Falco - Kit plane or Plans-built?

"Rich S." wrote

The bottom line is that the basic kit for a Falco totals nearly $100,000
dollars. I can see that a percentage of that is for the materials
themselves, but a large part of it is for fabrication cost.

Again, it is not my intent to belittle the outstanding workmanship and
long
hours to build one of these beauties. I simply question their
classification
as a plans-built airplane.

At least one Falco at OSH this year was a plans built. I do not know if it
was one of the ones that won a prize, but I talked to the builder, and he
built everything of the airframe from the plans. As far as the hardware, I
do not know how much of that he bought.

In case you remember it, it was a white one, with the nose pointed towards
show center. I think it might have been Canadian.
--
Jim in NC

On 2005-08-12 17:26:11 -0400, "Kyle Boatright" said:

I don't see a way to avoid that, other than the hollow feeling someone
would have to get if s/he won a Grand Champion award and only
participated at the level of writing checks and flying the completed
airplane to the show.

Kyle, and all --

I don't think that sort of person, the one that would do such a thing,
is susceptible to conscience at that level. You all know the old Indian
tale about conscience being a three-cornered sharp rock? When you
commit a misdeed, it spins, and you get a burning feeling inside. The
more you do it, the more the corners of the rock wear down.

Some of these dudes who write the checks and fantasize that they built
the plane, well, they have a pretty round rock in there. But at least
they are participating at the limit of their skills. "A man's gotta
know his limitations," as Inspector Harry Callahan intones.

There was an RV-6 a few years ago that won a bunch of awards, but
after talking to the owner and reading an article on the airplane in
Sport Aviation, it was obvious that the airplane, beautiful as it was,
was professionally built, and the owner was trying to hide that fact.

Happens. The one builder I ever heard bad-mouth Lancair was using
minimum-wage A&P students to assemble IVPs on a crude assembly line.
When I visited his hangar, he had ten IVPs in one stage of completion
or another, was pushing a V-8 conversion (made by a blood relative, a
detail he didn't get around to mentioning to me), and he regaled me
with all the ways to pull the wool over the FAA's somnolent eyes. The
whole place was a mess; I wouldn't have bought a bicycle from this guy.

Money quote: "So, you lie on the form. Everybody does it." Maybe
everybody in his world.

Talking to Lancair people this year, I learned that none of those
airplanes ever flew without another shop working on them to correct
this guy's problems. He was a hired-gun that didn't even deliver
hired-gun quality.

The loosely-associated V-8 project had, IIRC, two bankruptcies and
AFAIK never produced a reliable engine.

And one of those airplanes appeared in a major magazine a couple of
years later in which the proud owner-"builder" regaled the writer with
tales of how he built the airplane.

Most, althought not all, Lancair IVs and other very high-po airplanes
are built by someone with extremely sharp building chops. In most
cases, they didn't get those chops doing things that give them money to
fund such a kit for personal use. The physicians and attorneys that fly
these things generally had a lot of help. Most of them will admit as
much.

Who signs the FAA paperwork is a function of your own integrity, with
the heavy governmental thumb of restrictive licensing pushing people to
make false declarations on those forms.

A number of the Pitts Model 12s out there were built by Jim Kimball
Enterprises, rather than the ultimate owner who commissioned those
planes. Because JKE has a reputation to uphold, unlike the gentleman I
mentioned above, when they do that the plane is registered
Experimental-Exhibition, which is within the letter and spirit of the
law. (By the way, it's no accident that Kevin K takes skinless Model 12
parts to shows. If my furniture was that high quality I'd sell it on
eBay and buy more planes).

FWIW, I think most of the hired guns do a very, very good job of
building a safe plane. If I were interested in a Lancair, though, I
would do it with their Builders' Assist program, which gives you the
benefits of adult supervision, factory tooling, and the dual bennie of
being able to sign that FAA declaration in all honesty while having
lots of good, professional help.

On the original subject -- I have never seen anyone submit a Falco for
judging as kit-built; I always assumed that EAA just threw them all in
the plans-built bin rather than try to sort the sheep from the goats
(if Ed Wischmeyer is still in the group, he might know. ISTR he is
always a volunteer in the homebuilt milieu, and I have a vague
recollection Ed might have been a judge). This spares the judges the
importunites and hair-splitting that comes from dealing with planes
that are available both ways, especially when many plans builders take
advantage of subkits, etc.

Plans, or kit, I've never seen a Falco that was anything less than,
say, Sophia Loren in her prime, in the easy-on-the-eyes department. But
so's Rich's Emeraude (and I only saw it in the repair corral after a
gopher hole attacked it several Oshes ago).

Judging kit planes as plans-built may be unavoidable, but it isn't
exactly fair. But then life, as JFK famously said, is unfair.

The judges are naturally also drawn to the big-buck, big, fast,
powerful plane, when the resto job on a Mooney Mite or Aeronca C-3, or
the handwork on a Pietenpol, goes unrecognised. This also favours the
sleek, complex Falco. Not fair, but there it is.

cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

On 2005-08-12 18:08:22 -0400, "Bob Kuykendall" said:

What I wonder is how plans-built status is (or should be) validated.
With photos? Signed affadavits?

Hmmm... DNA samples... CSI Oshkosh...

Yeah, Bob. Check the trace amounts of blood in the sharp bits of the
airplane... check the pilot's medical records to see if he was admitted
for riveting through the web of his hand (happened to a guy around
here), dropping an XP-360 on his instep, or developing allergies to
epoxy resin...

Checking court records... "is he divorced? And was the plane cited as
the co-respondent?" (I know, they don't do that any more).

cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 12:08:41 -0400, Kevin O'Brien
kevin@org-header-is-my-domain-name wrote:

The judges are naturally also drawn to the big-buck, big, fast,
powerful plane, when the resto job on a Mooney Mite or Aeronca C-3, or
the handwork on a Pietenpol, goes unrecognised. This also favours the
sleek, complex Falco. Not fair, but there it is.

It's not just natural inclination, it's also the way the rules are written. In
addition to how well the builder did, the designs themselves are rated for
complexity. I read an article about this an eon or two ago...IIRC, the designs
are rated one through five, with one being the "easiest". If two planes get
equal judging scores, the more-complex plane gets the trophies.

Ron Wanttaja

"Kevin O'Brien" kevin@org-header-is-my-domain-name wrote in message
news:2005081312123075249%kevin@orgheaderismydomain name...
On 2005-08-12 18:08:22 -0400, "Bob Kuykendall" said:

What I wonder is how plans-built status is (or should be) validated.
With photos? Signed affadavits?

Hmmm... DNA samples... CSI Oshkosh...

Yeah, Bob. Check the trace amounts of blood in the sharp bits of the
airplane... check the pilot's medical records to see if he was admitted
for riveting through the web of his hand (happened to a guy around here),
dropping an XP-360 on his instep, or developing allergies to epoxy
resin...

I glued my head to the floor once. Does that count?

Rich "Not the Toolman" S.

"Rich S." wrote in message
...

I glued my head to the floor once. Does that count?

Rich "Not the Toolman" S.

LOL...

Wow. Just when I thought there was nothing left for me to aspire to!!!

I must admit that is one thing that even I ain't never done.

--
Geoff
the sea hawk at wow way d0t com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

"Rich S." wrote

I glued my head to the floor once. Does that count?

chuckle
I *have* been called "Jim the toolman" before, and I haven't done that!

Come on, tell all. After all, you -did- bring it up! g
--
Jim in NC

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 16:39:10 -0400, "Morgans" wrote:


"Rich S." wrote

I glued my head to the floor once. Does that count?

chuckle
I *have* been called "Jim the toolman" before, and I haven't done that!

Come on, tell all. After all, you -did- bring it up! g

I'm guessing it was because of his long, flowing hair.

On second thought, maybe not.... :-)

Ron "Cranial Albedo" Wanttaja

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Rich S." wrote

I glued my head to the floor once. Does that count?

chuckle
I *have* been called "Jim the toolman" before, and I haven't done that!

Come on, tell all. After all, you -did- bring it up! g

Well, I was fabricating a 1/4" plywood battery box that uses the back side
of the spar as the front side of the box. Since I *really* wanted it to be
secure, I was slopping T-88 epoxy liberally whilst gluing it in place.

Then I had to get underneath the uncovered bare-bones fuselage to finish the
job. I failed to notice the 2" wide x 1/4" deep puddle of T-88 on the
concrete floor. I slid under the plane and plopped my semi-balding head
right smack in the middle of the puddle.

Fortunately, I still had a few minutes before the epoxy cooked off. Since my
wife was at work, I looked around for assistance in removing the long-chain
polymer glop from my Northernmost appendage. My 85 year-old neighbor, Ruth
Gutherie, was home and working in her garden. She answered my plaintive
calls and came over. Thank gosh she came - I really didn't want to shampoo
in MEK. She patiently worked all of the epoxy out - well, most of it
anyway - while gaily make fun of my stupidity.

She's 95 now and still remembers the occasion.

Rich S.

Kevin

Are you talking about my brother ' Harry ' ?

John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````


On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 12:08:41 -0400, Kevin O'Brien
kevin@org-header-is-my-domain-name wrote:

----clip----

Some of these dudes who write the checks and fantasize that they built
the plane, well, they have a pretty round rock in there. But at least
they are participating at the limit of their skills. "A man's gotta
know his limitations," as Inspector Harry Callahan intones.


----clip----