Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42

Thread: Is homebuilding right for me?

  1. #21
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    some folks just aren't inclinded to build but they don't want a 40 year old airplane either
    As opposed to what?
    RV-3 1972
    RV-4 1979
    RV-6 1986
    Questair Venture 1987
    Long EZ 1979
    Vari EZ 1975
    Europa XS 1992
    Pietenpol 1928

    In other words, let's not try to use that argument when most of the designs people build at just as old as the "40 year old spam cans" we like to pick at.

    What a tragic story. Rushing to get to Oshkosh. Unbelievable.
    What makes it even more tragic is the number of people who tried to get him to stop being in such a dead set hurry (myself included). Dan's a perfect example of how self-confidence is a double-edged sword in this hobby that we must at all costs know when to put back into the scabbard.

    Bob, that's only true if you go the E-LSA certification route. However, the RV-12 can also be built and certified as E-AB with its associated 25 or 40 hour Phase I and no requirement to match exactly the S-LSA the design is based on. IOW the builder is free to mod from the get go if they opt to build E-AB.
    The only change I would recommend with good conscience is to improve the roll cage around the pilots (that is to say, actually put one in the aircraft), seats with taller backs or headrests and get away from a front-hinged canopy.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  2. #22
    Auburntsts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by steveinindy View Post
    As opposed to what?
    RV-3 1972
    RV-4 1979
    RV-6 1986
    Questair Venture 1987
    Long EZ 1979
    Vari EZ 1975
    Europa XS 1992
    Pietenpol 1928

    In other words, let's not try to use that argument when most of the designs people build at just as old as the "40 year old spam cans" we like to pick at.
    I'm not talking design age. I'm talking actual age of airframes on the used market and comparing apples to apples (ie new standard certified vs. new E-AB airframes) vice apples to oranges (ie 1978 Sky Borer with 3500TT vs a 2012 I Built-it with 0TT). The point I was trying to get across is some, like myself, prefer new to used. Sure I could get a used BO for a lot cheaper than what I'm sinking into my RV-10, but I don't want a plane that's as old as I am. Absolutety nothing wrong with BOs that old, but it's just not me, and for a lot less than a new BO I'm getting a brand new airframe that I assembled to exactly my wants which has intangible value to me outside of the raw value of the kit and compontents.
    Todd “I drink and know things” Stovall
    PP ASEL - IA
    RV-10 N728TT - Flying
    EAA Lifetime Member
    WAR DAMN EAGLE!

  3. #23
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    The point I was trying to get across is some, like myself, prefer new to used.
    Outside of the hardcore vintage junkies, I'd say you'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't look at it that way. That said, I apologize. I run into a lot of people who seem to think that the experimental designs themselves are newer and therefore necessarily better. Pardon me, I'm going to go finish removing my foot from my mouth. LOL

    lot less than a new BO I'm getting a brand new airframe that I assembled to exactly my wants which has intangible value to me outside of the raw value of the kit and compontents.
    Likewise. There is simply nothing on the market- either as plans, a kit or a commercially completed aircraft- that meets my requirements so I decided to design and build something that meets those desires.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  4. #24
    Auburntsts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    527
    Steve, it's all good!
    Todd “I drink and know things” Stovall
    PP ASEL - IA
    RV-10 N728TT - Flying
    EAA Lifetime Member
    WAR DAMN EAGLE!

  5. #25
    CarlOrton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    DFW Area
    Posts
    729
    Sorry for the thread creep. I'm just finishing my Sonex; will be taking it to the airport RSN. In the back of my head, along with some "help" from friends, is that I should be able to do first flight, make adjustments, and get my 40 hrs flown off in plenty of time for AirVenture 2012. The Dan Lloyd link (yes, I read it all) will forever be lodged in my brain as how NOT to rush things.

    Maybe I'll be ready for AirVenture 2012, but I really don't want to finish the 40 hrs on July 20th then set out on a long x-c. Thanks for posting the link. It resonated with me.

    Carl Orton
    Sonex #1170 / Zenith 750 Cruzer
    http://mykitlog.com/corton

  6. #26
    The reason for the desire to have an Alternate engine in the RV12 beside the 912ULS, is that honestly, I want a fuel injected engine in the aircraft. I'd get a simpler engine (with dual carbs, they have to be timed right in order for it to work) and better GPH. Plus, no more carb icing. So really, my RV12 is going to have a EFI engine in it. It's just a matter of which one.

  7. #27
    BushCaddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Marshfield, MA
    Posts
    17
    Sporty, have you considered the UL Power engine? An RV 12 builder has paved the way...here:http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...ad.php?t=82678

    and here:http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...ad.php?t=84495

    I would not change the location of the fuel tank. Evryone who builds a plane (including me) thinks they need this, that or the other thing...then it turns out you rarely use that thing. I can almost guarantee you will rarely, if ever, need a larger baggage area.

    Also, another complicating factor with a fuel injected engine is you will have to engineer in a fuel return line.

    Lastly, you can build an airplane as long as you have common sense and know your way around basic household tools. There is no great level of skill needed. You can do it. What is needed is the will to finish, you need to be persistent. You also need the support of family, more than one divorce has ocurred and more than one plane never got built because family obligations take precedense. Customizing adds time and complications. I would build the plane with the carbed engine and leave the fuel tank in its current location.
    Last edited by BushCaddy; 04-07-2012 at 01:05 PM. Reason: sp
    Don...
    BushCaddy N2C
    http://www.donsbushcaddy.com

  8. #28
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    You also need the support of family, more than one divorce has ocurred and more than one plane never got built because family obligations take precedense
    Burt Rutan is fond of answering the question "How long does it take to build an airplane?" with "About one and a half marriages."
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  9. #29

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    FA40
    Posts
    767
    Quote Originally Posted by SportyPilot View Post
    I've settled on the RV-12 because I like it's easy to assemble design and the fact that Vans now offer a Skyview panel...I don't really plan on building the RV-12 as an E-LSA....like to have a fuel injected engine in my airplane...like to build and put in this fuel tank...
    so - what difference does it make that van's offers a skyview, a simple change, if you don't plan to build it as E-LSA? you plan to put in a different engine and different fuel tank, but you selected the design based on the PANEL configuration? wow.

    you did look at the RANS S-19, right? historically RANS has been very supportive of alternative engine installations. ok, so you looked at that and decided against it.

    you're committed to going experimental/amateur built to gain freedom. does the fuel tank mod increase or decrease the empty weight? does the engine swap increase or decrease the empty weight? do you intend to keep the max gross below 1320lbs for LSA operations? if the answers are "increase" "increase" and "yes" then good luck to you on having a satisfactory LEGAL and SAFE useful load. because you'll be breaking new ground on engineering otherwise!

    as to doing it, hey, why not, have fun. all it will cost is extra time and money. amounts unknown. your mileage may vary. but it CAN be done and you (or your checkbook) CAN do it.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,575
    What is your want to have fuel injection, so much so that you want to use a different engine than the design? Is it just from a techno geek standpoint that is seems more modern? I doubt it you could tell the difference in flight between one and the other. The fuel injected engine may put out a little more power, but it is also likely to be harder to start when hot.

    It is good that you are asking and seeking advice before plunging in. I am no homebuilding expert,but we did build a Starlite, with a Rotax carbureted 2 stroke engine. It didn't sound too good but ran just fine.

    There were were 2 fatal accidents not long after the Starlite came out. This really hurt the designer and its following. Investigation of the wreckage showed that IN BOTH CASES THE BUILDER HAD ALTERED THE DESIGN, AND LEFT OUT A MAJOR STEP IN CONSTRUCTION, WHICH LED TO THE FAILURE IN THE AIR.
    IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE, but the normal plane had a really nice piece of fir or spruce as the main spar. It was strong in the veritical plane, especially for aircraft that only weighed 254 lbs complete. But there was one hole in the middle of the inboard end of the spar, where a metal cap was inserted to hold the pin which held the wing on. So to prevent the force from spliting the spar from this hole, the entire inboard end of the spar was to be wrapped in about 6 or 8 layer of fiberglass and resin. That was no big deal, only took a couple of days.
    But BELIVE IT OR NOT, ONE BUILDER TOTALLY IGNORED THIS AND OMITTED ALL THE GLASS WRAP. Of course the spar eventually split and flailed in flight. The designer could not believe that a builder would willingly do this, but it was very plain in the wreckage. It was like the builder wanted to play Russian roulette.
    Where the tail spar slid into the fuselage, there was also some reinforcement in the design; can't remember if it was some glass wrap or not. This was more difficult as it was a tight fit. Anyway another builder first tried to do it the right way,but then when he had trouble getting the tail on, he did it is such a way that eliminated all the reinforcement. The designer himself, Marc Brown ?, was test flying this plane for the owner, at SUN N FUN when the tail came off. Marc successfully parachuted to safety. So much for those who think wearing a chute in a homebulit or experimental is foolish. Marc is perhaps 5'8", and slim so he could get a chute in ok. I am about 5'!0', not so slim,and it was a tight fit, but I sure wore a chute everytime in ours.

    The lesson is don't change a design, especially a kit, without discussing it with the builder. This would be especialy true in Van's case, I think, since he isn't just s theory guy, he has had a lot of success over the years in a number of designs.
    Now the builder, may not approve a change, maybe just from a liability standpoint, but at least give him a chance to consider the changes.

    Good luck in whatever you build, go do it and get to flying.

    By the way, the new SPORT AVIATION, issue has a story and a program where you go to the Glassair factory in Wash or Oregon, and at the end of 2 weeks you have an almost complete airplane. No pipe dream, folks have and are doing it. Only thing the model is not one of the sleek low wing ones, it is sort of a Cessna look alike, but still may be a good plane,and sure worth 2 weeks.
    Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 04-08-2012 at 10:24 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •