Slashdot Mirror
Makerplane Aims To Create the First Open Source Aircraft
cylonlover writes "MakerPlane plans to do for the aviation industry what Firefox and Linux did for computers. By adopting open source design and digital manufacturing, MakerPlane's founder John Nicol hopes to overcome the frustration and disappointment that most kit plane builders encounter. Over 60 percent of all kitplanes started end up collecting dust and those that are finished must overcome the challenges of complicated plans, the need for special tools and thousands of hours of labor with little or no manufacturer support. Nicol believes that a more community-oriented design approach will overcome many of these obstacles. Israel-based aeronautical engineer Jeffrey Meyer is leading the MakerPlane charge to develop a safe, inexpensive kitplane that can be built at home or at a 'makerspace' through the efforts of people volunteering their efforts and ideas. MakerPlane intends to make the plans and avionics software for the plane available for free, but will sell parts and support services to fund the project."
There's a group called the Experimental Aviation Organization. They have a whole bunch of local chapters full of people who are obnoxiously willing to help you build an airplane. There are dozens of kitplane manufacturers out, including my favorite Airdrome Aeroplanes which has an awesome kit for building a replica (full size or scale) of the Red Baron's DR-1 among others. The build time is on the order of 400 hours, vice 2000-3000 for the modern composite designs, and this design needs no tools beyond those from Harbor Freight.
Enjoy
Making airplanes isn't about technology, it is all about regulation and certification of components and complete product. Open sourcing wont help you with that.
If it's not a flying car, I'm not interested.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Open source people don't like regulation, because it confines the creative process.
You're trolling pretty hard there. Many open source licenses depends on regulation. The GPL couldn't exist without copyright law. So no, regulation by itself doesn't confine the creative process; Bad regulation does.
Gravity is also inconvenient and confining. We need to rally the people to overturn this law.
They've been trying, but every time they drop an apple it lands on the ground instead of the ceiling. They've tried threatening the apple with a lawsuit, they've tried applying intellectual property laws saying things landing on the floor is prohibited by law, but the damn apple keeps landing on the ground. One person even tried firing it into orbit with a giant gun, but we're not sure if it worked -- he was later found covered in applesauce and shrapnel.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
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
Gravity is also inconvenient and confining. We need to rally the people to overturn this law.
Repeal the first (or even only the second) law of thermodynamics and we'd get enough energy to beat gravity.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Solutions:
- Experimental-Amateur-Built
- Sport-Pilot
- EAA.org
(and your favorite search engine)
Nothing you listed is a problem. Of course there are requirements and costs for getting a pilots license. As for building your own, that is allowed in most countries of the free world. In the US about 1/4 of all piston powered aircraft are kits or homebuilt. You don't get to fly it until an FAA examiner goes over your paperwork (you must document the construction process to some extent), checks out your plane, and issues an airworthiness certificate so you can begin testing. You don't get a normal type certificate because it is a one-of-a-kind since building it in your garage is not a certified process. Only after the required testing period can you use the plane as normal, and you are free to use it the same as a Cessna except for commercial operations.
;-)
Should you manage to build something out of a garbage can that's under 254 pounds that carries no more than 5 gallons of fuel, meets a minimum stall speed and maximum cruize speed, you can legally fly it as an ultralight without a license in the US as well - the specs are different in other places. I do recommend some training though, and leaving design to professionals
Home building is where aviation started, and it's alive and well.
Hopefully it wont slow them down because none of it is true, just your own personal assumptions, which are, thankfully, pretty much all false. It is different for different countries... but you mention the FAA, so I assume that you think that you're commenting on how it is in the USA... but that said...
1) anyone can make a plane if they have the skill and the knowledge, and nobody would bother them. it happens all the time, it's happening right now all over the country by aircraft enthusiasts.
2) you don't have to alert authorities about it at all, and it does NOT need to be certified by the FAA if it's under weight guidelines.
3) it's perfectly legal to fly whatever you want, whenever you want as long as you keep it under weight specifications for "ultra-light" aircraft. Seriously, if you lack the skills to build, you can go buy an ultra-light, find some dude who can fly to teach you to fly it... and fly it whenever you want, all legally, all without telling any authority or regulating body. You can actually make an ultralight that can carry a passenger and nobody will bother you.
The most hilarious part of the post is "I wont even go into the requirements" because it's pretty clear that you don't even remotely know what they are let alone well enough to "go over them". Seriously, anyone (at least in the USA) can make a plane and go fly it whenever they want as long as it meets the rules for ultralights. You don't need a license, you don't need to tell a soul and it's still perfectly legal. It's recommended that if you build a plane that you get proper training and have your plane looked over by an engineer, but that's only because people in general don't want others to hurt themselves and give a bad name to aviation. But anyone telling you that you can't do this has no clue about what they're talking about.
So bad was the ignorance of your post that you failed to bring up the most basic of sources that would inform you about ultralight aviation...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_aviation
It's actually pretty cool that it's still legal for people to be able to commit and risk their own lives in the pursuit of invention and flying machines just like it was 1900. ...wikipedia, it's a pretty cool resource to check things before you say dumb things on the internet.
Saying you need FAA approval to prototype an airplane is a bit misleading. Do you need FAA approval to fly a model airplane or a drone? Because that is how you prototype an airplane on the presumably open source budget that the project will start with, unless they can get someone like Mark Shuttleworth to sponsor them.
Maybe I'm wrong about the drone part. Still I find it hard to believe that attaching a motor to some flat pieces of wood or fiberglass I'd soon get the Feds knocking on my door and not just the local cops for wrecking the neighbor's lawn.
Start small and scale up. Think first about about how you can send your doll collection up to the clouds before you start worrying about FAA approval to strap your significant other onto the cockpit of your full-size aircraft.
Making airplanes isn't about technology, it is all about regulation and certification of components and complete product. Open sourcing wont help you with that.
Not necessarily in the United States, where the Federal Aviation Administration "... does not certify, certificate, or approve aircraft kits. Also, the FAA does not approve kit manufacturers." Though I'm sure there are regulations for the person piloting the aircraft.
I think all that quote is saying is that the normal certification and approval process does not apply. My understanding is that kit airplanes fall under the category of experimental aircraft and a different large body of regulations do apply. Including regulations limiting where an experimental aircraft can be flown. Of course things may be quite different from long ago when I became acquainted with such things.
Having built my own plane (https://sites.google.com/site/tomscozypage/) it is something ANYONE can do. Well, not anyone, especially anyone who would rather tell us all that they can't do stuff, but anyone who is willing to spend a couple years out in their garage, basement, or whatever workshop you have getting stuff done. It is not a risky venture, if you either follow the plans, or do reasonable engineering (if you know that discipline) when designing your own.
Any avocation can be expensive. Sure you can pick up fishing for like $15 for a rod and reel at Walmart, but in a couple years, after the boat and SUV purchase, you are talking about real money. Very capable airplanes can be bought (yes factory built even) for the cost of a good used car ($15K probably for a 2 seater). Learn to fly in your own airplane, with a good instructor, and you can learn for very little.
The medical requirements are minimal, and if you are willing to stay with a 2 seater aircraft and not really high performace (Light Sport Aircraft category) you only need a drivers license as your medical certificate. Even a 3rd class medical (if you want an airplane with higher performance or carrying more than 2 passengers, you need that) can be passed by anyone who is willing to get off their butt a couple times a week and move around. (if you want to fly for money, you need a 2nd class medical, and if you want to be a captain of an airliner you'll need a 1st class medical with the whole EKG and all).
The inexpensive airplanes aren't made anymore, Steve Witman designed some wonderful inexpensive fast! airplanes (tailwind as an example). Long-eze was maybe a peak of recent plans designs, by the man, Burt Rutan. Kitplanes magazine does annual issues of various kit offerings, as well a plans designs. Wicks and Aircraft Spruce are reliable suppliers.
The EAA is a little shifty supporting the home builders, but have been the most reliable for over 50 years. The EAA chapter organization is probably the best support group in the world. Use the resourcfes available, don't do it alone. There are plenty of resources available, from tech counselors to flight advisors. Yes you can fly an airplane you built yourself, or you can have someone else fly it for you.
Vim or emacs?
Having spent many years envolved in building experimental aircraft I will agree that open source could potentially solve some problems. One barrier still remains however. An inexpensive engine. Any engine manufacturer that has any plans for remaining in business very long will have to insure themselves for liability. This ends up being almost half the cost of the engine. I am not award of an open source solution for greedy stupid people and their lawyers.
Making airplanes isn't about technology, it is all about regulation and certification of components and complete product. Open sourcing wont help you with that.
Making planes is also about getting sued. Lawsuits destroyed the private light aircraft market in the U.S.
You do not even have to make an error to lose a lawsuit. A lawyer merely needs to convince a jury that a "better" design choice could have been made. Your choice may have been the better choice in a broad overall sense but the lawyer just needs to argue that in a specific narrow sense something else would have been better. For example a fuel injected engine vs a carbureted engine. In a specific narrow sense fuel injection might have avoided an icing related crash. Never mind the pilot failed to apply carb heat. Never mind all the complications and issues fuel injection raises in other areas.
...will be getting their build past CAA inspection, which is mandatory before you even get to roll the aircraft onto the apron. Then you got static avionics tests, static engine tests at idle and full power, then you got taxiing tests, takeoff-circle-approach-waveoff-approach-landing and testing systems all the while, while making sure you don't wrap yourself around a building... you'll probably spend more time running tests to satisfy the inspector than you will have done building the thing (IIRC there's a minimum number of hours build time on a two seater that's something like 2500 hours; on a hot air balloon envelope it's 1,000 hours per 800,000cu.ft (that I do know having been there and worn the T-shirt) and the inspection involves a close eyeball inspection of every single inch of stitching. I shit ye not).
Kit aircraft (of any description) is more than throwing bits together and giving it a lick of paint, just bear that in mind if you get the urge to have a garage project... perhaps you'd prefer something a little less involved, like a forty foot boat? The only requirement of a boat is that it floats and is steerable. You might have a river users' licence to get but that's a piece of piss, even easier than getting a fully qualified drivers licence.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
There's an old saying, "If builders built buildings the way programmers write programs, the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization."
Buildings, at least, don't fly. You won't catch ME in that airplane!
I'm gonna shamelessly plug my own open source project http://sourceforge.net/projects/pbfthunderbolt/?source=directory here. I'm looking to connect with anyone that might be interested in this. It is an FAR103 legal aircraft, for the sole purpose of flying for enjoyment or pleasure, not necessarily intended to be used as a means of transportation. I really hope to put some time and effort back into this project again in the near future. I have flown this aircraft, and it did exactly as I expected; http://www.pbthrust.com/ I've tried to drum interest from kickstarter and various open source hardware oriented cliques like The Open Source Hardware Association and OpenDesignEngine.net, but no interest from them- I'm admittedly not good at marketing...
Nope.
Basically, when you complete a kit plane, you get it certified by the FAA as an experimental aircraft. Those can be flown anywhere that's permitted by their equipment and your licensing; for instance, the plane has to have its minimum equipment list to fly at all and navigational aids to fly in IFC. The major restriction on an experimental aircraft special airworthiness certificate is that it can't be used for commercial cargo or passenger operations.
Unless an FAA bureaucrat feels otherwise:
"The Van Nuys Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) has prohibited experimental flight tests and normal operations (Phase 1 and Phase 2 flights) at Burbank, Van Nuys, Whiteman, and Santa Barbara airports."
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060118experimental.html
Add Bernie Pietenpol to that list. Man had an 8th grade education and developed an air foil ideally suited to his aircraft type / flying style..... In the 1920's.
"You can see I know very little about pimp policy." George McGovern.
Nothing you listed is a problem.
Um, yes, yes it is. You say it isn't a problem, then go on to confirm every single point I made...
As for building your own, that is allowed in most countries of the free world.
Citation needed. At least 95 to be exact, enough to cover half the countries you're claiming this for.
In the US about 1/4 of all piston powered aircraft are kits or homebuilt.
Which still require certification, even if it is only a "technical counselor" of the Experimental Aircraft Association or a "Designated Airworthiness Representative". You cannot simply print a plane out, take it to an airstrip, and yell "Yippie kai-yay!" and bolt into the air. Even the guy who decided to strap a bunch of weather balloons to a lawn chair found out the FAA takes a rather dim view of people fucking off in controlled airspace without clearance and certification.
Only after the required testing period can you use the plane as normal, and you are free to use it the same as a Cessna except for commercial operations.
Er, with a cessna, if you have a license you can take on passengers. Not paying passengers, but you can have them. A license to fly your experimental plane does not cover that. You need to get the plane certified to take passengers up in it, and a kit plane will never get that certification. The FAA has even said as much.
Should you manage to build something out of a garbage can that's under 254 pounds that carries no more than 5 gallons of fuel, meets a minimum stall speed and maximum cruize speed, you can legally fly it as an ultralight without a license in the US as well - the specs are different in other places.
Yeah, and you keep it under 100 feet and only fly it in areas that operate under VFR instead of IFR. Most of these maker labs are in densely urban areas: In other words, IFR. You'll have to drive a hundred miles in any direction from where you built it before you can fly it. And did you read the article -- he's talking about a full avionics loadout. That implies something that runs on something a bit beefier than a lawn mower engine hung out the back and playing Ride of the Valkyries on your iPod.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I wish this effort well, but I don't think it answers any problems. I don't believe I would be tempted. Building an airplane is just too damn much work to not be certain of the results.
There are many excellent kits to choose from. Like anything else, you have to finish the project to reap the rewards. If your main goal is to fly (and not to build) then just buy a nice used airplane. I expect to have spent over $100K (plus labor) to complete my RV8. In the current depressed market, $100K will buy a very nice used single. Note that Van's only got about $30K for the kit, the balance of that money is mostly engine and avionics.
Experimental aircraft are not treated the same as certificated aircraft. It is true the FAA does not approve experimental aircraft designs but if your kit is on "the list" then your test flight requirements are reduced. An experimental aircraft is legal to fly anywhere a certificated aircraft can be, including class "A" (which implies a IFR clearance). An experimental aircraft must be inspected and approved prior to first flight/starting test flights.
What you cannot do w/a experimental is commercial operations such as flight training, air taxi, etc.
Whoever mentioned the EAA is spot on. Actual help depends on the chapter but there does seem to be an abundance of retired people who want to take over your project.
I assume that doesn't include the pilot?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Wow, this is like the worst AC ever. How the hell this got modded to +5 is beyond me.
Protip: the plane under discussion is a LSA, not an ultralight.
Protip: ultralight is one word, and it's a legitimate word so you do not need to wrap it in quotes.
Protip: when the entirety of your knowledge on a subject comes from reading some Wikipedia articles (very evident from your post), you are not an expert. Don't jump in a discussion among people who actually build and fly airplanes and spout "check things before you say dumb things on the internet". You're the biggest dummy around.
And whatever you do, don't make the wingtips rounded and paint it white.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
How are we going to keep this open technology away from the Muzzies?
Realistically the Muzzies are more likely to steal a light aircraft if they need one or hijack an airliner than spend hours building an open source one.
The Gyrobee (http://taggart.glg.msu.edu/gyro/gbplans.htm) was open source long before the term became known in combination with other things than software. They are at least 10 years too late for the first open source aircraft.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
The kit itself isn't certified as airworthy by the FAA, just the actual put-together plane. In this regard, if you want to buy a bunch of spruce and build your own plane from your own plans from scratch, you are more than able to do so. Just keep in mind, if you want that FAA dude to sign off on your plane, there is a massive bible-sized tome of regulations your plane will need to adhere to. Some of them are easy, like it has to have a minimum speed below some certain point, so you don't get a bunch of propeller-driven lawn darts flying around up there. Some are a little more specific like requirements for speed testing and weight and balance configurations.
For example, all of the little arcs and lines on an ASI are customized to the plane, so the Vne is specific to the airframe, the Vmax is specific to the engine, the Vflap is specific to the design, etc. Someone has to do that testing for a plane that nobody has ever flown before. Kits, when followed to the letter, allow you to bypass this as someone has already built a few of them and taken an average of all the critical numbers among them.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
2) you don't have to alert authorities about it at all, and it does NOT need to be certified by the FAA if it's under weight guidelines.
3) it's perfectly legal to fly whatever you want, whenever you want as long as you keep it under weight specifications for "ultra-light" aircraft. Seriously, if you lack the skills to build, you can go buy an ultra-light, find some dude who can fly to teach you to fly it... and fly it whenever you want, all legally, all without telling any authority or regulating body. You can actually make an ultralight that can carry a passenger and nobody will bother you.
There's a few problems with your argument. Firstly, you cannot fly whatever you want. The requirements for ultralights are basically down to cardboard-and-aluminum style construction. They must weight less than 254 lbs empty, carry less than 5 gallons of fuel, meet certain speed requirements, and obey some serious restrictions compared to regular light sport or private pilot aircraft. Furthermore, it can only carry one person when piloted without a license. If you use a tandem(two-seater) ultralight, the pilot will need at least a recreational certificate to not get bothered. Honestly, as long as you don't crash or annoy people, they are unlikely to come after you about it.
Secondly, you have some serious restrictions on *where* you are allowed to fly. You cannot fly over populated areas, you cannot fly more than a certain distance over the ocean and I believe some of the great lakes area as well, you cannot fly at night, you cannot fly IFR(instrument or non-visual flight). There is also the matter of airspace. While you are not required to have radios or transponders on ultralights, to enter class B airspace, and often class C, you need a Mode-C transponder and permission from the tower. As the airspace extends down to as low as 200' in some areas, it can be really difficult to comply and putt-putt your way out of the controlled airspace right above the tree line. The maneuvering of the ultralight flocks inbound to AirVenture in Oshkosh every year is one of my favorite sights.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
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.
As someone who is currently studying to be a pilot (22 hours of flight time so far) and who has been around all sorts of airplanes all my life, including ultralights, LSAs (as long as they have been around), classics, homebuilts, kitplanes, original designs, warbirds, etc. I'm as close as you can get to being an expert in this field without being part of the FAA.
First point, homebuilt, kitplanes, and original designs are all under the "experimental" class of aircraft, this means it can't be used for commercial flight (paying passengers or cargo for hire) but this does not restrict recreational flying with passengers or cargo. Once your plane is completed and has gone through the inspections and tests it's signed-off by the FAA and it's free to fly. Flying into controlled airspace ( B, C, D, etc) simply requires the proper equipment on board (transponders, etc), same with flying in IFR conditions (though the pilot also needs IFR rating on their license). If you think that this is a bottleneck that is used to keep the majority out, just go to the annual EAA fly-in in Oshkosh WI, every year last week of July. You'll find at a minimum 1/4 of the airplanes there are homebuilt airplanes, you will even find original designs parked here and there shined and polished and being shown-off by proud owners/builders. The restriction by the FAA is non-existent, they merely regulate and ensure the safety. Judging by the rest of the nation, the FAA is one of the few government agencies that is actually working fairly well to promote freedom and independence.
Second point, yes you need a pilots license to fly. If you want to fly an LSA you can get a sport-pilot license, which has reduced cost (at the expense of increased restriction). Yes it costs more then a drivers license, but by the same token, you driving a car without a license is no less illegal then flying an airplane (other then an ultralight) without a license. Costs for pilot licenses vary, as the majority of the cost is airplane rental and paying the instructor, right now I'm budgeting about $6k for getting my license, that's airplane rental, instructor time, renters insurance, exam costs, etc. That's a lot of money, and it's taken me a while to get that much cleared for the task, but it's not an impossible sum, nor is it an impossible goal. I could go for a sport pilot license, it requires about half the time in the air (20 hours instead of the 40 hours minimum for a pilots license) but I decided to go for the full deal.
Third point, why would you want to? You call up the FAA and tell them you are building an airplane and they'll say "ok, let us know when it's done, oh, and here are some resources to help you out.". You call up the FBI and they'll say "that's nice" and hang up. You call up Secret Service, CIA, TSA, even the IRS and they won't care.
As for the explosives angle, that's a completely different subject and doesn't have anything to do with aircraft. While the 9/11 incident was spectacular it's a fairly isolated incident, most explosives you hear about are driven there in cars or trucks. Explosives themselves can be made from a host of compounds, many of which can be procured just driving past a farm or two, or visiting a hardware store. Other then the TSA playing patty-cake with your privates there is no reason for flying and explosives to be in the same discussion.
If you have any questions or are interested in learning more, just come to the Oshkosh fly-in, or any local fly-in (call your local small airport to find out when the next one is happening, don't bother the big airports, they are too busy with airliners) walk around, talk to the pilots, talk to the people there, and go for a ride (there's usually at least one giving rides at the local fly-ins). You'll find great people, beautiful airplanes, and frank discussions about the realities of flying in the USA and why these people have a big grin on their faces ever time they leave the ground.
DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
You can take paying passengers in a Cessna or other small aircraft. Sea plane tours come to mind as a practical example. They are also used for training which is another commercial use.
To take passengers for money (commercial operation) you can not use a plane certificated as experimental (home built) but you are most certainly able to take non-paying passengers. I've been such a passenger. The Young Eagles organization depends on it too.
Bottom line: kit planes are certified by the FAA as experimental, but can be used in just about any way commercially built planes can except for commercial operation.
This post is misleading. Nowhere on the MakerPlane site does it say they are aiming for the worlds first Open Source Aircraft!!!! They don't claim that at all!! This from their site if anyone has actually bothered to read it: MakerPlane Aim “The mission of MakerPlane is to create innovative and game-changing aircraft, avionics and related systems and the transformational manufacturing processes to build them. As a result of this aim, aircraft can be built with consistent, repeatable and highly accurate processes which create safer flying at lower cost. ” Objectives The objectives of the Open Source Aircraft project are: Foster a new wave of innovation and creativity in aviation which will lower the overall cost of ownership; Provide new ways of building aircraft that the average unskilled builder can comfortably achieve success with; Create innovative, popular, safe and modern aircraft designs; Provide free and open source based files and plans for low-cost airframes; and Create accessible and affordable open source avionics systems.
Er, with a cessna, if you have a license you can take on passengers. Not paying passengers, but you can have them. A license to fly your experimental plane does not cover that. You need to get the plane certified to take passengers up in it, and a kit plane will never get that certification. The FAA has even said as much.
Why, oh why, did I built a 4-seater experimental airplane, when girlintraining says I can't ever have passengers? And why does Bob Barrows keep selling plans for that six-seater Bearhawk? Maybe, girlintraining just needs more training?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
The laws of thermodynamics speak of observations in a closed systems. We still cannot prove the universe is or isn't a closed system and if in fact there is an infinite multiverse, then all bets are off. A great story along these lines if Asimov's "The Gods Themselves". So a more powerful engine than matter-antimatter might be two closely spaced portals to two universes, a universe about to become a big bang, and a universe on the verge of heat death. You could harness huge flows of energy from both portals and because the effects on our space would be cancelled out by the two opposite universes, our universe would incur no dangerous shift in fundamental physical conditions (read the article to better understand.)
Actually planes and helis will get you VIP seating just about anywhere. A good friend of mine has a buddy who trades in helicopters and planes. He in fact built the helicopter for the movie "Blue Thunder" (a film from the 80s starring Roy Scheider if anyone cares.) Anyway we were working in Torrance at the time working for Epson America and he gave the entire crew a bunch of touch and goes around the PV peninsula from a pad just outside what was the 94th Aero-Squadron Cafe next to the Torrance Airport (a tiny muni strip.)
A couple weeks before they were delivering a heli to a new owner in San Diego, and he took it down on the sand to get lunch at Jack in the Box (man that would have made some kind of commercial.) They were surrounded by a crowd and let a few girls in bikinis take a couple short rides. Dave later got to drive a Lamborghini on the Autobahn at over 200 mph for nearly 2 hours. He said flying the copter with his friend was more fun, and usually ended up getting him a date for the weekend.
He also had an awesome little amphibious plane, and he and my friend Dave flew it to Catalina for lunch. They'd been working on it all morning, and decide to skip over to the island for lunch. They pulled right into the dock and walking into the restaurant covered in grease. They were moved ahead of everyone else, and and treated like VIPs. Figure anyone with the stones to fly in covered in grease must be important enough to get away with it.
So yes, flying will invariably get you the bonus VIP rating. Oh, if you're in California, and you like cow parts, Harris Ranch has a sweet little strip you can walk into the restaurant from and enjoy some of the best cow in central California. I've enjoyed this little convenience and its a sublime way to blow a few hours.
Has anyone here flown or know anything about the Mountain Goat? Stall speed 26 mph, top cruising speed over 175 mph, and able to take off on flat ground in less distance than the length of a 747. That and able to carry over half a ton in cargo safely. I just want to know this isn't too good to be true. I saw a film of this thing flying over cow pastures on the Monterey Coast at about 20 feet, then floating at about 2,500 ft. as it hovered over a hilltop in a 30 mph headwind. Weirdest thing I've ever seen a plane do. Any time you can jump out of a moving plane with better than even odds of surviving, the plane is going really slow.