Right, but most of the issues are systems issues which are reasonably easy to spot on an inspection if you understand what should be and what shouldn't. It's the airframe issues that are buried too deep to see that would be my concern.
Oh, crap. An RV-8A owner contacted me...
- Thread starter Jay Honeck
- Start date
- Status
Right, but most of the issues are systems issues which are reasonably easy to spot on an inspection if you understand what should be and what shouldn't. It's the airframe issues that are buried too deep to see that would be my concern.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
- Wayne
If they are reasonably easy to spot, why aren't the experts spotting them? Is fuel line routing, security and function a systems issue or a airframe issue, a build issue, or what?
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 11,571
- Location
- Ingleside, TX
- Display Name
- Jay Honeck
- Home Airfield
- KTFP - Ingleside, TX
The plane in question first flew in 2006, and has several hundred hours on it. It's obviously not shed any wings thus far, so I'm pretty confident that the construction is sound.
The plane was built, and then badly damaged in an accident that occurred during initial taxi testing. (Can you imagine how badly THAT had to suck?) The insurance company totaled it, the first builder stripped it of all usable "stuff" for another project -- and the end builder bought the damaged fuselage at scrap value, or a little more.
He then proceeded to tear it apart, repair/replace what was needed, and finished the plane. According to his website, he's been a CFI since 1963, and this is his third project plane. He apparently loves to fix up old airplanes. One is a Piper Cub. This is his second RV.
Now, normally I would be squeamish about buying a rebuilt wreck, if it were a certificated plane. But with a homebuilt, does it really matter if the builder started out with a partially built fuselage and rebuilt/repaired it, or if he started with a crate full of parts and a bunch of instructions?
In either case you are relying 100% on the builder's skills. THAT is the risk, in a nutshell.
Obviously a thorough pre-buy inspection and background check on the builder will have to be accomplished -- but that's Step #12. We're still at Step #1, which is deciding whether we're interested or not.
The plane was built, and then badly damaged in an accident that occurred during initial taxi testing. (Can you imagine how badly THAT had to suck?) The insurance company totaled it, the first builder stripped it of all usable "stuff" for another project -- and the end builder bought the damaged fuselage at scrap value, or a little more.
He then proceeded to tear it apart, repair/replace what was needed, and finished the plane. According to his website, he's been a CFI since 1963, and this is his third project plane. He apparently loves to fix up old airplanes. One is a Piper Cub. This is his second RV.
Now, normally I would be squeamish about buying a rebuilt wreck, if it were a certificated plane. But with a homebuilt, does it really matter if the builder started out with a partially built fuselage and rebuilt/repaired it, or if he started with a crate full of parts and a bunch of instructions?
In either case you are relying 100% on the builder's skills. THAT is the risk, in a nutshell.
Obviously a thorough pre-buy inspection and background check on the builder will have to be accomplished -- but that's Step #12. We're still at Step #1, which is deciding whether we're interested or not.
Systems issue in the build. Why aren't experts spotting them?
Fuel line routing and securing against chafing and such as well as relieved of vibrational fatigue is the first thing I would be looking at/feeling for.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 11,571
- Location
- Ingleside, TX
- Display Name
- Jay Honeck
- Home Airfield
- KTFP - Ingleside, TX
I'm no expert, but shouldn't it be pretty simple to trace fuel lines in a homebuilt plane? Especially if it's only got two wing tanks.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
- Wayne
Ask the forum member whose -10 burned to a crisp during landing.
Systems issue in the build. Why aren't experts spotting them?
I'm well aware, why people build things incorrectly is a question I cannot answer, but it is a problem I can can find and correct. Nothing says I have to leave an Exp. 'as built'.
Often times it is due to using less costly parts and fittings that aren't designed to go through the stress and vibration cycles of parts designed for aircraft or boats. Some things work, some things don't.
Last edited:
So says the "certified aircraft " expert.......
Some of us can spew out hundreds of FAA approved aircraft which had MAJOR flaws........
Can you say ..... BOEING 787 ???
Can you say (FAA certified) Lithium Ion batteries..
Give it a rest Wayne on talking down on experimentals...
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
- Wayne
I'd guess everybody who builds and inspects them, including people who are actually authorized and certified to do so, feels that they know all this stuff too. Evidently thinking so doesn't make it so.
I got no dog in the fight, but applaud the EAA's commitment to shine more light on this subject. It's pretty clear that the current status is unacceptable both to the industry and to the regulators.
I got no dog in the fight, but applaud the EAA's commitment to shine more light on this subject. It's pretty clear that the current status is unacceptable both to the industry and to the regulators.
The FAA made that abundantly clear a while back when they called the major kit makers in and told them "You correct this or we will, and you won't like it."
Agreed..................
.When the Zenith 601 XL started shedding wings, the FAA stepped in and pretty much said..........."You correct this or we will, and you won't like it".
And Zenith fixed it like.. right NOW........................
Last edited:
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
- Wayne
I'd still like to go to wherever on the west coast they sell those Glasair Sportsmen (or whatever they call them and build one in the assisted program, and might possibly set the all-time record for assistance needed/rendered.
That is the point of those programs and is the only way I would consider building one. Tango has the same type program where you build them at the factory. The tools, expertise, and assistance are worth every dime, and the education is invaluable, not to mention you get up in the air an months instead of years or decades.
Jim Logajan
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,027
- Display Name
- .
If I knew for sure who you meant by SA I'd go do that research. Perhaps you mean Aviation Safety Magazine?
MachFly
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2011
- Messages
- 2,514
- Display Name
- MachFly
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
- Wayne
The pilot and his daughter who were both burned but survived the accident might disagree.
And nobody could approach you for blabbing of the toothless one.
And nobody could approach you for blabbing of the toothless one.
Talking out your ass again.
Seriously, Wayne, get a life.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 9,173
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
- Drake the Outlaw
- Home Airfield
- Cartersville, GA
Actually, it pretty much does work that way. Ron Wanttaja's articles are pretty effective in pointing that out.
As to the other "Safety" articles in SA. What a tragic use of print. The current editor has zero feel for his intended audience. Turning 25% of the magazine into safety articles lifted straight out of the "Flying" reject pile is a horrible use of SA. Particularly when most of them begin with "I was in my 172..."
You are talking out your ASS!
Go find a thread that compares the 150 and the 152. Something you know something about.
No ones cares about your drivel spewing hate about RV's.
Internet bullies like you are a dime a dozen. Time for you to retire.
He's not talking out his ass, Todd Swezey's LS Chevy powered RV-10 had a fuel leak with vapor in the cabin which did a 'fwoomp' and exploded after landing leaving both he and his daughter with some pretty serious burns.
Last edited:
Geico266
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2008
- Messages
- 19,136
- Location
- Husker Nation, NE
- Display Name
- Geico
- Home Airfield
- KCEK
It was not built to Van's or aircraft standards. It is not a comparable situations. I know the situation, very well. Wayne is talking out his ass again.
Last edited:
Look, everything Wayne has said here has been accurate. If you really don't believe that, you are part of the problem the FAA wants cured.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
- Wayne
Geico266
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2008
- Messages
- 19,136
- Location
- Husker Nation, NE
- Display Name
- Geico
- Home Airfield
- KCEK
and that's the only reason why I don't fly RVs
Amazing all these know it alls exclude an entire aircraft type based on nonsense and vodo.
Still use MMO in your gas too right?
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
- Wayne
Can you cite an example of the aircraft that I've been involved with to support your claim? Could you at the same time cite the home-built that would have been appropriate for the needs of the presumed buyer?
It was not built to Van's or aircraft standards. It is not a comparable situations. I know the situation, very well. Wayne is talking out his ass again.
What guaranty does anyone have that any RV was built to Van's standard? The whole point to experimental is it allows one to experiment. I've looked at a lot of RVs (as well as other experimentals) and talked to their builders and they all tell me about their mods and "improvements". That was the whole issue, how do you inspect these craft to make sure they were either built to spec (I'll allow that Van's designs are perfect) or that the modifications to the design are appropriate and safe? The Midget Mustang I bought had my IO-360 hung on it, that's way out of spec for that airframe, however I knew the builder well and he made the appropriate mods to handle the extra weight and power.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
- Wayne
No, it's time for you to wake up and smell the coffee. If the problem is with another segment of GA, why didn't the FAA call them out first?
You are talking out your ASS!
Go find a thread that compares the 150 and the 152. Something you know something about.
No ones cares about your drivel spewing hate about RV's.
Internet bullies like you are a dime a dozen. Time for you to retire.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
Seriously? You are so out of touch with facts is it sickening.
Take some Geritol and call me in the morning.
You make your living ripping off owners of certified planes with over priced and over done maintenance. You are ****ed off and continue a war on home builts because they threaten your gold mine of ripping certified aircraft owners off.
Saturday night, you have a drunk on, and now it's time to bash EAB's. You are a piece of work man.I hate internet bullies.
Excuse me, but Wayne has not called anyone names, made slanderous and baseless accusations towards anyone here, he's just exercised his opinion on the subject at hand and has offered a difference of opinion.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
- Wayne
MachFly
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2011
- Messages
- 2,514
- Display Name
- MachFly
Amazing all these know it alls exclude an entire aircraft type based on nonsense and vodo.
Still use MMO in your gas too right?
What?
Geico266
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2008
- Messages
- 19,136
- Location
- Husker Nation, NE
- Display Name
- Geico
- Home Airfield
- KCEK
I've offered several time for me to come to your shop and go through your books privately. Now I will make it public. I would be glad to come to your shop and go through your records and look at the certified aircraft you worked on.
The facts are, you have " a dog in this fight " and you make your living off certified aircraft maintenance. EAB's threaten your income. Period.
Last edited:
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
- Wayne
I'm calling his bluff.
Geico, my plane against yours about any drinking last Saturday or any other Saturday for quite a while. Polygraph any time, any place.
Put up or shut up.
Geico, my plane against yours about any drinking last Saturday or any other Saturday for quite a while. Polygraph any time, any place.
Put up or shut up.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
- Wayne
Geico266
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2008
- Messages
- 19,136
- Location
- Husker Nation, NE
- Display Name
- Geico
- Home Airfield
- KCEK
Wow, that's really brave Wayne.
No, my plane against your that I will find you ripped off certified aircraft owners with excessive maintenance and over charging for maintenance. I'll be down Monday morning. With DARs and my team of A&P's . I will send out letters to all of your customers for the past 5 years asking them about your charges also. Wanna play?
Put up ot shut up.
You continually bash EAB as being unsafe. My point is you have "a dog in this fight" because you make your living off certified aircraft owners. You have a vested interest in running down your competition and EAB is a huge competitor.
Last edited:
How many cabin class jets are EABs? Even cabin turbo props? A handful? As for a business jet, how would you even use an EAB? If you do operate for business in the narrow window that you can use one, do you think the company insurance is gonna allow it?
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
- Wayne
Bring it on, I call that bet too.
Just tell me which airport and which shop you intend to invade so I can sit in the parking lot and watch you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
How about a little side bet for $10k that I have ever charged anybody a dime for MX on any airplane?
Just tell me which airport and which shop you intend to invade so I can sit in the parking lot and watch you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
How about a little side bet for $10k that I have ever charged anybody a dime for MX on any airplane?
Wow, that's really brave Wayne.
No, my plane against your that I will find you ripped off certified aircraft owners with excessive maintenance and over charging for maintenance. I'll be down Monday morning. With DARs and my team of A&P's .
Put up ot shut up.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 9,173
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
- Drake the Outlaw
- Home Airfield
- Cartersville, GA
Wayne, I've ready every article in SA for about 20 years. I've read the interesting articles multiple times.
EAB's biggest problem isn't the airplanes, it is the fact that it isn't convenient to get in-type training, so people don't get adequate conversion training and bend airplanes in their early hours in-type. After the familiarization phase, EAB accident rates are very similar to certificated rates for similar aircraft.
The FAA's policies on EAB rentals are probably the biggest impediment to people getting better transition training.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
Knock off the personal attacks. Take the personal comments off the board.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
Closed pending MC review.
SCCutler
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2005
- Messages
- 17,409
- Display Name
- Spike Cutler
- Home Airfield
- T82
At the risk of being silly, I do believe Wayne ain't even *in* the aircraft MX business.
Even if he were, there's no call for talking ugly on him.
Even if he were, there's no call for talking ugly on him.
- Status