Advice, please: too old to fly?

There can be no better source of advice than this group for my question: am
I too old to take up flying--and building an airplane?

Full disclosure. As a young man in the Korean War I was an aviation
machinist's mate in the Navy. As a forestry student in the late '50's I was
a smokejumper, so I have quite a bit of experience in the ultimate maneuver:
abandoning an airplane in flight. As a forester in Southeast Alaska, I had
many hours of time flying with a bush pilot, as a passenger. Lots of
airplanes in my background, but I'm now 73.

I find the Zenith STOL's irresistible. The 701, the 2-seater, can be flown
with a 10-hour sport license, so at my age--and limited time out there
ahead--it might make sense to focus on that airplane. But I'd really prefer
the 801, the 4-place plane. It would take longer to get the necessary
private pilot's license--40 hours of flying time instead of 10--but I see
that as a huge advantage: nothing beats experience. And flight training and
airplane building could proceed simultaneously, couldn't they?

I've enjoyed a great deal following the discussions on this board, and I've
learned a lot here. Maybe it has been the stimulus for my cockamamie dream.

Your knowledgeable comments will be most appreciated, and thanks a million.

Dick Behan

In article ,
"R.W. Behan" wrote:

There can be no better source of advice than this group for my question: am
I too old to take up flying--and building an airplane?

Full disclosure. As a young man in the Korean War I was an aviation
machinist's mate in the Navy. As a forestry student in the late '50's I was
a smokejumper, so I have quite a bit of experience in the ultimate maneuver:
abandoning an airplane in flight. As a forester in Southeast Alaska, I had
many hours of time flying with a bush pilot, as a passenger. Lots of
airplanes in my background, but I'm now 73.

I find the Zenith STOL's irresistible. The 701, the 2-seater, can be flown
with a 10-hour sport license, so at my age--and limited time out there
ahead--it might make sense to focus on that airplane. But I'd really prefer
the 801, the 4-place plane. It would take longer to get the necessary
private pilot's license--40 hours of flying time instead of 10--but I see
that as a huge advantage: nothing beats experience. And flight training and
airplane building could proceed simultaneously, couldn't they?

I've enjoyed a great deal following the discussions on this board, and I've
learned a lot here. Maybe it has been the stimulus for my cockamamie dream.

Your knowledgeable comments will be most appreciated, and thanks a million.

Dick Behan

I have a friend who took up flying at 75, another in his late 60s, yet
another, who was Chief Pilot for Eastern, is still active at 90.

I say, "Go for it!"

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,
"R.W. Behan" wrote:


There can be no better source of advice than this group for my question: am
I too old to take up flying--and building an airplane?

Full disclosure. As a young man in the Korean War I was an aviation
machinist's mate in the Navy. As a forestry student in the late '50's I was
a smokejumper, so I have quite a bit of experience in the ultimate maneuver:
abandoning an airplane in flight. As a forester in Southeast Alaska, I had
many hours of time flying with a bush pilot, as a passenger. Lots of
airplanes in my background, but I'm now 73.

I find the Zenith STOL's irresistible. The 701, the 2-seater, can be flown
with a 10-hour sport license, so at my age--and limited time out there
ahead--it might make sense to focus on that airplane. But I'd really prefer
the 801, the 4-place plane. It would take longer to get the necessary
private pilot's license--40 hours of flying time instead of 10--but I see
that as a huge advantage: nothing beats experience. And flight training and
airplane building could proceed simultaneously, couldn't they?

I've enjoyed a great deal following the discussions on this board, and I've
learned a lot here. Maybe it has been the stimulus for my cockamamie dream.

Your knowledgeable comments will be most appreciated, and thanks a million.

Dick Behan


I have a friend who took up flying at 75, another in his late 60s, yet
another, who was Chief Pilot for Eastern, is still active at 90.

I say, "Go for it!"

I have an uncle (Morice Jordan) who started with American Airline in a
Ford Trimotor. Was flying the DC-10A when he retired.

A few years ago (past 90!) he renewed his medical and taught his
grandkids how to fly.

So, suck it up, and get after it, Dick!

Time and tide, you know...

I have a friend who served in the Korean war as an aircraft mechanic
(working on Corsairs). He took up flying just a few years ago. He
also got his A&P. He still flies actively, and even does aerobatics.
He is also active as an A&P. Your military experience may qualify you
to take the A&P exam (the exam itself is a joke) and make it possible
for you to economically own a certified aircraft.

Michael

"R.W. Behan" wrote:
There can be no better source of advice than this group for my
question: am I too old to take up flying--and building an airplane?

It seems one can never be too old to learn to fly:
"Student Pilot Solos At 91"
http://avweb.com/newswire/12_21a/briefs/192289-1.html

I find the Zenith STOL's irresistible. The 701, the 2-seater, can be
flown with a 10-hour sport license, so at my age--and limited time out
there ahead--it might make sense to focus on that airplane.

If you're looking at the 701, you might also want to take a look at the
Savannah:
http://www.skykits.com/

But I'd
really prefer the 801, the 4-place plane. It would take longer to get
the necessary private pilot's license--40 hours of flying time instead
of 10--

I believe the minimum training for the airplane sport pilot certificate is
20 hours, not 10:
http://www.sportpilot.org/newpilot/n..._training.html

Jim Logajan wrote:
If you're looking at the 701, you might also want to take a look at the
Savannah:
http://www.skykits.com/

Apparently the Savannah is a direct copy of the 701:
http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-photo-copies.html#Ultraflight

Is it legal in the US, to sell kits built from somebody else's
(copyrighted) plans, without permission? On reflection, I can't think
of a reason why it wouldn't be, but I can see where the original
designer would be irritated.

~Adam

"Adam Aulick" wrote

Apparently the Savannah is a direct copy of the 701:
http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-photo-copies.html#Ultraflight

Yep, and the 701 folks raise a lot of questions about the safety of said
copy. Go to Zenith.com and Poke around, before you make up your mind.

Try http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-photo-copies.html
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote:
"Adam Aulick" wrote

Apparently the Savannah is a direct copy of the 701:
http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-photo-copies.html#Ultraflight

Yep, and the 701 folks raise a lot of questions about the safety of said
copy. Go to Zenith.com and Poke around, before you make up your mind.

Try http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-photo-copies.html

Zenith seems to want to have it both ways: claims it's an exact copy, yet
raises questions about its safety. If it were "just" a copy, Zenith would
be in the position of questioning the safety of its own design.

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Morgans" wrote:
"Adam Aulick" wrote

Apparently the Savannah is a direct copy of the 701:
http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-photo-copies.html#Ultraflight

Yep, and the 701 folks raise a lot of questions about the safety of said
copy. Go to Zenith.com and Poke around, before you make up your mind.

Try http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-photo-copies.html

Zenith seems to want to have it both ways: claims it's an exact copy, yet
raises questions about its safety. If it were "just" a copy, Zenith would
be in the position of questioning the safety of its own design.

Granted, there is a lot of reading there, but not so, according to them.

There was one incident that I remember off the top of my head, but Z
increased it's gross, by re-engineering the spar, or something, a bit
beefier, and within a few days, S said their gross weight was up to match
it, with no noticeable change in the affected parts. There were more
examples, I think.

Do you really think Z would be stupid enough to say S was unsafe, if there
were no differences to point at?
--
Jim in NC

Adam Aulick wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
If you're looking at the 701, you might also want to take a look at the
Savannah:
http://www.skykits.com/

Apparently the Savannah is a direct copy of the 701:
http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-photo-copies.html#Ultraflight

Is it legal in the US, to sell kits built from somebody else's
(copyrighted) plans, without permission? On reflection, I can't think
of a reason why it wouldn't be, but I can see where the original
designer would be irritated.


No. The kit is a copy, in a tangible medium, of the
original.

Small changes may be sufficient to eliminate infringement--
at least that is the case for furniture or cookbook recipes.

For a better discussion you can post your question to
misc.legal.moderated.

--

FF