On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 21:59:11 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:29:41 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)" wrote:

Although I can't afford to hire some one to build for me, I don't see
a so called "hired gun" any different than purchasing a used home
built. One of the main reasons for building is being able to do your
own maintenance. Whether you hire one built or purchase used you do
not have that option.

Not quite true. Anyone can *maintain* a homebuilt aircraft. The annual
condition inspection, however, must be performed by a qualified individual (A&P
or the Repairman Certificate for that aircraft).

The biggest problem in the "hired gun" building is the perjury that is entailed
if the owner certifies it in the Experimental/Amateur-Built category. The FAA
needs a new subcategory equivalent to Amateur-Built...."Custom-Built" or some
similar verbiage. No 51% rule, no Repairman Certificates, maintenance can be
performed by owner, annuals must be by A&P.

Manufacturer's name on the registration to be listed as the actual name (e.g.,
no corporations or other liability dodges) of the primary builder. If certified
parts are used, they have full AD vulnerability. If a non-certified engine is
used, again, the builder's name is listed as the engine manufacturer.


Separating them out makes sense, but I'd make it anything goes as to
what can be Experimental Amateur-built. If I were 30 years younger and
still working at a good job I'd want to build something akin to the
Javelin on steroids. Maybe a Legend to start. It 's a personal
preference but I just don't have any interest in light, sport, or
anything less than the G-III and the thought of something like a
Javelin on steroids with a pair of kerosene burners and a large enough
size to carry enough fuel to cover a useful distance.

Maybe a twin with diesel engines on each side developing about 1000 HP
each. Hey, I have a daughter living in the Colorado Rockies and a son
just NE of Atlanta.

I'd couple this with some additional restrictions on Experimental Amateur-Built
to force things back to Education/Recreation. Maybe scale back some of the
recent 51% rule interpretations. Maybe eliminate turbine engines,

I want bigger engines and suborbital at least.:-)) (and I'm serious)
As long as it has two seats that's enough for me as I doubt I'd find
any one who'd want to go along. I have that problem now if I'm
heading for the practice area and those are the normal maneuvers we
had to do to get the ticket. Well, normal to me as steep turns were 60
degrees when I was a student.

To me airplanes are for play and I'd put every cent into playing I
could and I do like to build so I'd hate to be held back as to what I
could build...now all I need is the money and some genetic engineering
to get rid of about 40 years, or gain another 40 on my life. And I'd
prefer to gain that youth without the senility.

I've often said, I need five lifetimes just to do the things I what in
this one.

turbochargers, and pressurization, or just limit them to planes of two seats or
less.

Ron Wanttaja
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com