Opinions on a Bowers Namu 2?

Keane

Keane

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
188
Location
Hillsboro, OR
Display Name
Display name:
ErichKeane
Hi all-

I've been somewhat entertaining the idea of purchasing a 2 seat, cross country plane for myself (or a reasonably quick 4 seater). I already have rental access to a Cessna 150/Cherokee 180, so my buy requirements are that it be significantly better than that in some manner.

Due to the many advantages, I've been seriously considering an already built Experimental. I'd build, however I don't have a place to build, or the experience to do so. I'm an engineer by schooling/trade, so I can at least maintain anything I buy within reason. The FBO mechanic at 7S3 (where I'd have the plane) seems like he would help me with whatever I needed beyond that.

For a while (and still actually) I've been keeping an eye out for an inexpensive Thorp T-18, however there are rarely any for sale, and never any in my area at a price I can 'afford'. I would prefer something local, so that I can take a look at it personally before hand.

Anyway, I recently found this: http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_387846_1975+Bowers-built+NAMU.html on barnstormers. It is about 3-4 hours by car away from me. I spoke with the owner a bit on the phone and might go see it soon.

I realize it doesn't compare well performance wise to the T-18, however it is a good price and has a fun history.

So everyone, talk me into/out of this :D Good idea/bad idea?


About me:
Single, 24, own both cars, reasonably well employed. 50+ hr pilot.
 
Oak harbor is Tom Downey's (Tom-D) home airport, maybe he knows something about it.
 
A four hour car ride is a 1.5-2 hour flight in aircraft to which you have access. However, I usually try to dissuade non-owners from purchasing an experimental as their first ownership experience. Owning an aircraft is a fairly big can of worms, owning an experimental another on top of that. There is nothing wrong with purchasing an extant experimental in my mind, so long as you can assure yourself that it had been assembled and has been maintained properly. But the price for that aircraft will purchase a C150 or Cherokee 140, and as a low-time pilot you don't need to be going faster than that anyway.
 
steingar said:
However, I usually try to dissuade non-owners from purchasing an experimental as their first ownership experience. Owning an aircraft is a fairly big can of worms, owning an experimental another on top of that. There is nothing wrong with purchasing an extant experimental in my mind, so long as you can assure yourself that it had been assembled and has been maintained properly. But the price for that aircraft will purchase a C150 or Cherokee 140, and as a low-time pilot you don't need to be going faster than that anyway.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go so far as to discourage someone from buying an experimental as a first plane, but I would be pretty skeptical about performance specifications while shopping. And I'd also want to stick to experimentals that have active owner associations - there's a lot of value in that.

I don't know that I'd want to own the only flyable example of a certain experimental. There just might be a really good reason there aren't any other of them around!


Trapper John
 
Thanks for the feedback, and keep it coming!

The fact that this is a 1 of a kind worries me a little bit, however I'm told the airframe is very similar to the flybaby planes that Bowers made. Since this one was manufactured by the designer, I'm a little less worried about construction.

THAT being said, what other complications come from owning an Experimental? Most of the feedback I've heard seems to say the opposite, where once you know you have a well enough built one, it is basically like owning certified plane with cheaper parts and the ability to work on it yourself.
 
doesn't one have to pass the "51% build" requirement to receive the builder's repairman's certificate in order the work on it yourself completely?

How does one maintain an experimental that someone else built?
 
Last edited:
anyone can do the maintenance but an A&P or the person with the repairman certificate for that airplane must sign off the annual condition inspection.
 
From what I understand is that you can still do all of the work on a purchased homebuilt yourself. You just can't do the annual CI, which needs to be done by an IA or the original builder.
 
Keane said:
THAT being said, what other complications come from owning an Experimental? Most of the feedback I've heard seems to say the opposite, where once you know you have a well enough built one, it is basically like owning certified plane with cheaper parts and the ability to work on it yourself.
Click to expand...

How competent are you to work on it? How good are the plans and notes, they will be your only guide. If you do have trouble, will any mechanic be competent to work on it, since it is a one-off? Will you (or anyone else) be able to fabricate any necessary parts? Who's going to teach you to fly it? Who's going to insure it? Is it a fabric aircraft? It is 35 years old, has it been recovered, how's the fabric? What are the wear issues related to this design? Do you have a hangar ready? Do you know a mechanic willing to perform the condition inspection? With such a one-off design you are literally flying without a net.

At least with an RV or a Kitfox there is a community that can help you, and a possibility that a mechanic has previously seen an example. Compare that with a certificated example, and you have tons of parts available, mechanics who are familiar with them and usual wear issues, and CFIs who can fly them. Again, I have nothing at all against experimentals and hope to own one someday. But I have owned two airplanes, and I think I have at least a passing understanding of ownerships issues. I think.
 
gkainz said:
doesn't one have to pass the "51% build" requirement to receive the builder's certificate in order the work on it yourself completely?

How does one maintain an experimental that someone else built?
Click to expand...

The aircraft has to pass teh "51%" rule to be amateur built experimental.

One person gets the repairmans certificate (I think that is what it's called) for an aircraft. Doesn't matter if that particular individual did more or less than any particular percentage. For example, if you buy a 95% complete project and only do the last 45% of the work yourself, you can still get the repairmans certificate.

Anyone can maintain / repair an amateur built experimental, but the once a year condition inspection can only be done by the person with the repairmans certificate and / or an A&P (doesn't have to be an AI).

Did that make sense? If it did, I must not have explaned it correctly.
 
If he buys the airplane he's described, he'll need an A&P to do the condition inspection. I don't know if the A&P needs an IA. He can do just about anything else, including repair discrepancies, although he'll need the A&P to sign off on the repairs.
 
Keane said:
Thanks for the feedback, and keep it coming!

The fact that this is a 1 of a kind worries me a little bit, however I'm told the airframe is very similar to the flybaby planes that Bowers made. Since this one was manufactured by the designer, I'm a little less worried about construction.

THAT being said, what other complications come from owning an Experimental? Most of the feedback I've heard seems to say the opposite, where once you know you have a well enough built one, it is basically like owning certified plane with cheaper parts and the ability to work on it yourself.
Click to expand...

For the most part, every experimental homebuilt is "one of a kind". The real issue (as already pointed out) is whether or not there's some kind of support out there for anything you contemplate owning. Without decent group knowledge you would be completely on your own when it comes to dealing with any issues beyond the engine and since you didn't build it, chances are there's a lot of "type specific" knowledge you won't have.
 
steingar said:
If he buys the airplane he's described, he'll need an A&P to do the condition inspection. I don't know if the A&P needs an IA. He can do just about anything else, including repair discrepancies, although he'll need the A&P to sign off on the repairs.
Click to expand...


That was my understanding as well.

As for competence to work on it, I do all of my own auto repair, including a build on a performance engine. I'm pretty good at recognizing when I'm getting in over my head, so I'd be able to get the local A&P to do any work that I'm not capable of. The biggest things I considered being able to do myself are the engine components (like overhauls, etc), which since it is a standard lycoming, I'd be able to do myself.

I think it is fabric, though i don't know anything else about it or the condition of the airframe. It seems that the current owner bought it almost a year ago, and his reason for selling it is that he has 2 planes now and a few cars, so he doesn't have the room.

As for teaching me to fly it, the owner mentioned he has a CFI that knows the plane very well and taught him how to fly it. He implied he could get that CFI to teach me to fly it as a part of the sales agreement.
 
vontresc said:
From what I understand is that you can still do all of the work on a purchased homebuilt yourself. You just can't do the annual CI, which needs to be done by an IA or the original builder.
Click to expand...

Condition Inspections can be signed off by an A&P on Experimental aircraft, no IA required.
 
steingar said:
If he buys the airplane he's described, he'll need an A&P to do the condition inspection. I don't know if the A&P needs an IA. He can do just about anything else, including repair discrepancies, although he'll need the A&P to sign off on the repairs.
Click to expand...

AFaIK, you NEVER need an IA to maintain or inspect a homebuilt. You do need an A&P to sign off the annual "condition inspection" but legally that's about it unless you do something major (like put different wings on). But that's just the legal side. On the common sense and safety side I'd recommend a second set of knowledgeable eyes to look at any alterations or significant repairs beyond what part 23 appendix A allows pilots to perform on certificed airplanes, at least for the first time around.
 
gismo said:
AFaIK, you NEVER need an IA to maintain or inspect a homebuilt. You do need an A&P to sign off the annual "condition inspection" but legally that's about it unless you do something major (like put different wings on). But that's just the legal side. On the common sense and safety side I'd recommend a second set of knowledgeable eyes to look at any alterations or significant repairs beyond what part 23 appendix A allows pilots to perform on certificed airplanes, at least for the first time around.
Click to expand...

Just as a point of reference, you mean Part 43, not Part 23.
 
Keane said:
That was my understanding as well.

As for competence to work on it, I do all of my own auto repair, including a build on a performance engine. I'm pretty good at recognizing when I'm getting in over my head, so I'd be able to get the local A&P to do any work that I'm not capable of. The biggest things I considered being able to do myself are the engine components (like overhauls, etc), which since it is a standard lycoming, I'd be able to do myself.

I think it is fabric, though i don't know anything else about it or the condition of the airframe. It seems that the current owner bought it almost a year ago, and his reason for selling it is that he has 2 planes now and a few cars, so he doesn't have the room.

As for teaching me to fly it, the owner mentioned he has a CFI that knows the plane very well and taught him how to fly it. He implied he could get that CFI to teach me to fly it as a part of the sales agreement.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that you can do just about anything you want on a certificated aircraft, but you do need to get the work signed off by an A&P.
 
Keane said:
Thanks for the feedback, and keep it coming!

The fact that this is a 1 of a kind worries me a little bit, however I'm told the airframe is very similar to the flybaby planes that Bowers made. Since this one was manufactured by the designer, I'm a little less worried about construction.
Click to expand...
It's not one of a kind...but if you've seen three of them, you've seen them all. :)

Namu was Pete's attempt to develop a two-seater equivalent of the Fly Baby. The construction method is the same, but many of the mechanical details are different. Fly Babies have wire-braced wings, Namu is cantilever. Fly Babies have rigid landing gear, Namu has oleos. At the time he designed Namu, Pete did have ~10 years of experience building/operating his Fly Baby, and undoubtedly improved some things. Several folks had built two-seat Fly Babies (a practice Pete was against), and I suspect Namu was Pete's way of saying, "This is how it's done."

In any case, Namu, like the Fly Baby, is a dirt-simple airplane. There's still an engine, fuel system, etc. to keep operating, but the airframe itself probably is about as rugged as a Fly Baby. I know some of the Seattle-area EAAers who were around when Pete built this airplane; they allow it flies well, but it's no rocket ship.

(BTW, for those wondering what we're talking about):
namu.JPG


Keep in mind that you're looking at a ~35-year-old wood airplane, and a plane that has had its share of hard knocks over the years (it got the landing gear wiped off it on a landing, about two owners ago). Last I heard, the previous owner did a good bit of restoration, and it looked good at Arlington last summer.

Keane said:
THAT being said, what other complications come from owning an Experimental? Most of the feedback I've heard seems to say the opposite, where once you know you have a well enough built one, it is basically like owning certified plane with cheaper parts and the ability to work on it yourself.
Click to expand...
I bought a completed Fly Baby about fourteen years ago, and operated Pete's original as part of an EAA flying club for eight years prior to that.

As others have pointed out, I can do all the maintenance and repairs myself, and must have an A&P perform an annual condition inspection "To the scope and breadth of Part 43" every year. In ~25 years of Fly Baby operation, I've had only two A&Ps.

For a one-off homebuilt like this, finding someone local you can rely on for advice is going to be vital. If it's your A&P, great, but check with the local EAA Chapters and see if there's anyone willing to give you a hand. Back when I started with the club Fly Baby, I had a very experienced EAA Technical Counselor available to give me some advice (he actually had led the restoration of the airplane in 1982). By the time I got my own Fly Baby, I had enough smarts to be able to handle things.

So...at minimum, you want to find (a) An A&P who will be willing to perform a pre-buy inspection on the airplane, (b) An A&P (maybe the same one) who will be willing to perform the annual condition inspection of the airplane, and (c) An EAA'er or someone with a bit of experience with wooden airplanes.

Like others, I'm a bit reluctant to recommend this unique homebuilt to someone who has never owned a plane before. You'd have a lot easier time finding someone to give you advice and help on more-common designs, like T-18s, Fly Babies, and RVs. What you might consider is checking to see if anyone might want to go partners with you.

Check with your local library, and see if they've got my books Airplane Ownership or Kit Airplane Construction. Each book has a section on buying used homebuilts.

For more advice, consider the Fly Baby Yahoo Group. We've got some folks with wooden-airplane knowledge. Consider, too, finding the Emeraude and Pietenpol groups.

Ron Wanttaja
 
steingar said:
Keep in mind that you can do just about anything you want on a certificated aircraft, but you do need to get the work signed off by an A&P.
Click to expand...
The difference is in the return to service. I can do major work on my homebuilt, put it back together, and go fly it. For a certified aircraft, the A&P must sign off the work before the plane can legally fly (assuming the work was beyond that which non-A&Ps can do).

Ron Wanttaja
 
Keane said:
It seems that the current owner bought it almost a year ago, and his reason for selling it is that he has 2 planes now and a few cars, so he doesn't have the room.
Click to expand...

I'd have to wonder why -if he doesn't have the room for it- his ad states "Will consider all trades on other aircraft" ?
 
steingar said:
If he buys the airplane he's described, he'll need an A&P to do the condition inspection. I don't know if the A&P needs an IA. He can do just about anything else, including repair discrepancies, although he'll need the A&P to sign off on the repairs.
Click to expand...

Not true, he only needs an A&P to do the conditional inspection
 
tonycondon said:
Oak harbor is Tom Downey's (Tom-D) home airport, maybe he knows something about it.
Click to expand...

I know the owner, and have seen the aircraft come and go at OKH, but I have never inspected the aircraft or placed hands on so to speak.

Bowers is the guy who designed the Bowers Flybaby, and this namu type, there were 4 built 1 is here and there is another one at Yelm Wa. I do not know ther condition of the one at Yelm but I do know that this one is the only one flyable. I don't think the other 2 were ever completed.

the type is basic wood and metal construction, it just doesnt get any easier than this to maintain. I don't know how easy the aircraft is to fly, but i do know Don, is a low time pilot and got his TD endorsement in this aircraft.

I have no obligations to the owner here at Oak Harbor. I will help you in any way I can except flight instruction or ferry service.
 
Keane said:
It seems that the current owner bought it almost a year ago, and his reason for selling it is that he has 2 planes now and a few cars, so he doesn't have the room..
Click to expand...

He says he doesn't have the room, but if the truth were known, ( and I don't ) I'd suspect he is tight on cash. He is renting a hangar at AWO, that is where the pictures were taken, Plus the fact he is self employed logger heavy equipment operator, and there isn't much going on around here these days.
 
Tom, Thanks for your input!

I think I'm pretty convinced out of this one, I think this one might be a little more than I can chew for a first plane.
 
I don't know crap about this, but I have seen and admired Namu at a fly -in. It is a beautiful craft, seems to be in good condition and well cared for. The Price is certainly inviting, I even drooled over it for a while, before deciding to remain a clubber. If looks and the cool factor were all to consider it would be mine. Dave
 
Keane said:
Tom, Thanks for your input!

I think I'm pretty convinced out of this one, I think this one might be a little more than I can chew for a first plane.
Click to expand...

Don't allow the doubter to scare you out of a good deal.

There is no more to maintaining this aircraft than any other, and probably easier.

The fabric is over wood and thus there is no punch test to worry about or age related items.

99% of the posters here have had nothing to do with a wood and fabric aircraft or the C-85 yet they still give advice.

my best advice, come see the aircraft, we'll do lunch.
 
Tom-D said:
Don't allow the doubter to scare you out of a good deal.

There is no more to maintaining this aircraft than any other, and probably easier.

The fabric is over wood and thus there is no punch test to worry about or age related items.

99% of the posters here have had nothing to do with a wood and fabric aircraft or the C-85 yet they still give advice.

my best advice, come see the aircraft, we'll do lunch.
Click to expand...
You'd be a fool not to take Tom's advice.
 
Why not take a look? It is worth going just to see Namu, & Tom has made you a great offer. I met Him once, same time I saw Namu at OKH. Even if you still decline I bet the experience alone will be worthwhile.Maybe Tom will show you his plane. Dave
 
Tom-D said:
Don't allow the doubter to scare you out of a good deal.

There is no more to maintaining this aircraft than any other, and probably easier.

The fabric is over wood and thus there is no punch test to worry about or age related items.

99% of the posters here have had nothing to do with a wood and fabric aircraft or the C-85 yet they still give advice.

my best advice, come see the aircraft, we'll do lunch.
Click to expand...

I think that is advice I'll take! I am planning on picking whichever day next weekend has the best weather, and driving up. From what I hear, lunch with you is enough of a privilege to make the trip worth while :)
 
So it looks like the owner traded the Namu for a Piper Pacer (of some sort). I called his wife to schedule a visit this weekend, and he ended up having traded it.

Thanks all for your help, looks like I'm back to trying to find something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top