So you think you want an E-AB ...

The ramblings of our community of aviators.

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 4592
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
First Name: Rich
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N40XE
Airports: S39 Prineville OR
Has thanked: 145 times
Been thanked: 1180 times

So you think you want an E-AB ...

Post by Rich »

The shorthand is, of course, "Experimental". But the EAA refers to the category as "Experimental - Amateur Built". Let me tell you about amateurs.

I'm a member of a local EAA chapter that just recently received a donated very old partly-completed KitFox. Lots of parts and planes, instructions, etc. Pretty much everything is there. I've participated in a few sessions where we are starting to work toward completion. The amateur behavior of some members of this group is staggering. For starters, they seem to think we need to get this thing finished in a race against - well, I don't know what. A couple of areas for example:

I pointed out that there are no switches, breakers or fuses yet provided for to manage such things as strobes or anything else we might want to install. There also isn't provision for a master switch, presumably it's built into the ignition/starter switch, but that might not be what we want to retain. So we want to consider just what we will install and acquire said stuff.

I mentioned yesterday that, although not an immediate need, we'll need to acquire an ELT. There were two aircraft owners who looked at me like I'd spoken in Aramaic. "You know - an ELT ...?" I wonder who signs off their annuals or if they have a clue what gets checked.

This KitFox version has a Rotax 532 engine - a two-cylinder, two-stroke, water-cooled, reduction gear adaptation of a snowmobile engine. This one does not have provision for combustion-intake oil injection. It has also been converted from points ignition to capacitive-discharge. In addition, being built in Europe, it's metric. So:

- Two guys spent hours looking for the oil tank to feed the oil injection, not taking the time to read the very clear English-Language manual that clearly states you need to pre-mix. In the midst of repeated statements by me and the original owner, presentation of the manual in their faces stating this, they continually asserted that you don't do this in airplanes. Finally, this last session they got it and quit looking for the nonexistent oil tank or a part number reference in the other documents.

- The engine has been mounted and unmounted twice so far. I pointed out to them that the documents aren't accurate regarding the external wiring because of the modification to CDI. This leaves us with a problem on how to connect the electronic tach. The original owner has told us he has misplaced the documentation for the modification and there are no model numbers or manufacturer marking on the module, so I assert we will need to open up the engine to reconcile the wiring diagrams with the mod and/or dig around to deduce how to deal with it. A couple of guys figure we just connect it to the magneto leads to the regulator/rectifier. (Have yet to find any documents for the tach yet, by the way. Who needs them, I guess.)

- Probably the last straw was yesterday. We had needed to remove the exhaust manifold because for some reason two of the studs required for proper fastening were missing and couldn't be replaced without this removal. The other six mounts, by the way, were 8x1.25 mm hex socket head bolts. When we removed them I loosened them using the required 6 MM hex wrench I had. But apparently, after I'd loosened them the previous week, as couple of them "stuck" for others while I was looking into something else. Magically the manifold was off in record time. I found out yesterday when putting them all back in that someone, rather than search around for the chapters own metric wrenches, had grabbed a screwdriver and pulled them out with that. So yesterday, one of the good guys is trying to reinstall them with the proper tool and the sockets are too "bunged up" to get the wrench in. So a cowboy hands him a screwdriver and tells him: "here, this is what we used". Of course you can not properly torque these down with a screwdriver. I lost my temper and ran them all off to connect these properly. For two of them I had to hammer the hex heads into the bolts to get them to be properly tightened. The good news is we shouldn't have to ever remove these things again.

Forgive me for my rant. But if you're looking at E-AB planes, you'd better really think about how it was built and who built it, if it wasn't you. John Denver died partly because he didn't fully understand what he was getting.
2002 DA40-180: MT, PowerFlow, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210, Orion 600 LED, XeVision, Aspen E5
User avatar
Steve
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1953
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:23 am
First Name: Steve
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N432SC
Airports: 1T7
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 493 times

Re: So you think you want an E-AB ...

Post by Steve »

Rich: No problem with the rant, I'm another member of the OCD crowd. Just be careful about using the term 'cowboy' in the perjorative sense, remembering that I live in Texas...

I've seen the entire spectrum of E-AB aircraft, from ones I wouldn't let my worst enemy fly in, to beautiful examples, built way better than certified airframes. It all depends on the Nut behind the stick. I always wanted to build an Experimental, but I wanted to fly more, and if I were to build one, my OCD would caused it to take me so long to complete, that I would never finish it...

I get my builder fix watching my hangar neighbor working on his Hummingbird helicopter.

Steve
User avatar
Don
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 377
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:15 pm
First Name: Don
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N623DS
Airports: KTOA
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 162 times

Re: So you think you want an E-AB ...

Post by Don »

I have always had a simple rule I live by. Do not not fly in a home built aircraft. Beyond not knowing the construction quality, the design is not required to be tested for it flying characteristics. Here is a quote from an NTSB report.
"The NTSB, in a study released last year, said amateur-built aircraft make up nearly 10 percent of general aviation planes in the U.S. But in 2011, they accounted for about 15 percent of all general aviation accidents — and slightly more than 20 percent of fatal accidents." To make it even worse, amateur built aircraft are not flown is much as certified aircraft. So when you compare hour for hour of flying, the home built safety record is even worse than the numbers above.
Diamond Star XLS, N623DS, SN40.1076
User avatar
Colin
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:37 pm
First Name: Colin
Aircraft Type: DA42
Aircraft Registration: N972RD
Airports: KFHR
Has thanked: 319 times
Been thanked: 527 times

Re: So you think you want an E-AB ...

Post by Colin »

Cowboys were able to adapt instantly to changing conditions and the most important thing to a cowboy (after survival) was getting the job done. I think "cowboy" is probably the accurate term and, most likely, fine for a lot of those guys messing around with a plane that weighs less than their vehicle. Dangerous? Sure. Sometimes. But they will be in the sky before a bunch of careful engineers. They will get their herd to pasture (or market) ahead of you.

I have never had any interest in those dude camp vacations. And I don't want any cowboy'ing on my airplane maintenance, even though I have tremendous respect and admiration for the cowboys that get things done when I would probably shoot the horse and walk home in frustration and disgust.

We can talk about wildcatting next.
Colin Summers, PP Multi-Engine IFR, ~3,000hrs
colin@mightycheese.com * send email rather than PM
http://www.flyingsummers.com
N972RD DA42 G1000 2.0 s/n 42.AC100 (sold!)
N971RD DA40 G1000 s/n 40.508 (traded)
User avatar
Colin
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:37 pm
First Name: Colin
Aircraft Type: DA42
Aircraft Registration: N972RD
Airports: KFHR
Has thanked: 319 times
Been thanked: 527 times

Re: So you think you want an E-AB ...

Post by Colin »

One of my rules is "no experimental aircraft." My flight school was next to Berkut, who built a version of the LongEZ (Burt Rutan design). Pretty sure one of them had the record for the fastest piston single flight (over 300 knots). Amazing planes. Also seemed scary as hell. The writer James Gleick killed his 8yr old son (and lost his leg) stalling one on short final in New Jersey. Just out doing pattern work.

Of course, now I am thinking of labeling my plane experimental for a little while so I can try to modify the muffler of the Technify 2.0 engine to match the NG (that box to eliminate vibration seems like a good idea).
Colin Summers, PP Multi-Engine IFR, ~3,000hrs
colin@mightycheese.com * send email rather than PM
http://www.flyingsummers.com
N972RD DA42 G1000 2.0 s/n 42.AC100 (sold!)
N971RD DA40 G1000 s/n 40.508 (traded)
User avatar
krellis
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 339
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:42 am
First Name: Keith
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N853DF
Airports: GA04
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 63 times

Re: So you think you want an E-AB ...

Post by krellis »

Don't be so quick to judge E-AB aircraft.

I have owned three Diamonds - a DA20-A1 and two DA40-180's. Great airplanes, very safe, nice handling qualities. Downside is limited performance (especially the DA20), really expensive parts, limited to non-existent support from the manufacturer (again, especially the DA20). Reading the recent thread on trying to convince Diamond to support the G1000 fleet was yet another nail in the coffin for my Diamond ownership.

I've built an Oshkosh award winning RV-7A and now working on an RV-10. There are hundreds (thousands of RV-7's) flying. There is an ongoing effort with the FAA to allow professionally built experimental aircraft (Google MOSAIC). I believe there are more experimental aircraft registered yearly than certified and the E-AB market is growing.

My day job as an airline pilot skews me towards risk mitigation and being risk averse. Flying small airplanes has some amount of risk and certainly flying E-AB aircraft can increase that risk. I miss some of the safety features of the Diamonds (26G cockpit, fuel tanks between spars) but it's hard not to like the performance of the airplane I built myself. I try to manage the increase in risk with being really proficient and a constant awareness of the risks.

I have seen some poorly built E-AB aircraft that I wouldn't set foot in. I've seen some poorly maintained certified aircraft that I wouldn't set foot in.

It's absolutely a personal choice about E-AB, but a blanket statement that E-AB aircraft are inherently unsafe is a bit harsh and I would say, inaccurate.
Attachments
UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_a6db.jpg
UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_a6d8.jpg
User avatar
TimS
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:10 am
First Name: Timothy
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N1446C
Airports: 6B6 Stowe MA
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 97 times

Re: So you think you want an E-AB ...

Post by TimS »

Fundamentally the problem with E-AB is there is no reference standard. Therefore it is subject to a more subjective standard which is less precise and much more dependent on the owner.
This lack of a specific standards makes judging both the design and the manufacturing more difficult; and unless you go with a popular model such as a Velocity or a Van's RV you have a limited community and a limited test bed. Both of which make it more complex to judge.

Tim
User avatar
BRS
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 12:44 am
First Name: Brock
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N8QQ
Airports: W52
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 94 times

Re: So you think you want an E-AB ...

Post by BRS »

I'm an E-AB enthusiast. Built my Gyroplane and have owned, and modified two other E-AB's. A Highlander and now a Glasair Sportsman. All of my aircraft have / are very capable and safe. Many people don't have the background or mentality for E-AB building/ownership. My personal bent is better than average mechanical/electrical skills and a bent towards perfectionism and always trying to make-it-better. It's these personal attributes that has led to the SuperCharger STC, it was experimental before it was certified.

An example: I'm in the process of helping a friend replace 40 year old baffle seals on his certified plane. He is an excellent pilot, a CFI. He had never squeezed a rivet in his life until we started his baffles. I doubt that he will after. Certified is good for him, as he really wants to be in the air and not wrenching on his plane. Me on the other hand, though I love to fly, I also gain a lot of satisfaction in building and creating. Those baffle seals are only 1/3 replaced, so far, but what we have done is a work of art, and we are very happy with how it is going.

This all brings up a delima I have. I love how my Expriemental Sportsman flies, it does so many things well. The avionics out performs the G1000 in my non-waas DA40, it lands short, takes off short, climbs better than the DA40. But the DA40 is faster and has four real seats instead of 2+2. Now that the supercharger STC is finally done I'll be getting the DA40 back soon. I'm struggling with which one to keep and which one to sell. I do just enough XC to want to keep the DA40 but wish it would land/T-O in 500 feet like the Sportsman.

Oh, another plug for E-AB's if you want a supercharger on it, just do it. It's that easy. Just make sure you know what you are doing or know someone who does. If you have more money than time, stick with certified and let the shop keep you in the air.
.
Shredo: highly modified SparrowHawk Gyroplane.  Lands in 10' takes-off in 400'.  Very Very slow.  Does figure 8's around tree tops.  Subaru engine.  No modern certified Gyros, E-AB the only option in the US.
Shredo: highly modified SparrowHawk Gyroplane. Lands in 10' takes-off in 400'. Very Very slow. Does figure 8's around tree tops. Subaru engine. No modern certified Gyros, E-AB the only option in the US.
Highalnder: lands and takes-off in 200'.  Slow but loads of fun.  Converted the Rotax 912 to turbo then to fuel injection.
Highalnder: lands and takes-off in 200'. Slow but loads of fun. Converted the Rotax 912 to turbo then to fuel injection.
Sportsman:  Now sports a tail wheel.  Very capable E-AB.  Same payload as the DA40, Climbs better but is slower, 125 kts w/o wheel pants.  I prefer the avionics  (AFS-5000 & Avidyne IFD540) to the G1000.
Sportsman: Now sports a tail wheel. Very capable E-AB. Same payload as the DA40, Climbs better but is slower, 125 kts w/o wheel pants. I prefer the avionics (AFS-5000 & Avidyne IFD540) to the G1000.
40.649 Sold (Still miss the DA40 from time to time)
Fly and EAB Sportsman
User avatar
krellis
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 339
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:42 am
First Name: Keith
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N853DF
Airports: GA04
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 63 times

Re: So you think you want an E-AB ...

Post by krellis »

The Glasair Sportsman is a great airplane. I came really close after learning about the two week to taxi program they have.

For those who criticize E-AB, I think you might see the Sportman in a certified version before too long. I doubt it will be fundamentally different than the E-AB version...

Lancair's kit planes spawned some pretty nice certified designs too.
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 4592
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
First Name: Rich
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N40XE
Airports: S39 Prineville OR
Has thanked: 145 times
Been thanked: 1180 times

Re: So you think you want an E-AB ...

Post by Rich »

My intent wasn't to ignite an overall Cert/Experimental debate, just that not everyone who's building these things has the right mindset. Some of our folks here are proceeding methodically but other ya-hoos are just performing random activities without so much as glancing at the paperwork or even noticing details that are obvious. However, let's look at some of the obvious shortcomings of this older generation of Kitfox:

1. Plastic (something like polyethylene) fuel tank right above your lap inside the cockpit, with filler neck on top. Fuel valves and fittings right there beneath the tank. Fuel gauge is incorporated in the fuel cap facing upward and can not be read from the cockpit. Additional fuel plumbing (plastic tubing) from the single wing tank is all exposed within the cockpit.

2. Zero consideration for crash protection of the occupants. The seat structure is a simple, thin fiberglass pan that actually has a known history of cracking just on hard landings. It's suspended from in front and behind by steel frame tubing, OD about 1 inch. But the seat pan is attached to each of these tubes by drilling oodles of holes in these same pieces of tubing with the intention of riveting in place, thereby weakening these tubes. Mitigating this, I suppose, is that this is a very low-speed plane. Emergency landings should happen at low speeds if properly done.

3. That two-stroke engine (which is not used in later versions of these kits). In theory the Chapter wants to create a flying club to allow folks to fly this thing. That will mean filling from gas cans and properly manage the oil-fuel mixture. Screwing this up can cause plug fouling or engine seize. (A couple of the guys asked "How do you mix this?") There is also an oil tank for feeding the rotary valves that needs to be kept full. We're also told that keeping these particular carbs in sync is a challenge, so that means fairly routinely fiddling with these things with the engine running, spinning the prop a foot away. It's also water-cooled, so there is that fluid to be properly managed.
2002 DA40-180: MT, PowerFlow, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210, Orion 600 LED, XeVision, Aspen E5
Post Reply