Slashdot Mirror

...especially since you could build one of these instead. and actually fly it for real.

If you're not yet a pilot, then build the RV-12 light sport model and get your light sport pilot certificate in only 25 hours of flight training.

Wanna do something to help encourage (high school age) kids in the field of aviation technology? Start an Eagles Nest Project where a mentor organizes an RV-12 building project with a high school, and the kids involved actually get to build the plane from a kit, and get some free flight instruction too.

...especially since you could build one of these instead. and actually fly it for real.

If you're not yet a pilot, then build the RV-12 light sport model and get your light sport pilot certificate in only 25 hours of flight training.

Wanna do something to help encourage (high school age) kids in the field of aviation technology? Start an Eagles Nest Project where a mentor organizes an RV-12 building project with a high school, and the kids involved actually get to build the plane from a kit, and get some free flight instruction too.

1. Experimental aircraft can take passengers. After they are built they require a proving period where the builder flies it to prove it's safe. The airplane gets a certificate of airworthiness and is legal to carry passengers after the inspector looks over the plane and the pilot meets the minimum solo hours proving it's safe to carry passengers. Have you ever actually looked at any kit planes? Do you see any with more than one seat? I certainly do, including some of the most popular kit planes in the world, Van's Aircraft http://www.vansaircraft.com/ . A kit plane does NOT have to be a certified airplane to be able to take passengers. They operate under the Experimental Aircraft category in the US.

2. IFR has NOTHING to do with built up and urban areas. This may surprise you but the big jets you see landing at a major international airport are often operating in VFR. VFR is visual flight rules, it means the pilot is responsible for see and avoid, as well as being required to be able to see at least x miles, which is different between countries and jurisdictions. VFR pilots can operate in controlled airspace, except class A which is 18,000 and above.

3. Ultralights are not limited to under 100 feet. Do you realize how low that really is? Yes you can not usually fly them over congested areas, but congested does not mean IFR. Ultralights may fly in controlled airspace, both class B and C, with prior permission. Ultralights typically fly out of a farm field or grass strip and generally those are in uncontrolled airspace, class G. For the type of flying one usually does with an ultralight, this is generally fine since they go slow and have a small payload. They are really for recreation anyways. I don't know why you would think anyone would WANT to fly an ultralight in IFR conditions. First of all you need expensive instruments which won't likely even fit on the instrument panel in an ultralight. Second, IFR conditions are usually cloud, rain, snow, ice, etc. and ultralights are extremely light weight(duh) and a lot are open cockpit. So what's the issue here? Ultralights fit many people's needs for recreational flying and are quite cheap to build and operate.

4. Experimental aircraft are making great strides forward compared to the FAA certified aircraft such as Cessna, etc. The engines are using half the fuel(such as the Rotax) compared to the certified aircraft engines(Lycoming, Continental). The reliability is also on par with certified aircraft engines. The same thing is happening with avionics. Kit planes are often built with full glass panel cockpits and much cheaper cost than doing it with certified avionics. They are just as reliable as the certified avionics. Having everything require certification makes the price 2-4 times as much and slows down the progress. For commercial operations, I can see the need for certification, and the piece of mind it gives people. But the EAA has shown for non commercial and personal flight, the certification does not give you much if any benefit.

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

... and I'm building one myself. One of these babies right here!

Just a point of reference--

• UAV - Predator Max Alt: 25,000 ft
• Commercial - 737 Max Alt: 35,000-41,000 ft
• Glider - Sailplane, RV-10. Assuming gliders get pulled behind a smaller aircraft, we're looking at cruise height around 8,000 ft.

Looks to me like the biggest concern is really about cruise height in open spaces, and about regulation of the different aircraft in populated areas. Given that all commercial aircraft have flight paths, the problem gets to be a little less intense since we know where the big aircraft are. Also, using a predator as an example of a UAV may not be the greatest example for what they are trying to get at here, though I doubt seriously they are looking to replace commercial airline pilots within the next few years.

Not that I'm a pilot or anything, but on the 260hp engine gives 197mph at 75% cruise for gross weight, which is ~171 knots...

Simon

I am a pilot, and currently own a Piper Cherokee 140. I have many friends who own RV-4's , RV-6's and at my local airport two groups of people are presently building an RV-8 and an RV-10.

I have just bought the plans for an RV-7 myself, and hope to have it completed and flying within 4 years.

I'll be at Oshkosh this year to see the Rocket Racers up close and personal.

If you have any interest in aviation at all, you need to come to Oshkosh, WI yourself, the last week in July of this year. It's a fantastic experience.

I am a pilot, and currently own a Piper Cherokee 140. I have many friends who own RV-4's , RV-6's and at my local airport two groups of people are presently building an RV-8 and an RV-10.

I have just bought the plans for an RV-7 myself, and hope to have it completed and flying within 4 years.

I'll be at Oshkosh this year to see the Rocket Racers up close and personal.

If you have any interest in aviation at all, you need to come to Oshkosh, WI yourself, the last week in July of this year. It's a fantastic experience.

With regard to the original post, you might consider 'pilot share the ride' - http://www.pilotsharetheride.com/. I suspect it works better in theory than in practice, but it's tough to fault the guy for implementing a good idea.

As for becoming a pilot for personal transportation - it isn't that far fetched. I'm a consultant on a long-term contract 600 miles from home (direct - 800 by road) and I got my pilots license and bought a small experimental aircraft (vans rv-8). It's analogous to a flying motorcycle - limited space, low operating cost (something like $100/hr - burns less fuel per trip home than my subaru), high speed (about 200 mph) - and as a bonus it's fully aerobatic (bigger bonus - make it a DIY project - http://www.vansaircraft.com/).

Door-to-door it's a 12 hour drive, 9 hours flying commercial, about 4.5 hours in my plane with fueling and pre-flight. Not only are small private craft (used ones, anyway) not much more than a decked-out SUV, but because they hold their value (or even appreciate) you can get 15 year loans on them - so the payments are really reasonable. Check out James Fallows' "Free Flight" for a real pep-talk.

Also consider the new 'sport pilot' rating as an easy start - http://www.sportpilot.org/. It's about $3k for the rating, can be done in 2-4 weeks. Limits include VERY small craft - 2 seat, no more than 130 mph (as I recall), only daytime flight - but the planes are cheap ($100k new), burn premium car gas, and are REALLY fuel efficent.

Another issue most people don't think about is how FAT most middle-aged americans (the ones that have the resources for a plane) have gotten - many simply won't fit into a small airplane, or if they do it severely limits any other weight that it can hold (including fuel). At 6'5 and 235lb I only just fit into mine, and I can't get my knees out of the way of the yoke in a cessna 152. At least half the guys I've given rides to in mine barely wedged themselves into it.

As for rail - I really wish that was a possibility, but land has gotten SO expensive that I just don't think it could happen. The way things are going it won't be long before it's cheaper to dig a tunnel from coast-to-coast than to buy the land needed for a rail system (ok, that's pure conjecture). That, and rail lines are a SUPER easy target for terrorist sabotage, so I doubt any security 'theater' would change.

Hopefully the new Very Light Jets can fuel a viable air taxi service, and I REALLY hope there isn't some plot against general aviation that makes flying your own plane as big a hastle as flying commercial - 'cause as it stands right now private aviation and flying charter (at least at the little airports) has just a hair more than ZERO security, and that's fine with me.

Sorry for trying to address multiple topics with one post, but this discussion is dear to me.

That's lame, to say the least. There are much more capable homemade rockets capable of reaching a mile or more.

One kilometer is 3280 feet. I've taken my homebuilt airplane (RV-7) to 18,000 ft (5.48 kilometers, the highest allowed in VFR flight) several times still showing 500 fpm climb and other RV builders with setups similar to mine have made it to 25,900 ft. (7.59 kilometers)

This rocket costs 2.1 million Yen is $20,000 US dollars. A finished RV will cost you about twice that but it'll get you a lot higher! And that's the key...it gets you a lot higher.

If they could get these rockets to say, 50,000 ft. or more...then it would get interesting. ...and don't even get me started on the Flying Tiger (48,000 ft.).

Generally I try to ignore such ignorant class-warfare provoking comments, but since you're touching on a subject which means a lot to me and spouting off comments on things you apparantly have no clue about.....here we go.

First of all, you make the assumption that only rich people are interested in the Sport Pilot certificate or LSA (light sport aircraft). On the contrary, this initiative gives *more* people the ability to own and fly their own aircraft. LSA will range from $40 to $60 grand for a brand-spanking new aircraft. No, they're not cheap, but they're cheaper than a lot of new "Luxury SUVs". Plus, considering the fact that aircraft loans can be obtained for a longer period of time (5-20+ years) and that aircraft have traditionally been appreciating in price, this is something that is doable for any middle-class individual who WANTS to make it happen.

If you hang around any General Aviation airport you will see that the overwhelming majority of vehicles there are NOT hummers or other expensive cars, but they are generally very modest 5 to 10 year old vehicles.

So no, it's not for rich people -- it's for average people.

Now, as for your claim that it is dangerous for the 'rest of us', you're pretty much way off base here. Can you name the last time an unsuspecting person on the ground was killed by a falling airplane? Well, I can. It was the crash into a Queens neighborhood by American Airlines Flight 587. Was it caused by 'rich' private pilots? No. It was caused by an airliner carrying 'average people'.

As for me, I'm currently building an RV-7A homebuilt airplane in my garage. Is it cheap? No. Is it cheaper than buying a new (or used) Cessna? Yes. Am I rich? No way.

Is it safe? Absolutely.

So why not just buy an LSA? Well, the RV-7A has much wider performance envelope than LSA rules allow and is a whole lot more fun (aerobatic).

Don't hate people because they are successful and want to live out their dream of owning (in my case building) and flying their own airplane.

Well, if you think the only science involved in building an airplane from a kit (and I use that term very, very loosely), I would urge you to reconsider. There are a lot of things involved and many times there are parts to be designed / fabricated, etc. The plane I'm building will have a Linux box with a solid state hdd wired to digital video cameras on the wingtip, cockpit, and vertical stab and will record continuously, encoding the current position from GPS on each frame. So, I guess there's nothing *geeky* enough about homebuilding for slashdot, huh?

I submitted the article under Science because I wasn't really clear where it belonged, but I was sure it would interest the slashdot readership (680 comments so far!).

"Jon's RV-4 is a stock airplane, built from a Van's Aircraft kit exactly to designer Richard VanGrunsven's plans. It had to be. Australia does not have the equivalent of the US Experimental category, so each amateur built airplane has to be inspected and tested to the same standards as a factory built. No deviations from the plans are permitted."

"Jon's RV-4 is a stock airplane, built from a Van's Aircraft kit exactly to designer Richard VanGrunsven's plans. It had to be. Australia does not have the equivalent of the US Experimental category, so each amateur built airplane has to be inspected and tested to the same standards as a factory built. No deviations from the plans are permitted."

"Jon's RV-4 is a stock airplane, built from a Van's Aircraft kit exactly to designer Richard VanGrunsven's plans. It had to be. Australia does not have the equivalent of the US Experimental category, so each amateur built airplane has to be inspected and tested to the same standards as a factory built. No deviations from the plans are permitted."

... is right here. So far, it's not too practical on the ground, but it sure is a lot of fun once airborne!.