Would you

I have worked the eclipse jet line when it first started, worked at Gulfstreams as a writer but spent a lot of time on the floor and was a inspector at voight where they built b-747 fuselages. The only great quality I saw was at voight, Boeing allowed no repairs and are very anal about quality. Gulfstream had a large area where they rework screwups and eclipse was a nightmare. Most of the locals at eclipse came from a bus factory and it showed. I would never get in one.
Consider that people working production are not A&Ps and that production doesn't pay very well outside of Boeing.
 
The only thing stopping me from building an experiential is time and the space to build. Maybe in a few years after I retire I'll get the opportunity to have some fun and build one.
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
I think I'd be more concerned buying a composite experimental second-hand...don't know if I could trust the structure under layers of filler and paint. But good documentation during the build could do a lot to assuage those concerns.

The Van's stuff has a great safety record regarding structural failures. On the -9A's wings (and a lot of other Van's planes), the holes for the spar stub and spar receiver (both very beefy assemblies) are pre-drilled and pre-matched at the factory, whether it's quick build or not. Each side is attached with 10 close-tolerance bolts...four of them 7/16"...that fit so snugly they have to be tapped into place with a hammer. Really hard to mess that up.

One of the more critical assembly steps is drilling the attachment points for the horizontal stab. Gotta take a lot of time to get the edge distance right through the fuselage longerons. The empennage is a good place to spend a good chunk of time during a pre-buy inspection!

Even so, I have no interest in putting excessive stress on the airframe, precisely why I went the non-aerobatic route with the -9A. Sporty 45-degree banked turns and 1500-fpm descents are plenty for me. :)


Shameless pic of the aluminum mistress:

View attachment 59776
Click to expand...

Don't forget to mention that the 9 is non aerobatic. The 4 has about 50 bolts in the wing spar. A lot of them are 3/8 close tolerance bolts with a 1/4 steel splice plate on both sides top and bottom.

There have been a few structural failures in the rv line, including the factory demo rv-8. Every one was a load excedance of about 9 g or more.

Bob
 
I'd own a 4 seat experimental, too bad there aren't more of them. I've been looking at the Velocity and the RV10. It's a shame they are $150,000 though, as that kind of takes the financial advantage out of owning an experimental. I don't have the time, space, patience or tooling to build one myself.
 
No doubt faster and much sportier than my Arrow, I feel the EAB s lack a certain utility. With only a handful of expensive exeptions, I feel I get more utility from my Arrow. i could get an RV 10 but at three times the price.
Having said all this, I would love to have a Starduster Too as a second plane.
 
I've flown in several experimentals, and I bought an already done been flying homebuilt for myself.

Some people worry about things like a bolt being left out and a wing falling off. But, based on my observations, and on accident statistics, it's things like electrical / fuel / systems stuff that comes up short. Accident rates are high on the first few flights for a number of reasons. But once the airplane has been around the block a few times, you are pretty good to go.
 
I fantasy shop EXP aircraft - I get queasy when one was built 20-30 years ago, and has 120 hours on it. Someone was scared to fly that puppy! On the other hand, I'll see a Long EZ or RV that's got 700-800 hours, TTAF&E, one or two owners, and get a better feeling about it.
 
Most of the recent experimentals I have seen (admittedly kit built) are nicer and better equipped than a large majority of the certified airplanes I have see.
 
"Experimental" doesn't necessarily mean amateur built. My Zodiac is a factory built S-LSA made by AMD in Eastman, Georgia, to the S-LSA ASTM standards. AMD also built part 23 airplanes in the same facility, and claimed to build the Zodiacs to the same standards.

AMD went out of business in 2009, and because any modification to an S-LSA requires a letter of authorization from the manufacturer, installing ADS-B equipment (or anything else for that matter) is a big problem. Fortunately, converting the certification from S-LSA to "Experimental Operating as Light Sport" is a pretty straightforward process, and that's what I did with the assistance of A&P I/A and DAR Brian Carpenter of Rainbow Aviation Services in Corning, CA.

I can now perform maintenance and modifications on my airplane, and after "graduating" from Rainbow's 16 hour Light Sport Repairman - Inspection class and obtaining my FAA LSRI certificate, I can now perform and sign off my own condition inspections. The downsides of going this route is that the airplane cannot be used commercially, resale value may suffer, and insurance premiums may increase slightly.

It's not for everyone, but works well for me.
 
I would fly in an Experimental but I would not fly in an experimental that I built. I know what my strengths are and aren’t and building things isn’t one of them!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top