Falco - Kit plane or Plans-built?

The headline on the Falco website reads, "Five Falcos Win Awards at Falco
50th Birthday". They're talking about Oshkosh - oops, I mean Airventure
2005.

The judges awarded Grand Champion Plans-built, Reserve Grand Champion
Plans-built, and two Bronze Lindys Plans-built to Falcos. The fifth award
went to a factory-built Falco for Outstanding Limited Production.

Here's what baffles me. Let me quote from the Falco website:

"The Falco's proven record and engineering puts it in a class by itself. It
was designed by Stelio Frati, one of the great aircraft designers of all
time. It was certified as a production aircraft. It was built as a
production aircraft and has a history of over 40 years of use by pilots in
Europe. Now, with many refinements, the Sequoia Falco is a modern,
state-of-the-art aircraft built from kits and flown by pilots all over the
world."

To highlight, ". . . the Sequoia Falco is a modern, state-of-the-art
aircraft *built from kits* . . ."

I saw those Falcos and they were absolutely stunning. For a KIT PLANE. I
doubt they would generally be so nice if the builder had to spend hundreds
of hours building those parts available from Falco as kits, including:

Wood Kits. . .
Wing - Spars, Ribs, Fuselage Frames
Tail Group - Spars, Ribs

Equipment. . .
Tail Group, Fuselage, Wing
Flap Control , Control System , Trim Tab Controls
Canopy, Engine Mount, Fuel Tanks, Inverted Header Tanks
Landing Gear, Nose Gear, Landing Gear Retraction
Cowling , Cowling Jig
Seats , Instrument Panel, Left Hand Throttle
Instrumentation, Electrical
Engine Controls, Baffling
Antenna Kit

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.

Rich S.

Rich S. wrote:
I doubt they would generally be so nice if the builder had to spend hundreds
of hours building those parts available from Falco as kits, including:

The best-finished airplane I've ever flown in was a plans-built beauty
that took the owner and his wife five years and 3000+ hours to build.
Every detail was perfect, from the shape of the cowling to the fit of
the doors right down to the engine-turned panel and the intercom jacks
mounted in the headliner for the rear seats.

From what I've seen, the people who would choose plans building are
exactly the people who would make beautiful planes.

Earlier, Rich S. wrote:

...I simply question their classification
as a plans-built airplane.

I think the Falcos are classified on a per-aircraft basis. Some were
built in "factories" (if you can classify as a factory a place where
people use simple hand tools and drink wine at lunch). Some were built
from plans out of raw materials in one-car garages. And as you point
out some are built in fully-stocked workshops from the
expensive-but-worth-it Sequoia kits.

Perhaps I misunderstand, but to me it doesn't sound quite right to
question the plans-built status of one example simply because a
different example was built in a production environment (wine at lunch
nonwithstanding).

Thanks, and best regards to all
Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

Did you ever see Cory Bird's "Symmetry"?

http://www.sportsmanpilot.com/sports...s_symmetry.htm

The perfection is hard to describe. And not from plans - a one-off

"Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message
oups.com...

I think the Falcos are classified on a per-aircraft basis. Some were
built in "factories" (if you can classify as a factory a place where
people use simple hand tools and drink wine at lunch). Some were built
from plans out of raw materials in one-car garages. And as you point
out some are built in fully-stocked workshops from the
expensive-but-worth-it Sequoia kits.

Perhaps I misunderstand, but to me it doesn't sound quite right to
question the plans-built status of one example simply because a
different example was built in a production environment (wine at lunch
nonwithstanding).

Bob.............

Oh, I was in no case comparing a production aircraft to an amateur-built. As
for the per-aircraft basis, I don't believe that is the case. From
conversations with Falco owner/builders, I am told that classification as a
plans-built is determined upon registration. Whatever the owner says is
taken for fact and often the registration person automatically assumes that
a Falco is plans-built, not even asking the owner/builder.

The owner of a Grand Champion Plans-built Falco told me that he had not only
used factory kits, but that he had bought another Falco and used several
subassemblies in piecing together his plane. This doesn't seem to be in the
spirit of the rules. Having a "Homebuilt" professionally constructed and
then entering it in judging is a whole 'nother bag of worms. It's hard to
draw the line nowadays. Very few of us build our engines from scratch, to be
sure.

Rich S.

"Rich S." wrote in message
...
The headline on the Falco website reads, "Five Falcos Win Awards at Falco
50th Birthday". They're talking about Oshkosh - oops, I mean Airventure
2005.

The judges awarded Grand Champion Plans-built, Reserve Grand Champion
Plans-built, and two Bronze Lindys Plans-built to Falcos. The fifth award
went to a factory-built Falco for Outstanding Limited Production.

Here's what baffles me. Let me quote from the Falco website:

"The Falco's proven record and engineering puts it in a class by itself.
It was designed by Stelio Frati, one of the great aircraft designers of
all time. It was certified as a production aircraft. It was built as a
production aircraft and has a history of over 40 years of use by pilots in
Europe. Now, with many refinements, the Sequoia Falco is a modern,
state-of-the-art aircraft built from kits and flown by pilots all over the
world."

To highlight, ". . . the Sequoia Falco is a modern, state-of-the-art
aircraft *built from kits* . . ."

I saw those Falcos and they were absolutely stunning. For a KIT PLANE. I
doubt they would generally be so nice if the builder had to spend hundreds
of hours building those parts available from Falco as kits, including:

Wood Kits. . .
Wing - Spars, Ribs, Fuselage Frames
Tail Group - Spars, Ribs

Equipment. . .
Tail Group, Fuselage, Wing
Flap Control , Control System , Trim Tab Controls
Canopy, Engine Mount, Fuel Tanks, Inverted Header Tanks
Landing Gear, Nose Gear, Landing Gear Retraction
Cowling , Cowling Jig
Seats , Instrument Panel, Left Hand Throttle
Instrumentation, Electrical
Engine Controls, Baffling
Antenna Kit

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.

Rich S.

It is a case by case basis. I've got an acquaintance (sp?) who is a true
perfectionist and is plans building a Falco. His airframe is more or less
complete. Heck, if he stained and sealed the thing, it could pass for the
finest furniture. Anyway, I believe he has purchased a couple of items such
as the cowl and the canopy, but as you alluded to, the subkits are
enormously expensive, and he's chosen to spend time instead of dollars.
Despite the fact that he's purchased a part or two, I'd list it as a plans
built. Shoot, the guy even welded up his own engine mount...

I'm sure there are individuals who are going the other route too, and even
folks who pay to have aircraft built for them, and will proudly claim they
plans built the thing in their own garage. 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. 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. Jerk.

KB

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
...

It is a case by case basis. I've got an acquaintance (sp?) who is a true
perfectionist and is plans building a Falco. His airframe is more or less
complete. Heck, if he stained and sealed the thing, it could pass for the
finest furniture. Anyway, I believe he has purchased a couple of items
such as the cowl and the canopy, but as you alluded to, the subkits are
enormously expensive, and he's chosen to spend time instead of dollars.
Despite the fact that he's purchased a part or two, I'd list it as a plans
built. Shoot, the guy even welded up his own engine mount...

I'm sure there are individuals who are going the other route too, and even
folks who pay to have aircraft built for them, and will proudly claim they
plans built the thing in their own garage. 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. 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. Jerk.

Kyle.............

You're probably right and the people who try to pass off kit or pro-built
airplanes are in the minority. There's probably not too many who would lay
out the bucks for the complete Falco kit - not in my circle, that's for
sure.

The blurred line between plans built, kit built and even pro built is
getting foggier every day. It would be enormously tiresome to try to
classify airplanes in that manner. "Well! He had his upholstery sewn by a
vendor? Toss his butt out!" I guess that doesn't work. It's like trying to
enforce the 51% rule.

Sorry I even brought it up.

Rich S.

Kyle Boatright wrote:
"Rich S." wrote in message
...

The headline on the Falco website reads, "Five Falcos Win Awards at Falco
50th Birthday". They're talking about Oshkosh - oops, I mean Airventure
2005.

The judges awarded Grand Champion Plans-built, Reserve Grand Champion
Plans-built, and two Bronze Lindys Plans-built to Falcos. The fifth award
went to a factory-built Falco for Outstanding Limited Production.

Here's what baffles me. Let me quote from the Falco website:

"The Falco's proven record and engineering puts it in a class by itself.
It was designed by Stelio Frati, one of the great aircraft designers of
all time. It was certified as a production aircraft. It was built as a
production aircraft and has a history of over 40 years of use by pilots in
Europe. Now, with many refinements, the Sequoia Falco is a modern,
state-of-the-art aircraft built from kits and flown by pilots all over the
world."

To highlight, ". . . the Sequoia Falco is a modern, state-of-the-art
aircraft *built from kits* . . ."

I saw those Falcos and they were absolutely stunning. For a KIT PLANE. I
doubt they would generally be so nice if the builder had to spend hundreds
of hours building those parts available from Falco as kits, including:

Wood Kits. . .
Wing - Spars, Ribs, Fuselage Frames
Tail Group - Spars, Ribs

Equipment. . .
Tail Group, Fuselage, Wing
Flap Control , Control System , Trim Tab Controls
Canopy, Engine Mount, Fuel Tanks, Inverted Header Tanks
Landing Gear, Nose Gear, Landing Gear Retraction
Cowling , Cowling Jig
Seats , Instrument Panel, Left Hand Throttle
Instrumentation, Electrical
Engine Controls, Baffling
Antenna Kit

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.

Rich S.


It is a case by case basis. I've got an acquaintance (sp?) who is a true
perfectionist and is plans building a Falco. His airframe is more or less
complete. Heck, if he stained and sealed the thing, it could pass for the
finest furniture. Anyway, I believe he has purchased a couple of items such
as the cowl and the canopy, but as you alluded to, the subkits are
enormously expensive, and he's chosen to spend time instead of dollars.
Despite the fact that he's purchased a part or two, I'd list it as a plans
built. Shoot, the guy even welded up his own engine mount...

I'm sure there are individuals who are going the other route too, and even
folks who pay to have aircraft built for them, and will proudly claim they
plans built the thing in their own garage. 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. 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. Jerk.

KB



Kyle, that is not a new thing, I think that you will find that a
majority of the show circuit winners with homebuilt aircraft are
professionally built or at least a majority of parts are professionally
built. There is a professional builder in Medford Oregon that cranks out
a couple winners every year. While I have no problem with people getting
help building their aircraft is seems a shame that they should be judged
in the same way as the guy like me that had to spend carefully while
building and had to drill and rivet every hole in the airframe.
I know that there are some builders that built show quality airplanes
and I envy thier talent but most don't.

Jerry

Earlier, Rich S. wrote:

Sorry I even brought it up.

Don't be - there's potential for some interesting discussion on the
topic.

I definitely agree that classifying aircraft as plans- or kit-built has
value in the context of judging them for craftsmanship awards.
Obviously, making all the parts is a greater achievement than just
assembling them. And sure as heck it's a much greater achievement than
just writing the checks.

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

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

Bob K.

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

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.

There were so many it's hard to sort them out without a picture. I guess
that's because it was the 50th anniversary of the design. The Emeraude is 53
this year.

Rich S.