Looking for opinions.....

[wyoranch]

I am contemplating getting back into aircraft ownership. I had been originally contemplating building, but at this point in my life it is not the best choice for me. I am looking at a LSA eligible certificated plane. I have been researching Cubs, Champs and the T-Crafts. All things keep leading me back to a T-Craft. Looks, performance (If you can call it that) and price keep pointing to them. I am soliciting personal experience you may have with them compared to Cubs and Champs. I do LOVE the nostalgia that come from planes of that era. I do have a ton of time in 'modern' planes, but almost none in antique/taildraggers.
Thaks
Rick

[Dana]

A T-Craft will outperform any of the other planes in its class. You'll learn to control airspeed on final if you don't want to float halfway down the runway. Read the pilot reports on airbum.com. There is an expensive wing strut AD.

But also consider a used experimental, you can save a ton on maintenance.

[wyoranch]

Dana,
I read Buds pirep on the T-craft and a few others I have stumbled on. Maintenance is the one issue of why I have not returned to the certificates fold. I really wanted to be able to maintain and perform my own condition inspections. Doesn't someone else building the plane prevent me from doing that? That is the rub, I would LOVE to do a T-Craft tribute to the old school aerobatic performers, but with a certificated plane, all of the mods and work would need to be performed by a a&p. So for now I would be content to just get back in the air.
I am open to ideas from all of you on here.
thanks
Rick

[Tom Charpentier]

I really wanted to be able to maintain and perform my own condition inspections. Doesn't someone else building the plane prevent me from doing that?

If you're referring to an experimental that someone else built, then it's maintenance yes, condition inspection no (for that you need an A&P or the builder with a repairman certificate - note the A&P need not be an IA). For standard category, no on both except that FAR 43.3(d) does allow for you to work under the personal supervision of an A&P.

If I was going for one of those '39-'46 trainers, I would probably either go for a T-Craft or a Chief. Seem like great value for money.

Tom

[wyoranch]

Tom,
thank you for the clarification. I do agree that the t-craft seems to be a good value for what you get. That is why I keep coming back to it. The reality of it is... While I would like to do a lot of things, reality is that usually does not happen. I am truly itching to get back into the air, and a very simple plane seems like the logical step.

[ssmdive]

What is your mission?
What is your budget?

If you want to be able to go places, a true Cub may not be the best option. If you just want to poke around, it may be perfect. If you want to go places and have a budget, a Vans RV12 would fit. Do you want to be able to do acro? You going to have a passenger? Side by side? Front and back? How much luggage?
You OK with two strokes?

Lots of info needed

[wyoranch]

Budget < $40,000+/-
Mission. Just getting up in the air. Enjoying the scenery.
i would like to have something than can do easy acro, I always enjoyed that, but it is not a necessity. 90% of the time I will be solo, but an extra seat would be nice, tandem or side by side is fine. Luggage, load carrying is not as significant as the primary purpose is local pleasure flying. I have to plead ignorance about 2 strokes, my opinion is based completely on what little I have read on the internet which seems to me to show them as unreliable. To give a little more background, I had slimmed my choices for building down to two aircraft. Zenith ch-650 and the Vans RV-12. The issue with the the latter is that I think I would be hard pressed to complete the plane for less than twice my budget and I know the zenith would be better but still stretch my funds beyond what I hoped.
Rick

[Floatsflyer]

Don't overlook a Luscombe. Best looking, most aerodynamic of the bunch and imo slightly out performs the T-Craft.

[wyoranch]

Don't overlook a Luscombe. Best looking, most aerodynamic of the bunch and imo slightly out performs the T-Craft.
Much like my ignorance with 2 strokes, I have read that they can be somewhat of a bear on the ground. I am new to becoming a REAL pilot by dragging my tail. That is the point of my original post. I am looking for insight and ideas about a good airplane to get started with. There was absolutely no slight intended to the Luscombe folks. :-) I am not sold on anything in particular.
Rick

[Frank Giger]

All things are relative - a "bear on the ground" will mean nothing to a pilot who gains experience in it, as he will just take the attention needed as rote after awhile.

In the certified world, I just fell in love with the Champ. There's something about its looks, its feel, and over all presentation in flight that just felt right to me from the first time I sat in one.

[ssmdive]

1. Budget < $40,000+/-
2. i would like to have something than can do easy acro, I always enjoyed that, but it is not a necessity.
3. Luggage, load carrying is not as significant as the primary purpose is local pleasure flying.
4. I have to plead ignorance about 2 strokes, my opinion is based completely on what little I have read on the internet which seems to me to show them as unreliable.
5. Zenith ch-650 and the Vans RV-12. The issue with the the latter is that I think I would be hard pressed to complete the plane for less than twice my budget and I know the zenith would be better but still stretch my funds beyond what I hoped.
Rick

1. 40K is a good budget. You would be hard pressed to *build* almost anything and not hit or easily exceed that amount. You can go to "Barnstomers" and click "Browse ads" and then on the far right run down the list and click on "Light Sport". You will find a bunch of LSA aircraft for sale for under 40K. For example, this one looks pretty good at a glance, IMO http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1124561_1997+Rans+S7.html

I have a buddy with a Rans 6 and he loves it.

Here is another example: http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1123498_+ZODIAC+601+HD.html

I have a buddy building one and liked the way it flew.

You could go with the classic Cub, although as soon as it is painted yellow the price jumps 5,000 (just saying that Cubs are overpriced for what they deliver).

2. Acro makes it a bit more difficult. LSA aerobatic is not a gigantic market. I think the Rans S10 fits, but I have no experience with it. There is the F12 Comet, but that will not make your budget.

3. Almost any plane will meet that point. But planes like my old Challenger II had no place for a person AND luggage since it had a gas tank where some people put luggage.

4. Two strokes..... I share your opinion of them. I had one, didn't like it. I put 113 hours on it and was continually having to mess with it and had two significant issues with it. I have 600+ hours on 4 strokes with fewer issues than I had in the 113.

5. Both good choices... Building either will bust your budget. You can buy a 650 for 40Kish, but I don't think you are going to find an RV-12 for that budget.

These are all just my opinions and thoughts... In the end you are going to have to fly several planes before you really decide on a type. And then you are going to have to look at several before you find the one that speaks to you.....

Good luck

[wbecker319]

I have owned a T Craft, and I have flown Cubs, a Champ, a Chief and several Luscomes.
Some comments random thoughts on each:
The T Craft does not have the wood formers that are in the fuselage of the Champ and Chief.
The Cub is over priced, and very slow, also very fun, has a stick.
The champ is tandem seating, which I like, especially if you will be mostly flying alone. And has a stick.
The Luscombe is the fastest, and has a stick, but requires much better tailwheel skills than the others.
Remember there is a LOT of maintenance the owner can do him self, read FAR 43Appendix A section (C).
Bill B

[Byron J. Covey]

For that budget, I would look for a solid 7-ECA with metal spars. It flies much better than any of the others, is easier to enter / exit, is more comfortable, if in good condition is safe, and legal, for basic aerobatics.

If you want to stick with one of the old planes, a clipped wing Taylorcraft with at least a C-90 would be first choice, followed by a 7-Series. Many people like Cubs, and they are great for summer flying with the door open, but the handling is terrible, and the front seat is difficult for a tall or older person to get into.


BJC

[1600vw]

All things are relative - a "bear on the ground" will mean nothing to a pilot who gains experience in it, as he will just take the attention needed as rote after awhile.

In the certified world, I just fell in love with the Champ. There's something about its looks, its feel, and over all presentation in flight that just felt right to me from the first time I sat in one.

I have some experience in this area. I owned an airplane that was a bear on the ground. I ground looped her so many times I got tired of counting. Flying her was simple. I sold her after I tamed her. But she still made me nervous when coming in to land. I like to fly just to get into the air and relax. Nothing about landing this airplane was relaxing. The airplane I fly today is so relaxing to fly, such fun. Never has she ever thought about ground looping in almost 6 years of flying her. I will not mention either of these airplanes for they both are single seat and not what you are looking for.

Yes my airplane is female. I treat her with the same respect and soft hand that I treat my loving wife.

1600vw....Tony

P.S. My point: If you have an airplane that makes you nervous, I found you will start flying less and less. If you have one that makes you relaxed or are relaxed flying. You will be flying all the time. I lived this.

[wyoranch]

I have some experience in this area. I owned an airplane that was a bear on the ground. I ground looped her so many times I got tired of counting. Flying her was simple. I sold her after I tamed her. But she still made me nervous when coming in to land. I like to fly just to get into the air and relax. Nothing about landing this airplane was relaxing. The airplane I fly today is so relaxing to fly, such fun. Never has she ever thought about ground looping in almost 6 years of flying her. I will not mention either of these airplanes for they both are single seat and not what you are looking for.

Yes my airplane is female. I treat her with the same respect and soft hand that I treat my loving wife.

1600vw....Tony

P.S. My point: If you have an airplane that makes you nervous, I found you will start flying less and less. If you have one that makes you relaxed or are relaxed flying. You will be flying all the time. I lived this.
That is exactly what I want to avoid. Flying is fun, it should not be the source of a stroke every time you take off. Thank you for your thoughts.
Rick

[Floatsflyer]

P.S. My point: If you have an airplane that makes you nervous, I found you will start flying less and less. If you have one that makes you relaxed or are relaxed flying. You will be flying all the time. I lived this.

So true, true, true! Anxiety, nervousness, distress, tenseness, worry, angst, uneasiness has no good place in flying a particular type or types of aircraft or avionics. Your flying must be joyous and fun and exciting. If it isn't, your time in that plane will come to an abrupt halt.

[Frank Giger]

Yes my airplane is female. I treat her with the same respect and soft hand that I treat my loving wife.

I'm a bit of an animist myself, which causes my wife no end of amusement.

She asked me if I was going to name my aircraft one day as I was nearing completion.

"Yep."

"What are you going to name it?"

"Either Babette or Bruno. I won't know what it is until I take it up in the air. It might be a Bruno that needs to be shown who is the Alpha Male with some grunting and trouble; then again it might be the stereotypical French girl - a little love, a few mild habits that need attention, and some mischief. I'll find out."

She turned out to be a Babette - a little bit of trouble getting her started up into the air and pure joy after that. :)

[Spezioman]

I suppose it depends on your skill and or/experience or lack of as regards T-craft or Luscombe . If you don't have the skill then you have to pay your dues and get training.
Most of my 800tt is in tail draggers including a Pitts, L19, Starduster 2, Spezio and now a Acroduster 2. While I guess I'm fairly skilled I still choose my days and don't push my self imposed limits on cross wind. I also fly off a 200' wide X 2000' grass strip.

Bottom line, I can easily handle a 15-20 mph x-wind in the Acroduster on grass. My limit would be lower with any lighter wing loaded aircraft like a T-craft or cub especially on hard surface. With any new to me aircraft I would start out with calm conditions and work my way up to more wind. Even though most would think the Pitts most demanding, I found the O1D(L19) Bird Dog the most demanding aircraft I've flown. I flew it in a military flying club and flew it a lot and became fairly well skilled but it would bite hard if you got sloppy. Marcia and I took it on a poker run one very windy day and I think I used more than the available runway width at three of five airports......lucky I didn't hit anything. Turned out the tailwheel needed a rebuilt but I was too stupid to know about such things back then. It didn't get rebuilt until our high time CFI/Army pilot almost lost it....

I've never owned a T-craft but I spent some time looking for the right one twice. I just never found the one I wanted at the time. It would be my first choice for a certified aircraft.

Also a lot depends on if you have a good mechanic/IA handy and if you have a "relationship" with him. Personally I find having a E-AB with repairman certificate the perfect solution but one must again pay their dues and build an airplane. There isn't any free lunch in aviation. You might think so but you will pay in the end.

Yes, as said before the T-craft demands speed control to land correctly. Any airplane does but the t-craft will get your attention if too fast with a crosswind for sure. I haven't flown any purpose built LSA's but I suspect they all are kite like in even moderate wind. One must learn to fly them all the way to the hangar/tiedown.

Jack

[flyrgreen]

A few replies have missed a bit in regards to E/AB and maintenance-- you do not need need to be the builder to do maintenance on your experimental. In fact ANYONE can do the work on your E/AB, regardless of their status as a mechanic! This of course is a major money-saver. Experimentals can be either Light Sport qualified or not, but that is a licensing issue about whether you need a Medical & PPL or not; maintenance is not tied to E/AB being flown as LSA or not.

Where the confusion comes from is regarding S-LSA. These are aircraft purpose-built for LSA category, usually sold as a kit or ready-to-fly from the factory. The original builder can perform all maintenance, without an A&P cert. Only an A&P or IA can "annual" the plane. HOWEVER, if you purchase a used S-LSA, you can take a 120-hour course to become legal for all maintenance and annual inspection on your S-SLA.

[rwanttaja]

A few replies have missed a bit in regards to E/AB and maintenance-- you do not need need to be the builder to do maintenance on your experimental. In fact ANYONE can do the work on your E/AB, regardless of their status as a mechanic! This of course is a major money-saver. Experimentals can be either Light Sport qualified or not, but that is a licensing issue about whether you need a Medical & PPL or not; maintenance is not tied to E/AB being flown as LSA or not.

Where the confusion comes from is regarding S-LSA. These are aircraft purpose-built for LSA category, usually sold as a kit or ready-to-fly from the factory. The original builder can perform all maintenance, without an A&P cert. Only an A&P or IA can "annual" the plane. HOWEVER, if you purchase a used S-LSA, you can take a 120-hour course to become legal for all maintenance and annual inspection on your S-SLA.
Ummmm... well, you're slightly off.

Any aircraft certified as Experimental Light Sport (E-LSA) or Special Light Sport (S-LSA) can receive its annual condition inspection from an A&P or a person with a Light Sport - Maintenance Repairman certificate. The Light Sport Maintenance Repairman Certificate takes a 120-hour course. The A&P doesn't need IA status, but of course it's not a problem if he or she has it.

If you own an Experimental Light Sport Airplane, you have the option of taking a 16-hour course and earning a Light Sport-Inspection Repairman Certificate. This authorizes you to perform the annual condition inspection on any Experimental Light Sport Aircraft that you own. Once you sell that airplane, you can no longer perform the inspections on it. But if you buy a new ELSA, you can inspect it without re-taking the course.

Ron Wanttaja

[wyoranch]

My head hurts....... Lol.
Rick
But seriously thank you to ALL of you for your advice and info....

[flyrgreen]

Ron, since your 1st paragraph is basically repeating my 2nd paragraph, I assume the 'slightly off' is referring to your 2nd paragraph. I didn't mention the whole E-SLA situation because, if memory serves, the E-SLA category is mostly for former "fat" Ultralights and the 2-place versions of them that were for training. I'm now guessing a bit so please correct any error, but I thought FAA needed a place to put them and so made the Experimental Light Sport category. Because the original post sounded like he was interested in a bit larger & faster machinery than those craft, I just skipped the E-SLA bidness.

Russel Green

[rwanttaja]

Ron, since your 1st paragraph is basically repeating my 2nd paragraph, I assume the 'slightly off' is referring to your 2nd paragraph. I didn't mention the whole E-SLA situation because, if memory serves, the E-SLA category is mostly for former "fat" Ultralights and the 2-place versions of them that were for training. I'm now guessing a bit so please correct any error, but I thought FAA needed a place to put them and so made the Experimental Light Sport category. Because the original post sounded like he was interested in a bit larger & faster machinery than those craft, I just skipped the E-SLA bidness.
You had a good summary, but at one point you said:

"HOWEVER, if you purchase a used S-LSA, you can take a 120-hour course to become legal for all maintenance and annual inspection on your S-SLA. "

The 120-hour course lets you annual ANY S-LSA, not just one you own.

The E-LSA category covers the former fat ultralights, but it's much broader than that. For instance, you said:

"Where the confusion comes from is regarding S-LSA. These are aircraft purpose-built for LSA category, usually sold as a kit or ready-to-fly from the factory. "

S-LSAs are produced, ready to fly by the company, not by individual buyers as kits. The company can sell the same aircraft as a kit, but when completed, it can only be licensed as E-LSA. Similarly, the owner of a S-LSA can have his airplane re-registered as an E-LSA. He can then do his own annuals, if he takes the 16-hour Light Sport -Inspector course.

Here's some artwork that I hope helps explain it...
http://www.wanttaja.com/ls2.jpg
And a bit more on the maintenance/inspection issue:
http://www.wanttaja.com/ls1.jpg



Ron Wanttaja

[Byron J. Covey]

And there is your next magazine article on a widely mis-understood subject. Or has it allready been published?

Good job. Thanks for taking the time.


BJC

[rwanttaja]

And there is your next magazine article on a widely mis-understood subject. Or has it allready been published?
Yes, it's actually from my 2005 article in KITPLANES introducing the new rules.

Ron Wanttaja

[Frank Giger]

I'm off to purchase a pitchfork and suitable materials to construct a torch for the use of the word "Annual" when describing the 12 month Condition Inspection of Experimentals.

It's a long march from here to there, so expect me in about six months.

;)

Very nice graphic to explain stuff for us monosyllable types, Ron!

[wyoranch]

Ron,
Forgive my ignorance ( read that as stupidity), but does the 120 hour course allow repair and inspecting ANY aircraft that is not tc'd but falls in the lsa category. For example, I purchace a completed Kitfox IV, can I do maintenance and condition inspection ( correct terminology for Frank... I am a bleeder) on it?
Thanks
Rick

[Byron J. Covey]

I'm off to purchase a pitchfork and suitable materials to construct a torch for the use of the word "Annual" when describing the 12 month Condition Inspection of Experimentals.

It's a long march from here to there, so expect me in about six months.

;)

Very nice graphic to explain stuff for us monosyllable types, Ron!

Best start with the FAA.

From http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/4db2c5cd655cb3cc86257647004af4ee/$FILE/AC%2020-27G.pdf


17. Becoming a Repairman of Your Amateur-Built Aircraft. You can get a repairman certificate under certain circumstances. However, the only privilege this certificate gives you under 14 CFR § 65.104, Repairman certificate—experimental aircraft builder—Eligibility, privileges and limitations, is to do the annual condition inspection.


BJC

[rwanttaja]

Ron,
Forgive my ignorance ( read that as stupidity), but does the 120 hour course allow repair and inspecting ANY aircraft that is not tc'd but falls in the lsa category. For example, I purchace a completed Kitfox IV, can I do maintenance and condition inspection ( correct terminology for Frank... I am a bleeder) on it?
No, it actually has to be licensed in the Special Light Sport Aircraft or Experimental Light Sport Aircraft categories.

It's really too bad, I, too would take the 120-hour course to be able to handle the annual condition inspection of my Fly Baby.

Ron Wanttaja

[wyoranch]

Ok,
so let's use a Rans s-7 for example. They had a kit that was not s-lsa but now it is marketed as s-lsa. In the eyes of the FAA are they two different aircraft? Am I getting this all hosed up? Could I repair one but not another?
Thank you for your patience
Rick

[rwanttaja]

I'm off to purchase a pitchfork and suitable materials to construct a torch for the use of the word "Annual" when describing the 12 month Condition Inspection of Experimentals.
Yes, I knew it would (re-)raise some hackles. The problem is, when you're comparing production aircraft to aircraft with Special airworthiness, using a different term for one type of aircraft tends to be confusing. The cognoscenti know, but the less-experienced folks (the ones who NEED the information) can get thrown.

While I'm kind of picky about the English language myself (Dammit, "decimate" does NOT mean that nearly everyone was killed), the term "Annual Inspection" in regards to aircraft really has a universal meaning. I'm careful to say "Condition Inspection" when speaking to an A&P or (gawd help me) the FAA, but when speaking casually about it, almost everybody says "Annual."

We really need an entirely different term, instead of "Annual Condition Inspection." I hereby declare it will henceforth be called the "Giger." Let the reader figure out if it means performing an inspection, painting circles on the wings, or mowing the grass beside the runway.... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Dana]

Ok,
so let's use a Rans s-7 for example. They had a kit that was not s-lsa but now it is marketed as s-lsa. In the eyes of the FAA are they two different aircraft? Am I getting this all hosed up? Could I repair one but not another?
Thank you for your patience
Rick

Anybody can repair an experimental-amateur built (which the non SLSA kit would be), but the yearly condition inspection require an A&P or the holder of the repairman certificate for that particular aircraft.With the 120 hour course you can work on or annual the SLSA. If Rans makes an ELSA kit based on the SLSA, anybody can work on it, but the annual can be done by an A&P, a person who's taken the 120 hour course, or the owner, if he takes a different 16 hour course.

[rwanttaja]

Ok,
so let's use a Rans s-7 for example. They had a kit that was not s-lsa but now it is marketed as s-lsa. In the eyes of the FAA are they two different aircraft? Am I getting this all hosed up? Could I repair one but not another?
It's an easy answer: How is the plane certified? The Airworthiness Certificate will state whether it's Experimental Amateur Built (you can repair it yourself) or Special Light Sport (need to get a Light Sport - Maintenance repairman certificate or hire an A&P).

As I've whined here before, the FAA made a SERIOUS mistake in setting up the whole program: The used the term "Light Sport Aircraft" as a definition as well as for two new certification categories. It has caused confusion for more than a decade.

The definition (contained in 14CFR Part 1) defines the aircraft that an individual may fly under the Sport Pilot rules. A better term is "Sport Pilot Eligible." The Special Light Sport and Experimental Light Sport are for airplanes that MEET the definition, but are also certified under the new, simplified rules.

So a homebuilt that meets the Part 1 definition can be flown by a Sport Pilot, but it remains an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft. The original operating limitations issued to it still apply, and the rules pertaining to Special or Experimental Light Sport Aircraft do not.

A Special Light Sport Aircraft can be transferred to the Experimental Light Sport Aircraft category, but that's it...transfers are not allowed. EABs cannot become ELSAs, ELSAs cannot become EABs, and neither can SLSAs.

Here's a summary of the certification categories:
http://www.wanttaja.com/airworthiness.jpg

Ron Wanttaja

[wyoranch]

"It's an easy answer: How is the plane certified? The Airworthiness Certificate will state whether it's Experimental Amateur Built (you can repair it yourself) or Special Light Sport (need to get a Light Sport - Maintenance repairman certificate or hire an A&P)."
Thank you, Thank you and Thank you! I now feel a little smarter (not an easy thing to do). I get the concept as well as when an A&P would be needed. But I am now back to square one on my search for a purchase/build as it does really open up a bunch of possibilities. I still would love to take the 120 hour course, just for the education. Now if I could only find a place that breaks it up into stages. The few that I found are three weeks straight. My company has an unwritten rule. " if you can afford to be gone for more than one week the we can afford to do without you"
Rick

[rwanttaja]

It's an easy answer: How is the plane certified? The Airworthiness Certificate will state whether it's Experimental Amateur Built (you can repair it yourself) or Special Light Sport (need to get a Light Sport - Maintenance repairman certificate or hire an A&P).
Thank you, Thank you and Thank you! I now feel a little smarter (not an easy thing to do). I get the concept as well as when an A&P would be needed. But I am now back to square one on my search for a purchase/build as it does really open up a bunch of possibilities. I still would love to take the 120 hour course, just for the education. Now if I could only find a place that breaks it up into stages. The few that I found are three weeks straight. My company has an unwritten rule. " if you can afford to be gone for more than one week the we can afford to do without you"
I'd love to take some maintenance courses like that myself, just to have a better foundation for doing the maintenance on my EAB (Experimental Amateur-Built) Fly Baby. As an alternative, you *might* consider finding a place that gives the 16-hour Light Sport - Inspector course. In my experience, maintaining a simple airplane is pretty much just common sense. Inspection is a more-critical skill that I wish I was better at, and I'd love to that that two-day course myself. Retiring soon; that may be one of my first post-employment activities.

You can certainly go with either a Sport Pilot-Eligible EAB or an ELSA to give you the maximum freedom from having to hire an A&P. However, if you don't have much experience in working with aircraft, you might not be in the best position. This is one advantage to buying a certified Sport Pilot-Eligible airplane. You *have* to hire an A&P, and most don't have any objection if the owner works side-by-side and does the grunt work. In fact, many offer discounts for owner-assisted annuals. I learned a lot during the two-year ownership of my first airplane, a Cessna 150. Prepared me for my first EAB a year or two later (the airplane was a club airplane, but as the only active member of the club, most of the stuff devolved unto me).

If you do go the EAB, SLSA or ELSA route, I have one suggestion: Have all your maintenance mallards co-linear* before you buy the airplane. Know who you're going to for your first annual. Hopefully, you have an A&P do a pre-buy inspection, and you can just arrange things with him/her to come back when the Giger :-) is due. Any A&P will handle just about any production-type airplane, but finding one that'll handle one with Special airworthiness might be more of a problem. If you establish the relationship before you buy the plane, it'll be easier going to them with any questions.

Ideally, you also find local owners of the same kind of plane for checkout and general advice. Hopefully, your EAA Chapter will have a Tech Counselor or two, as well, and they can help.

I had great backing when I was in charge of the club Fly Baby. Our chapter's EAA Tech Counselor had restored the very airplane I was flying (N500F, the Fly Baby Prototype), and kept his T-18 in the adjacent T-hangar. The A&P who did the Gigers was a co-worker (he'd actually been my technical lead when I started with the company) and was a member an airplane club in ANOTHER nearby hangar. I learned a heck of a lot, and it gave me an excellent background for when I bought my own Fly Baby eight years later.

Good luck!

Ron Wanttaja

* "Mallards Co-Linear" = "Ducks in a row"

[wyoranch]

Ron,
having owned more than my share of planes over my years, I wholeheartedly concur with having my maintenance stuff lined up ahead of time. I had a great relationship with the mechanics where I taught and where the corporate stuff was hangered. I got really good at removing stripped screws from inspection plates. It got to the point that the day of my Giger, I would roll the plane in and start tearing it apart to have it ready for them. I do really believe that they appreciated not having to do the tedious work, and I felt like I was one of them.... Lol. I did have my Cherokee on lease back with the FBO, so it was infor the 100 hour Gigers. With me doing the crap work, I actually made enough money to do some nice upgrades. Here in dirt patch WY, I have none of this. I need to get off my rear and start making friends. There is an EAA chapter in Cody, and I am a casual friend with a couple of the members. So there is my start. Tube and fabric ac are everywhere here, so I figured that would still be a viable choice, where I am from, spam cans abound and trying to get someone to do proper work on tube and fabric was difficult.
Getting back to the original post.... Like I said earlier, I am back at square one. I believe I can get more from a homebuilt, but I am really itching to get airborne sooner. Should I go with a tc'd plane I am fairly certain it will be a t-cart. The ultimate question before I go any further is the lack of me being able to maintain worth getting in the air now?
Gigers can be expensive, but to do my own Gigers will put me years out of the cockpit.
Rick
P.S. I am going to check my old paperwork and see if all my hard work actually saved anything or if they charged me more for having me around asking dumb questions......
and yes I got the duck thing.... :)

[VA Maule]

wyoranch I may have exactly what you need to get back in the air on the cheap . A 198? Avid Flyer with a Hapy VW email me virginiamaule@icloud.com with a phone #

[Tom Downey]

Yes, I knew it would (re-)raise some hackles. The problem is, when you're comparing production aircraft to aircraft with Special airworthiness, using a different term for one type of aircraft tends to be confusing. The cognoscenti know, but the less-experienced folks (the ones who NEED the information) can get thrown.

While I'm kind of picky about the English language myself (Dammit, "decimate" does NOT mean that nearly everyone was killed), the term "Annual Inspection" in regards to aircraft really has a universal meaning. I'm careful to say "Condition Inspection" when speaking to an A&P or (gawd help me) the FAA, but when speaking casually about it, almost everybody says "Annual."

We really need an entirely different term, instead of "Annual Condition Inspection." I hereby declare it will henceforth be called the "Giger." Let the reader figure out if it means performing an inspection, painting circles on the wings, or mowing the grass beside the runway.... :-)

Ron Wanttaja
Ron, do you want to just fly have fun and do it cheap?

MOONEY MITE NEEDS A NEW HOME (http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1149660_Mooney+Mite+Needs+A+New+Home.ht ml)

[rwanttaja]

Ron,
having owned more than my share of planes over my years, I wholeheartedly concur with having my maintenance stuff lined up ahead of time.
My apologies, Rick, I *thought* you had considerable ownership experience, but couldn't remember for sure. You've definitely got the background to move to the Special Airworthiness fun stuff.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

Ron, do you want to just fly have fun and do it cheap?

MOONEY MITE NEEDS A NEW HOME (http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1149660_Mooney+Mite+Needs+A+New+Home.ht ml)
Yes, but...I want to be able to FIT in it. Mooney Mites don't come in XXLT. :-)

Besides, the Mooney Mite isn't Sport Pilot eligible.

Ron Wanttaja

[wyoranch]

My apologies, Rick, I *thought* you had considerable ownership experience, but couldn't remember for sure. You've definitely got the background to move to the Special Airworthiness fun stuff.

Ron Wanttaja
Ron,
absolutely no apologies necessary, I have been out of the game for awhile. So much has changed that I need to lean on those that have the expertise. I really have to admit that all the rule changes since I parked last are overwhelming. Some good some bad. All confusing.... Lol. I am really just excited to be able to get back in, that at times I am like a kid a the zoo. Look over there ohhhhhhh that's cool wait lets go over there that is really cool...... You get the idea.
still sitting here trying to decide ... Build and wait ( or buy a kit already done ) or buy and fly but no maintenance. Oh the decisions..... Lol
Rick

[Tom Downey]

Yes, but...I want to be able to FIT in it. Mooney Mites don't come in XXLT. :-)

Besides, the Mooney Mite isn't Sport Pilot eligible.

Ron Wanttajathat's why it's cheap. :)

[wyoranch]

That thing is the 'skinny jeans' of aircraft. I have a radio controlled plane that is almost the same size. lol

Rick

[Tom Downey]

That thing is the 'skinny jeans' of aircraft. I have a radio controlled plane that is almost the same size. lolRick
Actually, they are a lot of fun, you won't fly any cheaper or have as much fun for less money.

[wyoranch]

Seriously I do love the look. For me personally, it will not work as it is not an LSA, I would still love to try one out.
Rick

[flyrgreen]

I haven't looked at email for a bit, and my how this subject is living up to the aforementioned "widely misunderstood" category. Including my own, thank you Ron.

WYORANCH, all of this very much points to a used E/AB purchase. There are many that fit the LSA category. You'll be flying NOW and able to do your own maintenance. As far as yearly condition inspection (AKA the Giger), I feel the $300 (or whatever) paid to another pair of eyes on my plane to be well worth the expense. And better eyes than mine.

There is an estate-sale Kitfox for sale at my airport (SBP) that needs all the hoses etc. replaced (Rotax 912 100HP) for about $20K.

Russel Green

[DaleB]

A guy was at our chapter meeting last night -- he's putting his barely-out-of-Phase-I Waiex up for sale. Pretty cheap, as i recall. It's got a Great Plains VW engine in it. I'd be tempted myself, if I thought I could A.) tuck it under the RV-12 wing in the hangar and B.) still sleep indoors when my wife found out about it.