Lindy Lancair?

[Jon Hubbell]

After reading one of this months featured articles in Sport Aviation "High Country Legacy" it seems that EAA homebuilt judging is impressed with Lancair factory quickbuild kits! What happened to real grass roots building? This article clearly boast the fact that this airplane was built in Lancairs builders assistance program! As the article reads " it was money well spent" ! Also the article clearly states that the aircraft was painted by a professional not the builder. It seems that if you want to win the Gold Lindy at EAA Airventure you better have the most money! Should the judges be impressed by the person who spent the most money on there airplane to make it nice? In the future why don't we look for real homebuilders! Not guys who spent the most money at pro shops to get there! The integrity of the most coveted award in homebuilding is at stake. Reference Sport Aviation pg 64-69 Feb 2015.

[Dana]

Aircraft with significant professional help, like a pro paint job, should list the pro as a co-recipient. Or do something like the FAA's 51% evaluation, assigning points to parts the builder actually completed, and using that as part of the scoring.

Dana

[Jon Hubbell]

The judging at EAA Airventure also awarded Jay Sabot's Lancair Legacy a Grand Champion in 2013. It was also a Lancair builders assistance airplane with pro paint and instrument panel. If you want to win the gold Lindy at EAA just drop about $260k and it will be yours. According to this article. http://www.akia.aero/?p=200 Congratulations to the winners!

[Kyle Boatright]

I agree with the sentiment of this thread. Pro built aircraft represented by owners have won a lot of awards at the big shows over the last 20 years, and IMO, that isn't how it is supposed to be.

Given that these owners are willing to sign a legal document saying they built the aircraft for education and recreation (they didn't, they wrote checks, for the most part), there is no way to keep them from misrepresenting the aircraft at Oshkosh (or SnF or Copperstate or whatever). Can the judges tell? From what I've been told, yes, but are we gonna make the judges evaluate who the real builders are vs the check writers? I don't think that's realistic.

So we're stuck with what we've got.

Which means build what you want to the best of your abilities and enjoy the results, even if the guy who wrote a $250k check gets the awards...

[Marc Zeitlin]

I agree with the sentiment of this thread.

Ditto, in a GENERAL sense.

Pro built aircraft represented by owners have won a lot of awards at the big shows over the last 20 years, and IMO, that isn't how it is supposed to be.

I don't know enough to say whether the first part of that sentence is true, but I certainly agree with the second part. That's not how it's supposed to be.

Given that these owners are willing to sign a legal document saying they built the aircraft for education and recreation (they didn't, they wrote checks, for the most part), there is no way to keep them from misrepresenting the aircraft at Oshkosh (or SnF or Copperstate or whatever).

I agree that there are MANY aircraft built that were built by pros, and yet somehow get E/AB AC's. I don't know why that happens, but it does. As someone who's built one kit plane (a Quickie Q2, back when kits merely meant that the MFG collected all the stuff you'd need to build a plane and sent it to you in one box - the Q2 had molded fuselage halves, and that's it for pre-fab) and one plans-built plane (a COZY MKIV, that I currently fly and have 1126 hours on, and which I spent 3K hours building over 7.5 years), it sticks in my craw that I've actually built these for "education and recreation", and others circumvent the rules by hiring builders to do almost everything for them.

HOWEVER, I went back and read both of the articles about both of the Lancair Legacy's mentioned above - in one case, the builder spent 5 days at the Builder Assist Facility, and in the other case, the builder spent 3-4 months there. But in both cases, the builds were long, multi-year projects, in which it seemed fairly obvious to me that the builder DID build the majority of the aircraft and if I were a DAR, I would have had no compunction about assigning an E/AB AC to either plane. They each spent thousands of hours over many years building, and that's OK with me.

So I agree that in general, this has been and still is a problem, both in certification and therefore possibly in awards, but in these two particular cases, I would NOT have a problem. I wish that the FAA/DAR/EAA would view the problem aircraft/owners as such...

So we're stuck with what we've got.

Yes. And as long as the FAA/DAR's are going to keep assigning E/AB AC's to aircraft that don't meet the definition of E/AB, we'll continue to be stuck with it. I ASSUME that the reason they do this is because they believe that it's safer than the alternative, but I may be generous with that interpretation.

Which means build what you want to the best of your abilities and enjoy the results, even if the guy who wrote a $250k check gets the awards...

Always better to get satisfaction from within. However, when I'm at OSH, I'll look at the plans built planes and ogle the really fancy ones like these, but I spend a lot more time looking at the PLANS-BUILT planes, and looking at which of THEM win awards.

I currently help the owner of a COZY MKIV that won a Plans-Built Bronze Lindy at OSH in 2013 maintain his plane and I do the Condition Inspections on it. The builder (not the current owner) did almost all of the work himself (other than the panel) over many years and didn't spend a whole lot more on the plane than most folks do on their COZY's. THAT's what E/AB aircraft means to me. Another friend did the same with his COZY MKIV and JUST missed the Bronze the same year.

[Jon Hubbell]

Thank you Marc and Kyle for taking the time to chime in on this subject. Marc I totally agree with you that looking at the plans built aircraft when at Airventure is more interesting than the kit built. Building any plane from start to finish is a huge accomplishment! I just think we should step back and take a long hard look at the process and see if the system that we have in place is moving us forward in education and recreation or is it an award for the person who can spend the most money on his or her project to win a Gold Lindy! On the back of the Lindy trophies there is a very important statement "Progress and Quality are Inseparable" Charles Lindberg 1948. Is this an award for the person with the deepest pockets or the person who learned a new skill like painting, engine building, aircraft electrical wiring, ect? Is this progress?

[Marc Zeitlin]

I just think we should step back and take a long hard look at the process and see if the system that we have in place is moving us forward in education and recreation or is it an award for the person who can spend the most money on his or her project to win a Gold Lindy!

I think that you've got to be careful to specify which category of aircraft you're talking about here. There are plans built, kit built, antique, warbird, etc. I'd argue that for warbirds (and sometimes antiques), it's ALWAYS been an award for who can spend the most $$$ - restorers are the ones that should get the awards, not the owner that gives the plane TO the restorer.

Now, for kit-planes, which in the grand scheme of things, is relatively new - the really complete kits, with quick-build and builder assist centers - are all within the last 10-15 years or so, things have changed. Kits (as I mentioned regarding my Q2) USED to be just a pile of parts that someone put in a box for you so that you didn't have to source everything from 652 different vendors. And they generally included better sets of building plans and instructions. No more - now they're pushing the limits of the regulations, but the reputable ones are approved by the FAA, including the builder assist centers, so that at least by someone's definition, the "builder" does the majority of the task types.

Anyway, I agree that the kit-plane category has certainly moved in the direction of the warbirds - throw $$$ at the plane. But it's a continuum - what's OK for someone else (a pro) to do and still consider the plane "amateur built"? I think that all we can do is go by the FAA's approved definition - there's just nothing else to grab on to. So for me, the kit-built aircraft are interesting to look at to see what's possible in the world of experimental aircraft when cost is not an issue.

But I go back to the OTHER category of plans-built, where it's possible, but far less likely or common, to have a pro build a plane for you (although it does happen). In this category, I feel like the awards are not just a function of $$$, but are much more (although not completely) a measure of the BUILDER'S skill and care. And to me, that's more interesting, so that's what I pay attention to more.

If you take a look at the 2013 champions (last year that's posted on the EAA website - reference the other thread about the EAA's inability to use electronic communications effectively) you can see the plans-built grand champion was a Hatz Classic, the Silver award went to a Starduster, and the Bronze went to the previously referenced COZY MKIV, as well as another Hatz and a Tailwind. I can say pretty categorically that none of those planes were built by pros, although the Long-EZ that won an "Outstanding Workmanship" award had a LOT of work done on it by a shop.

On the back of the Lindy trophies there is a very important statement "Progress and Quality are Inseparable" Charles Lindberg 1948. Is this an award for the person with the deepest pockets or the person who learned a new skill like painting, engine building, aircraft electrical wiring, ect? Is this progress?

For the Kit-Built aircraft, it's certainly becoming an award for those with deep pockets, just like for warbirds. But for the Plans-built, I don't think that's the case, and it's hard to imagine it becoming the case any more than it ever has been.

My $0.02.

[psween]

Have to agree with Marc that just using a 'builder assist' option at the factory doesn't necessarily mean the owner isn't a real builder. I helped a friend build a Legacy a number of years ago, including a week spent at the factory builder assist program. While having factory jigs and fixtures was valuable, there wasn't a bit of work done there that we didn't do ourselves with a factory rep looking over our shoulders. While we were there, we met another builder who was into several months of builder assist, and again, while he certainly enjoyed the use of factory fixtures and tools, he was doing it himself with oversight. I have no problem with those folks winning an award in the kit category. I think it's important to separate the factory supported 'builder assist' programs from the private 'hired gun' shops where the supposed 'owner/builder' may not even be present. While I know there are 'hired gun' type shops out there (I worked for one in Florida for a while), I think the number of people who can afford them is small enough that the majority of builders won't be able to use them. Like most on here, I look at both the show planes and the rough, working aircraft at the shows. I get ideas from both types, and they are all ahead of me when it comes to having a flying airplane!

Patrick Sween