Has your kit company gone bankrupt?

wrote in message
oups.com...

Experimental should be for experimenters: people like
Van Grunsven should be told to get a type
certificate, tool up, and build a finished airplane.


Jawohl, mien herr!

I'm curious Mary, are you researching an article about builders, or
researching to write an article about builders? I could see where it
would be a good article.
Lou

If Van Grunsven were to go through certification, we'd all be treated to
the thrill of paying a quarter million for an RV7. No thanks. It's only
through people like Van who have refined the Experimental market to being a
"cookie cutter" operation that many of us can now afford to fly brand new
aircraft that equal or exceed capabilities of GA, and are safer as well (if
built to designers recommendations for systems and engines).
Don't mess with a good thing. If you think that to be a real man is to
build an "experimental" from scratch or plans, have at it. Just leave the
rest of us alone. This "system" is doing fine.

MJC

wrote in message
oups.com...

A simple plans built airplane can be built in 2000 hours,assuming you
work halfway efficiently. The problem is many builders have no skills
and also no great amount of time to devote to the project because they
are working a lot of hours. (You'd think they would be therefore
affluent enough to buy an airplane....)

The sad part is kits wind up taking these people almost as much time
as a scratchbuilt airplane would.

The bottom line is you need to become a skilled aircraft mechanic to
build an airplane...is it a skill set you value enough to learn at this
price? (Don't mistake "skilled" for "licensed". They have absolutely
no relation whatsoever to each other.)

Experimental Amateur Built has, to an extent, become a simple and
baldfaced dodge around type certification. When 90% of builders are
building a few types of 49% done kits on a cookie cutter basis, it's
time to re-evaluate "the system". Experimental should be for
experimenters: people like Van Grunsven should be told to get a type
certificate, tool up, and build a finished airplane.

"MJC"
[snip]
Don't mess with a good thing. If you think that to be a real man is to
build an "experimental" from scratch or plans, have at it. Just leave the
rest of us alone. This "system" is doing fine.


Yeah. Like take-and-bake pizza.


Montblack

Lou wrote:
I'm curious Mary, are you researching an article about builders, or
researching to write an article about builders? I could see where it
would be a good article.
Lou

Lou,
The purpose of the article is to inform builders (who may find
themselves in this situation) about what they can do to complete their
projects. In other words, perhaps builders will share their experience
with other builders.
I was hoping that through this thread, I would receive some information
about what people have done with regard to starting builders groups,
mining Internet sources, securing alternative parts/assemblies vendors,
etc.--whatever has worked to get the project finished despite problems
with the company.
Mary

"MJC" wrote in message
...
If Van Grunsven were to go through certification, we'd all be treated
to
the thrill of paying a quarter million for an RV7.

And it would be slower, heavier, and most everything about it would be worse
except stability and crashworthiness.

I would say build quality would be better, but I have seen the build quality
of many homebuilts be higher than some lower quality factory planes.
There's a guy fighting with Raytheon here over his new jet that they had to
completely re-rivet the wing on. He wants a BIG price break, and they want
to spruce up the paint.




No thanks. It's only
through people like Van who have refined the Experimental market to being
a
"cookie cutter" operation that many of us can now afford to fly brand new
aircraft that equal or exceed capabilities of GA, and are safer as well
(if
built to designers recommendations for systems and engines)

I would like to agree with you but can't. Van's, and almost all Kit's would
fail some of the FAR's. They are not as crashworthy or stable as the new
certifieds (Cirrus being the possible exception).
..
Don't mess with a good thing. If you think that to be a real man is to
build an "experimental" from scratch or plans, have at it. Just leave the
rest of us alone. This "system" is doing fine.

MJC

Amen Bro!

Well, like I said, it sounds like it will be a good article.
Unfortunatly you can see what happens to a post when you really want
information. Usually 2 post on the subject and 56 straying so far off
that you get tired of checking back for an intelligent answer. Good
luck to you, and I hope you are not one of those unlucky people who are
halfway through a bankrupt kit.
Lou

Mary,
I would think that most people that tackle building a plane could
probably finish up with "plans" if they had to. I would imagine that they
would also outsource things they were not comfie doing themselves. Seems
like the only thing one could do in those circumstances. Good luck with the
article, maybe a list of some companies that were good outsource resources
would be very beneficial to "defunct kit" builders. I have not found a cheap
kit myself so I'll have to stick with building them the old fashioned way

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

wrote in message
oups.com...


Lou wrote:
I'm curious Mary, are you researching an article about builders, or
researching to write an article about builders? I could see where it
would be a good article.
Lou

Lou,
The purpose of the article is to inform builders (who may find
themselves in this situation) about what they can do to complete their
projects. In other words, perhaps builders will share their experience
with other builders.
I was hoping that through this thread, I would receive some information
about what people have done with regard to starting builders groups,
mining Internet sources, securing alternative parts/assemblies vendors,
etc.--whatever has worked to get the project finished despite problems
with the company.
Mary

wrote:

I was hoping that through this thread, I would receive some information
about what people have done with regard to starting builders groups,
mining Internet sources, securing alternative parts/assemblies vendors,
etc.--whatever has worked to get the project finished despite problems
with the company.

You need to find a Wheeler Express builder or two. Most have been
through all that a few times at least.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"Dude" wrote in message
.. .

No thanks. It's only
through people like Van who have refined the Experimental market to
being
a
"cookie cutter" operation that many of us can now afford to fly brand
new
aircraft that equal or exceed capabilities of GA, and are safer as well
(if
built to designers recommendations for systems and engines)

I would like to agree with you but can't. Van's, and almost all Kit's
would
fail some of the FAR's. They are not as crashworthy or stable as the new
certifieds (Cirrus being the possible exception).

The RV series has over 4000 flying, and they're not exactly falling out
of the sky any worse than any GA aircraft. So I don't see where they are
less stable than any other GA aircraft in a similar class (meaning less
controllable). There aren't too many GA aircraft that allow you to turn with
almost no rudder input like you can with an RV. That's sounds pretty
"stable" to me.
Everyone who has flown an RV agrees that they are more "responsive" than
lot's of other aircraft, but that's what people like about them. Any pilot
who flies a particular aircraft soon gets used to it's performance to the
point where a pilot flying a 200hp RV is every bit in control as would be a
pilot who only flew C150's. They'd both get to know their aircraft and fly
them just as professionally. An experienced F-16 fighter jock has no more
trouble flying his aircraft than would a C150 pilot because they have both
become accustomed to their respective aircraft.
And other than a stall induced crash (where you die no matter what
aircraft you're in or who makes it), any RV that's landed while still being
controlled by the pilot has been proven plenty crashworthy to protect it's
occupants.
Here's a thread on the RV list where a 79 year old RV6 pilot made an
emergency landing on the side of a mountain and lived. When the rescue crew
arrived, they immediately thought the pilot must be dead because the plane
was mangled so badly. Still, the RV managed to protect the pilot enough to
survive.
http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...ighlight=crash
And then there's Greg Young who's engine stopped on his first RV6 flight
and he had to put it down in the middle of a trailer park (road). If you
have ever seen the photos, I think you might agree that you wouldn't like to
have done the same thing in a fiberglass plane, or a light plane like a
Kitfox. The impact of that forced landing (but still under control) would
have easily killed the pilot of a lesser aircraft.

MJC