far too heavily away from what makes EAA special/different. If that must be the direction, then give a discount to members who opt out of the magazine subscription but still want to support the many other great things EAA does to support aviation.

And please, Lane, wrap up the big cross country! I usually enjoy her writing, and have a copy of "Little Deuce Coupe" from years back on my bulletin board at work to give to people who ask about my RV, but this trip reminds me why I bought an RV instead of the Grumman Cheetah a CFI recommended as a "sporty plane" that would remind me of my MINI Cooper S.

-- bill
Portland, OR
RV7A QB sold pre-finish kit
RV7 purchased flying