Are composite homebuilts dying out?

I'm just finishing mine, it's in the paint shop finally, but after 18
years fo work. (Glasair) I keep up with another homebuilder friend of
mine out on the west coast in Stockton, which is a good GA airport.
Lots of homebuilts under construction, good infastructure for GA on
the field, etc. He told me no one is building composite planes out
there anymore. It's like the word is out on how much work and how long
it takes to build the things, and it's becoming a thing of the past. I
just wonder if that trend is just in that area, or nationwide? I know
in the present economy, homebuilts are probably down anyway, but what
he said about that trend started before the economy tanked.
If not many are building composite planes, then the only other ones I
would think are being built are metal (RV designs) and tube and
fabric. I doubt wood designs will come back, they're just as much work
as composite designes are, or more. (I've got one of those too
Rich

"rich" wrote in message
...
I'm just finishing mine, it's in the paint shop finally, but after 18
years fo work. (Glasair) I keep up with another homebuilder friend of
mine out on the west coast in Stockton, which is a good GA airport.
Lots of homebuilts under construction, good infastructure for GA on
the field, etc. He told me no one is building composite planes out
there anymore. It's like the word is out on how much work and how long
it takes to build the things, and it's becoming a thing of the past. I
just wonder if that trend is just in that area, or nationwide? I know
in the present economy, homebuilts are probably down anyway, but what
he said about that trend started before the economy tanked.
If not many are building composite planes, then the only other ones I
would think are being built are metal (RV designs) and tube and
fabric. I doubt wood designs will come back, they're just as much work
as composite designes are, or more. (I've got one of those too
Rich

Just as one person's observation as an onlooker--since I have yet to embark
on on my own airplane building project--composite kits never really provided
their anticipated advantage over plans.

From what I have observed from a short distance, the composite kits that
were popular in my local area required nearly as much work to build as a
comparable built aircraft. They appear to be a little lighter, and to fly a
little faster, but the advantage would not justify the price if I was the
builder. Therefore, if I chose to built a composite aircraft, I would build
it from plans (or even as a custom built) rather than purchasing a kit.

Meanwhile, the metal kits manufactured with their stamped ribs, spars and
stringers--and precision drilled rivet holes--provide a TRULY DRAMATIC
improvement and plenty of real value for the money spent. You also end up
with an aircraft with which most mechanics will feel comfortable and
familiar--which could be an advantage if you grow weary of performing your
own maintenance or decide to sell the aircraft.

I can offer little opinion regarding wood or cloth, except to say that there
are still some that I might consider. Most of a wood and/or fabric project
involves far less fumes to breath than composites!

Just my $0.02
Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
"rich" wrote in message
...
I'm just finishing mine, it's in the paint shop finally, but after 18
years fo work. (Glasair) I keep up with another homebuilder friend of
mine out on the west coast in Stockton, which is a good GA airport.
Lots of homebuilts under construction, good infastructure for GA on
the field, etc. He told me no one is building composite planes out
there anymore. It's like the word is out on how much work and how long
it takes to build the things, and it's becoming a thing of the past. I
just wonder if that trend is just in that area, or nationwide? I know
in the present economy, homebuilts are probably down anyway, but what
he said about that trend started before the economy tanked.
If not many are building composite planes, then the only other ones I
would think are being built are metal (RV designs) and tube and
fabric. I doubt wood designs will come back, they're just as much work
as composite designes are, or more. (I've got one of those too
Rich

Just as one person's observation as an onlooker--since I have yet to
embark on on my own airplane building project--composite kits never really
provided their anticipated advantage over plans.

From what I have observed from a short distance, the composite kits that
were popular in my local area required nearly as much work to build as a
comparable built aircraft. They appear to be a little lighter, and to fly
a little faster, but the advantage would not justify the price if I was
the builder. Therefore, if I chose to built a composite aircraft, I would
build it from plans (or even as a custom built) rather than purchasing a
kit.

Meanwhile, the metal kits manufactured with their stamped ribs, spars and
stringers--and precision drilled rivet holes--provide a TRULY DRAMATIC
improvement and plenty of real value for the money spent. You also end up
with an aircraft with which most mechanics will feel comfortable and
familiar--which could be an advantage if you grow weary of performing your
own maintenance or decide to sell the aircraft.

I can offer little opinion regarding wood or cloth, except to say that
there are still some that I might consider. Most of a wood and/or fabric
project involves far less fumes to breath than composites!

Just my $0.02
Peter

Our club has both composite and aluminum. Frankly, the composites get more
air time. A lot of our members have built and bought planes. At least the
consensus of our membership is this... It seems to take about the same
amount of time to complete either type of aircraft. With the composites,
you get the advantage of getting to a point more quickly where you can sit
in something that resembles an airplane and make plane noises but it will
take you longer to do the finish work. With the aluminum planes, it takes
you longer to make plane noises, but the finish work doesn't take as long.
Finished price seems to be fairly equivalent for similar capacity and
performance. You might see more aluminum planes because there are a lot
more aluminum companies. I would also guess that, from a manufacturing
standpoint, it would be less expensive to set up shop to produce aluminum
kits than composite kits. Having never bought equipment for either, that's
just a guess. But metal working machinery has been around for a long time
and you can get some good deals on used equipment. You can also produce a
lot of different designs with the same equipment. For composites, there are
the autoclaves and forms, and all the other stuff. The material handling
needs are a lot more exacting with composites and quality control may be an
issue that adds expense.

For a builder, it all comes down to preference on airplane style you prefer
and the materials you're comfortable working with. Personally, I've always
been intrigued with flowing lines and compound curves - they just seem more
organic to me - which makes me lean to composites. I've also spent a lot of
time in my youth working on the family boats. I got really tired of
hammering rivets after a long day of skiing. And when we made the switch to
fiberglas boats, I learned other lessons. For instance, I learned that you
don't want to try to lay fiberglas when you're swimming in the water and the
boat is suspended over the boat well in a sling. Resin floats and WILL
harden while floating on the water...DAMHIKT... ;-)

I agree with all you said. And I didn't enjoy breathing the fumes
myself all those years. Plus, after a few years of building, I
realized how little work the kit maker did compared to what I was
doing. Making the big parts in molds is easy. The builder does all the
hard work.
Rich

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:20:24 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
wrote:


Just as one person's observation as an onlooker--since I have yet to embark
on on my own airplane building project--composite kits never really provided
their anticipated advantage over plans.

From what I have observed from a short distance, the composite kits that
were popular in my local area required nearly as much work to build as a
comparable built aircraft. They appear to be a little lighter, and to fly a
little faster, but the advantage would not justify the price if I was the
builder. Therefore, if I chose to built a composite aircraft, I would build
it from plans (or even as a custom built) rather than purchasing a kit.

Meanwhile, the metal kits manufactured with their stamped ribs, spars and
stringers--and precision drilled rivet holes--provide a TRULY DRAMATIC
improvement and plenty of real value for the money spent. You also end up
with an aircraft with which most mechanics will feel comfortable and
familiar--which could be an advantage if you grow weary of performing your
own maintenance or decide to sell the aircraft.

I can offer little opinion regarding wood or cloth, except to say that there
are still some that I might consider. Most of a wood and/or fabric project
involves far less fumes to breath than composites!

Just my $0.02
Peter

On Aug 13, 8:50*pm, rich wrote:
...Making the big parts in molds is easy...

Please come to my shop and help lay up a set of wing or fuselage
skins. I'd like to see what makes it easy.

Thanks, Bob K.

On Aug 14, 3:05*pm, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Aug 13, 8:50*pm, rich wrote:

...Making the big parts in molds is easy...

Please come to my shop and help lay up a set of wing or fuselage
skins. I'd like to see what makes it easy.

Thanks, Bob K.

If you have good molds, the right tools, the right materials, and
enough people it is easy. I watched a video that showed the workers
doing the layups for Cirrus parts and it was both easy and efficient.
That doesn't translate to a one off builder working on their own
though.

I'm sure it's intense while it's going on, but the process is done
fairly quick, compared to building the plane. Do you vacuum bag the
parts in stages, or just once at the end of the molding process?
A friend of mine is building a Glasair 2s, and I went by his shop and
I told him his molded parts looked different than mine on the inside.
I found out the later kits' molded parts were vacuum bagged to save a
little weight. Mine were just wet layed up in the molds. I'm not sure
how they got the foam cores to stay in the mold without vacuuming them
down somehow, They must have used a male plug to just push them into
position.


On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:12:14 -0700 (PDT), BobR
wrote:

On Aug 14, 3:05*pm, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Aug 13, 8:50*pm, rich wrote:

...Making the big parts in molds is easy...

Please come to my shop and help lay up a set of wing or fuselage
skins. I'd like to see what makes it easy.

Thanks, Bob K.

If you have good molds, the right tools, the right materials, and
enough people it is easy. I watched a video that showed the workers
doing the layups for Cirrus parts and it was both easy and efficient.
That doesn't translate to a one off builder working on their own
though.

"Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message
...
On Aug 13, 8:50 pm, rich wrote:
...Making the big parts in molds is easy...

Please come to my shop and help lay up a set of wing or fuselage
skins. I'd like to see what makes it easy.

Thanks, Bob K.

And I posit that defects frequently result in trash where with aluminum, you
can frequently use the material to make something else. But, then again,
you can recycle the stuff from aluminum...

"rich" wrote in message
...
I agree with all you said. And I didn't enjoy breathing the fumes
myself all those years. Plus, after a few years of building, I
realized how little work the kit maker did compared to what I was
doing. Making the big parts in molds is easy. The builder does all the
hard work.
Rich


I think this is a common misconception. It's easy to look at a fuse half
section and think, gosh if I had a mold I could lay one of those suckers up
in a day, and you probably could with just a little practice. But all the
work spent shaping a plug, and/or building a substantial mold is ignored
with a single word.

Shaping and finishing a fuse, or a plug for a fuse, and/ constructing a mold
requires tons of labor. If you use a mold, your material costs alone would
likely triple.

Tim wrote:
"rich" wrote in message
...
I agree with all you said. And I didn't enjoy breathing the fumes
myself all those years. Plus, after a few years of building, I
realized how little work the kit maker did compared to what I was
doing. Making the big parts in molds is easy. The builder does all the
hard work.
Rich


I think this is a common misconception. It's easy to look at a fuse half
section and think, gosh if I had a mold I could lay one of those suckers up
in a day, and you probably could with just a little practice. But all the
work spent shaping a plug, and/or building a substantial mold is ignored
with a single word.

Shaping and finishing a fuse, or a plug for a fuse, and/ constructing a mold
requires tons of labor. If you use a mold, your material costs alone would
likely triple.





That was Burt Rutan's particular gift to the state of the art.

A soft foam piece that was easy to develop into complex shapes,
and stayed in the part as a stiffening core.

Or remove the foam completely after layup, if it's not needed.

"Mold-less" construction.