January 2018 Sport Aviation

[Bill Berson]

I want to acknowledge and applaud the January focus on entry level "Sport Aviation".
My research indicates Private Pilots are declining about 6000 per year.
This is not sustainable, of course, and promoting high end GA isn't the solution.
So a good start for the new year, thanks and keep it coming.

[Sam Buchanan]

It is indeed an excellent issue.

I've always considered the Breezy to be "too extreme" for my acrophobic limitations, but after reading the feature article........and watching some videos.......

[L16 Pilot]

I thought the article on the "Chipper" homebuilt was pretty interesting. I do agree about the declining number of private pilots and looking around the local EAA chapter and our flying club most are well over 50 and many over 60/70. Let's fact it: the ability for the average Joe or Jill to own a plane, pay for the maintenance and storage prices most folks out of the picture. If I wasn't on a small strip, owned my hangar and legally able to do most of my maintenance I'd probably be out of business.

[Hal Bryan]

Thanks for the kind words, everyone, the feedback is greatly appreciated!

And Sam - I'm not wild about heights, either, but the Breezy is an absolute BLAST. A ton of fun, and, once you're more than 50 feet up or so, it's not "heights" any more. It's just flying, with an unbeatable view.

[CarlOrton]

*snip* Let's fact it: the ability for the average Joe or Jill to own a plane, pay for the maintenance and storage prices most folks out of the picture. If I wasn't on a small strip, owned my hangar and legally able to do most of my maintenance I'd probably be out of business.
I'll politely call shenanigans on that. Lots of stories all the time about folks scrounging parts, etc., to put a plane together. Bigger issue is priorities, assumed or real. There's the financial side, which *could* be addressed by purchasing a 5-7 year old car instead of an "average" new car that's close to $50,000 nowadays, and using the monthly payment differential to finance a plane. Or give up purchased designer coffee. Of course, all those arguments have been written about for years. Emotionally, there's still the misplaced thought that a young husband is going to end up injured or worse, leaving a young family father- and income-less.

Sorry - didn't want to hijack the thread. I'll chime in as well - great issue!

[martymayes]

Emotionally, there's still the misplaced thought that a young husband is going to end up injured or worse, leaving a young family father- and income-less.

So he takes his cash and buys a motorcycle instead. [scatching head] GA has no marketing.

[DaleB]

So he takes his cash and buys a motorcycle instead.
Not often. Most bikes seem to be ridden by young, single guys (or at least those without a current wife and kid) or geezers. Yes, there are outliers, but they are just that. Hey, kinda like airplanes... and really fast cars.

I get it. I was young, poor and raising a family for a lot of years, and put off my lifelong dream of flying because of it. Never bought coffee in liquid form, drove used cars or kept the new ones until long after they were paid off. We didn't take expensive (or virtually any) vacations and had no expensive habits or hobbies. I don't care what you do, sometimes the money just plain isn't there. I didn't start flight training until all the kids had moved out and my income had increased above subsistence level.

I don't care what you do, flying isn't cheap. However -- I'll bet I know guys who spend more every year golfing than I do flying.

[L16 Pilot]

Guess I'd don't understand "shenanigans" regarding my post. Although I was always interested in flying I held off until I was over 40 and had my home paid off, etc. I may have the advantage of being a mechanic by trade, fairly handy and having an understanding IA but most folks are not in my situation. It really gets down to where someone wants to spend their 'disposable income' if in fact they have any. There are other considerations for one's income such as unexpected home repair, unexpected health care costs, etc. When I was away from home I thought I would check out renting an aircraft in Texas until I found out the rental cost was over $100 per hour not to mention the check ride and renters insurance. Besides that the FBO was not especially friendly so it was a short conversation.

[DaleB]

When I was away from home I thought I would check out renting an aircraft in Texas until I found out the rental cost was over $100 per hour not to mention the check ride and renters insurance. Besides that the FBO was not especially friendly so it was a short conversation.
These two things were contributing factors for me as well. The FBO I talked to did their best to keep people away. Once I started training, I started looking at what it would actually cost me to use a rented airplane for what I really wanted, which was cross country travel with my sweetie and a couple of bags. The cost for anything other than a couple hours for a local burger run was staggering. As in, I could fly us both round trip on an airline, AND pay for a really nice hotel and rental car, for just the rental fee if we were going to go somewhere and stay a few days.

That got me looking at buying, which got me looking into building. Most people would have gotten discouraged and wandered off to play golf or buy a boat, but I tend to get stubborn.

[Jeff Point]

Thanks for the kind words, everyone, the feedback is greatly appreciated!

And Sam - I'm not wild about heights, either, but the Breezy is an absolute BLAST. A ton of fun, and, once you're more than 50 feet up or so, it's not "heights" any more. It's just flying, with an unbeatable view.

Hal has it about right. Once you get above 50' it's quite comfortable. 500 feet is perfect. 1000 feet is the limit of comfort. Around 3000 feet the acrophobia starts to set it. Or, as I was told, the front seat is made of elastic and it shrinks by an inch for each 1000 feet of altitude. At 3000 you're sitting on a 2X4, edge-wise.

But it is more fun than two barrels of monkeys. Come on Sam, you're ready for another project!

[martymayes]

Not often. Most bikes seem to be ridden by young, single guys (or at least those without a current wife and kid) or geezers. Yes, there are outliers, but they are just that.

I’ve been on some group rides and there was a complete cross section of the population. Throw out the outliers and half the group is gone. Many of these people would enjoy aviation but they are not aware recreational aviation exist. When is the last time you saw a mainstream TV commercial advertising GA?

[Sam Buchanan]

Hal has it about right. Once you get above 50' it's quite comfortable. 500 feet is perfect. 1000 feet is the limit of comfort. Around 3000 feet the acrophobia starts to set it. Or, as I was told, the front seat is made of elastic and it shrinks by an inch for each 1000 feet of altitude. At 3000 you're sitting on a 2X4, edge-wise.

But it is more fun than two barrels of monkeys. Come on Sam, you're ready for another project!

That is an interesting description of the ride. :)

Jeff, did you build new wings?

[Jeff Point]

Jeff, did you build new wings?

Since this thread is already hijacked beyond recognition...

Yes, I built a set of wood rib/ spar Cub wings from the Wag Aero plans. If you can lay your hands on some serviceable Cub wings, all the better.

And to bring it back- I too thought SA was a good one this month, with a big emphasis on affordable, fun flying.

[Sam Buchanan]

Since this thread is already hijacked beyond recognition...

Yes, I built a set of wood rib/ spar Cub wings from the Wag Aero plans. If you can lay your hands on some serviceable Cub wings, all the better.

And to bring it back- I too thought SA was a good one this month, with a big emphasis on affordable, fun flying.

Thanks, Jeff.

Now, back to our normal programming. :)

[Bill Berson]

I thought the FAA stopped allowing reuse of existing Pioer wings. Is it still possible to use old factory built Piper wings for a Breezy?

[bbutler455]

I thought the article on the "Chipper" homebuilt was pretty interesting. I do agree about the declining number of private pilots and looking around the local EAA chapter and our flying club most are well over 50 and many over 60/70. Let's fact it: the ability for the average Joe or Jill to own a plane, pay for the maintenance and storage prices most folks out of the picture. If I wasn't on a small strip, owned my hangar and legally able to do most of my maintenance I'd probably be out of business.

May I weigh in on why general aviation is declining? Twice in my life I considered aviation. In my 40's I owned a company and had justification to fly. The economics compared to a $90 southwest airlines ticket were ridiculous. My father owned two Mooneys and flew everywhere. I grew up flying. If the son of a flying fanatic can't make the math work... who can?

Now I am the typical retiree with the time and money to pursue many different passions. I have decades of experience restoring vintage cars and motorcycles. Why not a vintage light sport plane?

Why not? Because the reality of light sport is much different than the dream. I could easily build, complete, or restore a light sport plane. I would love to restore an early Champ or Cub in my shop and fly it around the Ozark mountains surrounding my lake house. My problem is "scope creep". With 1340lb gross limit I can either carry an additional person/instructor, or I can carry gas. Now I have to either pay to rent a plane for lessons or go for the PP license. Now, how do I get the plane back and forth from my shop to a strip. If I can't find a private grass strip to use, now I need to rent a hanger and add all the comm gear to fly out of a controlled airport. My simple dream of buzzing around Table Rock Lake in my cool old tail dragger has expanded to a commitment that would exclude my other passions. (And FYI my wife is convinced I will kill myself, but she felt that what about the motorcycles.)

Most of you won't "get" my perspectives. My brother and brother-in-law both have $100k tied up in airplanes and spend ridiculous money so they can fly from point A to point B. (boring) This may be why they are still working and I am retired. If I sound a little frustrated, please excuse me. I had a dream... but I just can't get it to add up.

Brock

[1600vw]

bbutler: If you do not hangar at a small private airstrip does not mean you need to hangar at a field or strip with a control tower. In my area we have all sorts of airports that have no control tower and have paved strips. I know many who fly who do not spend a fraction of what you stated.

You are right I don't get it. If all you really wanted to do was fly it is not as expensive as you portray it. In order for me to fly I had to give up some things. One was the car. I sold my car and now ride with the wife in her car. I don't need a car or all the headache that goes with one. I moved to be closer to my airplane to save in cost for commuting back and forth. I was lucky and found a place at the airstrip my airplane is hangar at. But if there was not a spot here I had my eye on a small town about 5 miles away. I would have moved into a rental there.

If you really want to fly to be in the air and nothing more. It is not only for the rich and won't break your bank account. I have many friends who fly and do not have much anything. But they do have an airplane.

Have you thought about sharing an airplane? If you lived closer I would share my dream with you or let you become part of my dream. I should mention all these people or my friends fly Homebuilt airplanes.

I hope you find your dream before it is to late.



Tony

[Jeff Point]

I thought the FAA stopped allowing reuse of existing Pioer wings. Is it still possible to use old factory built Piper wings for a Breezy?
I'm not the expert but I believe so. There is enough raw fabrication in the remaining structure (like, all of it) that one could use existing wings and still meet the 51% requirement. You'd be wise to consult your local FAA people about this in advance though.

If we're going to continue discussing Breezy construction (which I'm happy to do) how about we start another thread in the Homebuilders section?

[martymayes]

I thought the FAA stopped allowing reuse of existing Pioer wings. Is it still possible to use old factory built Piper wings for a Breezy?


I'm not the expert but I believe so. There is enough raw fabrication in the remaining structure (like, all of it) that one could use existing wings and still meet the 51% requirement. You'd be wise to consult your local FAA people about this in advance though.

AC 20-27G does not prohibit the use of major assemblies (like wings) salvaged from other planes but it does say using too many salvaged assemblies may result in the plane not meeting the "major portion" requirement. It also suggest contacting the FSDO or MIDO if you do this to ensure compliance with the major portion rule.
So if you build a Breezy using the wings, tail group, landing gear and engine mount from a Piper, might be a problem.

[martymayes]

Why not? Because the reality of light sport is much different than the dream. I could easily build, complete, or restore a light sport plane. I would love to restore an early Champ or Cub in my shop and fly it around the Ozark mountains surrounding my lake house. My problem is "scope creep". With 1340lb gross limit I can either carry an additional person/instructor, or I can carry gas. Now I have to either pay to rent a plane for lessons or go for the PP license. Now, how do I get the plane back and forth from my shop to a strip. If I can't find a private grass strip to use, now I need to rent a hanger and add all the comm gear to fly out of a controlled airport. My simple dream of buzzing around Table Rock Lake in my cool old tail dragger has expanded to a commitment that would exclude my other passions.

Brock, you are absolutely right. Even at the basic level there are various commitments that goes along with flying activities (like any activity). There should also be a commitment to maintain skills. If only more people would do that there would be a lot fewer LOC type fender bender accidents.

I been riding motorcycles for >50 yrs (including a stint in professional racing) and 2 yrs ago I took the MSF advanced riding course! It was actually kinda fun! Most would thumb their nose at such nonsense but I plan on doing it again! I also took a boating course with my kids so they could get a boating license even though I have operated boats since I was a kid. It was a lot of fun too! Flight training is also fun but pilots are kinda adverse to training.

[Bill Berson]

I found this in AC 20-27g:
d. Use of Salvaged Assemblies from Type-Certificated Aircraft. The use ofused or salvaged assemblies (for example, landing gear, horizontal stabilizer, andengine mount) from type-certificated aircraft is permitted, as long as they are in acondition for safe operation. However—


Wings are not mentioned, soooo.
The question of using Type certificated 1-26 glider wings came up on another forum. I was looking for an answer specifically about wings from someone that has reused wings recently for a Volmer, Breezy or other. I found FAA Order 8130 has similar guidance but doesn't mention wings.

Jeff, this thread drift is fine and expected by me. You can certainly also start a Breezy thread if desired.

[Jeff Point]

Well, I guess it is Bill's thread, so if he wants to hijack it... :)

I'm going to reach out to my local DAR and get his thoughts on the use of factory-built wings. Granted it would only be one local data point, but it's something.

For the record, the two Breezys that were certified in 2017 (that I'm aware of) both used amateur built wings, so we don't have any recent examples to point to.

[flyrgreen]

I found this in AC 20-27g:
d. Use of Salvaged Assemblies from Type-Certificated Aircraft. The use ofused or salvaged assemblies (for example, landing gear, horizontal stabilizer, andengine mount) from type-certificated aircraft is permitted, as long as they are in acondition for safe operation. However—

Wings are not mentioned, soooo.....





The phrase "for example" sure sounds to me like AC 20-27g is including any and all assemblies from any Type-Certificated Aircraft. This would of course include wings, and anything else not mentioned in the "for example".

[Bill Berson]

FAA Order 8130.2J has more details. I don't know what "articles" is.

(4) When Builders Use Articles from Other Aircraft. The use of used or salvagedarticles, including military surplus articles, from other aircraft is permitted if they are in acondition for safe operation; however, all fabrication, installation, and assembly tasksaccomplished with used or salvaged articles will be credited to the “Mfr Kit/Part/Component”column on the Amateur-Built Aircraft Fabrication and Assembly Checklist. No credit will begiven toward the major-portion requirement for work on these salvaged articles. This includesany “rebuilding” or “restoring” activities to return these articles to an airworthy condition.Assembly credit may be given in those cases where used or salvaged articles are assembled withportions of the aircraft fabricated and assembled by the builder.

[flyrgreen]

FAA Order 8130.2J has more details. I don't know what "articles" is.

(4) When Builders Use Articles from Other Aircraft. The use of used or salvagedarticles, including military surplus articles, from other aircraft is permitted if they are in acondition for safe operation; however, all fabrication, installation, and assembly tasksaccomplished with used or salvaged articles will be credited to the “Mfr Kit/Part/Component”column on the Amateur-Built Aircraft Fabrication and Assembly Checklist. No credit will begiven toward the major-portion requirement for work on these salvaged articles. This includesany “rebuilding” or “restoring” activities to return these articles to an airworthy condition.Assembly credit may be given in those cases where used or salvaged articles are assembled withportions of the aircraft fabricated and assembled by the builder.

"Articles" seems like they are just using another word for "parts".

The next portion here seems straight ahead & understandable: if you (for example) take the wings off of a salvage plane, strip the fabric off, take out a few damaged ribs and a questionable hinge, you get no credit for that work towards the required 51% mandate. You haven't MADE anything yet.
But the next bit seems unnecessarily mean: when you then fabricate new ribs, install new hinges, and recover the wings, you still get no credit for time spent. If you had done the same work to a wing skeleton that was supplied by the kit-maker, you get time credit. Go figure.....

The last sentence ("Assembly credit may be given....") seems something like this (using our wing example): if you fabricated the fuselage and then needed to make some attach points to the reconditioned wings to fit them to your fuse, you get time credit for making those attach fittings and any welding.

[martymayes]

"Articles" seems like they are just using another word for "parts".

Interestingly, the guidance is not really any difference than what was initially published in 1958. Back then the FAA specifically said can't salvage a bunch of major assemblies or "articles" from junked planes and assemble into a homebuilt. I think current guidance is re-affirming what was originally intended.

[Frank Giger]

I really liked the article about "knowing the unknowns" when it comes to building an airplane.

I undertook the building of my own with equal measures of false confidence and humility - sometimes one just has to roll up the sleeves and dig in.

However, there were several times when I threw up my hands before I even started and begged for help, namely wiring stuff up and, when I had to, rebuilding the engine.

Neither are particularly difficult tasks, but I just didn't know what I didn't know, and so the chances of screwing up out of ignorance were pretty high. Of course I was there and did the work, but under a skilled, guiding hand.

[flyrgreen]

Interestingly, the guidance is not really any difference than what was initially published in 1958. Back then the FAA specifically said can't salvage a bunch of major assemblies or "articles" from junked planes and assemble into a homebuilt. I think current guidance is re-affirming what was originally intended.

Marty, what you say here is highly confusing. The FAA Order 8130.2J that is quoted clearly says "is permitted". And goes on to say E/AB builders won't get time credit for refurbing the parts.

Not to mention that people buy used TSO panel instruments all the time for their homebuilts, that were taken out of salvaged Certificated craft.

[martymayes]

Marty, what you say here is highly confusing. The FAA Order 8130.2J that is quoted clearly says "is permitted". And goes on to say E/AB builders won't get time credit for refurbing the parts.

No confusion intended. Yes, salvaged components are absolutely permitted. This has always been the case and what I was suggesting is the guidance hasn't changed. What has changed is how we track fabrication and assembly credit. Used to be by TLAR method (That Looks About Right). Now we have a checklist so the measurement is more precise.

What I intended to communicate with my [salvage a bunch of major assemblies] paraphrased comment was that salvaged wings added to a salvaged fuselage with a salvaged tail group sitting on salvaged landing gear is unlikely to meet the major portion rule.


Not to mention that people buy used TSO panel instruments all the time for their homebuilts, that were taken out of salvaged Certificated craft.which is encouraged. Instruments make up a small part of the pie so not giving up much by using salvaged instruments.

[Bill Berson]

"Article" is defined here in 21.1. Doesn't sound like a major assembly such as a wing.

(a) Except for aircraft subject to the provisions of part 107 of this chapter, this part prescribes—
(1) Procedural requirements for issuing and changing—
(i) Design approvals;
(ii) Production approvals;
(iii) Airworthiness certificates; and
(iv) Airworthiness approvals;
(2) Rules governing applicants for, and holders of, any approval or certificate specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and
(3) Procedural requirements for the approval of articles.
(b) For the purposes of this part—
(1) Airworthiness approval means a document, issued by the FAA for an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or article, which certifies that the aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or article conforms to its approved design and is in a condition for safe operation, unless otherwise specified;
(2) Article means a material, part, component, process, or appliance;
(3) Commercial part means an article that is listed on an FAA-approved Commercial Parts List included in a design approval holder's Instructions for Continued