Author Topic: Homebuilts draw me again (Read 1123 times)

Dinger · « **Reply #15 on:** November 28, 2005, 06:29:58 AM »

Two-minute warning won't help much.
Your car doesn't run out of fuel because the tank is set up to read "Empty" well before empty, and contains an amount of reserve fuel practically unknown. Besides, you rarely refuel your car at the start or end of a trip.

Anyway, taking automotive issues further: plenty of cars do run out of fuel. I'd bet that if you examined the average driving hours between cases of fuel exhaustion in private automobiles and in single-engine aircraft driven by PPLs, you'd find similar results.

Of course, similar problem for kit planes: not all builders have the time or ability to follow rigorously basic principles of safety in construction (oops, forgot a wing spar, again), or they make modifications based on an imperfect knowledge of how the aircraft works, and what went into its design (John Denver, again).

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #16 on:** November 28, 2005, 06:59:09 AM »

Dinger the warning buzzer would come in handy in the situations Holden described - being unfamiliar with tank selectors. It would prevent the pilot from making the mistake of switching to a tank that is already empty. Or running one totally empty without knowing for that matter.

The reason why it's far more common for an automobile to run out of gas would be the consequences of such an event. While at land - fairly low risk. While at air - life or death situation.

mora · « **Reply #17 on:** November 28, 2005, 07:11:14 AM »

I never trust gas gauges on cars either(because I mostly drive beaters), and use the odo to check the mileage I have left. Just last week I ran out of diesel because I had changed to winter tires of a slightly larger diameter. The odometer reading vs. real mileage changed for the worse and I thought I had 15 miles left when I didn't.

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #18 on:** November 28, 2005, 07:44:37 AM »

Even though my Mercedes has a reliable fuel gauge I prefer to keep the tank topped off. Better for condensation and convenient if I need to take a long trip in the morning - I hate nothing more than having to refuel 5 am in a blizzard.

crowMAW · « **Reply #19 on:** November 28, 2005, 08:04:05 AM »

Chair, I flew a Veri-EZe back 20 years ago. Nice handling airplane in my opinion. Roll rate was excellent, if a little touchy. Pitch was good but a little slow...I think the canard's moment arm around the CG is not very long. Yaw control was effective.

The one drawback was seating position and visability. I had a hard time seeing out of the plane for approach. You sit low, so the length of the nose is exagerated, plus the canard gets in the way too.

Interstingly, the plane that I flew crashed a week after my flight killing the owner. NTSB said he had exceeded the g limit and snapped a wing. They assumed he was probably performing aerobatic manuvers.

Maverick · « **Reply #20 on:** November 28, 2005, 09:48:44 AM »

Building a "glass" plane like that is neat as it gives the design a much cleaner airframe than a standard aluminum bird. It does make it harder to actually inspect the interior and a fuel leak can have rather dramatic consequences for the wing.

Another consideration for me is how well it will handle years of exposure to the sun. There is no real data on how many years the surface will last. IN the sunbelt there are many fiberglass pools and spas as well as other items made from composite that have deteriorated from exposure. I'm not too sure I'd like to ride in a "glass" plane that has been around for 40 years vs a metal plane like the Comanche I used to own. You can't check for delamination of the material or other problems nearly as easy as you can with a different design.

Buying a prebuilt homebuilt glass bird is not anything I'd consider. I have no real way to confirm the specs were complied with by the builder, much less the quality of the original lay up work.

As to fuel guages. The only spec that the FAA requires is that they read empty when the tank is dry to the level of unusable fuel. A pilot that depends on a guage has a technical term to describe them, statistic.

Chairboy · « **Reply #21 on:** November 28, 2005, 11:37:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by crowMAW
Interstingly, the plane that I flew crashed a week after my flight killing the owner. NTSB said he had exceeded the g limit and snapped a wing. They assumed he was probably performing aerobatic manuvers.

Can you point me to the tail number or report? I'd love to read up on it. Based on what I've read so far, it seems hard to believe that someone could snap a wing on one of these without either doing something boneheaded in flight or construction. I've seen demonstrations with these composite wings where two guys jump up and down on one to show how much stronger they are than metal wings of the same caliber.

In regards to the fuel stuff, the lack of accurate fuel gauges is common to all aircraft. My instructor quipped that 'we can send a man to the moon, but we can't create a reliable fuel gauge', and told me that it's a constant in aviation. One of the reasons why I manually check the fuel levels every time I fly, and all these reports I read of experimental pilots running out of fuel really reinforces that. The other fuel related mishap I've read a lot about in composite aircraft is something that interferes with fuel flow, usually described as 'a gummy substance' or something similar. I'm going to guess that with a composite fuel tank, there's a real danger of improperly treating the inside resulting in a tank that the fuel can be a solvent on, but that's just a guess. I've read a bunch of reports where the engine quits and they find gunk in the lines, so...

Regarding exposure to the sun, I've learned something interesting in my studies. Burt Rutan said that he will not fly in a VariEZ, LongEZ, or the ilk that's painted any color other than white. The reason? Anything else will absorb enough heat that it could break down the lamination. He said that back when he started making these, and I guess there have been advances since that ease the restrictions, but the smart money is probably still on a light color.

...which brings up another point, the VariEZ was first introduced back in the 1970s, and there are plenty of the originals still flying, many of which are parked out on the tarmac in places as inhospitable as Mojave, CA. Sounds like a pretty good track record to me, Maverick!

I was describing my interest to a co-worker this morning, and he said he could only support my efforts if the airplane looked as much like an imperial shuttle from star wars as possible. I grinned and told him to come by my desk so I could show him a picture of it.

rshubert · « **Reply #22 on:** November 28, 2005, 12:11:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Heh I don't know about you but I'd prefer a nasty beep 2 minutes before running out instead of a dying engine during flight.

It's a bit like saying I don't need a seatbelt - the windshield will stop me on the event of a collision.

The problem with airplane fuel guages is that most airplane fuel tanks are in the wings. Wings are thin, and the 18 gallon tanks in my old cessna 172 were no more than 4 or five inches deep.

That makes an accurate float system problematical. Add in any aileron roll (normal when flying crosswind), and you have a wildly inaccurate measuring system.

On the other hand, fuel flow guages are very accurate, and cruise power fuel flow calculations from the POH are pretty much right on. That's why pilots generally calculate the fuel needed for a flight, and plan fuel stops along the way to make sure they don't run out of fuel.

eagl · « **Reply #23 on:** November 28, 2005, 12:57:23 PM »

Chairboy,

It's possible to destroy many planes without actually managing violent aerobatics... I read of one guy who had a known history of using full-stick deflection at maneuvering speed in his RV, around 140 or 160 in that model if I recall correctly. Well, one day he was messing around and somehow mis-read his airspeed (maybe it was 260 instead of 160?) and he used full aft stick to enter a loop. The plane never exeeded about 3 G's because the tail snapped off before it could cause much of a pitch angle change.

Anyhow, there are lots of ways to break off airplane parts and some aren't obvious.

g00b · « **Reply #24 on:** November 28, 2005, 01:55:04 PM »

Geez, nice supportive comments folks. I am helping to build both a long-ez and a vari-ez currently. Done right, these things are overbuilt about 400%. The Cozy has attracted my eye more than once, but I think the RV-10 is my real-world top pick.

Anyways, don't listen to all the naysayers. Homebuilts are exactly as safe as you build and fly them.

eagl · « **Reply #25 on:** November 28, 2005, 02:05:47 PM »

In about a year and a half I'll be looking for a homebuilt too. I'll start by looking at an RV, not exactly sure which though since I haven't actually sat in a completed one or flown them. The stats sure look nice and the planes look cool, and it seems like everyone who owns one likes it.

EZs... The impression I've always gotten is that it's like the old intel vs. AMD argument, with the RV being the intel and the EZ being the AMD. Sure you can customize the EZ (AMD) and get better performance, but for solid all-around performance and reliability go with the RV (intel). Most of that has to do with aluminum vs. composite construction, but it also has to do with aircraft configuration and the fact that many people are more comfortable with the "standard", and the EZ really isn't "standard" in just about any area.

Don't get me wrong, the EZ is a great design, but it's more aimed at efficiency than comfort or maneuvering performance/aerobatics. The RV can operate out of rougher strips (the EZ nosegear can be a weak area on rough strips) and is designed up front for all around dependable performance including a thick rectangular wing for good acro and stall performance to go with reasonably good cruise efficiency. I thought a modified RV did pretty good in one of those CAFE efficiency races a while back, but I could be mis-remembering since the glasairs and EZs tended to dominate that contest.

Chairboy · « **Reply #26 on:** November 28, 2005, 03:07:13 PM »

The RV-10 is a sweet looking plane, agreed. I do like the idea of operating out of more runways....

but again, there's the efficiency aspect. The Cozy should be able to seat 4 like the RV-10, possibly with more comfort, and be able to go faster on less gas. The super spin resistance of the canard is great too. I've been reading that it's nigh impossible to spin them without being a complete idiot because you build it so the canard stalls first. No wing dip, the canard stalls, and the nose mushes down until you're flying again. Sounds good to me!

Downside, you need more runway, it doesn't fly out of dirt runways as good (if at all), and you land at 5-10 knots faster.

Another upside, it looks like a freakin' spaceship. Hard to beat THAT.

crowMAW · « **Reply #27 on:** November 28, 2005, 06:57:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Can you point me to the tail number or report? I'd love to read up on it.

Hell I sometimes have trouble remembering the N number for the plane I'm sitting in while on unicom let alone one from 20 years ago!

You can probably search for it. There can't be that many that went down in the early to mid 80s. If you find one in Florida in that time period...then that was it.

NUTTZ · « **Reply #28 on:** November 28, 2005, 07:05:03 PM »

Chairboy, Arrow from AH here has one of these planes.

He flew it into the reading airshow 2 years back. He does the Osh relay or something of that sort. I was supposed to get a ride in it. The payload is under 400lbs. so i had to lose some weight to be a passenger. I did get down to 195. From seeing this plane i hear they are awsome. If you need more information i can pass your e-mail address to Arrow. I think they have a webpage on the canards, last i heard they were doing some formation flying and started a group.

NUTTZ

Chairboy · « **Reply #29 on:** November 28, 2005, 07:05:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by crowMAW
Hell I sometimes have trouble remembering the N number for the plane I'm sitting in while on unicom let alone one from 20 years ago!

You can probably search for it. There can't be that many that went down in the early to mid 80s. If you find one in Florida in that time period...then that was it.

No joy, searched all fatal accidents for experimental aircraft in FL in the 1980s and didn't find it. I'll search again and widen the net tonight after work. Thanks!