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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
As always, my standard advice about buying homebuilt aircraft remains:
1. Recognize that every builder has different sensibilities and standards of workmanship, and adheres to the designer's plans to a different degree. Some homebuilts make me proud to be a fellow tool-bearing mammal. Others make me feel unsafe just walking under them. Most are somewhere in the middle. Caveat emptor, and your mileage may vary. 2. Have it pre-buy inspected by someone familiar with the type; preferably someone who is familiar with the blueprints and can recognize deviations from the plans. Don't buy an airplane sight-unseen unless you've considered and prepared for the possible worst-case scenarios. 3. Be aware that, if you're not willing and able to work on it yourself, it will likely be no less expensive to own than a factory aircraft. Depending on who you hire to work on it, it could be substantially more expensive. 4. Get familiar with the 14 CFR (or relevant national) rules regarding amateur-built experimentals. The most salient points a Anybody can work on them; but the annual condition inspection must be signed off by an IA, an A&P, or the holder of the repair(person) certificate. That said, I'd like to address some of the points that Tim Mara raises in his post on a branch of this thread. For the most part, I tend to agree with him, but I'd like to elaborate a bit on his ideas: most pilots who would have the experience and enough knowledge to reasonably safely fly one also have enough experience and knowledge to know they no long want to fly one.... It depends. It took me several years to consistently fly to the edges of my HP-11's potential. Expanding on that, most actual glider _pilots_ have the skills and techniques to handle the average homebuilt sailplane. For most well-established homebuilt designs, the skills and aeronautical knowledge that got you a private pilot rating will probably suffice. Based on what friends have told me, that includes a properly built and tested BG-12. Glider _drivers_ and other sub-par variations on the theme, on the other hand, may find themselves slightly challenged. That said, I allow as that I prefer to see better-than-average piloting skills in HP-18 transitions. The uber-reclined seating, the side-stick, and the Schrederon flaps are three new experiences all at once, and if you get behind the ship late in the game it can be hard to catch up. I owned 2 BG12's back when I was more in the former category....I would not want one today... Not that we'd expect him to, what with Tim being a big-shot sailplane dealer and all these days... ...you have to remember they are all experimental, and are all homebuilt, without any requirement to use aircraft grade material or hardware, That's pretty much covered in Part 1 of my standard advice. The good news is that experienced folks can generally tell aircraft materials just by looking at them. The nuts and bolts are yellow cad plated, and the bolts have the X on the head. And in my experience, US sailplane homebuilders generally stick with AN-type hardware since they can get it from AS&S or Wicks for less than nuts and bolts at the local hardware store. Also, many homebuilts are specifically designed with extra strength margins to account for the use of less than top-grade materials. Many such designs actually specify relatively low-grade materials in the plans. Going off on a tangent, in contrast to the US AN-style aircraft hardware used in most homebuilts, the hardware used in European sailplanes is very hard to grade and identify by inspection. There are many different systems of plating, drive types, head stamps, and thread pitches to deal with. without the requirement to have to inspections completed by A&I's, However, as I've written elsewhere, they have to be inspected by either an A&P or the holder of a prepair[person] certificate. Of which, as I've written elsewhere, I prefer to use the A&P or AI. I continue to believe that anyone who built an airplane cannot view it with the impartiality necessary to inspect it properly. ... and of course have no FAA support through the issuance of AD's or service bulletins to warn of potential failures... Yes, the FAA generally takes a hands-off approach to homebuilts. But the same applies to many factory-built European ships licensed as Experimental, Racing and Experimental, Exhibition. For most experimental types, though, there are type-specific organizations that compile and distribute safety and service bulletins. The HPs, for instance, have a strong network centered on Wayne Paul's Schreder Sailplane Designs Web site. There are several safety and service bulletins on the site, and regular exchanges on the Internet email forum about operational concerns. There are similar Internet fora for the Duster, BG-12, and other designs. ... I think a BG12 or a Monerai would make a terrific Wind Tee at a local gliderport! Well, maybe for a while. But assembled out in the elements, a BG would only give a few years of such service. Thanks, and best regards to all Bob K. http://www.hpaircraft.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Opinions on Cessna 340, 414 and 421 | john szpara | Owning | 55 | April 2nd 04 09:08 PM |
Opinions wanted | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 65 | January 21st 04 04:15 AM |
OPINIONS: THE SOLUTION | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 4 | January 7th 04 10:43 PM |
Rallye/Koliber AD's and opinions | R. Wubben | Owning | 2 | October 16th 03 05:39 AM |
Rallye/Koliber AD's and opinions | R. Wubben | Piloting | 2 | October 16th 03 05:39 AM |