Preparing to build a TBD

[Toobuilder]

Indeed. Some pilots never even get comfortable flying a C-172 or Cherokee - which are the 2 easiest airplanes in history.

But the point to "try before you buy" is valid, and pretty much a given anyway. Why would you build/buy something you are not SURE meets your mission? There are a lot of poor/marginal flying homebuilts out there - some by design, some made that way by the builder. That said, a well built Tailwind is not among that list. By all reports and some personal experience, they are a honest, stable and benign airplane that should not present even a student any real issue. I'd bet that an hour in a Citabria would be enough to tell if a student could transition to a Tailwind.

At any rate, let's try not to promote the idea that an airplane is beyond the capabilities of an unknown individual reader.

 

[BJC]

At any rate, let's try not to promote the idea that an airplane is beyond the capabilities of an unknown individual reader.

That is the key message.


BJC

 

[Toobuilder]

And just in case the OP is still bothering to read this thread -

I was "social distancing" with my neighbor yesterday afternoon and I brought up the Tailwind referenced in post 51. He was familiar with it, and he then mentioned the Tailwind hanging over our heads in his hangar was for sale. Too many other projects, apparently. It's a formerly flying project that needs recover and reassembly. It includes a 0 SMOH Lyc O-290. He'd take $5k.

...Cheap flying is a phone call away, people.

 

[Little Scrapper]

And just in case the OP is still bothering to read this thread -

I was "social distancing" with my neighbor yesterday afternoon and I brought up the Tailwind referenced in post 51. He was familiar with it, and he then mentioned the Tailwind hanging over our heads in his hangar was for sale. Too many other projects, apparently. It's a formerly flying project that needs recover and reassembly. It includes a 0 SMOH Lyc O-290. He'd take $5k.

...Cheap flying is a phone call away, people.

Man, that is such a good deal!!

 

[Valy]

And just in case the OP is still bothering to read this thread -

I was "social distancing" with my neighbor yesterday afternoon and I brought up the Tailwind referenced in post 51. He was familiar with it, and he then mentioned the Tailwind hanging over our heads in his hangar was for sale. Too many other projects, apparently. It's a formerly flying project that needs recover and reassembly. It includes a 0 SMOH Lyc O-290. He'd take $5k.

...Cheap flying is a phone call away, people.

I'm sure cheap flying is possible. But the fun is the build process. I'm not looking for a deal on a project. I'm going to build my own plane.

 

[Toobuilder]

Sorry, I thought your goal was a useful airplane in 12-24 months for $15k. That's exactly what a restoration project like the illustrated Tailwind delivers. If you want to "build" from scratch, then you better re evaluate your time, cost and performance constraints, because frankly, you're in for a shock.

In the real world, "fun building" and "fast and cheap" are almost always mutually exclusive

 

[thjakits]

I think you mentioned you wanted to use the resulting aircraft for daily commute, right?

What to you have available to fly in/out from??
Any restrictions on runway length, surface?

thjakits

 

[BBerson]

Hummelbird is a single seat. Half VW or full VW. Should fly 30 miles. Most of the near ultralights... Earthstar, Titan, Challenger.
BD -6? Old Starlight kit.

 

[David Lewis]

I find that people stare at the ADSB instead of looking out. Almost hit by a Barron. Whatever we did he would turn toward us. I believe people just got stupider with that box.

Ditto for weather radar, glass panel, or anything that encourages overconfidence.

 

[Dillpickle]

I find that people stare at the ADSB instead of looking out. Almost hit by a Barron. Center was talking to both of us. He claimed he did not see us. We volunteered to drop 1000 ft because we could see him coming. Whatever we did he would turn toward us. I believe people just got stupider with that box.

I checked out a new pilot in his Cirrus. He was looking for additional instruction and had ten hours in type, and maybe 100 hours total. He was what my old instructor called an airplane "driver" and not a "pilot." We approached a quiet but large airport, his face locked on the screen. I admonished him to scan and look outside of the aircraft. He was aghast at the thought of the several aircraft I pointed out that didn't transmit location to his little box. He was actually angry that someone might be allowed to share airspace without his ability to see them.... I'm pissed at the people who trained him...

 

[CycleHead]

The usual questions, what's your flying experience, what kind of materials do you have the skills for and like working with (wood, aluminum, welded steel, composites), do you have a place to store it?

Any airport in class C means having a plane fast enough to not interfere with other traffic. And those airports often have hefty landing fees...

If your budget extends to $25K there are a lot of already flying airplanes, certified and experimental, in that price range, as well as partly completed projects, unless you really have your heart set on building.

Unless you're instrument rated don't count on any airplane being a reliable form of transportation unless you live where the sun shines all the time or have storage and alternate transportation on both ends.

But if you can make it work, go for it!

This Reply is The Most Well-Reasoned, Practical Statement about Homebuilding that I have EVER Read !!!

 

[Valy]

This Reply is The Most Well-Reasoned, Practical Statement about Homebuilding that I have EVER Read !!!

I'm kind of in that boat (plane). I have airports in 10 minutes cycling distance of home and work and it's just a 20 minutes flight. By car it takes me 90 minutes due to traffic and detour around the bay.
As for building, I would rebuild a VW engine blind folded and am comfortable with wood and some metal work but don't know how to weld. I can learn if that will help with the build.

Cheers!

 

[Scooper]

I had a T-hangar at KOAK (Class C inside of SFO Class B veil) for nearly twenty years with my C172 and then my Zodiac LSA. I'm now hangaring my Zodiac at Sonoma County Airport (KSTS) and have recently purchased the plans for the Hummel H5. It's a single place aluminum airplane with stone-simple construction that's bigger than the Hummelbird (24" wide cabin at the shoulders), so not eligible for part 103, but does meet LSA requirements as an Experimental/Amateur Built and could easily accommodate a full panel with ADS-B out using the uAvionix tail beacon. It has a fully enclosed cabin and the plans have both taildragger and tricycle gear variants.

I'm seriously considering building one.

Hummel H5

 

[Yellowhammer]

I had a T-hangar at KOAK (Class C inside of SFO Class B veil) for nearly twenty years with my C172 and then my Zodiac LSA. I'm now hangaring my Zodiac at Sonoma County Airport (KSTS) and have recently purchased the plans for the Hummel H5. It's a single place aluminum airplane with stone-simple construction that's bigger than the Hummelbird (24" wide cabin at the shoulders), so not eligible for part 103, but does meet LSA requirements as an Experimental/Amateur Built and could easily accommodate a full panel with ADS-B out using the uAvionix tail beacon. It has a fully enclosed cabin and the plans have both taildragger and tricycle gear variants.

I'm seriously considering building one.

Hummel H5

I love the Hummel H5 sir. I was seriously considering building one before I acquired the kit I am currently working on. I think they are engineered well and look sexy as hell.

Good Luck with your project and please post pictures. What engine will you be going with?
Scott Casler does an excellent job for Hummel.

 

[Scooper]

I love the Hummel H5 sir. I was seriously considering building one before I acquired the kit I am currently working on. I think they are engineered well and look sexy as hell.

Good Luck with your project and please post pictures. What engine will you be going with?
Scott Casler does an excellent job for Hummel.

Thanks. If I decide to build, I'll most likely use Scott Casler's 4 cylinder VW conversion.

 

[103]

I believe the H5 does qualify as a ELSA

 

[Scooper]

I believe the H5 does qualify as a ELSA

Oh boy; I guess it depends on your definition of E-LSA.

I could be mistaken, but I believe that in order to receive an FAA special airworthiness certificate for an E-LSA, a kit producer has to produce at least one example of the kit model that conforms to S-LSA ASTM standards, and the builder builds his kit from that manufacturer that conforms to the FAA approved S-LSA that the manufacturer submitted for conformance certification. I don't believe Hummel has been through that exercise with the FAA.

There are two other paths that I am aware of, and those are: 1) to take a completely unmodified factory built S-LSA to an FSDO inspector or a DAR and have them inspect the airplane to ensure it has not been modified in any way and "is found to be in a condition for safe operation", completes an application for a new special airworthiness certificate application with Category/Designation "EXPERIMENTAL" and Purpose "Light Sport Airplane", and submits a program letter and a replacement set of Operating Limitations to the FAA. The FAA registration database listing then notes: "Classification: Experimental. Category: Operating Light-Sport Pre. Issued cert under 21.190" If you do an FAA N-number search on my airplane, N601KE, you'll see what I mean.

This is the route I chose to take with my AMD factory built CH601XL. I also took the 16 hour LSR-I course and took my graduation certificate to the local Oakland FSDO and applied for and received my Light Sport Repairman Certificate-Inspection so I can perform and sign off my own annual condition inspections.

The second option was to certify existing 2-place ultralights as E-LSAs, but that option expired in January 31, 2008.

By thinking the H5 is an E-LSA, you may be thinking of Experimental-Amateur Built airplanes that are "Light Sport Eligible."

These can be any homebuilt airplanes which meet the FAA Light Sport Airplane requirements, which are defined in CFR Title 14 §1.1 General definitions.

Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following:

(1) A maximum takeoff weight of not more than—

(i) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for operation on water; or

(ii) 1,430 pounds (650 kilograms) for an aircraft intended for operation on water.

(2) A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power (VH) of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level.

(3) A maximum never-exceed speed (VNE) of not more than 120 knots CAS for a glider.

(4) A maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed without the use of lift-enhancing devices (VS1) of not more than 45 knots CAS at the aircraft's maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical center of gravity.

(5) A maximum seating capacity of no more than two persons, including the pilot.

(6) A single, reciprocating engine, if powered.

(7) A fixed or ground-adjustable propeller if a powered aircraft other than a powered glider.

(8) A fixed or feathering propeller system if a powered glider.

(9) A fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-blade rotor system, if a gyroplane.

(10) A nonpressurized cabin, if equipped with a cabin.

(11) Fixed landing gear, except for an aircraft intended for operation on water or a glider.

(12) Fixed or retractable landing gear, or a hull, for an aircraft intended for operation on water.

(13) Fixed or retractable landing gear for a glider.

EAA spells it all out is reasonable detail here: Experimental Aircraft Listing

Note that Hummel is listed as a kit manufacturer that offers kits that qualify as LSA.

So, my take is that since the H-5 is an E-A/B that meets the FAA's requirements for Light Sport, it could be considered an experimental light sport, but I don't think the special airworthiness certificate will say E-LSA or Experimental Light Sport; I believe it will say Experimental Amateur Built instead.

One advantage of building an E-LSA from a kit manufacturer that has submitted an S-LSA to the FAA for conformance certification of the same model is that the builder gets a repairman certificate. Someone who has purchased a new or used factory built S-LSA that hasn't been modified and then uses a DAR to recertificate it as experimental can perform maintenance on the airplane and the person that does the 16-hour LSR-I class and get the FAA LSR-I certificate can perform condition inspections.

An original builder of a 51% E-A/B airplane that meets LSA requirements gets the repairman certificate and can maintain and inspect his airplane, but subsequent owners will always have to have the condition inspections done by an A&P.

Like I say, I could be wrong.

 

[103]

A more complete answer nobody could ask for! E-A/B is the correct term thank you!

 

[D_limiter]

Thanks for the explanation of E-A/B vs ELSA. I had been wondering...

 

[pwood66889]

Excellent essay, Scoop!
One thing I might note, on using a uAvionics beacon for ADS-B Out, is that it requires a transponder for altitude.