Once there it gathered more parts as though magnetized and consumed money like, well, a suddenly well-paid merchant marine on extended shore leave. You embraced one and tolerated the other. In time, the list of to-be-completed tasks shrank, and the possibility of it actually flying came into view, almost mirage-like.

The path from having a huge pile of airplane-kit components in the driveway to a flying example has complications beyond the construction process, all of which you learn as you go—with help from KITPLANES, naturally. But the ultimate goal for most is to have a flying airplane. (Truly, for some, the journey is the driver, not the goal.) And it’s the step from an assemblage of airplane-looking parts to an actual flying machine that is unique to homebuilding.

• READ MORE: Latest CubCrafters Design Looks Back and Ahead

Every Cessna you’ve flown has had a professional test pilot commit its first hour or more of flight. For your homebuilt, the task is on your shoulders. Probably.

The question, of course, is: Should you? It depends. How experienced are you overall? How many different aircraft types have you flown? What is your experience level in airplanes the same or very similar to your project? How recent is your flight experience? These are all fixable things, meaning if you have spent most of your budget on the build, it becomes smart, as you get near the end of the project, to start investing in flying time.

Begin with whatever you’re most comfortable with or what is locally available. At this getting-back-to-it stage, it is less important to be in an airplane similar to your homebuilt than it is just to get the stick or yoke time. Find an instructor who will not let you fly sloppy and who will keep you honest. Also, don’t fool yourself into thinking that an hour or two of dual instruction after years away from the flight deck will do it. You need to get well and truly current and, more importantly, proficient.

Then it’s time to consider training in airplanes similar to yours. The average homebuilt has more power for any given gross weight. Consider that the Van’s RV-7A typically has as much installed power as a Piper Archer, yet is 750 pounds lighter. It also has less wing area but, more important, far lighter controls. While the RV series in general has predictable stall characteristics, they are not as “mushy” as your common four-seat family airplane. Training only in the Piper will not prepare you for the RV.

For some of the most popular brands, again we’re talking Van’s RV series, transition training is available, which is highly desirable. In fact, many insurance companies effectively demand it for the first flights. If training is available in your make/model of homebuilt, find the money and do it. There is nothing better than recent experience in an airplane likely to be very similar to the one you just built.

• READ MORE: This 2022 Van’s RV-14 Is a Homebuilt, Cross-Country ‘AircraftForSale’ Top Pick

How important is this training? Accident statistics around homebuilt first flights illustrate the need. About a third of all reportable accidents during first flights fall into the broad category of “pilot miscontrol”  or improper handling of the airplane. Nothing in the airplane broke or caused the accident; it was pilot error.

Of those mishaps, the greatest single category involves stalls, followed by a bad flare or bounced landing, followed by misjudged approaches and loss of control during landing. Sometimes misrigging can make an airplane touchy near the lower end of the speed range, but more often than not, it’s just flown with inadequate margin. In the first few hours, you really don’t know what you don’t know.

Just because you feel ready doesn’t mean the airplane is. In the past, Experimental/Amateur-Built aircraft were required to have something called pre-cover inspections, basically a partway check by a designated airworthiness representative (DAR) or inspector to help ensure you’re doing a good job. That’s no longer required, but you do need to have a DAR or an FAA representative inspect the airplane prior to first flight.

More often than not, this is a spot check of critical systems—flight controls, in particular—and a thorough review of the paperwork to support that you did build the airplane and that you’ve completed all the forms. It is not necessarily a guarantee of airworthiness. That’s up to you as the manufacturer.

What most builders do today is host a last-look party. Invite other builders around for an afternoon poring over your airplane. Best are those who have built and are flying the same type you have, but those with keen eyes and a mechanical bent are also helpful. Open up the airplane, stand back, and let them find stuff. Stow your ego. They will find things wrong—missing cotter pins or rivets, wires rubbing, bolts not properly secured, all kinds of things. Fix every single defect they find before you fly.

Why is this so important? Because it can prevent problems. In a recent survey of first-flight accidents, 20 percent were attributable to builder error—most often mistakes building or configuring the fuel system (22 percent of the total builder-error accidents) with problems involving the carburetor, propeller or rotor, and airframe each accounting for 18 percent of the accidents.

• READ MORE: Buying a Van’s RV-4 Is an Experimental Adventure

Some of these accidents begin when builders try new ways to do things—as in the fuel-system design, for example—but sometimes it’s just poor execution of common and well-understood systems. A core truth in homebuilding is that the closer you stay to the plans—meaning that you’re building an airplane as much like the factory’s efforts as you can—the happier you’ll be in the long run. Every divergence from plans is a place where you lose the fleet experience and the engineering savvy others have gained for you, sometimes at the expense of other accidents.

In the not-too-distant past, builders who planned to perform first flights (as well as the rest of the flight-test program, defined as Phase I flight test by the FAA) could piece together elements of a good program, but it wasn’t ready made for them. It is now, thanks to the EAA’s Flight Test Manual and the accompanying Flight Test Cards. The manual provides step-by-step instructions on how to commit the most common portions of Phase I flight test, including the first flight, so there’s no need to freelance the materials.

Moreover, the test cards make each flight into bite-sized missions that focus on specific aspects of airplane control and performance. The concept is to commit the flight, note the results on the cards, and then continue only when the test is completed successfully.

In fact, the flight test cards underpin a new program in the Experimental world called task-based flight testing. Before this idea, all homebuilts were subject to a Phase I flight test based on hours flown, most commonly 40, but sometimes as few as 25 when the engine and propeller combination was a certified duo. Experimental LSA are the exception. But for the most common homebuilts, the new task-based system allows builders to complete Phase I once all the tests are complete.

Most of us have found that the last few hours of Phase I was a matter of trundling around, burning time. It’s too early to tell if Phase I hours are really reduced, but some have completed all the tests in 30 hours or less.

The last question is a hard one: Are you willing to treat your airplane like the machine that it is? If the engine quits on takeoff, you have to be willing to put it into the trees off the end of the runway. Because you’ve spent years building has no bearing on the outcome. You must be willing to sacrifice the airplane to save yourself. Builders have come to grief trying to stretch the glide after a problem, trying to make the airport or a softer landing spot because they don’t want to bend their new bird.

Truth is, doing your own flight testing takes more than piloting skill—though it absolutely starts there. You need to be careful, thoughtful, disciplined, and laser focused on the task at hand. When you land after the first flight and someone asks you how it felt, your answer should be more than “pretty good.” Instead, be precise: “Well, rudder trim’s a bit off, number 3 CHT is a little high, and I think the right main brake is sticking a bit.” Write that down (or, better, review the in-cabin video you so wisely employed), pull the airplane into the hangar where you can uncowl it, and inspect it like it’s the first time.

Then, once the adrenaline has worn off a bit, fist pump all you want. Just remember you have a bunch more of this ahead of you before your dream airplane is real.

This column first appeared in the Summer 2024 Ultimate Issue print edition.

The post Ultimate Issue: Are You the One for That First Flight? appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

In many cases, that trust is bought with the standardization, quality control, and testing that goes into type and production certification. However, that has its limits, not the least of which are the oft-disparaged cost of certified models and a certain inability for significant customization. As Henry Ford said of the Model T: “You can have it in any color you want, as long as it is black.”

When looking for a less expensive, more flexible option, would you buy and fly an airplane your hangar neighbor built?

Most of us can probably agree that it depends pretty much entirely on the neighbor in question. For Tyler Gibbs, 27, who flies out of California’s Corona Municipal Airport (KAJO), it was a decision that just made sense.

Family History

About a year and a half ago, Gibbs purchased a Van’s Aircraft RV-4, a two-seat experimental/amateur-built (E/A-B) airplane, from his older brother. It’s his first aircraft, though he says it won’t be his last. While he trained in certified models, he had some exposure to the world of experimentals through his brother, opening the door to the possibility when it came time to find his own airplane.

• READ MORE: Robinson Helicopter Co. Names New CEO

Flying runs in the Gibbs family: His father, brother, and sister-in-law are all pilots. Even so, it took a bit for Gibbs to take the controls himself. In spite of, or perhaps because of, the early exposure to aviation, he had graduated from college and was working at the family trailer sales business before the flying bug finally bit.

Once it had, he didn’t look back. He earned his private pilot certificate, followed promptly by his multiengine and instrument ratings and commercial pilot certificate. With those in hand, he began to work as a pilot for hire, picking up gigs flying skydive jump planes and towing gliders. With two and a half years of aviation experience, Tyler is pursuing his glider rating and beginning to look toward earning his CFI.

About a year after getting his private certificate, Gibbs decided it was time to purchase his own airplane. Aircraft ownership was not a new concept in the Gibbs family either. The family has owned a number of airplanes over the years, including a Cessna 172 and 210. But, like flying, aircraft ownership wasn’t something Gibbs had really considered for himself.

• READ MORE: ICON A5 Receives FAA Primary Category Type Certification

Once he decided it was something he wanted, he didn’t have to look far to find the one that suited him best. His brother had an RV-4 (N527CG) he was willing to pass along.

N527CG had several owners before coming to Gibbs, having been built by Luther Arthur and flown for the first time in 1991. Gibbs’ brother bought it from a friend years later. He and his wife flew it for almost four years before selling it to Tyler.

There’s a lot to be said for buying a known aircraft from a trusted source, especially when taking the step from certified models to experimentals. For those not familiar with the segment, E/A-B aircraft aren’t subject to the same construction and maintenance rules as their certified counterparts—though the RV-4 is made from extremely conventional materials wielded in very conventional fashion, and all experimentals are required to have annual inspections. They can be built and worked on by pretty much anyone and modified to suit the builder. It’s also safe to assume that no two builds—even if the same plans or kit components were used in construction—will be exactly alike. That’s an adventure for a first-time E/A-B buyer, for sure.

With N527CG, Gibbs had the advantage of direct knowledge of the aircraft’s maintenance and operational history. Prior to coming to the Gibbs family, the aircraft was repainted with its current World War II U.S. Army Air Corps-inspired livery.

When Tyler’s brother owned the airplane, the engine was rebuilt after it developed an oil leak. During the overhaul, the Lycoming O-320 received some new additions, including electronic ignition and a conversion to fuel injection.

Assessing a Homebuilt

As Gibbs’ story might suggest, there are a few things to consider when buying a used E/A-B that might not come up when purchasing a certified aircraft. To start, a potential buyer will need to study up on the model they intend to purchase. The goal is to develop a solid idea of what a well-built example should look like, what types of problems are most common to the design, and what kinds of modifications are likely to crop up. If possible, a look at the plans for the kit can help provide a better sense of how everything should fit together. Buyers looking at Van’s designs have another tool in the drawer: Because of the popularity of all of its airplanes, it’s easy to find “comparable” examples, and several shops have popped up around the country that specialize in RV maintenance and prepurchase inspections.

In Gibbs’ case, he had a source on hand who knew the aircraft nearly as well as the original builder. Not to mention, the RV-4 wasn’t his brother’s first experimental— and Gibbs had experience helping him work on several of those. That familiarity made it a comfortable, reliable purchase, and a solid choice for a first aircraft.

When examining a potential E/A-B buy, the first thing to look at is the overall quality of the build. It’s usually safe to assume that an aircraft with significant problems on the surface (i.e. wavy fiberglass or deformed rivets) is likely to have other, not-so-visible issues underneath. A clean, tidy build with no obvious faults is a good place to start when considering a used experimental.

N527CG is a beautifully built and maintained aircraft with a long and well-documented history. Having been in the family for four years—with significant engine work done during that time—it doesn’t have many surprises left. While Gibbs’ particular situation might be hard to come by for another first-time E/A-B buyer, it does bring up the importance of taking the time to talk with people who know and have worked on the airplane. If a builder isn’t excited to talk about the trials and triumphs of making an aircraft, it’s probably time to look for a different one to buy.

Another aspect to pay close attention to with an experimental is how the builder might have modified the design from the original plans or kit components. Mods are common in this segment and can significantly affect the performance and handling characteristics of the model. While this provides a lot of room to adapt a design for its intended mission, it is a potential trouble spot for a buyer who will be tasked with figuring out exactly how, where, and why the aircraft differs from factory specifications and to understand if the nature of the modification is common (therefore vetted by the fleet, or at least some of it) or an outlier. In general, the fewer mods the better when it comes to buying a used E/A-B.

As previously discussed, N527CG received its biggest mod while in family hands and was then flown for a meaningful period of time. Post-modification performance reports were likely to be accurate. Even so, Gibbs says his first flight in N527CG was a memorable experience. He’d completed his tailwheel training in a Cessna 140 and flew with a friend to get in some dual in a different RV-4 before heading out in his own airplane. Gibbs was smart to do so, but even better are full transition courses available for most RVs that have proven to reduce risk for pilots new to the type. With the engine modifications giving it more power (and being solo in the cockpit), it took off like a rocket. As it should: The RV-4’s maximum gross weight is 1,000 pounds less than a Cessna 172’s of similar horsepower.

While it seems obvious, it is important to take the time to check which equipment has been installed before buying an aircraft. Returning to the flexibility aspect, the options can vary far more widely in an E/A-B than in a certified model. An airplane outfitted with old, unsupported avionics isn’t a great place to start unless the buyer is planning to overhaul it themselves. Especially for a first-time E/A-B owner, it is worth looking for an aircraft with an updated panel.

The panel in Gibbs’ RV-4 is set up with a Dynon FlightDEK-D180, Garmin GTR 200 radio, and BendixKing KT-71 transponder. While the current avionics aren’t exactly getting any younger, he has plans to update them in the near future. Since he is already aiming to do the work necessary to make the aircraft IFR-capable, what it came with is of less interest than it might be to a buyer who doesn’t want to perform any panel work any time soon.

When it comes to assessing a used homebuilt, another thing to look at is which engine and propeller the builder chose to install. A good prospect will have an engine and prop specifically listed by the kit manufacturer. When it comes to reliability, accident records, and resale value, alternative options—those not named by the manufacturer—generally don’t hold up as well.

• READ MORE: Across the Generations at Continental Aerospace Technologies

In the case of N527CG, the engine selected when it was built makes the list. However, the modifications make it a little less of a slam-dunk for a buyer looking for the perfect homebuilt prospect. A stock O-320 produces 150 to 160 hp. Gibbs reports that post-rebuild, the modifications to N527CG’s engine have boosted power above the stock 160 hp. While he had insider intel on the work done and how the aircraft performed afterward, a buyer less familiar would need to put in extra effort to ensure they knew what they were getting.

As a final note on purchasing considerations, when buying a used experimental aircraft (any aircraft, really), a thorough prebuy inspection conducted by someone familiar with the specific model being considered—or at least who knows homebuilts—is highly recommended. The upfront cost of an inspection can keep a “great deal” from turning into a money-guzzling, unflyable, uninsurable headache in the long run.

Owning an RV-4

N527CG has been Gibbs’ for a year and a half. During that time, he has flown it all over the West Coast, building tailwheel time, commuting to work, and mostly just having a great time. These days, the aircraft is based at KAJO, where he is also a member of the California Flyers Club.

In terms of reliability, the airplane hasn’t needed much of anything beyond regular upkeep. In Gibbs’ words, it’s a simple airplane with simple maintenance needs—just a really good aircraft. It has also proven to be a good example of what’s available beyond the occasionally narrow world of certified airplanes.

Flight Future

When asked about his aviation goals, Gibbs says he is thinking hard about getting into aerial firefighting. He’s also very interested in teaching and believes he will always want to spend at least some of his time with students after earning his CFI. When it comes to aircraft ownership, he has no plans on stopping with the RV-4. He is thinking about adding an airplane more suited to traveling cross-country with a family—something like a Cessna 310.

Also on his bucket list, proving that it can be hard to walk away from experimentals once you’ve had a taste, is building an RV-8.

E/A-B vs. Certified

There are always a great many things to consider when buying an airplane. Not only is it a significant investment, it is one in which we trust our lives—and those of our family and friends. With that in mind, it might be easy to assume that flying anything not built in a factory, even ages ago, increases the risk. Rather, like the rest of aviation, it usually comes down to making good, well-reasoned choices.

A certified model with a murky maintenance history and more stop-drilled cracks than solid surface should raise flags with a buyer in much the same way as weirdly rippled sheet metal on a homebuilt.

On the other hand, a good example of each airplane is a ticket to adventures defined by arguing pattern etiquette, grumbling about fuel prices, and knowing that no one else is doing it right, for the love of Orville and Wilbur.

Also, there’s that feeling when the wheels leave the pavement and the sky opens up in front of you. You know the one.

A Brief Look at the Van’s RV-4

Manufactured by Van’s Aircraft, the RV-4 kit is a clean-sheet design and the first two-seat model in the company’s extraordinarily popular RV line.

It logged its first flight in August 1979, and kits are still available for sale, though now in limited production. To date, there are well more than 1,400 kits on record as having completed their first flights.

The RV-4 is an all-metal, low-wing monoplane that seats two in a tandem configuration. Van’s lists the model as having a top speed of 213 mph (185 knots) with a 180 hp engine, typical empty weight of between 903 and 913 pounds and gross weight of 1,500 pounds. It will carry 32 gallons of fuel and 50 pounds of baggage.

Manufacturer-listed engine options for the RV-4 include the Lycoming O-320-D1A/D2G, IO-320-D1A, and O-360-A1A. Van’s notes that the model was designed for engines between 150 and 160 hp, but engines between 125 and 180 hp are commonly installed and work well.

According to estimates collected by the company, building time for an RV-4 averages between 2,000 and 2,200 “person hours,” with the caveat that many builders don’t log every minute they spend in the shop.

Kit price for the RV-4 is listed at $32,365.

Just add an engine, prop, interior, paint, avionics—and your time.

This column first appeared in the November 2023/Issue 943 of FLYING’s print edition.

The post Buying a Van’s RV-4 Is an Experimental Adventure appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The weekly tradition started in the mid-’80s when Phillips suggested he and a few friends fly in formation to their favorite breakfast spot. “I did a basic formation briefing,” he says, and sketched their positions on the back of a napkin. During the requisite debrief, Phillips says he made the mistake of saying, “That was the damnedest gaggle that I’ve ever flown in.” To his chagrin, the “gaggle” moniker stuck. “It’s kind of demeaning. But it’s one of those things that got away. You can’t get it back,” he says. Today, the Spruce Creek Gaggle Flight has about 100 members. The Gaggle frequently performs fly-overs for Little League opening days, veterans’ events, honor flights, and city festivals—like Daytona Beach Jeep Week—and has been recognized with multiple proclamations.

A former fighter pilot, Phillips is accustomed to more precise formation flying. He retired from the Air Force in 1977 as a lieutenant colonel and became an aerospace consultant for Litton Industries, General Dynamics, and others. Phillips grew up in the 1940s and ’50s near Maule Field (3NP) in Napoleon, Michigan. At 12, he started working after school and weekends for Belford D. (B.D.) Maule, who invented a light tailwheel, operated a tool milling and sharpening shop, and built TV towers and antennas. Maule later developed his signature aircraft and moved his operation to Moultrie, Georgia. Working there, Phillips learned skills that he still uses today. “I call it people’s liberal arts education. I didn’t learn a lot in school, but I learned a lot at the airport.”

An advocate for the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), for which he served as president of the Daytona Beach Chapter (No. 288) for nine years, he is as passionate about building aircraft as he is about flying them. An FAA Wright Brothers Master Pilot and Charles Taylor Master Mechanic, A&P/IA, and EAA technical counselor, he has built a Swearingen SX300, a Pitts Model 12, and a hybrid Wittman Tailwind/Nesmith Cougar. Phillips talked recently with FLYING about his passion for aviation, homebuilt aircraft, and his airpark community.

FLYING Magazine (FM): Describe your early pilot training experience at Maule Field?

Keith Phillips (KP): When you’re around an airport, you know, it’s like a farmer’s kid, you learn to drive by osmosis. You never remember really learning to drive. You’re expected to drive. It’s the same with flying. In those days, the GI Bill was a big thing for learning to fly. In ’46, ’47, ’48, every little town airport, they’d have a fleet of J3 Cubs, or Luscombes, or Taylorcrafts to teach GI Bill flying classes. That gave you ample opportunity to learn to fly. I actually learned to fly without a CFI. They’d [ad hoc instructors] get their GI Bill, they soloed and got their private and said, “Come on kid, help me with this and do that, and I’ll give you a ride in the airplane.” I had a student license but never was signed off.

FM: You have owned quite a few airplanes over the course of your lifetime. What was your first airplane?

KP: When I was a junior in high school, I bought a 1941 J4 Cub. But I, of course, didn’t have the money to buy it, so B.D. [Maule] bought it. It cost $400. I put in $200 and he put in $200 for Shirley, his daughter. She really didn’t have any interest in learning to fly and never did, so I ultimately bought her half out.

FM: What aviation mentors have had the biggest impact on you and how?

KP: I had a couple of schoolteachers who were World War II guys. I basically grew up with no father image; even though my mother got remarried, he was a stepdad and was brand new to me. One of the principals in the high school was a C-47 pilot in World War II [Gordon Smith]. Another teacher was a P-47 pilot [Mr. Goodrich]. They encouraged me. But if you did something stupid, they told you about it. I flew under some wires one time when we went to a football game over in one of the towns. Raymond [Maule] and I flew our airplanes over there and landed next to the athletic field, and when we left, I flew under these wires, and the principal saw that and he really chewed me out. They certainly had an influence on me, but nothing like B.D. [Maule]. He wasn’t a good mentor, but he created the environment that allowed me to fly. I wouldn’t have been able to buy the airplane without him. I was making 35 cents an hour; $400 was a big hit.

FM: As an older pilot (Phillips turned 88 in June), are there any challenges that you’ve had to adapt to?

KP: It’s a hell of problem with things like insurance. They told me last year, “Next year, you must have a pilot.” So, I wrote a little note back to them saying, “What am I?” In order to have my insurance valid, I have to have a pilot in the airplane with me that has 25 hours in type, and he’s got to be this and that, etc. So, in essence, if I’m flying my airplane without anybody on board, I’m not covered. That is the biggest impediment that I find. I feel that my skills are still good enough so that I’m safe.

FM: You’ve built three aircraft of your own, contributed to building countless others, and were honored in 2016 with the EAA Tony Bingelis Award for your contributions to the homebuilt community. Why do you champion homebuilts?

KP: I grew up on a farm and then later the airport, and I was always building or doing something with machinery. I have a passion for it. The flying and the building are fulfilling to me. You can be creative, and one thing that EAA has done is they have deployed a degree of standardization and so forth. Early on, there were some really bad homebuilt aircraft. But over the years, standards have come way up, and thanks to Van [Richard VanGrunsven].

FM: What inspired you to build your first airplane, the hybrid Wittman Tailwind/Nesmith Cougar?

KP: In 1956 or ’57, we were at the Rockford Air Show, and I got a first ride in a Wittman. By then, I was a lieutenant in the Air Force. I was in love with little airplanes. I went over there with B.D. [Maule] in his Bellanca. I had a ride in Bud Harwood’s Wittman Tailwind and I said, “This thing is a performing fool.” When you compared it to an average little airplane of that day, it was 40 to 50 knots faster. Prior to U.S. Air Force flying, I was used to J3/J4Cubs’ performance, and that Bellanca was a rocket, and it was still slower than that Wittman. I said, “Man, I gotta have one of these.” I liked that you could make changes, as long as they didn’t impact the airworthiness.

FM: Which of your homebuilt aircraft was the most challenging to build and why? What’s your favorite to fly?

KP: The SX300, by far. It’s a very complex airplane. It goes fast, it’s got a high wing and the gear retracts. Because it goes fast, it’s more rigid [and] it takes more work. And the way Ed [Swearingen] designed it. Ed’s a good designer, but he didn’t have the genius of Steve Wittman or Van. They build things simple. If you can do something with one piece where somebody else takes 10 to do it; like the landing gear [on a Van’s RV], there is nothing there but apiece of rod. The average homebuilder wouldn’t want to get into an SX300. The SX300 is my favorite [to fly]. It makes me feel like a fighter pilot. It goes fast, [and takes] very little effort to fly, cruis[ing] at about 265 knots.

FM: As a lifetime EAA member since 1959 and the former president of one of the largest EAA chapters (No. 288), what is the secret behind your chapter’s success?

KP: When I first got here [Spruce Creek] in 1985, I joined the chapter. They were having their meetings at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in one of their academic rooms. It was only 15 to 20 people. And then we had meetings out here, hangar tours. We had twice as many people at the hangar tours as we’d have at the meetings. The chapter has 245 paid members and 425 on its roster.

FM: You’ve lived in Spruce Creek in Florida since 1985. What does the fly-in community mean to you?

KP: It’s kind of like heaven. They say when you die here, it’s a lateral move. If you’re an airport bum like I am, I just enjoy airplanes, I enjoy the people, I enjoy helping people, and it’s good flying.

• READ MORE: Paying It Forward

Quick 6

Who is the one person living or dead that you would most like to fly with?

Bob Hoover

If you could fly any aircraft that you have not yet flown, what would that be?

The F-22. It lives in a world of its own. It flies supersonic in military power.

What is one airport you love to fly into?

Umatilla Municipal Airport (X23). It’s a great bunch of people, and they have three airport cars so you can drive to the restaurants.

What do you believe has been aviation’s biggest breakthrough event or innovation?

The jet engine.

If you could build another airplane, what would it be?

Vans RV-15, but it’s not on the market yet. When not flying, I’d rather be…Building an airplane.

This article first appeared in the July 2023/Issue 933 print edition of FLYING.

The post In Depth with an ‘Airport Kid’ appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

But countering the success of the company’s designs and their unprecedented popularity were challenges compounded by the COVID pandemic, a failure by a key supplier and missteps of its own. Monday’s Chapter 11 filing gives some clues to the situation Van’s faces that pushed the company into a form of bankruptcy that most often precedes a reorganization and recovery. (Van’s is not liquidating. Chapter 11 is designed to give a company some relief from liabilities and enable a reorganization into a sustainable business.)

In the Chapter 11 declaration is this summary: “Until recently Van’s operated successfully without bank loans or other lines of credit, relying on customer deposits and earnings for its working capital.” But then Van’s faced “a combination of unforeseen, significant events occurring over a relatively short period of time increased Debtor’s [Van’s Aircraft’s] costs, doubled its normal inventory levels, slowed deliveries, and strained Debtor’s cash flow to the breaking point.” Support from founder Dick VanGrunsven since September has kept the company afloat.

• READ MORE: Van’s Aircraft Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection

One could argue that Van’s trouble started with an issue regarding quickbuild kits. The offshore constructor failed to adequately corrosion-proof parts of the assembly, which led Van’s to a time-consuming side project to understand the nature of the problem and its scope, and construct a remedy. The issue is described in the declaration as a “multi-million-dollar setback” for Van’s. Moreover, it contributed to a growing backlog in ordered kits and extended delivery times for customers.

At the same time, there was unprecedented demand for kits during the early stages of COVID. (In fact, the entire homebuilt industry witnessed a surge in popularity, with all major kit manufacturers reporting greatly increased sales in 2020 and 2021.) For Van’s, kit sales rose from 1594 during 2019 (already a very good number for the company) to 2508 in 2020 and 3982 in 2021. According to the filing, revenue actually decreased from $31.5 million in 2019 to $31.1 million in 2020, despite a 1000-unit increase in orders. Van’s didn’t get the bulk of the kit payment until shipment. In 2021, however, the big increases in order began to show up in revenue, increasing to $37.6 million in 2021 and $52.6 million in 2022. Net income, as described in the declaration, was $2.6 million in 2019, $3 million in 2020, but dropped to $2.1 million in 2021 as investments to increase capacity began to appear in the financials. In 2022, Van’s net income turned red, with a loss of $3.3 million; it lost $1 million through the end of August this year against revenues of $43 million.

It’s important to understand that Van’s was already operating at or near capacity in 2019. Along with technical changes to the kits over time that placed more work at the factory (steps the builder would not have to perform, an expectation in the modern kit-aircraft world), Van’s found itself with greatly increased demand and set about finding ways to meet it.

Because the vast majority of the company’s kit parts are known as “pre-punched” parts and the machines that do the punching formed the production roadblock, Van’s looked for ways to increase capacity by outsourcing some of this step. One way was to have the parts normally punched instead have their holes cut by a laser. This is a common method for automating manufacture of sheet metal parts, along with CNC routers, punches and water-jet cutting. In fact, Van’s had been using laser cutting for some parts and then elected to laser-cut more of them.

Builders began to notice that some laser-cut parts would crack during the dimpling process—where the metal is formed for the purpose of installing flush rivets—and that eventually started Van’s engineering department down the path of discovering why this was happening. Many builders felt that Van’s was slow to acknowledge the problem and that by the time it did, there was a significant quantity of laser-cut parts out in the world. Van’s turned its full attention to the problem and identified the parts in question—more recently, they were able to far more accurately predict which specific airplane kits were likely to have the suspect parts. Latest estimates are that some 1800 kits are affected.

These issues would challenge many companies but they were compounded by other events, as the declaration shows. “Van’s order file doubled in the 2020 and 2021 period. At the same time, supply chain issues, and supplier shutdowns slowed productions of key components, increasing back orders and delaying order completions, requiring Debtor to hire and train more staff. Wages increased, and shipping costs rose more than four-fold during this period. Stated simply, without realizing it, Debtor was selling a high volume of aircraft kits below its cost. The combination of all these factors overstressed Van’s workforce, operating support systems and management skills resulting in a series of one-off but very costly errors.” The declaration also notes that, “Some of its senior employees with deep familiarity with both office and manufacturing process workings chose to retire during COVID.”

The picture painted is of a company overwhelmed by overlapping challenges, started by the primer issue with quickbuild kits and followed closely by a global pandemic that simultaneously cut into its manufacturing capacity, dramatically increased costs and, perhaps ironically, also greatly boosted demand. That in the effort to catch up with demand the company also lost track of internal costs and failed to increase kit prices (as one remedy) is one inescapable takeaway from the factual descriptions in the Chapter 11 declaration—and a good indication of the remedies needed to define its path forward.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on KITPLANES.

The post Van’s Bankruptcy: How Did It Get Here? appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Van’s current challenges result from “a combination of significant events over a relatively short period of time [that have] increased costs, doubled normal inventory levels, slowed deliveries, and strained our cash flow to the breaking point,” the company says. It cites increases in manufacturing still evident from the COVID slowdown, an issue with primer used by a subcontractor in quickbuild components and the most recent problems with laser-cut parts, which were a response to help increase production capacity at a time when Van’s was experiencing historically high demand. Builders discovered that the laser-cut parts tended to crack during the dimpling process. “Although our testing proved that laser-cut parts are functionally equivalent to punched parts, belief among many builders is that they are unsuitable for use,” the company says. “This has resulted in an unmanageable number of requests to replace laser-cut parts and cancel orders. More than 1800 customers are currently affected by this issue, some of whom have received more than one kit.”

As part of the announcement, Van’s said that “starting today through mid-November, Van’s will be focused on assessing the internal changes necessary to address these issues. This means some of the typical day-to-day operations at Van’s will be affected while our team develops plans to correct the problem.”

Those changes include streamlining the company’s efforts to focus on replacing laser-cut parts for existing builders and reassessing its manufacturing processes. “During this period, shipments will be delayed, kit orders will not be processed, and refunds will not be issued,” the company says. “We will be unable to conduct factory tours and demo flights. We are adjusting our daily operating hours. Starting Monday, October 30th we will be open from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Pacific Time each business day. Our builder technical support hours will shift to 8:00 to 9:30 a.m. and 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. each business day. This is a permanent change.”

In the background, Van’s has “assembled a small team of experienced advisors to assist us” from Hamstreet & Associates, a Portland, Oregon-based firm that “leads troubled companies through financial and operational crises, and delivers results.” That team includes interim CEO, Mikael Via, who had served Glasair Aviation in the early 2000s and developed the Two Weeks to Taxi builder-assist program. Hamstreet is expected to provide financial expertise as well as other interim officers to help Van’s move forward.

Builders and potential Van’s customers are likely to wonder about pricing and availability in the future. “Van’s Aircraft faces several challenges that require us to take time between now and mid-November to perform an internal assessment of our inventory, production, and shipping capabilities as well as overall operating efficiencies,” Van’s says. “During this time, we will be evaluating all reasonable means of satisfying builder concerns regarding laser-cut parts. At the same time, we will be reviewing the costing of our parts and kits.”

Van’s is expected to issue updates via its website in the near future.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on KITPLANES.

The post Van’s Aircraft Announces Recovery Plan appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Lancair was a pioneer in composite construction and led the mainstreaming of the homebuilt movement through the latter part of the last century. It developed 14 designs and thousands of the speedy singles are flying all over the world. Founder Lance Niebauer sold the kit business in 2003 to build the certified Columbia line of aircraft, which was eventually bought by Cessna and ultimately dropped. Lancair become Evolution Aircraft in 2016 to concentrate on the pressurized turboprop model. It sold off older kit designs, and that business was purchased by JetEXE from Mark and Conrad Huffstatter, of Uvalde, Texas, who had hoped to revive the kit production but were concentrating on fleet support in recent years.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on AVweb.com.

The post JetEXE Buys Lancair, Plans Sustainable Designs appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The Aerosport Rail is a tiny, multiengine aircraft and a rather interesting contradiction. On one hand, its designers whittled away at it until every last extraneous element of the aircraft, including a windscreen and enclosed fuselage, was omitted. On the other hand, they introduced complexity and parallel systems by integrating a second engine. 

Browsing through their circa-1970 marketing material, a backstory adds some context. Formed by a magazine editor and aeronautical engineer, the company prioritized safety, ease of assembly, low cost, and fun flying characteristics. And despite the outwardly primitive appearance, the unconventional design lends itself to these qualities.

The T-tail, for example, was chosen to place it out of the prop wash and eliminate buffet, which may have been a concern with a minimalist empennage that was perhaps more likely to bend and flex than other designs. The pusher engine configuration was selected to reduce noise and buffeting around the pilot, and having two engines offered a level of redundancy that made an engine failure a nuisance rather than a catastrophe. And the 2-cylinder, two-stroke, reengineered snowmobile engines were placed close together to minimize any asymmetric thrust resulting from an engine failure.

The designers apparently succeeded in all respects—and in the last one in particular. During initial testing, a pilot reportedly performed a takeoff with the left engine shut down and its propeller windmilling. Additionally, rudder effectiveness was reportedly maintained during single-engine flight all the way down to the 45 mph stall speed.

With both engines operating, performance was spritely. Marketing material promised a takeoff run of 230 feet, with the ability to clear a 50-foot obstacle in 1,230 feet. Cruise speed at 85 percent power and 2,000 feet was said to be 66 mph while burning just under seven gallons per hour total. Top speed was listed as 90 mph, the modest speed number reflecting the substantial parasite drag inherent in the entirely open design. Indeed, at lower speeds such as climbout, the Rail returned decent performance, with the 900 fpm climb rate easily exceeding that of, for example, a Cessna 150.

Considering the 440-pound Rail’s 100-mile range, 220-pound full-fuel payload, and complete lack of any design features related to comfort or ergonomics, this was clearly an airplane optimized for local flights. But for warm summer evenings bimbling around down low over hayfields and picturesque lakes, the peace of mind provided by the unique twin-engine configuration and completely unobstructed visibility would have made for a uniquely enjoyable experience. 

Unfortunately, the Rail was not a commercial success. In addition to the company prototype shown here, FAA records indicate a Rail registered as N44HW was completed in 1976. An article in Sport Aviation mentions it had accumulated more than 14 hours by June of that year, but it was deregistered only four years later. Another Rail, registered as a “Rail II” and wearing the registration N27T, was completed in 1975, but it’s unclear whether it was ever flown.

Whether the lack of success was the result of a technical obstacle not mentioned in Aerosport’s marketing material or whether the Rail simply succumbed to the business challenges that have claimed so many other designs over the years is unclear. Whatever the reason, the aircraft depicted in every photo of the type seems to have disappeared entirely, and its registration was canceled in 1976, six years after its first flight. 

Ultimately, it’s a sad and all-too-common end to an interesting chapter of aircraft design. A floatplane version was in the works, and had that come to fruition, the resulting machine would have amounted to a mini-AirCam, offering similar levels of fun and redundancy at a far lower price. Even comparing landplanes, the Rail, at $2,495 for the complete kit including engines, cost only 20 percent of a new Cessna 150. 

Though the Rail was unconventional to the point of bordering on crazy, and though it was, like many other private aircraft designs, a commercial failure, it looked to offer more fun per dollar than most other types of the era. Perhaps one day it will be resurrected. At the very least, it could enable aspiring professional pilots to build their multiengine time more affordably than ever.

The post The Unconventional, 440-Pound Aerosport Rail appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Sonex Aircraft has presented its first high-wing design, expanding its range with a new single-engine, piston-powered configuration.

The company debuted the design on its website on Tuesday. Flying spoke with Sonex Aerospace CEO Mark Schaible about the news.

“We’ve been working hard to finish the two-seat jet—it’s a natural evolution for us, with niche demand,” said Schaible. “Now we’re going into a bigger market with the high-wing design,” and planning to deliver it with a quick-build kit.

The high-wing design has been Schaible’s “pet project” for about five years.

“We’ve known for a long time what it’s going to look like. And we have 20-plus years of bringing aircraft to market,” he said.

The company is getting a pretty strong signal in terms of demand on its current product line, particularly with the quick-build kits it offers for all models. In fact, Sonex is aggressively looking for folks to join its workforce, particularly in the shop.

The high-wing design will accommodate most of the engines offered now. Schaible says it’s possible that the normally aspirated AeroVee won’t provide enough climb performance, but that remains to be seen in testing.

Sonex also announced that it will provide the featured aircraft—a Waiex B—for EAA AirVenture 2022′s “One Week Wonder” program, in which hundreds of volunteers cooperate to complete an airframe within the week of the show.

The post Sonex Presents Its First High-Wing Design appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Let’s get this straight from the beginning: The Van’s Aircraft RV-14A is not an off-the-shelf airplane. Every one of them out in the wild is custom-built.

Even its recommended 210 hp Lycoming Thunderbolt XIO-390 engine is hand-assembled, polished and ported by a select team of Lycoming employees. And the “A” denotes a nosewheel version, with the tailwheel model being the RV-14.

Every airplane that has ever been graced by the Van’s moniker is essentially a one-off, again by design.

These aircraft are delivered to buyers as sophisticated kits with an elaborate set of detailed assembly instructions—generally, five shipments of aluminum and fiberglass composite parts, pre-drilled, pre-welded and mostly pre-formed, and all machined to exacting standards by CNC machines. Since 1973, Aurora, Oregon-based Van’s has delivered more than 18,000 complete kits, beginning with the RV-3. Of all the kit aircraft delivered, there are more than 10,000 Van’s aircraft flying, more than any other aircraft kit manufacturer.

Why go with a kit aircraft if you are looking to own a general aviation airplane? Ask yourself: Are you looking for the adventure of building an aircraft? Not feeling rushed? Need an aircraft you can afford? Many kit buyers look purely at the economics of building and owning an amateur-built aircraft. They need to understand that you can only take full advantage of the economic advantages if you build the airplane yourself. Why?

FAA rules state that homebuilders must construct a minimum of 51 percent of the aircraft. Those who do can apply for and receive the Holy Grail of homebuilding, a repairman’s certificate entitling them to perform all the necessary maintenance on their own machine. Any aircraft owners who have paid labor costs for an annual inspection know the value of that certificate.

A New Kind of Kit

Putting together a modern homebuilt kit airplane such as the RV-14A is not a quixotic journey for your average, everyday pilot. It’s not Peter Garrison planning and then hand-fabricating every part of his Melmoth fliers. Richard VanGrunsven, founder and chief designer of Van’s Aircraft, notes the RV-14A takes roughly 1,000 to 3,000 labor-hours to build. Most humans translate that into one to five years of construction.

Who are the successful RV-14A builder-pilots in 2020? A lot of different people, it turns out. They include Punta Gorda, Florida-based retired educator Dr. Allan Stern, who sees himself as more builder than pilot, having tackled and completed an RV-6A, RV-8 and RV-12 before his RV-14A.

“It took me six years to build the RV-6A, which really had a lot of detail work left for the builder,” remembers Stern, who fully admits the build was also interrupted by travel. “I certainly wasn’t at it every day,” he continues. The RV-8 build went faster, and he held onto the airplane for about 10 years, enjoying its maneuverability and tandem seating configuration. He bought the light-sport RV-12 Experimental-LSA kit when he thought he might lose his FAA medical; it was another two-year build. And when Basic Med came in? He decided to go for a roomier airplane with the ability to fly longer cross-country legs than the RV-12.

“This [RV-14A] was the fastest build time, just 15 months, because I was retired,” Stern explains. “I came out to the airport at least five or six days a week to work on the project.”

After dedicating all that concentrated time to building, Stern couldn’t fly his project right after a designated airworthiness representative (DAR) certified it. He needed an extensive flight review before he was ready to do the test flying. In his case, the delay was minimal. He’s now chewing through the 40-hour test-flight time, and discovering, troubleshooting and eliminating glitches with each flight.

Semi-retired entrepreneur Alvin Fox, also of Florida, calls himself more pilot than builder. Fox spent much of his career flying Part 91 business and Part 135 charter, and concluded flying Part 121 for an airline—flying all sorts of business owners, employees and celebrities cross-country in the rarefied air of the flight levels. He owned a 2003 Cirrus SR22 long enough to go through a parachute repacking (mandatory every 10 years) and realized, upon doing the math, that his $100 hamburger outings were really costing him more like $300.

“That’s when I started looking at experimental, amateur-built airplanes,” he says. “I had a few friends who were working on composite airplanes, and my time with them showed me that experimental airplanes could really perform comparably to that Cirrus I had.” Fox stands 6 feet, 4 inches, so whatever he built had to have room. “I do love speed, but I also wanted an airplane I could comfortably meander up and down the coastline for 45 minutes and go real slow, sightseeing at an affordable operating cost.”

He saw the Van’s Aircraft booth at an airshow and decided to see what the airplanes were all about. The RV-6 and RV-7 were just too small, he remembers. “I had already thought about maybe doing a Lancair Legacy or something of that capacity, then I got to looking at the RV-14A. It was being coined as a clean-sheet designed for two 6-foot-4, 200-pound guys or gals, and it was very new. At that point, they didn’t have the entire kit complete. But the performance looked like it was on par with what I was after, and all with a four-cylinder engine, meaning the economy would be there too.”

The RV-14A’s semi-monocoque aluminum airframe is held together with rivets, just like its big sister, the -10. A rugged roll bar that spans the cockpit just behind the seats protects the pilot and passenger. The large, forward-tip-up canopy relies on a hinge that allows it to open wide for stand-up entry and loading baggage into the airplane’s 12-cubic-foot baggage area. (There’s no external baggage door.) That canopy also allows the aircraft’s maintainer complete access to the back side of the instrument panel and avionics connections, even while standing next to the airplane. The RV-14A is designed for the wide, tall, 200-pound individuals that are more realistic than the FAA’s 170-pound standard occupant used by certified aircraft.

Whenever possible, Van’s likes to keep its airplane designs simple, making the kits so buildable. The RV-14A can just about keep up with its larger sibling, the RV-10, despite the differences in horsepower—the RV-10 is pulled along by a 260 hp IO-540 Lycoming. The differences in gross weight—2,800 pounds max for the -10 versus 2,050 pounds max for the -14A—play a large part in the two-place airplane’s ability to keep up with its four-seat big sister.

Sharing the same wing planform, slotted flaps, and tapered steel-leaf-spring landing gear means the airplanes handle similarly, both in the air and throughout ground phases. The RV-14 models, however, appeal to those who might like a tailwheel configuration or the opportunity to fly some light aerobatics, with +6/-3 G stress tolerance built in when flown at the aerobatic gross weight of 1,900 pounds.

First Flight

Fox was patient, and by March 2017, he was pulling the first rivets on his kit. A little more than three years later, the DAR inspected the completed airplane and found no discrepancies. Just three days later, it flew.

Fox credits moving to an airport community and joining the local EAA Chapter 565 with his success. “Early on, I had EAA tech counselors Vic Babyak and Barry Marz give me great advice on pitfalls to avoid—and terrific technical expertise connecting and configuring the Garmin electronics,” he says. He installed dual Garmin 3X touchscreens with three-axis autopilot capability and G5 backup instrumentation to create an excellent IFR cruising machine. And that it is.

After checking out as a “qualified pilot” as per FAA rules, I flew with Fox to see how those avionics worked. On climb-out, Fox selected the GPS approach for Runway 14 at La Belle Municipal Airport (X14), engaged the autopilot, and then managed his airspeed with throttle by hand. The airplane leveled at the selected altitude and smoothly began the approach. Fox worked the throttle as the airplane flew both the vertical and horizontal profile, and the 3X screens displayed the flight-path marker flying through the boxes. At the decision height, Fox brought the throttle forward and hit his “TO-GA” button, precisely located fingertip distance from the throttle, initiating the missed approach. The airplane then flew the missed approach as prescribed and entered the holding pattern at the designated fix, waiting for new direction.

The excellence of his avionics configuration would mean little for long-distance travel if the aircraft’s interior wasn’t comfortable enough to sit in for hours. Fox included custom-stitched leather seats from Classic Aero, seat heaters, and matching aerobatic five-point harnesses. The glint of the orange on his SteinAir-designed and -built panel matches the sparkly atomic orange on his custom Thunderbolt XIO-390 210 hp four-cylinder piston engine with roller camshaft technology, complete with E-Mag’s electronic ignition. Scheme Designers is crafting the paint scheme, but Fox preferred to build and test-fly first, then paint.

The EAA’s Flight Test Manual protocol has been Fox’s guiding light through his 40-hour test-flight regime. The manual, first released in 2018, provides guidance based on AC 90-116 for Phase 1 testing of experimental aircraft, including 18 flight-test cards that cover testing of the first taxi, takeoff and landing, climb speeds, stalling characteristics, and everything in between. Fox applied for and received approval to fly with two pilots through his DAR (two-pilot operations must be specified in the flight-test limitations approved by the DAR).

“As an ATP career pilot, I know how valuable that second pilot can be. There’s no better safety margin than having a crew that is equally trained and on the same page,” he says. Flights are carefully choreographed and coordinated through a preflight briefing, followed by extensive data recording. Every mission is followed by an extensive debrief.

“I’m just so happy the experimental world exists,” Fox says. He’s received his repairman’s certificate for the airplane, and looks forward to the many years ahead of flying it on long cross-countries with his wife and son. “Honestly, this has been a very doable project—you just need a little bit of planning, and of course, you’ve got to give it the time,” he says.

So, how do you get in line for an RV-14A of your own? Van’s Aircraft’s Oregon plant offers test flights to interested individuals. Though the airplane can and has been built in basements and garages, a dedicated hangar with a prescribed minimum of tooling is recommended. There are more than a dozen builder-assist centers listed on vansairforce.net for those who are willing to invest in having experts help them assemble their aircraft, and who are loath to purchase the tools required for one aircraft’s assembly. DARs can tell quickly if you didn’t actually contribute the lion’s share of sweat equity to your build.

Not quite ready to build, but still interested in the perks of owning an experimental amateur-built aircraft? There’s a used aircraft market for amateur-built kit airplanes, but caveat emptor. Don’t let anyone sell you a kit airplane represented as being factory-built. There are no Van’s Aircraft sanctioned factories for building up the company’s kits. If you want a factory-built Part 23-certified airplane, you need to look elsewhere.

You’ll discover firsthand if you do build your RV-14A how wonderfully fulfilling it is to fly an airplane you know intimately. Every kit builder is astonished on that first flight, and that grin they sport when they pop open the canopy at the end of a successful test run? It’s for real.

And How Does It Fly?

Very fine, indeed!

Bradenton, Florida-based Dennis Sutton was ready to get back into aviation, and retired physician M. Turner Billingsley had a newly minted, hand-built RV-14A for sale. It was a match, and Billingsley delivered N14VB to Sutton on a balmy spring day. There was only one catch: Sutton had not logged a flight in 20 years.

Enter Brett Williamson. A late bloomer in aviation, Williamson helped with a teen-built RV-12 that he owns a part of and learned to fly—and he decided to become a professional pilot.

“This specimen flies perfectly!” Williamson said when asked about the quality of Billingsley’s build. It is a good thing too, since Williamson has taken on not just an extensive flight review for Sutton, but also primary flight training for Sutton’s son, Jody, in the airplane. “Even with the relatively complex Garmin 3X touchscreen avionics and a constant speed propeller, the RV-14A’s efficiency and honest flying make it a good trainer,” Williamson says.

I flew N14VB with Williamson out of Sarasota, Florida’s airport (KSRQ) on a breezy afternoon and verified his claims. With two souls on board and full fuel, we were near gross weight for the aircraft (2,050 pounds). Using takeoff flaps, ground roll was about 250 to 300 feet. The airplane required only a slight pull to bring the nosewheel up; liftoff with the flaps was around 55 kias, and climb-out at 88 kias and full power approached 1,400 fpm (flaps up). Cruise climb is at 120 kias, 2,500 rpm and 25 inches manifold pressure, and produced a 1,000 to 1,200 fpm climb.

At altitude, I performed steep turns, which showed off the airplane’s excellent roll rate for a cross-country cruiser, feeling much lighter than the pull required for my RV-10, which has the same, slightly longer wing. The airplane stalled clean at 61 kias, and with full flaps at 53 kias. Both stalls broke with gentle buffeting, straight ahead. The flap application elicited a noted nose-down moment, which was easily correctable with the electric pitch trim, a hat switch on the stick. Again, the RV-10 behaves the same way.

Landing into a 15-knot headwind with full flaps and idle power at flare produced a measly 300-foot rollout—making the turn off was easy with minimal braking. This airplane could win spot-landing contests for the pilot.

This story appeared in the September 2020 issue of Flying Magazine

The post We Fly: RV-14A Full Performance appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

My friend Longbridge has been working for years—these things always take far longer than you think they will—on a Lancair 320 with a lot of airframe mods, the most conspicuous of which are a double-slotted Fowler flap, enlarged empennage surfaces, and leading-edge cuffs on the outer panels of the wings. And then there are the powerplant things—some engine and cooling mods, electronic ignition and so on.

He finally got it finished a few months ago. Then he hired another pilot to do the first flights.

I was surprised. First of all, Longbridge is an experienced pilot himself. He has modified and tested a series of airplanes, all of which he got to go faster and stall slower. So it’s not as if he were a stranger to flight testing. But, to my mind at least, there was the jus primae noctis aspect of the thing. Don’t you want to be the first?

He said three things had entered into his decision. He had no stick time to speak of in Lancairs, the airplane was heavily modified, and he had not flown in the past 15 months.

This got me thinking about first flights.

I did the first flights in both of my homebuilts, which were original designs and therefore of unknown quality. I never even gave a thought to having someone else do them. I suppose the same rashness that made me think I could create an airplane made me imagine I was equal to whatever surprises it might spring on me. (A seven-minute video of the first flight of my second airplane can be found on my YouTube channel—my first upload. It’s rather boring but gets livelier at the end. This wasn’t strictly a first flight, though; I had made three long hops on what is now the Mojave Air and Space Port’s 10,000-foot runway the day before.)

I know that a disproportionate number of accidents involving amateur-built airplanes occur on first flights or within the first few hours of testing, and that not everyone is going to be as lucky as I was. In an excellent article on this subject in Kitplanes magazine, Ron Wanttaja reported that during a 10-year period in which more than 10,000 new homebuilts took to the air, about one in 130 first flights ended in a reportable accident or incident. He noted that while this rate is similar to the annual rate for all homebuilts, it represents a single hour of flying rather than a whole year. (He might have added that the annual rate would be lower if the first-flight mishaps were omitted from the denominator.)

The causes of first-flight mishaps break down very roughly into three main categories: builder error, powerplant problems and, finally, our old nemesis pilot error. A catchall fourth category, “other,” accounts for about a tenth of mishaps.

Builder errors can be quite serious and particularly difficult to cope with in flight. Elevators or ailerons rigged backward are almost always fatal—trim not so often, but still a hazard. Missing fasteners, incorrect fastener types (hardware store bolts instead of aircraft ones, for instance), faulty adhesive bonding, loose nuts, missing cotter keys or safety wire—any of these can be hard to spot and can result in a structural failure or loss of control.

The risk of assembly error increases when, as is usually the case, an airplane has been built at home, disassembled, trailered to the airport and reassembled there. I flew my first airplane for 50 hours before I noticed that a bolt connecting a pushrod to a bell crank in the aileron linkage had no nut on it at all. Luckily, gravity had kept it in place.

Read More from Peter Garrison: Technicalities

Most such problems can be prevented by careful preflight inspection using multiple sets of eyes. Just as authors are bad proofreaders of their own galleys, builders are bad inspectors of their own airplanes; other experienced builders or A&Ps should be involved—the more nitpicking and spiteful, the better.

Powerplant issues often involve fuel- system faults and cooling problems. An engine that rapidly overheats forces the pilot to return to land, in a heightened state of anxiety, before having gotten much of a feeling for the airplane. Fuel-feed problems can usually be detected by high-power runs on the ground; the tail should be tied down in order to hold the airplane in a climbing attitude. Some, however, are caused by construction debris in fuel tanks, and these may not turn up until a second or third flight. Fine sanding dust and fibers adhering to the walls of a tank may elude a visual inspection. There have been many instances of loose connections in fuel systems, perhaps because fuel-system plumbing is often assembled and dismantled several times during the course of construction.

Pilot error takes the usual forms: getting too slow in the pattern, overcontrol, loss of directional control during takeoff or landing, ground loops, and so on. A low-altitude stall is the mistake most likely to cause grave harm.

Whether a first flight should be a runway hop or an up-and-away flight is controversial. Neither method is guaranteed. As innocuous as a runway hop seems, it can go wrong. Engines and propellers surge, elevators turn out to be more sensitive than expected (or pilots less sensitive), and the airplane gets too high to get back down within what’s left of the runway. On the other hand, a well-controlled runway hop, just a couple of feet above the ground, gives the pilot a chance to detect nose or tail heaviness, misrig or mistrim, engine feel, and braking effectiveness. The benefits outweigh the risks, in my opinion, but I would take the trouble to find a reasonably long runway, even if it meant some inconvenience.

It’s a mistake to invite friends and family to witness a first flight. The pressure to hurry, to satisfy expectations, to proceed even when feeling misgivings is multiplied by each set of eager eyes. Even factories perform a secret first flight before the public one. It’s better to have a few knowledgeable people in attendance—not as cheerleaders, but as careful observers and critics.

It used to be that only the pilot was allowed to be aboard during the testing phase of a homebuilt airplane’s life. A few years ago, the FAA—reasoning that some mishaps might be prevented if a second pilot, presumably more competent than the builder, were present—has changed that rule. If a more competent pilot is available, you might ask, why not just have the more competent pilot do the first flight? Because it’s a learning experience for the owner.

And this brings us back to my friend Longbridge and his Lancair 320. He had owned and modified an MFI-9 and an RV-7A earlier, so he knows about light stick forces. (He also had a Cardinal, which he cleaned up considerably, but it probably didn’t teach him much that applies to a Lancair.) His engine had already flown 130 hours, so there were no break-in requirements. His aerodynamic modifications were aimed to make the airplane more docile, not less. So why not just go ahead and fly it?

An excess of caution, I guess. Maybe when you’ve been married a couple of times already, the right to be the first doesn’t seem so important any more.

This story appeared in the November 2020, Buyers Guide issue of Flying Magazine

The post Maiden Flights in Homebuilt Aircraft appeared first on FLYING Magazine.