Pulsar XP - or, buying an experimental that someone else completed

[Rigged4Flight]

A friend recommended I look at the Pulsar XP as a relatively low(er) cost plane, in regards to maintenance, GPH, etc - and the initial purchase price.

I did some googling, and it appears that the company was doing very well, and then moved to south america and before silently fading into the woodwork. The Pulsar XP was well received, and appears to be a very well designed aircraft (based on reviews/articles).

My biggest question is if I purchase an experimental/homebuilt aircraft, but I'm not the builder, what do I need to do in order to perform maintenance on the plane myself?

A nagging worry in the back of my head is how would I know if the builder was as conscientious as I would want them to be? I'm guessing I would turn an A&P loose on the aircraft to perform the mother of all pre-buy inspections.

Any words of wisdom from people that have been there/done that with purchasing a completed kitbuilt aircraft?

Classifieds: http://www.barnstormers.com/Experimental, Pulsar Classifieds.htm

Review: http://www.pilotfriend.com/experimental/acft5/33.htm

 

[kyleb]

You or anyone else in the world can legally perform whatever maintenance you want on an Experimental. If you are not the original builder (who probably has the repairman's certificate for that particular airframe), you will have to get an A&P to perform the annual condition inspection.

For a prebuy, you would do best to have an A&P do a prebuy and to have someone who is knowledgable about the type (another builder, perhaps) go through the airplane and look for type specific issues. Your garden variety A&P wont' have ever worked on a Pulsar and won't be aware of any pecularities with the type.

Also, you may do well to find a bulders group (on-line or elsewhere) to get guidance.

Hope this helps, and good luck.

 

[Velocity173]

A friend recommended I look at the Pulsar XP as a relatively low(er) cost plane, in regards to maintenance, GPH, etc - and the initial purchase price.

I did some googling, and it appears that the company was doing very well, and then moved to south america and before silently fading into the woodwork. The Pulsar XP was well received, and appears to be a very well designed aircraft (based on reviews/articles).

My biggest question is if I purchase an experimental/homebuilt aircraft, but I'm not the builder, what do I need to do in order to perform maintenance on the plane myself?

A nagging worry in the back of my head is how would I know if the builder was as conscientious as I would want them to be? I'm guessing I would turn an A&P loose on the aircraft to perform the mother of all pre-buy inspections.

Any words of wisdom from people that have been there/done that with purchasing a completed kitbuilt aircraft?

Classifieds: http://www.barnstormers.com/Experimental, Pulsar Classifieds.htm

Review: http://www.pilotfriend.com/experimental/acft5/33.htm

If you are not the original builder you cannot do the conditional. A conditional inspection must be done by a A&P. There are some however who stay away from homebuilts for liability reason. I haven't had a problem getting maintenance though. If you want, yes you can perform any maintenance on the aircraft. I'd think about liability in this instance though just in case you're at fault for improper maintenance.

Nothing wrong with buying a used homebuilt. My advice:
1. Stick with a proven design though. Pulsar is good.
2. Buy a kit over plans design. Most of the hard work is done in kits. Plans leave a lot open to builder quality.
3. Buy an aircraft with a few hundred hours one it. If is has a serious fault it will be worked out by then.
4. Don't buy something outside your personal abilities. A lot of aircraft have crashed from people flying something that they're just not ready for.
5. Do research. Narrow down the model you want to buy then read everything you can on it.
6. Get a thorough checkout from an instructor. This isn't always possible buy it will lower your insurance premiums.
7. Obviously with any plane you buy you want to see good log books showing a well maintained bird. In a homebuilt you also want to see the pictures (if available) of the building process to examine build quality.

Everything I've read on the Pulsar is good. Nice composite looks and the Rotax 912 has an excellent record. I was actually looking at buying one when I found with a few more bucks I could get a Glasair. Definitely an upgrade from my previous aircraft and it took some hours to get used to the higher landing speeds. Great little plan though and I don't regret buying it. Good luck.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

As has been pointed out, you will need an A&P to do the annual condition inspection. The rest is pretty much up to you if you want. Major changes require going back to the FAA and potentially having to fly off some restrictions again.

Most homebuilders seem to well on the big structual stuff. Where they come up short is the fuel / electrical systems. Expect to find some bugs and having to do some cleanup.

(I bought a used / already flying E-AB two years ago.)

 

[skidoo]

Something to consider... I understand that the fatal accident rate for experimental's, piloted by non-builders, is 6 to 8 times higher than other GA.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Something to consider... I understand that the fatal accident rate for experimental's, piloted by non-builders, is 6 to 8 times higher than other GA.

Where did you get that number? That's a new one to me.

 

[kyleb]

Where did you get that number? That's a new one to me.

The number is high, primarily due to the absence of transition training. A Cherokee 180 guy buys a nosegear model RV with a fixed pitch prop and 160 hp. He thinks "Simple airplane, less HP than I'm used to, and it has a nosewheel. What can go wrong.

Hello, PIO...

It is a similar issue for other types and transitions. Experimentals are generally much more responsive than certified birds, and that can catch the uninitiated by surprise.

 

[kyleb]

If you are not the original builder you cannot do the conditional. A conditional inspection must be done by a A&P. There are some however who stay away from homebuilts for liability reason. I haven't had a problem getting maintenance though. If you want, yes you can perform any maintenance on the aircraft. I'd think about liability in this instance though just in case you're at fault for improper maintenance.

Nothing wrong with buying a used homebuilt. My advice:
1. Stick with a proven design though. Pulsar is good.
2. Buy a kit over plans design. Most of the hard work is done in kits. Plans leave a lot open to builder quality.
3. Buy an aircraft with a few hundred hours one it. If is has a serious fault it will be worked out by then.
4. Don't buy something outside your personal abilities. A lot of aircraft have crashed from people flying something that they're just not ready for.
5. Do research. Narrow down the model you want to buy then read everything you can on it.
6. Get a thorough checkout from an instructor. This isn't always possible buy it will lower your insurance premiums.
7. Obviously with any plane you buy you want to see good log books showing a well maintained bird. In a homebuilt you also want to see the pictures (if available) of the building process to examine build quality.

Everything I've read on the Pulsar is good. Nice composite looks and the Rotax 912 has an excellent record. I was actually looking at buying one when I found with a few more bucks I could get a Glasair. Definitely an upgrade from my previous aircraft and it took some hours to get used to the higher landing speeds. Great little plan though and I don't regret buying it. Good luck.

Excellent advice here.

Note - experimentals get condition inspections, not conditional inspections. Just one of those inaccuracies which are frequently repeated, yet incorrect.

 

[Dean]

The number is high, primarily due to the absence of transition training. A Cherokee 180 guy buys a nosegear model RV with a fixed pitch prop and 160 hp. He thinks "Simple airplane, less HP than I'm used to, and it has a nosewheel. What can go wrong.

Hello, PIO...

It is a similar issue for other types and transitions. Experimentals are generally much more responsive than certified birds, and that can catch the uninitiated by surprise.

That is so true, the Quad City Challenger got a bad name because of this very thing. High time pilots would buy them thinking, I can fly this, it's just an ultra-lite. Then they would end up crashing it. Whatever you buy, get some time with a CFI that has flown that airplane.

 

[Geico266]

That is so true, the Quad City Challenger got a bad name because of this very thing. High time pilots would buy them thinking, I can fly this, it's just an ultra-lite. Then they would end up crashing it. Whatever you buy, get some time with a CFI that has flown that airplane.

+1

This is / was true of many ultra lights, and now sport planes. Get training in any plane you fly.Check our ego at the door and get competent training in type and model.

 

[yakdriver]

I did the test flights on a friend's Pulsar XP and found it to be a straight forward nice flying airplane. Surprising how slow the landing approach is for such a small airplane. On the plus side it will do around 130mph on 4 or 5 gph and he would get 145 when he changed to an adjustable pitch prop. Downside is it is not for two big people as it doesn't have a lot of shoulder room. A lot of fun to fly. Don

 

[Rigged4Flight]

Awesome. Outstanding advice, everyone. Thanks!

 

[wanttaja]

The number is high, primarily due to the absence of transition training. A Cherokee 180 guy buys a nosegear model RV with a fixed pitch prop and 160 hp. He thinks "Simple airplane, less HP than I'm used to, and it has a nosewheel. What can go wrong.

Hello, PIO...

It is a similar issue for other types and transitions. Experimentals are generally much more responsive than certified birds, and that can catch the uninitiated by surprise.

The other aspect of this is the certification requirements tend to produce aircraft that fly pretty much the same way. Some are lighter on the controls, some are heavier, but they all react to control inputs in the same way.

Not (necessarily) so, for homebuilts. The conditioned reflexes that result from years of flying certified products can then lead one astray.

A couple of years back, the FAA issued an advisory circular for exactly this problem: AC 90-109, "Airman Transition to Experimental or Unfamiliar Airplanes."

http://www.wanttaja.com/ac90-109.pdf

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Henning]

Something to consider... I understand that the fatal accident rate for experimental's, piloted by non-builders, is 6 to 8 times higher than other GA.

something missing from all of that. BTW, care to guess what percentage of first flights are not done by the builder?

 

[yakdriver]

something missing from all of that. BTW, care to guess what percentage of first flights are not done by the builder?

Actually the problem is most of the first flights are done by the builder and a lot of them are totally unqualified to fly the airplane much less the first flight. Typical scenario is you have a guy that has been flying slower low powered GA airplanes that hasn't flown for awhile because he can't afford to fly while he is finishing his airplane. He gets it done and decides he will just do some high speed taxi's up and down the runway just to get the feel of things. It gets airborne before he knows it and he overcontrols and maybe gets it down without killing himself. Of course the FAA in all its wisdom has put a stop to the transition program they had in place for a few years so it is tough getting any transition training. Buying a homebuilt is a very rocky road. The workmanship runs the whole spectrum from total crap to unbelivablely perfect. Flying qualities can be horrible to great. I have flown over 30 different types of homebuilts and most flew normally but most have very light effective controls that take some getting used to. I just sold my RV7 and the new owner brought an experienced RV instructor with him to fly it back and transition him into it. Don

 

[Velocity173]

I think after flying a typical homebuilt most pilots will never go back to production (spam can).:wink2: Yes they do have flight characteristics that take getting used to but when you do they're a blast to fly. Also in some ways homebuilts are safer than certified. For instance in my Glasair if I needed to do a go around I apply the power and I'm out there in a hurry and climbing out at 1,500 FPM. In my Grumman AA-5 it was a slug trying to initiate a go around especially during the summer. My Glasair as with most of the RVs is stressed to + 6 to - 3 Gs. So you have a strong airframe and with a composite spar and don't have to worry about corrosion. Visibility through the canopy is outrageous too! The speeds are a big selling point of homebuilts as well. I believe that little Pulsar will cruise over 120 KTAS.

Obviously there is no free ride in performance during aircraft design. Generally what you get in speed must be sacrificed in other areas. My Glasair cabin is tight! Probably as wide as a C-150. Shoulder to shoulder. Also just getting in and out of the thing is a pain.

One thing to consider if buying a homebuilt is availability of parts. The engines are usually certified lycoming or continental but airframe parts might be hard to get if the aircraft is not made anymore. Not sure how hard it would be to get parts for a Pulsar. Overall I would think getting parts for a production type would be far easier than most homebuilts. Of course RVs are everywhere so they would be easy.

 

[Rigged4Flight]

Actually the problem is most of the first flights are done by the builder and a lot of them are totally unqualified to fly the airplane much less the first flight.

I have heard this a lot.

Buying a homebuilt is a very rocky road. The workmanship runs the whole spectrum from total crap to unbelivablely perfect. Flying qualities can be horrible to great.

This right there is my single largest worry about buying a homebuilt. Definitely going to have to rely on the A&P and a qualified pilot that is familiar with the type for advice. I have never been one to claim an expertise that I don't own - I am absolutely going to pull in some hired talent when the time comes to seal the deal.

I have flown over 30 different types of homebuilts and most flew normally but most have very light effective controls that take some getting used to. I just sold my RV7 and the new owner brought an experienced RV instructor with him to fly it back and transition him into it. Don

Sounds like that guy did it right.

I think after flying a typical homebuilt most pilots will never go back to production (spam can).:wink2: Yes they do have flight characteristics that take getting used to but when you do they're a blast to fly. Also in some ways homebuilts are safer than certified. For instance in my Glasair if I needed to do a go around I apply the power and I'm out there in a hurry and climbing out at 1,500 FPM. In my Grumman AA-5 it was a slug trying to initiate a go around especially during the summer. My Glasair as with most of the RVs is stressed to + 6 to - 3 Gs. So you have a strong airframe and with a composite spar and don't have to worry about corrosion. Visibility through the canopy is outrageous too! The speeds are a big selling point of homebuilts as well. I believe that little Pulsar will cruise over 120 KTAS.

Obviously there is no free ride in performance during aircraft design. Generally what you get in speed must be sacrificed in other areas. My Glasair cabin is tight! Probably as wide as a C-150. Shoulder to shoulder. Also just getting in and out of the thing is a pain.

I hear these things from every experimental owner I talk to. Music to my ears!

One thing to consider if buying a homebuilt is availability of parts. The engines are usually certified lycoming or continental but airframe parts might be hard to get if the aircraft is not made anymore. Not sure how hard it would be to get parts for a Pulsar. Overall I would think getting parts for a production type would be far easier than most homebuilts. Of course RVs are everywhere so they would be easy.

Yup, I'm thinking the same thing. From everything I've read and heard, the Pulsar is an awesome aircraft that fits solidly within my perceived mission. But all mechanical things eventually break, and I'm going to need access to the parts that broke.

Fortunately (or not, depending on how you look at it), I have some time before I need to settle on a specific aircraft make/model.

Thanks again for the great advice and insight!

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

One thing to consider if buying a homebuilt is availability of parts. The engines are usually certified lycoming or continental but airframe parts might be hard to get if the aircraft is not made anymore. Not sure how hard it would be to get parts for a Pulsar. Overall I would think getting parts for a production type would be far easier than most homebuilts. Of course RVs are everywhere so they would be easy.

Back in the olden days, you got a set of blueprints (or drew your own), a pile of sheet stock and/or tubing and made all the parts.

I've spent more than a few hours pounding on aluminum clamped to a wooden form to turn out T-18 wing ribs.

Now it seems that "Kits" are the thing with a bunch of pre-cut / formed parts to make it easier to assemble.

Looking at a Pulsar kit page http://www.mykitlog.com/users/index.php?user=clintkavanag&project=472 there doesn't seem to be a lot that a person couldn't fabricate on their own. Big plastic parts (like a fuselage half or something) would be a challenge to get to look nice, but how often do you replace something like that? Flight control linkages look like the typical "weld up some tube and attach rod ends" - not bad to fabricate.

 

[zaitcev]

BTW, how about this Pulsar N456LT:
http://www.kitplanes.com/magazine/miscellaneous/0200p22.php
I happen to know the guy who bought it, and he flew it happily for several years before upgrading to a large retract (some kind of Bellanca IIRC).

 

[Henning]

The beginning of that article I found funny. The 'homebuilders' I know build because they love building and sell the planes typically pre panel and often pre engine. I know one guy that builds great planes who isn't a pilot. He used to (probably still does) turns out one or two a year as something to do in his retirement.

 

[yakdriver]

I've built two airplanes in the last 7 years and I'm finishing up another. I built and flew a RV7 and a Backcountry Super Cub. Flew the RV7 for 4 years and just sold it. Completed the Cub last March and I put 75hrs on it and the owner/partner put around 30 on it. I'm finishing a RV7 for a friend and I'm probably going to build a Super Cub for myself next. In the last 30 years I have owned and restored or helped restore my SNJ (Navy T-6), 2 TBM Avengers, 2 DH Beavers, Comanche 260, Glasstar, RV6, Christen Eagle, 2 Nanchang CJ6's and others. I love to build almost as much as I love to fly. Don

 

[PuertoRicoFlyer]

I bought a homebuilt 5yrs ago and LOVE IT! Mine is the 4 seat KIS Cruiser that is now owned by PULSAR. As many have said, once you go experimental you never go back to a spam can.

B)

 

[steingar]

Another caveat to the homebuilt, which I believe applies to the Pulsar, is a vagary of the accident data. The majority of accidents come from a few particular circumstances. One, first flights, has already been pointed out. Another cluster in the accident data are fatals from fast glass aircraft. Like someone else said, get training and check your ego at the door.

 

[Rigged4Flight]

I bought a homebuilt 5yrs ago and LOVE IT! Mine is the 4 seat KIS Cruiser that is now owned by PULSAR. As many have said, once you go experimental you never go back to a spam can.

B)

That's a beautiful airplane.

The KIS Sport 150 looks just about perfect to me. Do want!

Another caveat to the homebuilt, which I believe applies to the Pulsar, is a vagary of the accident data. The majority of accidents come from a few particular circumstances. One, first flights, has already been pointed out. Another cluster in the accident data are fatals from fast glass aircraft. Like someone else said, get training and check your ego at the door.

I found out years ago that I learn much better when I do that. Thanks for the advice!

 

[PuertoRicoFlyer]

That's a beautiful airplane.

The KIS Sport 150 looks just about perfect to me. Do want!

THANKS!

The KIS2 is a great 2 seat airplane. They don't come up for sale very often and when they do they get sold rather quickly. If you are interested in one, join our e-mail list at:

http://forums.matronics.com/viewforum.php?f=75

This is the absolute best source for support for the KIS line of experimental airplanes.

Also, Bob Reed's web page is a virtual encyclopedia of information about the KIS2 and KIS4 airplanes.

http://www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com/

 

[Rigged4Flight]

THANKS!

The KIS2 is a great 2 seat airplane. They don't come up for sale very often and when they do they get sold rather quickly. If you are interested in one, join our e-mail list at:

http://forums.matronics.com/viewforum.php?f=75

This is the absolute best source for support for the KIS line of experimental airplanes.

Also, Bob Reed's web page is a virtual encyclopedia of information about the KIS2 and KIS4 airplanes.

http://www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com/

Thanks! I signed up.

 

[PuertoRicoFlyer]

No Problem! Let me know if you need info about the KIS line of experimental airplanes.

 

[Rigged4Flight]

No Problem! Let me know if you need info about the KIS line of experimental airplanes.

I definitely will. Current plan is to be in the market for a plane sometime next Fall or Winter. Expect me to spam the crap out of everyone next year, looking for available planes to drool over.

 

[Neal Howard]

Major changes require going back to the FAA and potentially having to fly off some restrictions again.

Depending on the particular Operating Limitations document an experimental amateur-built aircraft has, you might not even have to go to the FAA. The owner can simply log the major alterations and put the aircraft back into Phase 1 and fly off 5 hours himself, then log the aircraft back into Phase 2 without involving the FSDO at all. The Ops Lims for my RV-6 is written that way.

 

[Neal Howard]

Something to consider... I understand that the fatal accident rate for experimental's, piloted by non-builders, is 6 to 8 times higher than other GA.

According to Van himself, the whole RV fleet's safety record is even better than the numbers for the whole certificated spamcan fleet... however, the numbers for pilots who jump into a purchased, already-built RV without getting substantive transition training is still a big concern.

The RVs/Glasairs/etc (and especially the Lancairs) are extremely responsive on the controls, have much more abrupt stall characteristics and are very unforgiving of trying to fly them like a Cessna or Cherokee. I know, because I flew a Cherokee for ten years and my first few flights in an RV had some pretty scary moments. It was like learning how to fly an airplane all over again... and yes, I had an experienced RV pilot on board until I finally got the hang of flying the RVs. Anyone who tries to self-transition themselves in one of these planes has a fool for an instructor. Once you've gotten the hang of the high-performance handling of these planes, you'll be OK and only get better with practice.

 

[theskunk]

Did anything ever come of this purchase? Reason I ask, I'm actually looking at a pulsar II for sale, and came across this ad -- any input from somebody that's flown/operated a Pulsar would be greatly appreciated!