Flyfalcons
Well Known Member
Do what you want to do and don't listen to anyone who says you can't or shouldn't. The TWTT program is legit and if that's the ticket for you, then it's no one's place to say otherwise.
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Two Weeks To Taxi RV-10
- Thread starter N402RH
- Start date
Do what you want to do and don't listen to anyone who says you can't or shouldn't. The TWTT program is legit and if that's the ticket for you, then it's no one's place to say otherwise.
Phil
Well Known Member
Yep. But I do believe Van's numbers when it comes to 51% and that's what QB was intended to do. I'd suggest becoming a builder first before chiming in though.
My point is that you can't even build a QB in two weeks.
It's funny how Vans gets 49% of the way and then ships their QB kits. Then the TWTT folks purchase a 49% complete airplane from Vans and then does their magic to it without increasing the completion percentage beyond 49%? Give me a break.
It's all bogus. We all know it. To defend any other position that this is real is non-sense.
Phil
My point is that you can't even build a QB in two weeks.
It's funny how Vans gets 49% of the way and then ships their QB kits. Then the TWTT folks purchase a 49% complete airplane from Vans and then does their magic to it without increasing the completion percentage beyond 49%? Give me a break.
It's all bogus. We all know it. To defend any other position that this is real is non-sense.
Phil
Last edited:
dmaib
Well Known Member
You should absolutely not reject the idea of flying an AB aircraft!! It sounds like you have the right attitude for your situation. I suspect you will learn far more from a TWTT program than you will from buying a flying RV, or any other AB aircraft.(see post #33) But, either option sounds like a realistic one for you. Make your decision based on what is right for you, and don't worry about somehow being considered "less" than somebody who did it differently than you.
Flyfalcons
Well Known Member
I'm sorry? Are you assuming I'm not building an RV?
Alan Carroll
Well Known Member
I say go for it. If you ignore for a moment the whole debate about 51% and the true spirit of homebuilding, the TWTT to taxi sounds like a unique and excellent educational experience. You'll come away with a vastly deeper understanding of your airplane than the average average aircraft buyer could ever hope to achieve. I would have loved to have been able to take a training course like this prior to my build, and have no doubt it would be a very rewarding experience. I also think the experimental aircraft community can ill afford to be discouraging potential members.
The main thing you'll miss is the opportunity to develop your own independent research and problem-solving skills, which are a central part of the homebuilding experience. This is a direct trade-off against available time however. The concerns about the repairman certificate disappear if you (wisely) choose to have an A&P do the inspections.
Last edited:
Phil
Well Known Member
I don't think you can speak for the builders of the QB RV-10. I think QB 10's are right around 49% or so if you do follow through with all QB components. A completed forward half of the fuselage and wings are a big advantage but that seems like nothing in regards to the amount of fiberglass work required to complete the top half of the airplane. I think a QB kit for the RV-10 is pretty solid when it comes to the 51% rule. It's not too much or too little in retrospect.
I'm pretty happy I went that way because work and kids limit my time. It saves those of us who build a QB-10 a ton of time in the right place and clearly within the boundaries of the regulations. That's why I don't get Van's shipping a 49% kit to a TWTT factory and then the factory does their magic without compromising that percentage.
Good points Alan and Mike. We aren't going to solve it on here, but we're trying. That's back to my original point - do what's right for you and don't worry about what we think. No one else does.
Flyfalcons
Well Known Member
I'm not speaking for the builders of a QB-10; just pointing out that builders of different level of kit prefabrication (such as a non-prepunch kit) may view your project in the way that you view a TWTT plane, m'kay?
Scary Pilots
Some pilots on the flight line scare me more than some of the less than average built aircraft.
Supervising the construction of their TWTT is probably a safer option for those guys.
It's funny that the FAA will hunt you down for a 200 feet altitude excursion
and force pilots into remedial training while turning a blind eye to the fraud and deception of the TWTT operators.
Some pilots on the flight line scare me more than some of the less than average built aircraft.
Supervising the construction of their TWTT is probably a safer option for those guys.
It's funny that the FAA will hunt you down for a 200 feet altitude excursion
and force pilots into remedial training while turning a blind eye to the fraud and deception of the TWTT operators.
Tandem46
Well Known Member
Phil, listen to what you are saying. Van's QB meets the 51% rule ONLY because the FAA signed off on it. The FAA also signed off on the TWTT. If one is bogus, then they both are bogus. You can't have it both ways. One's legit because you say so and one is not because you say so, despite FAA saying both are legit??
Phil
Well Known Member
I know Tobin. I'm not arguing the legality of anything.
I'm saying that the math doesn't make any sense and I can't understand how the FAA could reasonably justify signing off to support a TWTT program when you start with a 49% complete airplane. You can't start with 49%, add the services of TWTT, and expect that completion number to stay at 49% from the "who built it and recieves the repairman certificate" perspective. If they do anything at all it pushes the kit beyond 49% complete. From a simple math perspective it doesn't make sense when you combine the two.
I'm not saying it's illegal. I would just like to hear their perspective on how they could justify their ruling. If they'd publish a justification summary we'd have several answers about their logic and stop the speculation.
Phil
I'm saying that the math doesn't make any sense and I can't understand how the FAA could reasonably justify signing off to support a TWTT program when you start with a 49% complete airplane. You can't start with 49%, add the services of TWTT, and expect that completion number to stay at 49% from the "who built it and recieves the repairman certificate" perspective. If they do anything at all it pushes the kit beyond 49% complete. From a simple math perspective it doesn't make sense when you combine the two.
I'm not saying it's illegal. I would just like to hear their perspective on how they could justify their ruling. If they'd publish a justification summary we'd have several answers about their logic and stop the speculation.
Phil
Last edited:
flytoboat
Well Known Member
I've seen it explained on here before that the 51% rule doesn't have anything to do with how long it takes to build an airplane. Instead it has to do with the tasks involved in building an airplane. For example, if you debur and flute one wing rib, you have met the requirements for that task and someone else can do the rest of the ribs.
Russ McCutcheon
Well Known Member
Speak for yourself.
This is a free country and the freer we keep it the better off we are. I bought an RV-4 in 2005 and have managed to operate it safely for 1200 hours including doing all maintenance myself which has included an engine O/H, mag timing and inspections, a couple prop R&Rs for service and replacing or repairing about everything that can wear out on an old airplane, as well as ties, oil, loose rivets and on and on. I?ve learned a lot over the past six years about my airplane (first and only airplane) and do my own work for my recreation and education as well as the fact that I know how it has been maintained. Don?t tell me I?m not smart enough to maintain and or learn to maintain my airplane safely and legally.
As for the TWTT program, it just means more people coming in to the community, more kits Van?s can sell and more people able to make a living working for and vending for Van?s and companies like Van?s, more wealth in the GA community witch is largely a starving proposition, sounds ok to me.
This is a free country and the freer we keep it the better off we are. I bought an RV-4 in 2005 and have managed to operate it safely for 1200 hours including doing all maintenance myself which has included an engine O/H, mag timing and inspections, a couple prop R&Rs for service and replacing or repairing about everything that can wear out on an old airplane, as well as ties, oil, loose rivets and on and on. I?ve learned a lot over the past six years about my airplane (first and only airplane) and do my own work for my recreation and education as well as the fact that I know how it has been maintained. Don?t tell me I?m not smart enough to maintain and or learn to maintain my airplane safely and legally.
As for the TWTT program, it just means more people coming in to the community, more kits Van?s can sell and more people able to make a living working for and vending for Van?s and companies like Van?s, more wealth in the GA community witch is largely a starving proposition, sounds ok to me.
Tandem46
Well Known Member
Yes! I love these debates! Pure entertainment! I hate when the moderators shut down debates like these. It's like taking the crashes out of NASCAR, too boring without them!
I've thought about just buying one, but feel uneasy about not knowing how it was put together. I'm guessing that TWTT even with its limitations would be better in terms of knowing the airplane. Interestingly, the estimates of prices I've seen to build a 10 via TWTT are more than the asking prices for completed aircraft.
ScottSchmidt
Well Known Member
Safety is #1
I can see the points of both sides and I am sure there are safety concerns from planes that are built and maintained by the builder and planes that are built and maintained from a TWTT program. It totally depends on the individual.
I know when I built my RV-10 (slow build) the early RV-3/Long-EZ builders were telling me the exact same thing that many of you are saying about the TWTT program. "Your not building a plane, your putting parts together mindlessly!" I was sure happy I did not have to bend and make my own ribs. The kits that Van's makes have made airplanes so much safer, reliable and can be built by a much larger diversity of individuals and skill sets. What if Van's had a kit that could be built in 10 hours because of improvements in the kits and involved 90% of the assembly? Would that be OK then? I can see this happening as kits, engine firewall kits and avionics packages continue to improve. (The RV-12 is getting close to this. I tell people it builds itself.)
I am very happy I built my plane and love knowing all the things I do about the plane but I cannot say I would not have known the same things if I did the TWTT program. I can see a knowledge advantage with a TWTT program.
I would be open minded to a program like this until I completed one and learned how much assembly I did and what I learned from the team I worked with. I also agree that if programs like this prove to supply a safe aircraft to a qualified pilot then why not?
I can see the points of both sides and I am sure there are safety concerns from planes that are built and maintained by the builder and planes that are built and maintained from a TWTT program. It totally depends on the individual.
I know when I built my RV-10 (slow build) the early RV-3/Long-EZ builders were telling me the exact same thing that many of you are saying about the TWTT program. "Your not building a plane, your putting parts together mindlessly!" I was sure happy I did not have to bend and make my own ribs. The kits that Van's makes have made airplanes so much safer, reliable and can be built by a much larger diversity of individuals and skill sets. What if Van's had a kit that could be built in 10 hours because of improvements in the kits and involved 90% of the assembly? Would that be OK then? I can see this happening as kits, engine firewall kits and avionics packages continue to improve. (The RV-12 is getting close to this. I tell people it builds itself.)
I am very happy I built my plane and love knowing all the things I do about the plane but I cannot say I would not have known the same things if I did the TWTT program. I can see a knowledge advantage with a TWTT program.
I would be open minded to a program like this until I completed one and learned how much assembly I did and what I learned from the team I worked with. I also agree that if programs like this prove to supply a safe aircraft to a qualified pilot then why not?
alpinelakespilot2000
Well Known Member
Agreed. What is surprisingly missing from this thread is a bit of history about which many newer builders or buyers of pre-built planes may not be aware. I don't think anyone is arguing that getting more safe aircraft into the market is not a good thing. To this end, the TWTT program is good for general aviation.
What is at stake is the freedom we have under the amateur built rule. When I started building 7+ years ago, the RV world was almost awash in "professional" builders who were building planes for profit and everyone knew it. (Back when building an RV actually could generate some significant profit.
) At the same time, the TWTT program was just getting off the ground, using the legalities of the 51% rule to do so. They saw an opportunity and took it... no issue there. Some in the certificated manufacturing community, however, began to get concerned (rightly, in my opinion), and they began voicing those concerns, that they could not remain competitive if they had to follow rigorous, expensive, certification processes to build a plane when professional-built experimental category aircraft did not have to meet any such onerous requirements. Thus, many builders became concerned that the privileges they enjoyed, following both the letter and spirit of the experimental/amateur built category, would become a casualty of the excessive leeway granted to professional builders and programs like TWTT who might have been legal, but were pushing the boundaries of the spirit. Rest assured, the job-creating lobbies of Cessna, Cirrus, and others have a lot more clout that we do in general aviation. If they should choose to challenge the current interpretations of the 51% rule, you can bet TWTT would be exhibit number one in making their case. However, would it stop there? Would the certificated lobby help rewrite the rules such that (even unintentionally), we lost some of the tremendous privileges we have under the amateur built category?In sum, I think it's fair to say that many who have expressed concerns here have little qualms about programs like the TWTT program SO LONG AS they were practiced under a category other than experimental/amateur built. (And yes, a new category might need to be created.) That way, we don't become a target too. This isn't about feeling sorry for ourselves just because we couldn't afford to avail ourselves of this program. Neither is it sour grapes that us "real" builders actually built our planes. (We all know that it's the scratch builders who are the "real builders anyway.) It's just a concern about protecting the privileges we have with the category under which we build.
Last edited:
ScottSchmidt
Well Known Member
Great point Steve.
I hope the market is big enough that Cessna, Cirrus and others don't worry about it. It would be too bad if they went after the "experimental" market because of lost revenue. They need to learn that their pricing is the driving force though. My wife and I were blown away at the pricing of a new Cirrus, $683,000 at Oshkosh. We both could not believe it. Who can afford a plane at that price? (not many) It seems to me that the disparity in the price between a certified and experimental continue to grow. At the current pace I can see why people want their planes built for them, right or wrong. I like building but love flying and understand that there are people out there who love flying as much as me but hate building.
Hopefully the kits continue to improve and make it easier for builders to build a safe and reliable plane.
I hope the market is big enough that Cessna, Cirrus and others don't worry about it. It would be too bad if they went after the "experimental" market because of lost revenue. They need to learn that their pricing is the driving force though. My wife and I were blown away at the pricing of a new Cirrus, $683,000 at Oshkosh. We both could not believe it. Who can afford a plane at that price? (not many) It seems to me that the disparity in the price between a certified and experimental continue to grow. At the current pace I can see why people want their planes built for them, right or wrong. I like building but love flying and understand that there are people out there who love flying as much as me but hate building.
Hopefully the kits continue to improve and make it easier for builders to build a safe and reliable plane.
whitewulfe
Member
Let's not forget the recently announced Cessna Corvalis TTX, weighing in at a whopping $733,950 USD base, and you can't even fit four "regular sized adults" (imo 200lbs each), and four FAA adults barely squeeze in (170lbs x4 = 680 lbs, max load is 700lbs). For such a price, one could easily build several "includes the kitchen sink" high performance kit airplanes, and purchase plenty of fuel alongside the required insurance.
Flyfalcons
Well Known Member
According to Cessna the Corvalis has an approximate 1,000 pound useful load.
whitewulfe
Member
Ah, my bad. I used the wrong wording - website states 1,000lbs useful load, 700lbs max payload.
John Clark
Well Known Member
Numbers...
The 400's maximum take-off weight is 3600 lbs and the maximum landing weight is 3420 lbs. A typical empty weight without deicing equipment is 2575 lbs. With a full fuel load this leaves 413 lbs for crew and baggage. Two "FAA standard" people and 73 lbs of baggage, or two 200 pounders and 13 lbs of baggage. But hey, at least in California, the sales tax would only be $62,685.75
John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
The 400's maximum take-off weight is 3600 lbs and the maximum landing weight is 3420 lbs. A typical empty weight without deicing equipment is 2575 lbs. With a full fuel load this leaves 413 lbs for crew and baggage. Two "FAA standard" people and 73 lbs of baggage, or two 200 pounders and 13 lbs of baggage.
But hey, at least in California, the sales tax would only be $62,685.75 John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
Flyfalcons
Well Known Member
The 400's maximum take-off weight is 3600 lbs and the maximum landing weight is 3420 lbs. A typical empty weight without deicing equipment is 2575 lbs. With a full fuel load this leaves 413 lbs for crew and baggage. Two "FAA standard" people and 73 lbs of baggage, or two 200 pounders and 13 lbs of baggage.
John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
Sure but useable fuel is 102 gallons. Compare that with 60 gallons for an RV-10. If you put the same amount of gas in the Corvalis as a fully fueled RV-10, you now have the ability to put 665 pounds of people and gear in the cabin. These "full fuel" comparisons just don't work when one plane has the ability to carry far more fuel than another.
Phil
Well Known Member
The Corvalis burns nearly 2x in cruise as an RV-10.
Plane and Pilot did a review of it and found 18.5GPH reported cruise. Cessna says it has a cruise of 235 kts and they found you have to be at FL250 burning through 20gph.
The Corvalis needs all that fuel and there sure isn't much of a performance or range gain over an RV-10.
The -10 is sounding better and better every day. No it's not cheap or anywhere near it, but it's not $700k! There is no way that modest speed gain is worth half a million dollars in cash.
I'm starting to feel more comfortable about sinking so much cash into my RV-10 now.......
Phil
Plane and Pilot did a review of it and found 18.5GPH reported cruise. Cessna says it has a cruise of 235 kts and they found you have to be at FL250 burning through 20gph.
The Corvalis needs all that fuel and there sure isn't much of a performance or range gain over an RV-10.
The -10 is sounding better and better every day. No it's not cheap or anywhere near it, but it's not $700k! There is no way that modest speed gain is worth half a million dollars in cash.
I'm starting to feel more comfortable about sinking so much cash into my RV-10 now.......
Phil
Last edited:
Flyfalcons
Well Known Member
Power the 400 back to RV-10 speeds and I bet you'd be looking at about the same fuel burn...
Flyfalcons
Well Known Member
No. Not according the POH it won't.
Here's the one for the Corvalis 350 with the smaller engine. I'd like to find the POH for the 400.
Phil
According to the Van's website a 260hp -10 flat out does 201mph (175kts). So when slowed down to the -10's max speed on a standard day, the Corvalis appears to burn about 17gph. Dialed back to 156kts, it's burning under 12. Burns twice as much fuel? I don't think so.
Last edited:
Was just talking with a Sportsman repeat builder just back from Oshkosh, who was just awarded a bronze lindy after 5 to 6 years of beautiful work. He said the TWTT Sportsmans are easily recognizable. However, still, the first question people ask him is if this is a TWTT plane?
Ugh, is that what -10 builders have to look forward to? Did i build in 2 weeks?!?! Crud.
Ugh, is that what -10 builders have to look forward to? Did i build in 2 weeks?!?! Crud.
Brantel
Well Known Member
Auburntsts
Well Known Member
I'd say the avg 540 FF is closer to 9.5 to 11 LOP (depending on how balanced your injectors are ) and 12-14 ROP.
rleffler
Well Known Member
We just turn off a couple cylinders
Running LOP can provide great GPH, but you definitely not going anywhere fast. The good news is that a RV-10 operating in this mode is still quite a bit faster than my old Cherokee 180.
Brantel
Well Known Member
That I can understand...
I can get my 360 down to less than 6 if I slow her down and run LOP. ROP and over 200mph I am around 10-11....
I can get my 360 down to less than 6 if I slow her down and run LOP. ROP and over 200mph I am around 10-11....
dmaib
Well Known Member
Your numbers are very close, Todd. I routinely run 35 to 55 degrees LOP and see 10 gph or less at high altitude. 75 to 100 degrees ROP at the same altitude gives me 14 to 15 gph.
I'll throw in my numbers, and to be fair, I think we need to speak to the entire engine set up, not just it's an "IO-540."
For safety, I flight plan 15 gph in the RV10. I never see that. In flight at cruise I see 12-14 gph depending upon altitude, with full throttle and 2350-2370 RPM's, and I see 165kts or greater TAS unless up at 17K' or so, where it drops off to about 156-160 and 11 gph. I do not run LOP. EVER. Will the engine run LOP? Yes. I just am not comfortable with it. And I'd rather see 166 kts than 155 kts. I run 75-100 ROP. I have no issues with those of you who wish to run LOP, and won't try to convince you to run yours my way.
The engine is a Mattituck Red/Gold, with 9:1 pistons, LightSpeed ignition on the right side, magneto on the left, Vetterman exhaust, and MT 3-blade prop.
It runs extremely smooth, and so far has been extremely reliable (350 hours). I hope to keep it that way.
My last RV-10 with a Performance Engines IO-540 with 9.5:1 pistons and everything else the same seemed to produce the same numbers.
Vic
For safety, I flight plan 15 gph in the RV10. I never see that. In flight at cruise I see 12-14 gph depending upon altitude, with full throttle and 2350-2370 RPM's, and I see 165kts or greater TAS unless up at 17K' or so, where it drops off to about 156-160 and 11 gph. I do not run LOP. EVER. Will the engine run LOP? Yes. I just am not comfortable with it. And I'd rather see 166 kts than 155 kts.
I run 75-100 ROP. I have no issues with those of you who wish to run LOP, and won't try to convince you to run yours my way. The engine is a Mattituck Red/Gold, with 9:1 pistons, LightSpeed ignition on the right side, magneto on the left, Vetterman exhaust, and MT 3-blade prop.
It runs extremely smooth, and so far has been extremely reliable (350 hours). I hope to keep it that way.
My last RV-10 with a Performance Engines IO-540 with 9.5:1 pistons and everything else the same seemed to produce the same numbers.
Vic
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
Curious, do you follow Lycoming?s recommended "economy cruise? setting of peak EGT?
Not being argumentative, just trying to figure out the ?comfort? statement. Seems to me, once you are established at peak, LOP is just a few twists of the mixture knob away. Not only that but every pilot was taught to ?lean until rough?? You are WAY past 50 LOP when the engine stumbles?
I really hope that Vans can develop a TWTT program. I owned a Cirrus SR 20 and my friend owned a RV-10. I flew at 150KTS TAS on 9.5 GPH LOP and with his corvette engine, he flew faster and burned more fuel. I believe that the RV-10 is a very nice plane and is easily compared to a used Cirrus SR 20 or 22. Currently, the RV-10 has one significant drawbacks for a budding pilot, you have to spend X amount of hours, days, etc. to build the darn thing. Presently, you can buy a used SR 22 for $200K or a -10 for the same price. The SR 22 will have a nicer interior and will have a glass cockpit. The annual will be more expensive on the SR 22, but you didn't have to waste years of your life building it. This is where the TWTT program could do great. Aviation needs to attract younger people into its ranks (if we waited for everyone to retire so they could have the time to build an airplane, we would have about 15 pilots), and it needs to utilize the latest and greatest technologies. Aka.. Diesel engines, glass cockpits, etc... (kids today are inundated with technology and really don't want to give it up... Also, who the heck wants to own an airplane without A/C). This is where the TWTT program could really shine.... Vans is a great aircraft and a TWTT program could expand the ranks.
Bob Kuykendall
Well Known Member
Fixed that for ya.
But seriously, the privilege of operating non-certificated aircraft in public airspace and over peoples' houses is precious, and is rightly earned with sweat, tears, and no little blood. I have enjoyed the vast majority of the time I've spent designing and building airplanes and gliders, and I especially enjoyed working on the RV-8 I helped build.
To look at building an airplane as a waste of time, as a chore, is to admit defeat before you even start. That attitude blinds you to all the tiny joys and discoveries you make while working along, and turns everything into the drudgery that people got into aviation to escape. Few people with that attitude actually finish.
To be realistic about the TWTT and similar programs, I think they probably won't attract all that many young people because they are so expensive. I get that the "builder" is involved in the process to a degree designed to meet the minimum of the "major portion" rule. I understand that there are some who otherwise would not be able to get all the way through a kit airplane. But I think that they compress the process and its expense to a degree that takes it out of the realm of amateur-built aircraft.
I have considered a similar program that works the other way; someone who works in my composites shop could get a both "major portion" points and also a substantial discount on their glider kit. I might yet do that.
Thanks, Bob K.
I'm not discounting the building process. But with how busy today's generation is, I don't see people waiting years to have their own plane. If your making a good salary, say $100K.... I bet your working for it.. and if you have a family... well then all bets are off for your time, thus the TWTT program could be advantageous for today's young professionals.
Just say... I see the merits to it.
Just say... I see the merits to it.
WhiskeyMike
Well Known Member
The FAA has determined that the TWTT program has rightly earned its legitimacy and place within the realm of amateur-built aircraft. Nuff said! These perspectives mirror those already noted in this thread, where the kit builder thinks the TWTT program builder isn't "really building" the plane, and the plans builder thinks that the kit builder isn't "really building" the plane, and the one who designs the plane from scratch doesn't think that the plans builder is....well, you get the idea. Sheesh...can't we break out of this narrow thinking?
IMHO we should be more open to new avenues for people to become part of EAB. Numbers are power folks, and from BOTH an economic and political perspective this community needs all of the growth and participation it can get!! Why do you think that EAA is shifting its focus away from EAB - numbers people, numbers…
Last edited:
WhiskeyMike
Well Known Member
Among other sources, try reading the thread below starting around post 38...also note post 49.
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=74738&highlight=eaa&page=4
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=74738&highlight=eaa&page=4
Phil
Well Known Member
I don't think our generation is any different than the previous ones. I think we use that as an excuse more than anything.
Those before us worried about long work hours (and probably harder labor than most of us experience today), keeping the house clean, keeping the wife happy, feeding the kids, possibly fighting a war or seeing a family member go to war, paying the bills, finding quality time to spend with the family, dealing with medical issues, worrying about retirement, worrying about taking care of parents, etc. It wasn't like Leave it to Beaver portrays. There were pressures and demands on that generation too and they felt it.
I am that guy in the mid 30's with a very good but very demanding job, a wife, a 15 month old son, bills to pay, and very little time to spend in the shop.
I'll admit that when I found out my wife was pregnant I nearly had a meltdown and bailed on the project because I didn't think there would be any time or money left to dedicate to building an airplane. But things settled down and the path forward became clearer, so I kept going. The plane wasn't going to be done as quickly, but that's okay because the aircraft will be well worth the sacrifice we are making as a family.
So a very busy work and family schedule plus several other personal commitments don't stop me and I don't use it as an excuse for not building. (Though I do use it as an excuse for being able to celebrate the 4th anniversary of starting a build later this month.) It slows me down, but it doesn't impair me.
I think your perspective is pretty typical of the current generation though. Our modern society wants all the benefit without any of the commitment or sacrifice to get there. We're an instant-on society and expect instant results. I understand your perspective and agree that we need a fresh new crop of younger pilots in the ranks; but anything with significant benefits (like an EAB aircraft and the privileges and cost savings that go with them) shouldn't be a gimme. The more significant the benefit the more sacrifice, persistence, and commitment should be required for developing character. That's something we're missing as a society.
In the world today, most of our generation is selfish and wants 100% of the benefit with 0% of the commitment, sacrifice, and work that makes that benefit possible. I'm doing everything I can as an individual not to fall into that trap because it's an easy one to fall in to.
Phil
Last edited:
whitewulfe
Member
I have to agree. My uncle managed to build a Harmon Rocket II while raising three children AND managing an airport where it's busy during the spring and summer (water bombers are based there), and then a good amount of snow during the winter. I don't know how long it took exactly, but I believe it was only a few years.
I have to agree with this 100%.
It reminds me of a local business college commercial I saw on TV where a young girl looks directly into the camera and says, "I want an education, but I want it NOW!"
It reminds me of a local business college commercial I saw on TV where a young girl looks directly into the camera and says, "I want an education, but I want it NOW!"
KatieB
Well Known Member
But, if they wanted a plane "right now" without any of the work involved, then the TWTT customers would be better off buying one of the many beautiful airplanes available for sale, already finished. Getting a repairman's certificate and not paying for an A&P to do annuals will not save enough money to cover the extra expense incurred through the builder's assist. The people I know who've done builder's assist really truly want to be involved with building their own E-AB, but they want extra guidance. Face it, building a plane is hard! These folks can rest easy knowing they have an experienced builder helping them every step of the way, from opening the box to flight test. That's a very safe and responsible way to build an airplane, in my opinion.
