rv7boy

rv7boy

Forum Peruser
I just found this link.

http://www.amtonline.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=4241

After reading the article, the title seems a little misleading in that "Pilots select their instruments, avionics, engine and propeller, and then choose their own paint scheme after completion of the program." I guess taxiing means pushing it out of the hangar on it's wheels, but HEY, that's pretty impressive even though they are obviously starting with an emp kit and Quick Build Wing and Fuselage kits from Van's. Kinda blows the door off the idea of recreation and education. I must be an old fogey; all these young whipper-snappers want instant this and instant that!

Anybody have any experience with this or know about it? This is the first I've heard of it.

Don
 
Last edited:
Prices....

rv7boy said:
I just found this link.

http://www.amtonline.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=4241

After reading the article, the title seems a little misleading in that "Pilots select their instruments, avionics, engine and propeller, and then choose their own paint scheme after completion of the program." I guess taxiing means pushing it out of the hangar on it's wheels, but HEY, that's pretty impressive even though they are obviously starting with an emp kit and Quick Build Wing and Fuselage kits from Van's. Kinda blows the door off the idea of recreation and education. I must be an old fogey; all these young whipper-snappers want instant this and instant that!

Anybody have any experience with this or know about it? This is the first I've heard of it.

Don
Click to expand...

Interesting pricing deltas....

RV7 basic......$140,000
RV10 basic....$190,000

I bet they get a lot more RV10s built..... :)
 
no need to push, the engine is in

After the two weeks the aircraft not painted but otherwise finished. Kitplanes featured a series about the sportsman-program some time ago, there also was a podcast on aero-news some longer time ago.
Not for everybody, but it?s quite impressive what is possible.

Kind regards,
Mario (about to order the RV-7 standard kit)
 
Wow...priced out it's $151457 for a VFR, unpainted -7A. That's more that TWICE what mine cost to build with a very similar equipment list. Why in the world would people use this program to "build" a -7/-7A when there are huge numbers of almost completed airplanes out there or already flying airplanes available?

Apparently TWTT has their own equipment list and standard panel layout, so it's not like you can do a lot of customization, especially in two weeks.

My almost finished, unpainted and ready to taxi -7A is for sale today if someone wants to give me $150K for it.
 
High price and not much customization ... Not for me. I would be interested in a longer build period for less $ and with the possibility of more customization. I just don't think that the RV series lend themselves to a two week assembly time.... I can maybe see 4-6 weeks if you had the emp kit pre-built, had the panel pre-built by a shop (SteinAir etc) had all components lined up (engine, prop, FWF components, interior, etc), had good, experienced assistance and absolutely jammed on building (10 hr days, 6 to 7 day/wk). Having other components pre-fabed would certainly help (e.g., wiring harnesses).

I think you're paying them a LOT to have have experience, help, tools, do research and pre-order components. As someone suggests, I suspect they will get more -10 orders.

TODR
 
Is this possible?

Do the math: assuming these superbuilders do not eat or sleep, there are 14x24 is 336 hours in two weeks time. Given the 51% rule it will take about 650 hours to build this plane :eek: If they DO eat and sleep a little it will take about 500 building hours. My deepest respect if you can build an RV7 in this time.
Besides this: the whole purpose of learning, making decicions, creating, communicating with other idiots and having fun goes down the drain.
But then again: this is probably the same YOU veteran builders said when WE started building pre-punched quickbuilt kits ;)
 
Is this possible? Seems to be.

The 51% rule is not based strictly on pounding 51% of the rivets or spending 51% of the time building, it's a little more nebulous than that.

These super-quick-build shops do appear to comply with the letter of the law, if not the spirit of the law.
 
I only wonder how do they manage to get that cabin top on the -10 look like anything deserving to be a part of your pride and joy in 2 weeks? even if they work in 3 shifts! -10 builders, of course, know what I'm referring to :)
 
 
"Operations"

Renee... as Jeff said, it's not 51% of the hours...

These parts don't count....

*Engine
*Propellers & Accessories
*Avionics & Instruments
*Interior Items
*Hardware
*Landing Gear
*Exterior Finish and related items

....and the rest is counted as % of "operations" that you do the major portion of...

This link to one of the "Builders Assist" outfits explains it a bit better...

http://www.aoaircrafters.com/build_assist.asp

Even if they creatively get around the "operations" count, it's hard for me to see how the so-called builder deserves a Repairman's Certificate with only 80-100 hrs. of work...

AC 20-139 give the full list of operations, and other others can be added... I wonder if they use this to "enhance" the builder's percentage... :)

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/3209fec2139ccb3f862569af006ab9e9/$FILE/AC20-139.pdf

gil in Tucson
 
N401RH said:
If it is anything like their very successful Two Weeks to Taxi Sportsman program, and I am sure it will be, you will literally buckle your seatbelt and taxi the plane on the last day with all of the avionics working and the interior finished to a remarkable standard.
Click to expand...
Isn't the Sportsman a much more pre-fabed kit anyway? The tube-frame is complete with the composite skin on it, wings are completely done ... the Sportsman sounds like a lot less work than even a QB.

N401RH said:
Anybody want to buy a RV-4 so I can be the first one to sign up? If I could only decide which one to build?..
Click to expand...
Ah - now there's an idea! Two weeks to taxi for a -4? Sign me up! :D
 
Two weeks to taxi for RVs

I read on Aero-News (http://www.aero-news.net/ ) that 2 weeks to taxi is now available for RVs too!

Now, I'm aware many of you are building purists, but for lots of folks (with more money than is good for them) this might be a really great deal. You can get professional help to finish one of Van's speed machines in only 2 weeks!

If I had the bucks, I would go for an RV-7 or -10 in two weeks, not the 2 years it takes dedicated builders, or worse yet the decades it can take the undedicated builders. I'm helping a friend with his -9A right now and I don't know that I have the patience (and I know I don't have the floor space) for such a large project.

Even if you don't want to use it yourself, you have to admit it's a nice choice for those that will, and it helps get more RVs flying, which we all like to see.

Jeff
 
This just seems

incredible! How can you build the canopy frame, measure, cut, finish the canopy, cowling, leg and wheel fairings plus all fiberglass work alone in two weeks, much less build the rest of the airplane! For that matter, the rest of the airplane has to be finished before you can START any of these fiberglass projects (that all require cure time).
 
hecilopter said:
incredible! How can you build the canopy frame, measure, cut, finish the canopy, cowling, leg and wheel fairings plus all fiberglass work alone in two weeks, much less build the rest of the airplane! For that matter, the rest of the airplane has to be finished before you can START any of these fiberglass projects (that all require cure time).
Click to expand...
The answer is that the builder isn't building it by himself. Someone else is going to be building much of those parts. Especially the complicated ones.

The "51%" rule does not say that the builder has to build 51% of every rib, skin, bulkhead, etc. or even that the builder has to build 51% of the overall airplane. The rules stipulate that the builder has to have been involved with building 51% of the components that make up the airplane.

So for example if the airplane requires that 50 wing ribs be built, the builder only has to build one of those wing ribs to qualify for having built a wing rib. If he then rivets one of the skins on the wing he has qualified for having been involved with the build of that component. Putting together one seat qualifies for having built the seat. And so it goes. As long as the builder has proven that he has been involved with building at least 51% of the total of all the components for the airplane he has met the requirement.
 
I can't see why this would be popular unless you are very well off. You could buy a pre-built RV decked out for much less than this. The only advantage I see is being able to do maintenance. With the extra 60-70k spent this way it would seem to out weigh the manitenance savings.
 
Sorry. There is just no way that I would be able to say that I had even been "involved" in building anywhere near 51% of my airplane in only two weeks.
 
scard said:
Sorry. There is just no way that I would be able to say that I had even been "involved" in building anywhere near 51% of my airplane in only two weeks.
Click to expand...
Agree 1000% with Scott. The learning doesn't happen by doing one each of 51% of the tasks. The learning comes from doing some things multiple times, making mistakes and then learning how to fix them yourself, and spending countless hours trying to figure things out... true learning does not happen by having somebody standing over your shoulder to tell you how to do every one of the very few single steps that you have to do.

I'm almost never this passionate or concerned about what other builders do, but in my opinion, it's people and for-profit companies legally exploiting loopholes like this in the experimental/amateur built category that concerns me about the future of our experimental category privileges. It's just asking for greater restriction. As I understand, the EAA is apparently involved in working through this issue with the FAA right now to make sure that whatever comes out is not more onerous for those building according to the spirit of the category. Thankfully Van's as a company has not themselves endorsed or tried to capitalize on this like New Glasair has.

Just my .02.
 
Last edited:
Major portion defined

RVbySDI said:
The answer is that the builder isn't building it by himself. Someone else is going to be building much of those parts. Especially the complicated ones.

The "51%" rule does not say that the builder has to build 51% of every rib, skin, bulkhead, etc. or even that the builder has to build 51% of the overall airplane. The rules stipulate that the builder has to have been involved with building 51% of the components that make up the airplane.

So for example if the airplane requires that 50 wing ribs be built, the builder only has to build one of those wing ribs to qualify for having built a wing rib. If he then rivets one of the skins on the wing he has qualified for having been involved with the build of that component. Putting together one seat qualifies for having built the seat. And so it goes. As long as the builder has proven that he has been involved with building at least 51% of the total of all the components for the airplane he has met the requirement.
Click to expand...

Steve.. this isn't exactly what AC 20-139 says.... involved is not the correct word to use....

Link to AC 20-139

Each of the checklist "operations" must be evaluated using this criteria...

i, Major Portion. As related to a special airworthiness certificate issued for the purpose of operating an amateur-build aircraft, major portion means that when the aircraft is completed, the majority of the fabrication and assembly tasks have been performed by the amateur builder(s) who submit the application for certification.

Each operation from the AC 20-139 list is evaluated, and 51% of those "operations" must have been performed (to the major portion definition above) by the amateur builder.

And yes, "Fabricate Wing Ribs" is a task, but would not qualify for an "X" in the Amateur Builder column under your example above...

Can you read your examples above in the text of the AC linked above?

There must be some very creative DARs out there..... :)

gil A
 
1%

Blastr42 said:
I read on Aero-News (http://www.aero-news.net/ ) that 2 weeks to taxi is now available for RVs too!

Now, I'm aware many of you are building purists, but for lots of folks (with more money than is good for them) this might be a really great deal. You can get professional help to finish one of Van's speed machines in only 2 weeks!

If I had the bucks, I would go for an RV-7 or -10 in two weeks, not the 2 years it takes dedicated builders, or worse yet the decades it can take the undedicated builders. I'm helping a friend with his -9A right now and I don't know that I have the patience (and I know I don't have the floor space) for such a large project.

Even if you don't want to use it yourself, you have to admit it's a nice choice for those that will, and it helps get more RVs flying, which we all like to see.

Jeff
Click to expand...

I think for 99% of us, the school of hard lessons that are learned and the true feeling of accomplishment can't be found in two weeks. With that said, there is a market for the other 1% and pockets are wide open. :D
 
Rules....

LifeofReiley said:
I think for 99% of us, the school of hard lessons that are learned and the true feeling of accomplishment can't be found in two weeks. With that said, there is a market for the other 1% and pockets are wide open. :D
Click to expand...

Darrell ... I agree... however if that 1% with wide pockets push the rules too hard, then the subsequent rules changes will affect the other 99%.... :( ... and probably not in a positive manner...

gil A
 
51% rule

I just completed the DAR school in Oklahoma City and a number of the FAA bosses who actually write the FARs were in attendance. They are very concerned about the abuses going on among some homebuilders.

It sounded to me like they were wanting to make some examples out of some builder assist centers and non-conforming builders.

Based on what I heard from them I recommend going 'by the book' and keeping good builder logs with lots of photos of the builder actually doing construction.

It would be a real shame for us to lose the privileges we now enjoy.
 
I'm pretty passionate that, after completing this set of "operations", it is not about the letter of the law, but the intent. I am easily annoyed with those that are cheating the intent of the regulations because I want to learn more and do it again... The repairman's cert is a whole separate thing than building something with an "experimental" airworthiness certificate.

ronlee said:
The owner does not get a repairman's certificate?
Click to expand...
 
My hangar is just one row of hangars north of the Glastar/Sportsman facility at Arlington. Yes, the nature of the kits is rather different, and yes, they do get a steady stream of people bringing their RV's (the kind you tow behind your truck) to the airport to "build" their dream airplanes. For someone who has bucks and just wants to fly, it's probably a good deal. For me, I prefer to build it myself. I trust my work.

Steve
 
Originally Posted by alpinelakespilot2000
.........it's people and for-profit companies legally exploiting loopholes like this in the experimental/amateur built category that concerns me about the future of our experimental category privileges. It's just asking for greater restriction......Just my .02.
Click to expand...
Steve,

Sadly, I have to agree with you. I too am troubled that technology and legal loopholes threaten the very spirit of the 51% rule. The regulations were written decades ago....a time when the builder had to fabricate most parts. Time does not stand still and the marriage of technology and kit built airplanes have evolved to such an advanced degree that I fear that eventually, we *could* be legally viewed as "assemblers" rather than builders. If it ever comes to that, it stands to reason that a whole host of limitations may naturally follow.

Currently, I believe that Van's and the majority of kit providers are within the spirit and letter of the regulations as written, yet at some point, the industry leaders have to decide what exactly are the sensible limits of work that can be reasonably produced by a factory and what minimum level of work is expected of the builder.

As an extreme example, I'm told by an FAA friend who happens to be an RV-6 builder that the FAA is taking a very dim view and a closer look at the so-called "amateur built" 8 place turbine aircraft that is out there taking advantage of the same rules we build and fly by. If anybody doesn't think the feds will eventually step in and rewrite the regs to curb such excess, they are just kidding themselves.

Well, that's my .02 and worth what you paid for it.
 
Bob Axsom said:
There is no way this kind of thing is good for homebuilt aviation
Bob Axsom
Click to expand...


Bob, I am sorry I totally disagree - it may not be good for "homebuilding" but its great for "Aviation".

I think schemes like this one are fantastic. I spent a couple of days involved in the build up of my XP360 at the factory. I would like to spend a few days assisting in an avionics build of my own panel design and then take along the components and spend a couple of weeks completing my RV.

Life is short and time of the essence, so contrast this type of quick build with months or years in a shed pounding rivets - its a complete "no-brainer" - so why "waste" the time.

Its preferable also to buying a second hand RV with an unknown history.

Every hour saved in the workshop is an extra hour to go flying :)

Nic
 
Skyhi said:
Bob, I am sorry I totally disagree - it may not be good for "homebuilding" but its great for "Aviation".
Click to expand...
When we are no longer allowed to build airplanes in our garages under the experimental-amateur built regs- will that be good for aviation? Because that is the direction we are headed when companies like Epic and 2 Weeks to Taxi push the envelope too far.

You mention going to "builder assist" centers to do your engine and panel. There is a big distinction there. Engines and panels are not covered under the 51% rule. Airframes are.
 
Check it out before you twist into a knot

Wings to adventure did a piece on the two weeks to taxi program and one of the writers for Kitplanes actually built his plane thru this program.

One of the things they said is that 90% of the time you spend building your airplane has more to do with research, distractions, starting/stopping, searching for the one box of doohickies that you just happen to need right now, talking to your buddies at the hangar, etc. What they do is cut all of that fat out, they lay out all the pieces ahead of your arrival, everything is organized by what you are going to do that day. They also disallow cell phones or anything else that will take your attention from building the plane. You work about 10-12 hours a day on your plane, 7 days a week, for two weeks. The builder does EVERYTHING with the aid of the factory staff. And that is why you are able to blaze through the build so quickly.

Also, how quickly would you build if you had someone next to you that has built your kind of plane dozens of times next to you? How great would it be if as you are finishing your current part, all the materials for the next are laid out and organized for you to start on the next? Just imagine the amount of time you spend staring at that drawing trying to figure out how tab A fits into Slot B.

**** if I could spare an additional 60-70K i'd do it. But I don't so I won't. But don't knock it 'til you know what you're talking about.
 
Only 168 hrs....

jmartinez443 said:
......
They also disallow cell phones or anything else that will take your attention from building the plane. You work about 10-12 hours a day on your plane, 7 days a week, for two weeks. The builder does EVERYTHING with the aid of the factory staff. And that is why you are able to blaze through the build so quickly.

Also, how quickly would you build if you had someone next to you that has built your kind of plane dozens of times next to you? How great would it be if as you are finishing your current part, all the materials for the next are laid out and organized for you to start on the next? Just imagine the amount of time you spend staring at that drawing trying to figure out how tab A fits into Slot B.

**** if I could spare an additional 60-70K i'd do it. But I don't so I won't. But don't knock it 'til you know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
Maybe more efficient, but that is still only 168 hrs -14 days at 12 hrs per day, the maximum quoted above. How many new builders could actually sustain that effort at 100% for two weeks?

I still think there is some very creative 51% checklist work going on.... :)

gil A
 
It comes with quite a price tag, but I can see some places where it fits.

I want to build and fly an RV-10.
My wife just wants to fly an RV-10.

She's dreading the 4 years of captivity associated with the build. Before it's all done, I'll probably be sleeping in the garage too! :D

I'm still pushing for my own build, but this seems like a decent compromise for those situations. At the end of the day the family is happy because you're going to be around more and you're happy because you got an RV-10. It's not the perfect world and it's not the cheapest route, but having a happy home is much more important than having one happy builder.

So I can see some situations where it makes very good sense.
Phil
 
New Category?

I certainly sympathize with people who want want they can only get in an experimental aircraft, but don't have the time to build one. "Go buy one!" we say? Well, yes, but what if they want it equipped in a particular way....toguh to do....

On the other hand, I am completely against the "stretching" of the amateur built category by businesses such as this. True "builder assistance centers" are fine, but let's face it, this is an airplane factory building custom airplanes....

Which leads me to think that what the FAA needs to do is create a "Custom Built" category....surely there is nothing wrong from a physical standpoint of airplanes being built by professionals....it's just this rules violation that is going to lose us all our privileges that is the problem. SO go lobby for a new set of rules. Of course, with our FAA, this would probably take at least ten years if someone with the right contacts started NOW.

In the meantime, I am very concerned that this will lead to a serious crackdown - I just hope that we don't all feel the hammer.

All just my opinion....
 
Wow - that is expensive... at least for my blood.

Interestingly - there is a builder assistance program for the Arion Lightning at $3,200 per week - and they recommend allowing 3 weeks. I can see 10K for builder assistance... but NOT $60K -$70K or whatever it works out to be for the Glasair or RV program. Holy Smokes that is outrageous. Even $60K divided by the 168 hours works out to be $357 per hour. Yeah, I know... tools and rivets and epoxy, paint and what all... Still... :eek:
 
Well said!

Ironflight said:
I certainly sympathize with people who want want they can only get in an experimental aircraft, but don't have the time to build one. "Go buy one!" we say? Well, yes, but what if they want it equipped in a particular way....toguh to do....

On the other hand, I am completely against the "stretching" of the amateur built category by businesses such as this. True "builder assistance centers" are fine, but let's face it, this is an airplane factory building custom airplanes....

Which leads me to think that what the FAA needs to do is create a "Custom Built" category....surely there is nothing wrong from a physical standpoint of airplanes being built by professionals....it's just this rules violation that is going to lose us all our privileges that is the problem. SO go lobby for a new set of rules. Of course, with our FAA, this would probably take at least ten years if someone with the right contacts started NOW.

In the meantime, I am very concerned that this will lead to a serious crackdown - I just hope that we don't all feel the hammer.

All just my opinion....
Click to expand...

Paul.. well said... it's the few that can ruin it for the rest of us....

The other alternative is to register the custom-built planes in the "Exhibition" category.... :) Just like my German sailplane is registered "Exhibition and Racing"...

gil in Yucson
 
ronlee said:
The owner does not get a repairman's certificate?
Click to expand...
Good point. For some, it's not a huge issue. The turbo-builder-assist programs seem to be a middle ground between building totally yourself and buying a near-zero-time aircraft (i.e., having one built for you).

Fortunately, this is America, and we have a choice.
 
Behind the times

Here in the UK, which is not noted for its liberal regime when it comes to aircraft construction, there are a number of aircraft types such as the "Eurostar" that can be purchased either "ready to fly" or as a kit.

I don't see why RV's cant be provided with similar range of options, catering for the slow builder and also the guy who wants to spend a couple of weeks customising his aircraft before flying.

As mentioned on this forum, the main problem is that the legislation on these matters sits well and truly behind the drag curve of consumer requirements.

Nic

sprucemoose said:
When we are no longer allowed to build airplanes in our garages under the experimental-amateur built regs- will that be good for aviation? Because that is the direction we are headed when companies like Epic and 2 Weeks to Taxi push the envelope too far.
Click to expand...
 
Skyhi said:
Here in the UK, which is not noted for its liberal regime when it comes to aircraft construction, there are a number of aircraft types such as the "Eurostar" that can be purchased either "ready to fly" or as a kit.

I don't see why RV's cant be provided with similar range of options, catering for the slow builder and also the guy who wants to spend a couple of weeks customising his aircraft before flying.

As mentioned on this forum, the main problem is that the legislation on these matters sits well and truly behind the drag curve of consumer requirements.
Click to expand...
Many European countries have design standards for small aircraft with a max takeoff mass of 450 kg. The Eurostar EV97 fits seems to meet those standards, so it can be sold ready to fly. None of Van's designs meet those requirements.

The recent LSA requirements in the US, and the long standing AULA requirements in Canada, are the North American equivalent to those European requirements. The gross weight limit has gone from the 450 kg in the European requirements to 600 kg, but people still moan that it is not enough.

Van does not appear to be interested in selling ready to fly RV-12s, but it might be possible for another company to purchase RV-12 kits, assemble them, and get the resulting aircraft approved as a ready to fly S-LSA.
 
It's at least feasible

az_gila said:
Maybe more efficient, but that is still only 168 hrs -14 days at 12 hrs per day, the maximum quoted above. How many new builders could actually sustain that effort at 100% for two weeks?

I still think there is some very creative 51% checklist work going on.... :)

gil A
Click to expand...

I'm sure there is; however, how much time do you spend drilling, dimpling, and deburring? Can you honestly tell me that you are learning or enjoying the process after you have dimpled your 1500th hole? So, after you've done a few dozen to "educate and enjoy" why not turn that task over to a hired hand? I can certainly see an adept and knowledgeable worker assisting a builder with closing a set of QB wings in one day; where it would take the average grunt working by himslef several weeks/months to do it. The other thing is that they get you to taxi, that doesn't mean that your cowling would be smooth as glass and ready to paint, or that your wheel pants fit perfectly, etc.

Van's quotes about 900 hours for a QB kit (don't beat me up over that number, it's around there). Given those numbers, I can certainly see ~168 hours completely feasible to get a QB RV to taxi status with the help of one or two very experienced builders.
 
Categories....

jmartinez443 said:
I'm sure there is; however, how much time do you spend drilling, dimpling, and deburring? Can you honestly tell me that you are learning or enjoying the process after you have dimpled your 1500th hole? So, after you've done a few dozen to "educate and enjoy" why not turn that task over to a hired hand? I can certainly see an adept and knowledgeable worker assisting a builder with closing a set of QB wings in one day; where it would take the average grunt working by himslef several weeks/months to do it. The other thing is that they get you to taxi, that doesn't mean that your cowling would be smooth as glass and ready to paint, or that your wheel pants fit perfectly, etc.

Van's quotes about 900 hours for a QB kit (don't beat me up over that number, it's around there). Given those numbers, I can certainly see ~168 hours completely feasible to get a QB RV to taxi status with the help of one or two very experienced builders.
Click to expand...
Maybe.... however, the category is "Amateur Built" and I don't think your description fits that intent..... :) ....IMHO

I seem to remember that many years ago a "factory" in Oregon was producing some so-called "homebuilts" (not RVs, a glass ship) and the FAA made the resultant planes register as "Experimental - Exhibition" -- can anyone else remember details on this??

As I said earlier, pushing the rules limits is not good for the rest of us in the 99% who do build for "recreation and education"...

gil A
 
Well,

I understand the hesitation and concern expressed by many here. But, I read all the articles on the TWTT program for the Sportsman, and I am very comfortable with it. Sounds like they work the heck out of you for the two weeks.

Also imagine if there was a line setup with professional wing, and fuselage jigs and cradles already built and which were repeatable. Then imagine access to four foot jaw alligator squeezers on lifts, and with the set for each rivet already setup for you. Then imagine that someone is setting out the materials ahead of you, and in sequence.

Most people I know, including myself as I reach the end of my first RV believe that they could carve 1/3 of the build time out of the next one, building it themselves, just by taking advantage of the knowledge they gained on plane one. Add in the value of experienced rivetting help, top notch setup and fab equipment, and it really seems fine to me.

Also, there is a huge advantage to limiting the choices. If I had gone with a Van's cowl, no plenum, a standard hartzell, and the other standard stuff, it would have knocked another 300 hours off the build. Just think how much time I spent fabricating harnesses and thinking over wiring for my simple panel, and electrical systems installation. I firmly believe that there is another 3 weeks of building time which would have been saved by installing standradized components, in standardized locations.

The tradeoff is customization, but I think I could do a standard Van's RV 7 in about 1200 hours next time around, and by using standard practices and all the newly available brackets and do-dads. This is for a slow build to the taxi stage.

If it were a quickbuild, and all the routing and lengths, and so forth for wires, cables and hoses, were worked out by experience and prior successful installations...I could build it much quicker and with the benefit of learning by other's past experience, in addition to my own...who knows how quick it could go together?

Lastly it is my understanding that the FAA was involved at every stage of the development of the TWTT program for the Glasair, I would imagine that the folks over there had the FAA involved with the other program too...but I do not know.

The FAA may be taking the view that it is SAFER to have these planes completed in a more controlled environment, for those who choose to do so. I have been lucky to have access to so many skilled people in my town who have been willing to offer advice, and inspections and help....especially during the uncertainty of the begining phases.

Should that person get the repairman's certificate? I don't know...but maybe, just maybe, an intense two week aprenticeship, with professional mechanics, installing the very systems in your own airplane is a BETTER way to learn how to maintain that aircraft....like I said I don't know, but I can see this as a possible BENEFIT, rather than reason for caution.

I will always feel like I struggled harder and overcame a bit more than a builder who goes the other route...so I can have some pride in that. But will the plane be better? Are my final skills really better? I am just not sure, and frankly suspect that the difference, if any, would be small.

I just don't think that the sky is falling, though I respect where others are coming from. Our hobby/industry is changing to meet new and different market and pilot demands.
 
DARs....

Jconard said:
......
Lastly it is my understanding that the FAA was involved at every stage of the development of the TWTT program for the Glasair, I would imagine that the folks over there had the FAA involved with the other program too...but I do not know.
.......
Click to expand...

Bet you a pint of good brew that the "FAA" you refer to was a DAR paid for by TWTT.... :)

gil A
 
Gil,

I never risk good pints on a bet but...

Just based on the articles, and campfire talk, I thought that FAA officials were actively involved in the original TWTT program, if not it seems that it would have been foolish to make it so public.

I guess I envisioned something like the 51% eligibility approval kit makers can get in advance of marketing a kit. But, like I said before I could well be wrong on this.
 
Jconard said:
Well,

I understand the hesitation and concern expressed by many here. But, I read all the articles on the TWTT program for the Sportsman, and I am very comfortable with it. Sounds like they work the heck out of you for the two weeks. (SNIP)
I just don't think that the sky is falling, though I respect where others are coming from. Our hobby/industry is changing to meet new and different market and pilot demands.
Click to expand...
I like what you wrote in its entirety. I am not sure if this creates something other than "experimental"... but I don't think it is the end of the world either - as long as everything is up front and "FAA-blessed". I am not going to be offended that they pounded less rivets, any more than feeling the QB folks are less deserving than the slow-builders.

However, I STILL think it is over-priced. :rolleyes: But I guess that is only a product of what the market will bear. I am sure there a lots of well heeled pilots out there that can now get an RV spec'd the way they always wanted.
 
A couple of posts have noted magazine articles endorsing, via positive reviews, the 2-weeks-to-taxi program. (I've read a couple of them too and was very disappointed with at least one of them.) Almost all of the magazines I've looked at recently have consistently carried monthly advertisements for the program. Any chance that this influences advertising $$ starved editors in their reviews? Cutting off those advertising dollars by alienating one of the leaders in the kit industry with a bad review is probably not in their best interest.

Again, I have no qualms about builders getting into RVs (or Sportmans) without pounding rivets. I'm just concerned that since the FAA is already SERIOUSLY looking into possibly changing the 51% rule (because of violations of the spirit of that rule), that those taking advantage of the admittedly legal loopholes in in right now don't cause an overreaction by the feds. Rather than changing the "AMATEUR/Experiemental" category, however, why not create a new category that reflects that those who participate in these programs have nothing in common with those who build for education and enjoyment, the true intent and spirit of the category?
 
Last edited:
Phyrcooler said:
but I don't think it is the end of the world either - as long as everything is up front and "FAA-blessed". I am not going to be offended that they pounded less rivets, any more than feeling the QB folks are less deserving than the slow-builders.
Click to expand...
I think this misses the point. These programs are far from "FAA- blessed" and some of them have run afoul of the FAA and suffered for it (EPIC for starters.) As Gil pointed out, having one DAR sign off on the program does not constitute FAA blessing. As we have seen, there are some unscrupulous DARs out there who will sign off on planes built by hired guns.
 
sprucemoose said:
I think this misses the point. These programs are far from "FAA- blessed" and some of them have run afoul of the FAA and suffered for it (EPIC for starters.) As Gil pointed out, having one DAR sign off on the program does not constitute FAA blessing. As we have seen, there are some unscrupulous DARs out there who will sign off on planes built by hired guns.
Click to expand...
Actually - I think you missed my point - :D - When I refer to "FAA Blessed" - I mean truly analyzed and approved by the FAA - what-ever that takes. Not just a single DAR sign-off. I do agree that those that stretch the limits threaten us all with having those limits retracted.
 
TWTT Program

We have been supplying EFIS and Engine Monitors for all of the Glasair Two Weeks to Taxi planes since the second one through the program. I have worked with most, if not all, of the customers that have gone through the program and I have actually flown a number of them.

This program has provided the opportunity for a number of people to build and own an experimental plane that otherwise would never have been able to it. Do they have the same knowledge and familiarity of their plane as someone that spent five years building one? Not even close. Do they have a better understanding than someone who buys an already flying plane or hires someone to build one? Absolutely, without a doubt! I would argue that you are getting a better engineered and safer plane through this program and the FAA should encourage it.

Except for a few options, every plane is the same. Glasair has gone through an enormous amount of engineering to make it possible to accomplish this in two weeks. Every bolt, screw, connector and wire has been thought-out and properly engineered. You end up with not only a well designed and proven airframe but with well designed and proven systems as well.

So how good are they? One just won a workmanship award at Arlington.

If you don?t believe that GA is on a downhill slide-just look at the statistics. How many pilot?s licenses are they issuing today, compared to 25 years ago? It?s a fraction. Programs like this attract more people to aviation. That?s a win for all of us, not just those who make a living from it, but all of us who enjoy flying. We all need to find more ways to get people hooked on the joy of flying.

I?ve already built an RV-4 and feel no emotional need to pound every rivet on another plane (I even had to build my own spars). If I could ever get a two week vacation, this is EXACTLY how I would like to get my RV-10.

Sincerely,

Rob Hickman.
Advanced Flight Systems
 
N401RH said:
I?ve already built an RV-4 and feel no emotional need to pound every rivet on another plane
Click to expand...
Exactly.

What do you learn from pounding 17,500 more rivets that you didn't learn by doing the first 500? Same goes with AN fittings, wiring connections, etc. I'm trained to an A&P level to drive rivets - I must have pounded all of 50 to get there. I'm trained to an A&P level to install AN fittings - did exactly one in school. I maintain an RV-6 that I bought already built, and use an A&P for the annual condition inspection and anything having to do with the engine. He's available for advice on any topic I'm concerned about. Did I need to spend four or more years building the plane in order to do an adequate job of maintaining my relatively simple airplane?

Perhaps I'm blind to my weaknesses, but I think not. I would be perfectly comfortable with a TWTT program. If the FAA wants to get involved, the only rule that I could see to improve things would be to ensure that each center have an AP/IA on staff to inspect the (almost) finished product, and perhaps a few hours of supervised flight testing before calling it done. That alone would be far superior to the standard "Just finished my 5th RV-8, flew exactly 25.0 hours on it, and now it's for sale" Barnstormers ad.
 
I tink the question boils down to the TWTT builder get a repairmens cert. I have no problem with the TWTT, or buying a flying RV. But there is no way a person with >200 hours of build time in a furious, exhausting 2 weeks is qualified to do condition inspections and airframe repairs. Sure you may not "learn" anything on the last 17,000 rivets...but when its your doing a condition inspection, I want to have seen and touched everyone one of those rivets before and know how they looked when I first set them. I agree alot of time is spent stairing at the plans, gaining an understanding of how it all goes together...this is valuable information if your ever going to be inspecting, rebuilding, or maintaining an aircraft! Having a pro assemble all your parts into a jig, hand you a drill with the proper bit in it and say "drill here, here, here and here"...there isnt much learning going on in that situation. So, doest anyon know if the TWTT builders are applying for the repairmans cert? It would seem, to the letter of the law, they are entitled to it.
 
It would seem, to the letter of the law, they are entitled to it.[/QUOTE]

The answer is yes. Happens all the time. I've an acquaintence who probably put no more than 200 hrs in his RV project, now flying and he has the certificate.

Jerry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.