|
|
Posted for "Bill Hooker" <bhook@iswest.com>:
In effect, they have circumvented the true spirit of amateur built aircraft
Returning to the Ford-powered plans-built designs would get us back to the true spirit of amateur built aircraft - is that what we want? Technology has advanced, performance envelopes have stretched, requirements for certification have tightened. The Pietenpol is a fine though rather limited aircraft, but that's what we'd be building and flying if we were to return to the good old days. Not a single kit built Lancair is actually 51% built by an amateur unless that individual cut a model, made a mold, and formed 51% of the composite components. How many builders have formed their own Plexi canopies? Forged their own gear legs? Designed leading edge heat strips for de-ice? We have all used professional help even if it is only from NAPA or a neighbor who welds for a living. The regulations now require the builder be intimately involved in the building process - that is where amateur built differs from commercially certificated aircraft. The 51% dividing line is based on techniques and hours. If I skin an RV wing in 200 hours and a pro builder skins the rest of the aircraft in 190 hours, then I mastered the skinning technique and spent over 51% of the time. By the time I have built a dozen aircraft I might be as fast as the pro, but amateur built aircraft are a learning experience that is what was accomplished in my single wing skinning. This is the direction I see the amateur built market going - learning about and using state-of-the-art aircraft design concepts, but not being ham strung by regulations and prohibited from using the sophisticated resources that we have available today. Robert M. Simon, ES-P N301ES
|
|