Hi everybody,
Been lurking a lot lately, but haven't had time to chime in. Babies seem to know when they are not the center of your attention
Anyway, I'm wondering if I could get some input from builders out there. I've had it with the insurance thing, and the FAA thing, so I'm gonna build my next plane. It may be a modified plane, like a Pacer, or I might do a kit. (I like the Highlander.) Here's my question for other builders: Other than the time, what are the major problems in owning and operating an experimental? I mostly want to beef up structures for bush operations, and improve low speed handling.
Thanks
Jeff

Hi SB,

Remeber Gerald? He's midway into a Smith Cub. You really need to go take a look. If thier Tundra Boss (basicly a Producer) is built with remotely the same quality it will be the shizzz. Everything on that plane is not only pretty but well crafted.
I am off to school for a few weeks (in the cub ) but will want to check up on Gerald when I get back. Care to join me?

Take care, 'berto

John, what'd that Highlander have in it for power? I like the looks of those. I guess they have one flying with the 6 cylinder Jabiru 3300 (120~ horsepower), except for the short prop required that sounds like it'd be a kick in the ass. I don't think I'm up to a build-it project of that magnitude but if they were available ready-to-fly I'd sure be interested.

Eric

Thanks Rob,
I'd love to see Gearlds' plane, we can fly or drive, your choice. I'll show you pics of my fixer upper house!
That Highlander seems pretty cool, I only worry that the gear isn't strong enough for Bushwheels. I wonder if you could put Super Cub gear on it?

Maaaybee There might be a nice LSA tire or two in the works,,,,,,,

Homebuilt airplanes: Bring $$$$$

Everyone I've talked to who has built an airplane admits that it cost quite a lot more than they originally thought it would, and that it was a costly business.

But, there are a lot of other advantages to building, for sure,

MTV

I agree about homebuilts costing more than the manufactures suggest they do. There are tools to buy, paint booths to build etc. Still, the only way to have a plane exactly the way you want it is to build it yourself.
Do you think the hassles out way the benefits?

Thanks for that Jr.,
Scratch building is an impressive undertaking, I don't think I could do it. I would only do a kit, or modify a certified airframe. My intention is to improve the backcountry capability of something and that's it. The FAA just makes it so hard to make practical changes to things. That's why I want to go experimental.

I like to work on stuff, so building my own plane seemed like the thing to do. I wanted to fly into backcountry places without worrying about long landing distances. I didn't want to spend the rest of my life building a plane. I didn't want to die in one, either. (Lost a friend in a homebuilt)

So, I got a kit, with most of the holes pre-drilled, from a manufacturer that has hundreds already flying with no major problems. It took 300 hours to build it. The kit was nearly complete, with only a few instruments and the radio needing to be added, so the cost came out very close to what I expected in the first place.

The insurance companies had never heard of an ICP Savannah before, but when I told them it was a clone of the Zenith CH701, and that I had flown one of them, then they would take to me. Not all at once, though. Only Falcon, in conjunction with EAA would have anything to do with it for the first year. After that, I changed to Avemco and am saving money.

Problems with the aircraft have been minor. I would get one that has an internet discussion group that is active. That resource is quite helpful.

Being able to work on and modify my plane as desired, without the FAA having to oversee and approve everything is one of the big advantages of having a homebuilt.

My Savannah will probably land anywhere you can get a plane in and out in terms of length of runway. With a weight of 1230 pounds max and 800X6 tires (18 in dia) very rough runways are not fun. Even so, I've landed in farm fields, desert playas, beaches, and plenty of grass strips.

I'm not sorry I built my plane at all. The costs came out very close to what I expected, and the reliability and operating costs have been great. Stick with a manufacturer that has a track record, an active builder base communicating, and have a blast.

tom

I didn't build my Kitfox Speedster, but I own, maintain and operate it. My biggest problem is that life gets in the way of flying as much as I'd like. It's so inexpensive to operate that I never sweat having to pay for my flight time. It's affordable.

That has its drawback. The reason I can burn less than 5 gals per hour is because she weighs 1200# max. If the winds get over 15 knots then it is just a real uncomfortable ride, especially leeward of the mountains on the Maine coast. I imagine that the Highlander would be about the same.

I can't think of anything else to complain about...not that it's much of a complaint.

I've thought about the Ch-701, but the tailwheel version. I've thought about the Kitfox too, but I need to have something that I can run 31 Bushwheels on. I can't do what I want with smaller tires. I think that the 701 could be really amazing with long gear and Bushwheels.
Do you guys think either of those planes could handle Big Rocks stuff, structurally?
As for the Bushmaster thing, that seems to make the most sense. There are lots of Tri-Pacer frames out there, and lots of options for extending the wings and gear. I just love the idea of only burning 4 gallons an hour that's why the interest in kit planes, that and folding wings.
Jeff

I don't really know how much of a pounding the 701 or Savannah could take. According to the Zenith website, they are flying all over Africa, but who knows what the strips are like. Seems like they are pretty lightly constructed to really beat them up, but I just don't have the experience to know for sure.

tom

Tom, I've seen video of some of the Africa stuff, and it looks like rough strips as opposed to unimproved river beds or the sides of mountains. Still, the 701 looks really short, like less than 100ft. Is that for real?
Thanks
Jeff

Never seen or heard of a CH-701 on tailwheel gear. The nose-fork does look plenty skookum, though.


Eric

There appear to be some misconceptions regarding "Experimental-Homebuilt" aircraft here.

When YOU build an aircraft, from a 51% kit or from scratch (as opposed to hiring someone else to build it for you) YOU can apply for a repairman's certificate to work on THAT airplane, including making modifications to it, and doing routine maintenance, since YOU are listed as the manufacturer.

If, on the other hand, you PURCHASE an Experimental-Homebuilt airplane, YOU do NOT have any more authority to work on it or modify it than you do for a production aircraft. You still have to get a licensed repairman to sign off annual inspections, etc.

And, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe that modifications to Experimental Homebuilt airplanes still require oversight by the FAA, depending upon how extensive those mods are. Perhaps not for a change in instrumentation, but I believe that if you change the wings or add a belly tank??? Not sure on this, but a question for you experts out there on homebuilt aircraft.

MTV

speedbump wrote: Still, the 701 looks really short, like less than 100ft. Is that for real?
Thanks
Jeff

Yes, it takes off in less than the length of the threshold stripes. Landing roll at 5000 DA is about 250 ft.

tom

MTV is right about the repairmans certificate. Mine lists my airplane serial number as the only aircraft I can work on. If you do something that could effect airworthyness, you would need to go back to the FAA for recertification. This is not well spelled out, and I don't know exactly what would constitute a change requiring a trip to the FAA.

tom

Yeah, "that would affect airworthiness" is pretty vaque, probably on purpose. That could include everything from changing a tire to clipping the wings.
Thanks for the guidance there, FAA

Eric