Slashdot Mirror

Go to http://www.aircraftspruce.com/
Look at the various choices for aircraft batteries. Be clear that all of these are various sizes of lead plates inside a plastic container and bathed in sulfuric acid.
Look at the prices for "certified" or STC'd batteries, vs the "experimental" batteries.

That is the cost of your government paperwork.

(and it is approximately 2x)

The FAA actually does certify the aircraft in the form of an airworthiness certificate and aircraft license/tail number, but only once you have assembled the kit. The aircraft needs to be inspected many times throughout the construction of the aircraft so they can see and sign off that it is being built properly. The experimental/kit planes cannot be mass-produced and sold(as complete aircraft). They can, however, be built one-off and flown by the builder or any appropriately-licensed pilot they certify to fly it. For an experimental class aircraft, to do authorized maintenance on the plane, you must have built more than 51% of the aircraft yourself. This is why many kits are sold as a 49% complete kits.

Alternately, you can fly an 'ultralight' aircraft without any license, with certain limitations, as long as that vehicle:
-Weighs less than 254lbs empty weight.
-Carries less than 5 Gallons of fuel
-Only carries one person
-Meets a specific max speed and stall speed
-A bunch of other small stuff under FAR part 103
A paraphrasing of the regulations is that you don't require a license or any specific equipment on the aircraft, but you aren't allowed in controlled airspace without permission, you can't fly above a certain altitude, you can't fly at night(pretty sure even with lights), and a few other specific no-nos like flying over populated areas or dropping anything from the aircraft.

If you ever do undertake building a plane, the hands-down best place I have ever picked up supplies is AS&S (nice dudes from MN) at http://www.aircraftspruce.com/

The OpenEZ was to be an "open source" version of the LongEZ. Last I checked, people were making various modifications and there was really no "official" release of plans. The problem is that many people will not build a plane and bet their life on a design that has not been built and tested "as designed" by someone else - nor should they.

Going for open source avionics is a waste of time - you can get a full 6-pack (equivalent) from Dynon for $1500 and install it as a unit.

Kits have been getting better all the time. I know many many people with different backgrounds who built and fly kits from Vans. There are many plans and kits available from other sources as well - many with support forums and such. If you want a successful open source plane it will have to be easier and/or cheaper to build than anything out there and you will have to build and fly one first. Open source or "free" plans are not the issue. More time and money is spent on parts, supplies, and actually building the thing. For plans-built planes, the cost of an engine usually dwarfs the cost of tried-and-true plans.

So how is this going to be better than what you get from your local EAA chapter

Adding 6U worth of rack equipment isn't exactly easy either - space can be quite tight up there as it is.

As a small aircraft mechanic, I can confirm this. I've worked in a few planes where the only way to fit a GPS in the panel would be to take out something else. One didn't even have room to yoke-mount a portable GPS* without blocking other instruments (granted, they were trying to cram one of those big 7" ones in there).

Installing a panel-mounted GPS in a plane can easily cost $10-15,000. Aviation parts are expensive, and installation is a bitch, particularly in older planes. Given that a lot of 4-seat Cessnas and Pipers are going for $20-40,000 used, I'm actually surprised at how many have had panel-mounted GPS units installed.

*Not legally usable for navigation under instrument flight rules (IFR), but still useful for situational awareness and VFR flying. And they are much, much cheaper and usually more capable than an IFR-certified GPS unit. A Garmin GPSMAP 696" makes a GNS-430W look like an overpriced boat anchor in comparison.

Adding 6U worth of rack equipment isn't exactly easy either - space can be quite tight up there as it is.

As a small aircraft mechanic, I can confirm this. I've worked in a few planes where the only way to fit a GPS in the panel would be to take out something else. One didn't even have room to yoke-mount a portable GPS* without blocking other instruments (granted, they were trying to cram one of those big 7" ones in there).

Installing a panel-mounted GPS in a plane can easily cost $10-15,000. Aviation parts are expensive, and installation is a bitch, particularly in older planes. Given that a lot of 4-seat Cessnas and Pipers are going for $20-40,000 used, I'm actually surprised at how many have had panel-mounted GPS units installed.

*Not legally usable for navigation under instrument flight rules (IFR), but still useful for situational awareness and VFR flying. And they are much, much cheaper and usually more capable than an IFR-certified GPS unit. A Garmin GPSMAP 696" makes a GNS-430W look like an overpriced boat anchor in comparison.

No what I am saying is that yes Rutan was a trained engineer not every homebuilt is designed by a trained engineer.
Some great examples are the Pietenpol Air Camper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietenpol_Air_Camper
The Wittman Tailwind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittman_Tailwind
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/kitspages/wittail.php
John Monnett has desgined several homebuilt aircraft over the years and has his own company
http://www.pilotmix.com/index.php?pgid=11&lang=en&maxInfo=833 is one of his early planes. His son does have a degree and works with him now at Sonex.
The Dyke Delta is another amateur designed aircraft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyke_Delta
And this one was designed by a mechanic http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepDavisDA2.html

As you can see normal people can and have been building and designing homebuilt aircraft for a while.
Actually designing an airplane really isn't that hard. Even designing a safe well handling airplane isn't that hard. Not that easy mind you but not all that difficult. What takes a lot of effort and talent is to optimize the design. Even Steve Wittman did a great job at that. His Tailwind is very fast for the HP.

Amen to that. I wouldn't call myself reserved, a loner or even an introvert. But when I travel, I usually make it a point to carry along something to keep me occupied for the journey. Something constructive, like a book, or podcasts, or even a laptop, if I need to get work done.

Put your ear buds on, slide one of these bad boys over your head and you're golden.

Actually the chief problem as I see it is the organization that has made it so near impossible to develop personal aircraft in the first place. The FAA has tailored all regulations to suit Boeing and kin who have the fat wallets and their similarly financed customers. Most Cessna pilots use $10 stop watches mounted to their yoke. Why would anyone do something that sounds so stupid? Because the $400+ FAA certified flight clock found in Cessnas like the plane itself was developed in the 50's and 60's is off by minutes per day and the cheap, made in China stop watch will run for months and still keep near perfect time. There hasn't been any real innovation and development in personal aircraft outside of the FAA experimental category in nearly half a century. You still have to control your own air/fuel mix because there aren't any modern "FAA certified" fuel injection systems. It simply costs too much to jump through the hoops. If it wasn't for the FAA that new plane that typically costs as much as a house to purchase would be as cheap if not cheaper than the average passenger car.

I also don't buy the "people are too dumb for 3D" argument either. Most pilots will tell you that learning to fly a small plane is easier than driving a car.

When the display window gets scrathed up, polish it with a commercial plastic polish like this http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/cspages/megu airs10.php Plastic aircraft windshields get scratched all the time, this is what I use on mine. If I can do the whole airplane windshield in 30 minutes, how long should it take to do a tiny little display window?