If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Jay,
as far as I know, the accident rate with experimentals is WAY higher than with "spam cans". What's the reason for that? Is it building quality? -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Jon,
Your point is lost on me. If the planes were poorly made, but flew just fine, then it appears that it would not be that risky to buy an RV. Your statement tells me that you can tell reasonably easily the quality of the build ("some" implies you have seen at least 3 that you somehow decided were poorly built). Furthermore, even those that are poor quality seem to fly just fine. More kudoos for Van. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Bud Davisson is alleged to have said, "Given the choice between buying a used homebuilt or a used snake, buy the snake." There are a lot of fine homebuilts out there -- and there are a lot of dogs, too! If you contemplate buying one, get some of your friends who know the type homebuilt you're examining to go along and, literelly, go over it with a fine tooth comb. Exactly what I told a gentleman looking to buy a used Bonanza! |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ... Jay, as far as I know, the accident rate with experimentals is WAY higher than with "spam cans". What's the reason for that? Is it building quality? -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) Build quality, maintenance quality, design purpose, and likely use. The build quality is of less consistency. The maintenance is not nearly as regimented in most cases. The designs often give up stability for responsive controls or more speed or more range. They also give up crash worthiness for light weight and low cost. Add to this the fact that each one is likely to be unique so you won't get an SB from the factory telling you that the cable you bought and installed is likely to kink up and let the throttle go because you may not have bought it from them, and you may not have installed it like recommended. Take the Skyhawk. These planes are mostly used by people for training, and trips. Its designed to be simple, stable, and safe. Until recently, it was probably the safest piston in the sky. Its not near as likely to be in a zooming accident, aerobatic accident, or an unexpected equipment failure due to things like failed cables, poor engine cooling, fuel system failure, etc. The people that bought it wanted what they got, and are going to use the plane for the more dangerous pursuits that many experimental builders are going for. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Idea.... The Vans' RV Suite! Just need to figure out how to get it out once
all the visiting pilots help you build it! Jim a) I don't have that many spare moments to spend with my family b) I like to fly too much to waste that much time. I truly admire those who have done it, but building a plane ain't for me. -- |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Borchert wrote in
: Jay, as far as I know, the accident rate with experimentals is WAY higher than with "spam cans". What's the reason for that? Is it building quality? Pure Urban legend... do the research before you spout such poppycock! I don't have time to research it right now, but there was a guy on either r.a.piloting or r.a.homebuilt who ran the numbers recently, the REAL numbers and outside the 40 hr testing period (which is why it's there), the homebuilt numbers were almost as good as the certified numbers. You can't just run the numbers for all GA against all homebuilts, you have to compare apples to apples. Compare single engine LIGHT GA against homebuilts and you now have a truer picture. Again, once you take out the testing phase for homebuilts, your real close. Although, other than the testing phase, it's not just that homebuilts are safer than you thought, it's also that comparable light GA is a bit more unsafe than you thought, since "GA" statistics ussually include light scheduled and light charter carriers. BeaglePig |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Burns" posted the exciting message
: Idea.... The Vans' RV Suite! Just need to figure out how to get it out once all the visiting pilots help you build it! Jim "Free hotel room for each 5 hours labor building homebuilt aircraft..." |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Without a doubt, probably the best homebuilt line out there. When you
get into the guts of these things and see missing, mal aligned or rivets improperly bucked, alignments made necessary by poor installation of components on the back end and compensated for by removing goods on the close end, hardware store parts and pieces and generally going totally against the recommendation of Ol' Van, you gotta start thinking about what the deal is. On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:04:27 GMT, "Dude" wrote: Jon, Your point is lost on me. If the planes were poorly made, but flew just fine, then it appears that it would not be that risky to buy an RV. Your statement tells me that you can tell reasonably easily the quality of the build ("some" implies you have seen at least 3 that you somehow decided were poorly built). Furthermore, even those that are poor quality seem to fly just fine. More kudoos for Van. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"BeaglePig" wrote: Pure Urban legend... do the research before you spout such poppycock! I don't have time to research it right now, but there was a guy on either r.a.piloting or r.a.homebuilt... Very convincing. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Well....here is a guy with 400+ hrs in a Glasair II. I bought it used with
400 hrs on it. And never a moment regretted it. It flys beautfully, lands like a dream and is good Instrument platform. As a matter of fact i got my Instrument rating in it. Don't listen to the guys that only "think" they know but the ones that have REAL experience in them. I know a lot of glasair drivers and have never heard one say " this plane is the pits". By the way... my engine temps run about about 195degrees and very rarely see 200. The visibilty is good but the only thing you really notice when flying "fast glas" are the spam cans you overtake. steve wrote in message oups.com... IMHO, the reason why there are cheap Glasairs out there is that they are hard as hell to fly, absolutely frightening to land, visibility out of the cockpit is abysmal, the engines do not get enough cooling air thru them and they're always eating cylinders, and the landing gear is constant need of maintenance. I know two fellows who own them and are both wishing they didn't. I've ridden in both of them.... once each, and I'll never get in another one except perhaps only for taxiing. Jay Honeck wrote: It seems that there are some remarkable deals out there for 200 mph used Glasairs, but I would hesitate to buy one simply because I wouldn't trust the workmanship. What's the consensus on this issue? Is this a valid fear, or -- as some have told me -- does the workmanship on the average home-built meet or exceed that of the average Spam Can? -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Media] A Marine's journey home | Michael Wise | Military Aviation | 0 | May 3rd 04 04:57 AM |
[Media] A Marine's journey home | Michael Wise | Naval Aviation | 0 | May 3rd 04 04:57 AM |
Home Inspection Listings | Patrick Glenn | Home Built | 4 | April 26th 04 11:52 AM |
Home Built Choppers | Chris Stubbs | Home Built | 3 | September 3rd 03 05:04 AM |
home built sites in Australia? | Chris Sinfield | Home Built | 1 | July 18th 03 04:05 PM |