EAA design contests for the future of homebuilding

[cluttonfred]

The Bowers Fly Baby was the result of an EAA-sponsored design contest. The EAA Biplane was actually commissioned by the EAA. A couple of designs inlcuding the Thorpe T-18 were even serialized in Sport Aviation over the years, with plans and building instructions published over multiple issues.

What, if anything, has EAA done in the last ten years to cultivate and promote new, low-cost designs for members and chapters to build? Why not take 1% of the funds that EAA receives from the big commercial exhibitors at Airventure and invest it in encouraging new designs: new commissioned designs for the 21st century, design contests, serialized plans?

[Zack Baughman]

There was this: http://www.airventure.org/news/2010/100812_eflight.html

Zack

[cluttonfred]

I suppose that's something, Zack, but then again, that was all privately sponsored. What has EAA done to promote new designs for homebuilders in recent years?

[WLIU]

The challenge is that we see a number of folks offering new designs for light aircraft. But marketing and production are the big challenges. EAA can, and apparently does, encourage those folks and certainly provides a show and media that gets those folks visibility. But EAA is not set up, and should not be set up, to help with the manufacturing and sales. And manufacturing and sales are today's issue. If Cessna can't get Skycatchers out at attractive pricing and organize their dealers to do flight training in them, why should we complain to EAA that they are not doing enough? Cessna has a LOT more resources and they aren't getting it done.

I see a number of companies that would like us to buy their LSA's. Those aircraft have lots of new technology and innovation in them. How does EAA add to this?

Best of luck,

Wes

[Aaron Novak]

The challenge is that we see a number of folks offering new designs for light aircraft. But marketing and production are the big challenges. EAA can, and apparently does, encourage those folks and certainly provides a show and media that gets those folks visibility. But EAA is not set up, and should not be set up, to help with the manufacturing and sales. And manufacturing and sales are today's issue. If Cessna can't get Skycatchers out at attractive pricing and organize their dealers to do flight training in them, why should we complain to EAA that they are not doing enough? Cessna has a LOT more resources and they aren't getting it done.

I see a number of companies that would like us to buy their LSA's. Those aircraft have lots of new technology and innovation in them. How does EAA add to this?

Best of luck,

Wes

Wes,
I believe the OP was talking about designs to people to BUILD, not factory planes or ARFS. In this reguard the EAA has not done as much to promote building as they used to.

[WLIU]

Well, if you look at that dimension of the experimental aircraft world, I currently see a huge number of options for someone who wants to build an airplane. There is everything from the Pietenpol to the Lancair Legacy and most designs have active builder communities thanks to the internet.

As for EAA support for builders, I see great articles in the monthly magazine and it seems like they are the only group doing building workshops. So in an economy of limited resources I really don't get how having EAA host what the original poster is suggesting provides a valuable addition to what is already out there.

So what I see is that we have a lot of dreamers out there who do not know how to get started. What I will suggest would be a great activity for EAA would be to put together a program of chapter "Introduction to..." programs where say the "Introduction to riveting" program package would provide a list of tools and materials and recommend an instructional video needed for a chapter meeting to have a "learn to rivet" meeting. That is EAA would organize the information that would allow a chapter to do a mini workshop on its own so that members could get a taste of some of the basic tasks for building an airplane. With a set of directions, a chapter could have a rib building session. With a couple of pages of plans a chepter could have a "how to read plans" session. This might get some folks over the "where do I start" hurdle. Some folks might sign up for a Sportair workshop and some might go straight to ordering plans or kit. Some might stay dreamers. But I will suggest that the EAA's biggest contribution at this point in history is guidance and encouragement that gets people to shift gears from dreaming to doing.

So my suggestion in response to the original post is that there are a LOT of options out there to dream about and unfortunately one more is unlikely to make a difference. We need to motivate more people to actually pick up tools and build.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Bret Steffen]

Not a bad idea Wes. It is a great conversation for Trevor and I in the chapters to have with Charlie and Mark with Sportair Workshops to see what we can come up with.

[cluttonfred]

Absolutely, more grassroots workshops at the chapter level are a great idea. But that still leaves a gap in affordable plans built aircraft designs less than ten or even 20 years old. EAA could do a LOT more to promote affordable homebuilding, including a much more prominent role for EXPERIMENTAL, AMATEUR-BUILT aircraft at Airventure.

[WLIU]

OK, help me out. My idea of affordable is likely different than yours and the ranges of numbers are a very reasonable point of discussion. So what is "affordable".

I can go to an aircraft salvage yard and get an engine for maybe $6000 in need of teardown and overhaul. For some more $$ I can get an engine that is flyable.

I can still buy complete VW based engine kits for in the teens of $$.

Behind that engine I can spend something around $10K I think for wood and tube and assorted other parts and after a few years of welding, sawing, glueing, screwing and bolting stuff together, I can fly a basic airplane.

Is the goal to be more affordable than the above?

I think that the labor cost/time is the actual huge investment. I think that we can finance the rest on the installment plane.

But what should the goal numbers be for "affordable".

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[cluttonfred]

Wes, I don't think our ideas of "affordable" are too far apart. The goals could be a scratchbuilt, single-seat homebuilt for the price of a new subcompact car (<$15,000) and a scratchbuilt, two-seat homebuilt for the price of a new compact car (~$20,000). I am not saying that those goals can't be achieved now--something like a VP-1 or FRED for the single seater, maybe a Double Eagle or a Sonerai for a two-seater -- but there doesn't seem to be any effort by EAA to encourage such affordable designs today. Those that are out there are twenty or more years old and we need new designs and new technology to attract the next generation of builders.


OK, help me out. My idea of affordable is likely different than yours and the ranges of numbers are a very reasonable point of discussion. So what is "affordable".

I can go to an aircraft salvage yard and get an engine for maybe $6000 in need of teardown and overhaul. For some more $$ I can get an engine that is flyable.

I can still buy complete VW based engine kits for in the teens of $$.

Behind that engine I can spend something around $10K I think for wood and tube and assorted other parts and after a few years of welding, sawing, glueing, screwing and bolting stuff together, I can fly a basic airplane.

Is the goal to be more affordable than the above?

I think that the labor cost/time is the actual huge investment. I think that we can finance the rest on the installment plane.

But what should the goal numbers be for "affordable".

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Victor Bravo]

I agree with Matthew. I'd like to weigh in here with my two cents about what is affordable.

95% of the production aircraft sitting on the ramp at your local airport, and 75% of the homebuilt kit airplanes you see at Oshkosh, were designed and certified (or introduced) when aviation gasoline was 25 or 50 cents a gallon.

My home airport (KWHP) is a ghost town these days because of this. People who already own airplanes are unable to fly because of the fuel cost. The fuel USED TO BE the least part of the cost of flying, but now when an average guy is looking to buy or build, fuel cost is a bigger concern than the purchase price of the airplane.

So for an "affordable airplane" that a person of genuinely average means can afford to fly after he or she builds it... IMHO we're talking about three or four gallons an hour OR PREFERABLY LESS, and we're talking about car gas at all costs.

We're about to see a great resurgence in small single seat airplanes. People who own a 182 or Bonanza are going to keep their Bonanza for the three or four times a year that they actually have a need for all those seats and all that fuel flow. But if they want to fly on the other 40 or 50 weekends and holidays by themselves for their $100 hamburgers, they are going to need something that is fun, cheap, small, and fits in the garage or under the wing of their large airplane in a hangar.

The airplane in Matthew's avatar picture, the much-maligned Pou du Ciel, is one very eloquent answer to this problem. EAA'ers should be building the modern updated Flying Fleas by the dozen. The beautiful little Luciole from Michel Colomban, and the Czech SD-1 Minisport, are also very good solutions. Personally, I have my own little airplane on the sketchpad that takes this concept one step further.

EAA is in a perfect position to bring its past (Paul's primary vision of helping people fly safely on a low budget) together with a solution for today's biggest aviation problems (ongoing cost of fuel and cost of building the aircraft) together and regain its leadership role in aviation for the average person. They can, and should, do this by sponsoring a design contest where the winner is the best balance between fixed cost, operating cost, safety, and ease of building.

[Greg Wilson]

Some out in front acknowledgement of inexpensive plans built machines like the Fly Baby, Pietenpol,or Volksplane would be good. The EAA publications and awards tend to focus only on higher end aircraft,big engines and even bigger glass panels. Showing that it is okay in the social aspect of EAA to build a low power machine including ultralights would be great. Yes EAA does show these things but not often in Sport Aviation the magazine everyone gets. A design competition could bring new aircraft or "updated old designs,like the Pober Pixie that was a slightly enlarged and re-engined Heath Parasol. Think a Pitenpol a little wider and longer,two stroke engine for cost or an A-65 shown on the plans instead of having to design the new mout and deal with the wt& balance. There are sub groups every where but the few chapters I have visited are not real friendly unless you are building a RV- with all the "bells & whistles".