Experimental -v- Certified

RoscoeT said:
Please post video of your Glasair landing in 500' and taking off in 300'. :) It ain't a short field airplane.
Click to expand...

Well if I tried to make a video like that there would be no take off but I could make the 500 ft landing. Touching down at 70 kts with hard braking would ignite the nylon lines which run past the fuel tank. The resulting fire would create a flaming ball of resin and fiber that would stop well short of 500 ft. The only take off that would occur would be the lifting of the charred ruins to the back of a flat bed truck. :wink2:
 
Trimup said:
Acknowedgement of both absolute and relative risk level.

The experimentals I have seen run the gamut from well thought out and wonderfully constructed to those that require battery voltage to run, but have unsupported wiring harnesses held together by crimp connectors. When it comes up the builders response is usually something that includes "but look at all the crashes experienced by the XYZ certified fleet".

For the record my work in combustion labs makes me uncomfortable flying behind a new Lycoming or Continental certified piston engine much less a pickup truck engine being operated at 200%+ of its original continuous design rpm mated to a reduction mechanism.
Click to expand...

In small certified aircraft, I regularly get some students and PAX that say they feel uncomfortable flying too, and my stock reply has always been, "That's a good place to start.... Relax after you get back on the ground."

If they're not uncomfortable at all in these flights, I put quickly them through enough simulated emergency demos real fast to get them started with a more healthy respect for the possible consequences of the mortality of engines in aircraft.

In spite of 2 inflight failures of Lyc/Cons in 20 years, I too feel less uncomfortable flying with them than the more risky flying auto conversions but, a big part of my discomfort is not just the engine, it's the inhospitable nature of the emergency landing surfaces over which I typically fly the auto conversion.
 
Last edited:
Jay Honeck said:
As someone who is eagerly about to step into the experimental world of Van's aircraft, I respectfully urge you to go fly one.

You will never look at your certificated plane the same again.

There are good, solid reasons why RVs represent the only growing sector of general aviation. They simply perform better than similar factory-built aircraft, at a price point that doesn't make one laugh out loud.
Click to expand...

That's about the size of it.

Often, one even can't buy a certificated aircraft for the mission requirements at any price, because they don't exist in certificated form. One has to build to mission specs in those cases.
 
RoscoeT said:
Please post video of your Glasair landing in 500' and taking off in 300'. :) It ain't a short field airplane.
Click to expand...


Any idea how many weekend warriors can land in 500' even in a carbon cub with tundras, glass, and every other toy you can buy?

Not many, I've seen the mass majority of hobby pilots take planes that can land in 7-800' w/o breaks, yet they eat up our near 1 MILE of runway.

I'd say for most folks, match your airframe to your skill set.

Played airplane matchmaker a few times, I'll listen to their mission after flying with them for a while; so you want a Lancair yet can barely fly a steep turn to PPL PTS spec in a 172??? Yea right!!

Honestly if you're not flying at least a few hours a week, probably should stay away from anything with a high roll rate, high cruse speed, playing "bush pilot" or trying to haul your whole family across the US IFR.
 
Velocity173 said:
Sure Bruce, and if I had a King Air I could have moved your daughter's apartment in one trip even faster at 270 kts. I thought it was obvious that the thread was talking about SE piston aircraft and not ME or turbine. If we had another thread titled experimental vs any type of aircraft imaginable, then yeah you'd win.
Click to expand...
The point that you cannot see, is that the utility value of an aircraft is different to different people. This is not about "winning".

Or, maybe to you, it is. In which case you are not worth anyone's time.
 
Bill Watson said:
?? I'm missing that one...
Click to expand...

Folks like to compare RVs to certified 150-180HP machines. Nevermind that there isn't really a market for 2 place certifieds outside the artificially created LSA market and cheap primary trainers. When you bump up to 4 place certifieds (Lancair ES, RV10, etc..) you jump into the 1/4 million buck price range. I would consider buying a RV10 or Lancair ES but... they're not really that economical :)
 
bbchien said:
The point that you cannot see, is that the utility value of an aircraft is different to different people. This is not about "winning".

Or, maybe to you, it is. In which case you are not worth anyone's time.
Click to expand...

Yeah I understand the utility of a C-130 as well but that has nothing to do with comparing experimental vs certified. Obviously you can't understand the comparison of similar class of aircraft.
 
Last edited:
bartmc said:
I would consider buying a RV10 or Lancair ES but... they're not really that economical :)
Click to expand...
Ummmm... that's why you build 'em. If you buy one someone else built, you're paying for their time, too. You either spend time, or you spend money. Your choice.
 
Or just decide the hare isn't worth the chase and move on to better options that require much less time and/or much less money or both.



DaleB said:
Ummmm... that's why you build 'em. If you buy one someone else built, you're paying for their time, too. You either spend time, or you spend money. Your choice.
Click to expand...
 
bbchien said:
Or, maybe to you, it is. In which case you are not worth anyone's time.
Click to expand...


Doc - you've built quite a reputation for helping people that needed help in this community, and this kind of commentary from you does not fit with that, nor does it do you credit.

You are above that level - leave it to people like Rotor And Wing - don't go there.
 
bartmc said:
Folks like to compare RVs to certified 150-180HP machines. Nevermind that there isn't really a market for 2 place certifieds outside the artificially created LSA market and cheap primary trainers. When you bump up to 4 place certifieds (Lancair ES, RV10, etc..) you jump into the 1/4 million buck price range. I would consider buying a RV10 or Lancair ES but... they're not really that economical :)
Click to expand...
Oh. Yeah, the economical part lies with the sweat equity and the repairman's certificate. Not for everyone but a great deal for those that fit the profile. ;)
 
wabower said:
Or just decide the hare isn't worth the chase and move on to better options that require much less time and/or much less money or both.
Click to expand...
You can certainly do that. There's a huge market chock full of older factory built airplanes, and lots of them are going ridiculously cheap if they'll do what you want.

Hell, don't think I was not tempted by Jay's Pathfinder. Sweet airplane at a very reasonable price, if you ask me, and I'm sure he won't have any trouble selling it. See, he's moving to an RV-8, someone else will buy a nearly 40 year old Piper, and everyone involved will be happier than people in Geico commercials. Ain't it grand how the aviation world has something for everyone?
 
DaleB said:
You can certainly do that. There's a huge market chock full of older factory built airplanes, and lots of them are going ridiculously cheap if they'll do what you want.

Hell, don't think I was not tempted by Jay's Pathfinder. Sweet airplane at a very reasonable price, if you ask me, and I'm sure he won't have any trouble selling it. See, he's moving to an RV-8, someone else will buy a nearly 40 year old Piper, and everyone involved will be happier than people in Geico commercials. Ain't it grand how the aviation world has something for everyone?
Click to expand...

In fairness, age has nothing to do with our choice. If I could find a 40 year old aircraft that met our new mission parameters, I wouldn't hesitate to buy it.

They simply don't exist, in the acquisition and operational price range we can afford.

In the 40-year-old category, the closest to the RV-8A is the Beech T-34. Unfortunately, they are maintenance hogs, compared to the RV.
 
airguy said:
Doc - you've built quite a reputation for helping people that needed help in this community, and this kind of commentary from you does not fit with that, nor does it do you credit.

You are above that level - leave it to people like Rotor And Wing - don't go there.
Click to expand...
McFly said:
Yeah I understand the utility of a C-130 as well but that has nothing to do with comparing experimental vs certified. Obviously you can't understand the comparison of similar class of aircraft.
Click to expand...

Airguy, when someone says, "I can understand how anyone can't see that the ____ is superior" it demands that response.

You have not seen me make such a statement, no?
The "RV 10" repeat recommender recommends his aircraft for the four person 800 nm trip in all weather....shall I point out that string? I believe this string is entitled "Experimental -v- Certified". It's a much more complicated question than that, and I do not see that "different missions" are excluded by the title. Or is it? Is that part of what follows?

In your crowd, "if you are not a disciple you must be anti" just reeks. I call these guys, on it. But maybe that's not even worth the time. :dunno:
 
Last edited:
Bill Watson said:
Oh. Yeah, the economical part lies with the sweat equity and the repairman's certificate. Not for everyone but a great deal for those that fit the profile. ;)
Click to expand...

I've been an airplane owner for 5 years now. What I pay my mechanic is a rounding error in an aviation budget. I can't recall ever signing a check to an A&P that I thought "Damn regulations, I would have done that if it were legal" never, not once.

After pricing out an RV-10 vs building one, I'd say a paper route would be a better ROI with my sweat equity.
 
bartmc said:
I've been an airplane owner for 5 years now. What I pay my mechanic is a rounding error in an aviation budget. I can't recall ever signing a check to an A&P that I thought "Damn regulations, I would have done that if it were legal" never, not once.

After pricing out an RV-10 vs building one, I'd say a paper route would be a better ROI with my sweat equity.
Click to expand...

Dunno about the -10, since I basically already own the certificated version (the Pathfinder) and we're looking to downsize -- but I have become intimately familiar with the -8.

The plane we are currently looking at goes 200 mph, climbs like a homesick angel, is aerobatic, and has an altitude hold autopilot slaved to a Garmin in-panel GPS. It's ten years old, has only 300+ hours on it -- and the seller wants $78K.

It's got a plain vanilla 180 HP O-360 in it, with a Hartzell constant speed prop. Both in like new condition.

I challenge you to find any ten year old certificated plane that fits that flight, maintenance, and acquisition profile. I tried, and failed.

As for building one of these planes, in the time my friend took to build his -6, I have completely remodeled two hotels. That pretty well sums up the dedication and work involved with building a kit plane like an RV.

So, WRT your statement about ROI, a paper route may actually be a superior investment -- but people don't necessarily build to save money. There is much more at work than simply cost savings.

In my world, I find that purchasing a cherry, already-built RV to be the only way I will ever be able own one. IMHO, it's also a financially better path forward, since the completed project costs far less than sum of the parts and labor. YMMV.
 
bbchien said:
The point that you cannot see, is that the utility value of an aircraft is different to different people. This is not about "winning".

Or, maybe to you, it is. In which case you are not worth anyone's time.
Click to expand...

You claim this is not about "winning", and yet you continually attack hose who disagree, and reference a thread in which I suggested an RV-10 would be a single engine plane to consider for 4 passengers and 800nm mission. It is.


bbchien said:
Airguy, when someone says, "I can understand how anyone can't see that the ____ is superior" it demands that response.

You have not seen me make such a statement, no?
The "RV 10" repeat recommender recommends his aircraft for the four person 800 nm trip in all weather....shall I point out that string? I believe this string is entitled "Experimental -v- Certified". It's a much more complicated question than that, and I do not see that "different missions" are excluded by the title. Or is it? Is that part of what follows?

In your crowd, "if you are not a disciple you must be anti" just reeks. I call these guys, on it. But maybe that's not even worth the time. :dunno:
Click to expand...

It's not about winning? :dunno:

No need for the personal attacks Bruce. Everyone has their opinions, and they all count. No one's opinion is better than anyone else's.

This thread is about experimental & certified pilots getting along. I started it. ;)

Post #1
Do we really need to bash the planes others fly?

Do we really need to constantly try and tear down an entire class of aircraft that have been extremely successful in keeping GA going?

As members of Pilots of America shouldn't we support all things that fly?"
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
And my reaction to all this and all the other Tampax ad hoop-la is yep, MMDV.

We compared Fltplan.com flight times for a Cessna 180 and 340 from Dallas to OSH, almost 800 nm. The difference was an hour each way. That's one trip per year. How many more like it? 3-4? 4-6? In any case, all of them require part of a day and too many other factors to consider to draw any conclusions. Bottom line, it's luck of the draw and no big deal.

Is acro something for which you've suddenly developed a passion? If so, good for you. I've BTDT, don't like it and will never voluntarily do it again. Would an occasional loop or roll be fun? Not really, but easy to come by for those who think so and without buying a plane to do it. I'll readily concede that somebody somewhere is avidly pursuing acro in their RV, but during the years I've been watching them all I've seen is a bunch of guys doing overhead breaks that didn't need to be done.

How long does it take for the non-homesick angels to climb to the 6,500' altitude that you claim to be the highest you can comfortably tolerate in non-pressurized planes? So far it's never been a problem for the planes I've flown but maybe the air at sea level is thinner where you live.

My plane has a slaved autopilot with altitude hold. It's not that difficult or expensive to obtain.

If you like tandem seating that totally isolates any interaction with others, go for it. I've owned one (as a toy) for 35 years and find it less desirable than conventional seating. But it's a war-bug and that's how all of them were made. For some, taking grandkids along or picking up a friend along the way is a big part of the fun. Spending more money for fewer seats simply means somebody can't go.

I've been involved in more pre-buys than most on this board and haven't ever had to worry about build quality, heavy wings, hot temps, bad stall qualities or other issues that seem to be somewhat problematic in your search. But maybe that's why some airplanes are required to prominently display the big letters and some aren't.

I'm not inferring that RV's are bad airplanes, assuming that you finally find one that's built and flies correctly, or that factory-built planes are perfect and the only way to fly. I'm also old enough to know that all that glitters is not glit and all that titters ain't either.


Jay Honeck said:
Dunno about the -10, since I basically already own the certificated version (the Pathfinder) and we're looking to downsize -- but I have become intimately familiar with the -8.

The plane we are currently looking at goes 200 mph, climbs like a homesick angel, is aerobatic, and has an altitude hold autopilot slaved to a Garmin in-panel GPS. It's ten years old, has only 300+ hours on it -- and the seller wants $78K.

It's got a plain vanilla 180 HP O-360 in it, with a Hartzell constant speed prop. Both in like new condition.

I challenge you to find any ten year old certificated plane that fits that flight, maintenance, and acquisition profile. I tried, and failed.

As for building one of these planes, in the time my friend took to build his -6, I have completely remodeled two hotels. That pretty well sums up the dedication and work involved with building a kit plane like an RV.

So, WRT your statement about ROI, a paper route may actually be a superior investment -- but people don't necessarily build to save money. There is much more at work than simply cost savings.

In my world, I find that purchasing a cherry, already-built RV to be the only way I will ever be able own one. IMHO, it's also a financially better path forward, since the completed project costs far less than sum of the parts and labor. YMMV.
Click to expand...
 
Well, I for one will never suggest an RV to fit ANY mission profile on PoA ever again. Apparently this community has a hard-on for putting down one of the most popular airframes ever produced, simply b/c some a-hole jet-jockey wanna be's have done overhead breaks at their airport. Oh the humanity! It appears that if anyone even suggests that an RV might fit a mission profile, that makes them a psycho fan-boy that is trying to "put down" other certified airframes.

I see the 182 suggested for darn near every "what plane fits this mission" thread on here, yet nobody has jumped onto the "you're just a stuck up 182 owner!" bandwagon - so why the hatred for the RV lines? If someone is overzealous about their suggestion, do you think it might be because they believe what they are suggesting? That maybe they're not out to take over the world, but maybe they're happy with their choice, so they want to share their experiences with others? Seems logical to me.. But apparently "RV" is taboo around here..
 
CJones said:
Well, I for one will never suggest an RV to fit ANY mission profile on PoA ever again. Apparently this community has a hard-on for putting down one of the most popular airframes ever produced, simply b/c some a-hole jet-jockey wanna be's have done overhead breaks at their airport. Oh the humanity! It appears that if anyone even suggests that an RV might fit a mission profile, that makes them a psycho fan-boy that is trying to "put down" other certified airframes.

I see the 182 suggested for darn near every "what plane fits this mission" thread on here, yet nobody has jumped onto the "you're just a stuck up 182 owner!" bandwagon - so why the hatred for the RV lines? If someone is overzealous about their suggestion, do you think it might be because they believe what they are suggesting? That maybe they're not out to take over the world, but maybe they're happy with their choice, so they want to share their experiences with others? Seems logical to me.. But apparently "RV" is taboo around here..
Click to expand...


Well duhhhh the correct answer is "Bonanza"
 
CJones said:
I see the 182 suggested for darn near every "what plane fits this mission" thread on here, yet nobody has jumped onto the "you're just a stuck up 182 owner!" bandwagon - so why the hatred for the RV lines?
Click to expand...

It's simple - they are jealous. They don't have the skills to build, so they buy certificated. :stirpot: :lol:

(No, Doc B, you are not allowed to stir that pot... leave it alone...)

Of course I mean the above to be tongue-in-cheek. Every aircraft owner has a different mission, different personality (though some on here seem to have NO personality), different budget, different hobby likes and dislikes, different skillsets, and different levels of risk-acceptance. The experimental world is certainly the "road less travelled", but it is not any less capable by any means. If the aircraft fits the mission, fly it.

I'm an RV builder, not an RV cheerleader. I can't put a 500-pound wild boar that I shot in the back passenger area and fly out of a riverbed with it. I can't move bedroom furniture in it. I can't go FIKI with it. I can't realistically expect to ever enjoy a 100-knot tailwind at FL250 with it. My typical flight profile doesn't need any of the those things - so they were never considered when I chose what aircraft I wanted to build. All this BS about one airplane versus another seems to me to be just a bunch of attempts to pound a square peg in a round hole. Fly what fits the mission.

Now just shut up and go fly already! :goofy:
 
CJones said:
Well, I for one will never suggest an RV to fit ANY mission profile on PoA ever again. Apparently this community has a hard-on for putting down one of the most popular airframes ever produced, simply b/c some a-hole jet-jockey wanna be's have done overhead breaks at their airport. Oh the humanity! It appears that if anyone even suggests that an RV might fit a mission profile, that makes them a psycho fan-boy that is trying to "put down" other certified airframes.

I see the 182 suggested for darn near every "what plane fits this mission" thread on here, yet nobody has jumped onto the "you're just a stuck up 182 owner!" bandwagon - so why the hatred for the RV lines? If someone is overzealous about their suggestion, do you think it might be because they believe what they are suggesting? That maybe they're not out to take over the world, but maybe they're happy with their choice, so they want to share their experiences with others? Seems logical to me.. But apparently "RV" is taboo around here..
Click to expand...
+1. There seems to be more anti-experimental then there actually is people trying to shove experimental aircraft down people's throat.

It just all depends. There are some missions where I wouldn't consider anything but an experimental and some where I wouldn't consider experimental. To me it mostly depends on who will be paying the MX bills :)
 
RotorAndWing said:
I've owned 25 different GA aircraft ( fixed wing and rotor) and have been an active GA pilot and mechanic for 40 years. And as to date have flown 106 different models of aircraft.

Sorry, I don't share the feelings on the RV line of aircraft, like I said, to each his own.
Click to expand...

I was just curious what you ARE impressed by. You must not be THAT picky if you've owned 25 different airplanes.

RotorAndWing said:
To make such an inane statement such as "it might not be the airplane for you, but that doesn't mean you cannot find an airplane impressive" is ridiculous in itself.
Click to expand...

BS. It's called being honest and giving credit where credit is due. I would never in a million years be interested in owning a Long-Ez, but it is an impressive airplane in many ways. There are many others I'd say the same thing about.
 
airguy said:
It's simple - they are jealous. They don't have the skills to build, so they buy certificated. :stirpot: :lol:

(No, Doc B, you are not allowed to stir that pot... leave it alone...)

Of course I mean the above to be tongue-in-cheek. Every aircraft owner has a different mission, different personality (though some on here seem to have NO personality), different budget, different hobby likes and dislikes, different skillsets, and different levels of risk-acceptance. The experimental world is certainly the "road less travelled", but it is not any less capable by any means. If the aircraft fits the mission, fly it.

I'm an RV builder, not an RV cheerleader. I can't put a 500-pound wild boar that I shot in the back passenger area and fly out of a riverbed with it. I can't move bedroom furniture in it. I can't go FIKI with it. I can't realistically expect to ever enjoy a 100-knot tailwind at FL250 with it. My typical flight profile doesn't need any of the those things - so they were never considered when I chose what aircraft I wanted to build. All this BS about one airplane versus another seems to me to be just a bunch of attempts to pound a square peg in a round hole. Fly what fits the mission.

Now just shut up and go fly already! :goofy:
Click to expand...

The utility you mention can't be had from the RV you're building. But compare the RV to a similar certified, and you're probably going to be pretty close in what they offer. I'd just like to hear logical comparisons. Example:

RV-7A vs Liberty XL
RV-10 or Velocity XL vs Mooney or Bonanza
Epic Lt vs Piper Meridian

This makes sense, and I can understand the pros and cons on both sides of the fence. Now, comparing a two seat Glasair or RV to a Seneca II, that makes no sense at all.
 
Velocity173 said:
The utility you mention can't be had from the RV you're building. But compare the RV to a similar certified, and you're probably going to be pretty close in what they offer. I'd just like to hear logical comparisons. Example:

RV-7A vs Liberty XL
RV-10 or Velocity XL vs Mooney or Bonanza
Epic Lt vs Piper Meridian

This makes sense, and I can understand the pros and cons on both sides of the fence. Now, comparing a two seat Glasair or RV to a Seneca II, that makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

And sometimes the utility side of it is only part of the equation. Speaking only for myself, one of the driving factors (a major one) in building my 9A was that I wanted it a bit different than anything else I could buy (either certificated or experimental). I wanted it *my way* without having to write huge checks for an STC (if one even exists for what I wanted) and then an A&P to modify the airplane. I have a huge amount of capability in my experimental (avionics-wise) compared to what those same dollars could buy me in the certificated world, and in some cases would not even be available in the certificated world. I have the ability to tailor-fit the aircraft AROUND my mission, rather than pick something that comes closest to fitting my mission.

I'm not a certificated-hater, I'm a partner in a 172 right now also. I'm also not going to try to convince anyone that the RV's (or any other line) are the end-all-be-all - because they're not - but neither is any other airplane. This has turned into nothing but a dick-measuring contest just like any other Ford/Chevy/Dodge argument and I'm sick of it.

Y'all have fun, I'm going flying.
 
jesse said:
+1. There seems to be more anti-experimental then there actually is people trying to shove experimental aircraft down people's throat.

It just all depends. There are some missions where I wouldn't consider anything but an experimental and some where I wouldn't consider experimental. To me it mostly depends on who will be paying the MX bills :)
Click to expand...

This reminds me of the mogas vs avgas debates we used to have, back before the gummint mandated polluted car gas.

There were guys who absolutely believed that their certificated planes would fall out of the sky running with anything but the blue stuff in their tanks.

When I would tell them that I had run 12,000 gallons of sweet 87 octane unleaded car gas through my little fuel truck into my airplanes, and that the planes actually ran better on anything BUT the blue stuff, they thought I was crazy.

Now, we've got folks implying that experimental aircraft are silly.

As the new owner of an RV-8A, I hope to be able to dispell this sort of attitude. Expect many starry-eyed, over-the-top posts in the near future... :D
 
Choosing EAB isn't universally silly, it sure can be but your search showed that.

I do understand the Docs pushback against the RV worshiping kooks of the world however. I honestly get it having been told that I was a moron for not spending 2-3x the money to get an RV10 in place of my 182, a plane that I can work on myself.
 
There are a number of EABs (and experimentals in general) I'd love to own & fly, and there are a number of certified planes I wouldn't touch. And vice-versa.

As I see it, the greatest risk factor in an EAB is the quality of construction & the ability of the builder/owner to do things right, followed closely by the risk of something in the design (either original or modified) that negatively impacts the flight envelope. Some EABs are designed closer to the edges of the envelope than others (I personally love the idea of a PT-6 powered Lancair, though I would be concerned about being on the edge of the envelope).

For certified planes, one loses the design risk for a more docile envelope - the greatest risk is one of maintenance/mods over the years (owner's willingess to have things done right), followed by risks related to overstressing the airframe.

I've omitted pilot-generated risks as the safety culture of the individual pilot drives that. The EAB side carries a slightly greater risk as there is less standardization in EAB aircraft/equipment than there is in certified planes, meaning that there is an additional factor in the training regimin. But in the end, a pilot committed to a safety culture & appropriate training will be able to fly either type successfully.

No reason to throw a stick at either side: each meets different mission needs.
 
bartmc said:
I've been an airplane owner for 5 years now. What I pay my mechanic is a rounding error in an aviation budget. I can't recall ever signing a check to an A&P that I thought "Damn regulations, I would have done that if it were legal" never, not once.

After pricing out an RV-10 vs building one, I'd say a paper route would be a better ROI with my sweat equity.
Click to expand...
Well, that definitely doesn't fit the profile.

Building and maintaining were definitely part of why I went with the '10. The other part was that the 2 seat RVs just weren't big enough (the '14 would probably have done the trick though).

Put another way, unless I built it, owning an experimental was never an option I considered . Sounds like a great thing to do for many but just not for me.

Now that you mention it, " I can't recall ever signing a check to an A&P that I thought "Damn regulations, I would have done that if it were legal" never, not once." In fact, my shop kept thinking I was interested in doing more than actually I did. The only thing I would do is change the oil when needed between annuals.

Part of my profile: I desperately wanted to get my hands dirty in an airplane but there was no way I was fooling around with something that complex that I knew so little about. Building turned out to be a long and intensive education experience that gave me the confidence and knowledge to dive in.

It was the best thing I ever did in aviation, as was the PIK20, as was the racing, as was the LS6, as was the Maule, as was the IR. I managed to avoid the paper route though. :D

Onward and upward!
 
Skylane81E said:
Choosing EAB isn't universally silly, it sure can be but your search showed that.

I do understand the Docs pushback against the RV worshiping kooks of the world however. I honestly get it having been told that I was a moron for not spending 2-3x the money to get an RV10 in place of my 182, a plane that I can work on myself.
Click to expand...
Some people (on both sides of the fence) do seem to go out of their way to act like fools at times.
 
One and all,

This is not "Plane Builders of America, not Certified Plane owners of America, ....

It is Pilots of America.

:yeahthat:
 
Skylane81E said:
Choosing EAB isn't universally silly, it sure can be but your search showed that.

I do understand the Docs pushback against the RV worshiping kooks of the world however. I honestly get it having been told that I was a moron for not spending 2-3x the money to get an RV10 in place of my 182, a plane that I can work on myself.
Click to expand...

IMHO the "push back" you are feeling is from over coming the negativity this forum has had towards EAB.

Who said you a moron? :dunno:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top