Since this is the EAA if you have or are building an aircraft what is it?
why did you choose that one?
I will go first
working on a Ragwing Ultra-Piet
I chose it because it is wood, in my price range, fits with my love of classic aircraft since it is a replica of a late 1920s design. And last looked like something I could actually complete with my limited budged, and talent.
I completed an RV-6 in 2001, and it is my current flying aircraft. I built it for speed, gentlemen's aerobatics, and X/C trips with various girlfriends. It still does everything well, except the girlfriend part. My wife (who acquired me in 2003) seems to frown on the girlfriend idea.
I'm months away from completing an RV-10, because the RV-6 only has two seats, and we have a 6 year old. The -10 should provide a great X/C platform for my family.
Somewhere in the basement are a fair number of Hatz parts, going back to the era between finishing the RV-6 and getting married. That project will be resurrected one of these days. I really enjoy building, so there won't be much of a pause after the RV-10. Except, I need to complete or sell my Champ project, which is a whole lot further along than the Hatz, so I guess it is next in line.
Somewhere along the way, I'd like to build a Steward Headwind, just for local puttering around.
I'm building a Fisher Celebrity. I really wanted a biplane. I like the single seat WWI fighters, but I also really wanted two seats (wife and grandkids). I have to stay within Light Sport limits, which elominated most designs. Couldn't really find anything else that met my requirements. I like the look of the Celebrity and the fact that it's all wood, so I don't have to either pay someone to weld the fuselage, or learn and equip myself to weld well enough that I'd bet my life and the lives of others on it.
Measure twice, cut once...
scratch head, shrug, shim to fit.
Flying an RV-12. I am building a Fisher Celebrity, slowly.
I built a 7/8th scale Airdrome Aeroplanes Nieuport 11.
I wanted an airplane that was super inexpensive, open cockpit, low and slow, and single seat - that didn't require a lot of skill or tools to make. A biplane that looks like it could be over the skies of Verdun in 1916? Sign me up!
The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
I started a project based on the Pitts S-1S in the mid 80's. The original mission was to continue flying competition akro but the realities of the sport and my advancing age have forced a mission change. After years of letting life get in the way I'm getting back on task. The mission is now to enjoy the build and to have something of a time machine to enjoy like I did when I was younger flying aerobatics in my all-time favorite airplane type.
Since I was always too tall for comfort in the S-1S and since there have been some nice developments in Pitts performance the airplane will not be stock (been there, done that). The airframe will be built using 'old school' methods while completely avoiding things like composites, flat panel displays and electronic instruments. But it is being designed in Solidworks so I must not be a complete dinosaur even if the project will produce an airframe that could have been built in the 50's. The result of setting that goal means the airplane will be a little heavier than it might otherwise be but I won't be flying akro contests so it doesn't really matter. It's a time machine after all.....
Last edited by cwilliamrose; 10-28-2017 at 05:28 PM.
I am building a full sized, per drawings, 1918 Fokker D VII with a Ford 300 IL 6, in Alois Heldmann markings. He survived WW I with 15 confirmed victories. He later joined the Luftwaffe and survived WW II.
I figured this would be in my skills range by adding a few new tricks, minimal machining, and the plane was rated as the most stable, best all around fighter of WW I.
This will be my first build and first plane owned.
Does rebuilding count?
I'm getting ready to start rebuilding a Starduster One. I can't say I chose it, more like it chose me. I've always liked biplanes, had a Fisher FP-404 which was fun but limited performance, came across a good deal on a somewhat rough but airworthy Starduster. I wasn't that familiar with Stardusters, but it seemed the right plane for me. Bought it, flew it home, spent 4 months working on a new landing gear which it needed, only to break the plane when it cartwheeled in an off airport forced landing. After the initial disgust and wanting to sell the wreck and just get it out of my sight, I realized that although I only flew the plane for 20 hours before crashing it, I really liked flying it. So as soon as I can get some other home related projects out of the way, the rebuild will start. The restoration, which it would have needed in a couple of years anyway, will likely be more work than the actual repairs.
Building a Corben Junior Ace. I like the classic vibe without having to build four wing panels for a biplane. And I liked the utility vs a Piet.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote