Grimace
Well-Known Member
I was thinking that if I ever successfully designed and flew an aircraft and was asked about plans, I would eagerly supply them. However, being a non-professional, I am aware that it would be viewed with healthy skepticism.
You have guys like Mike Arnold who are so acutely aware of this that they decline to produce plans at all, providing only some small critical details that would allow you yourself to design a similar aircraft from scratch, but prevent you from copying his work. On the surface, I see nothing wrong with this approach, although I think it's a little unnecessary. Even in this highly-litigious climate we live in, I would think it possible to insulate yourself to a reasonable degree in a different manner...
The principle that keeps experimental aviation alive is that it allows experimentation which is beneficial even to industry in the long run. The downside is that it allows quacks to sell their marginal ideas.
I don't really like the prefabbed "51% kits". I think they are contrary to the spirit of experimental aviation. Let's be realistic. Nobody is really going to drop $100K on an experimental airplane and then set about modifying it. So while it's "homebuilt", it's rather lacking in "experimental" qualities. Long term, there may be some benefit to these designs being allowed and I'm certainly not going to be the one crusading against them.... but I see a different side of experimental aviation...
People like Evans (volksplane) provide plans and a wealth of information about how they designed it. Or, it's so darn simple, that pretty much anybody can figure out how the structure was calculated and how it goes together. Contrast that with your typical "fast glass" airplane that comes from the factory all pre-formed with unspecified qualities except in the form of final specs. Why not something in between? Nobody really goes broke providing free information. If I were to sell plans, I would provide every single calculation and every assumption I made. It would be open to critique, modification, and review. If I made a mistake, or if someone had a better idea or a different opinion, they could make the changes and incorporate them.
Is it really necessary to be protective of your calculations or design in the realm of experimental aviation? Are people going to start building Lancairs from scratch just because they know how many plies are used on the wing? It seems to me that the spirit that keeps experimental aviation alive is one of fellowship and free exchange of information.
Is there anything inherently flawed in this model?
One of the things that I would want in my experimental aircraft is the ability for it to be deconstructed and reviewed. Is this such a crazy idea? Am I being too much of a granola cruncher?
I don't really have any targeted questions to ask with this thread... I'm just curious about general opinions regarding opening up your work within the field of experimental aviation...
You have guys like Mike Arnold who are so acutely aware of this that they decline to produce plans at all, providing only some small critical details that would allow you yourself to design a similar aircraft from scratch, but prevent you from copying his work. On the surface, I see nothing wrong with this approach, although I think it's a little unnecessary. Even in this highly-litigious climate we live in, I would think it possible to insulate yourself to a reasonable degree in a different manner...
The principle that keeps experimental aviation alive is that it allows experimentation which is beneficial even to industry in the long run. The downside is that it allows quacks to sell their marginal ideas.
I don't really like the prefabbed "51% kits". I think they are contrary to the spirit of experimental aviation. Let's be realistic. Nobody is really going to drop $100K on an experimental airplane and then set about modifying it. So while it's "homebuilt", it's rather lacking in "experimental" qualities. Long term, there may be some benefit to these designs being allowed and I'm certainly not going to be the one crusading against them.... but I see a different side of experimental aviation...
People like Evans (volksplane) provide plans and a wealth of information about how they designed it. Or, it's so darn simple, that pretty much anybody can figure out how the structure was calculated and how it goes together. Contrast that with your typical "fast glass" airplane that comes from the factory all pre-formed with unspecified qualities except in the form of final specs. Why not something in between? Nobody really goes broke providing free information. If I were to sell plans, I would provide every single calculation and every assumption I made. It would be open to critique, modification, and review. If I made a mistake, or if someone had a better idea or a different opinion, they could make the changes and incorporate them.
Is it really necessary to be protective of your calculations or design in the realm of experimental aviation? Are people going to start building Lancairs from scratch just because they know how many plies are used on the wing? It seems to me that the spirit that keeps experimental aviation alive is one of fellowship and free exchange of information.
Is there anything inherently flawed in this model?
One of the things that I would want in my experimental aircraft is the ability for it to be deconstructed and reviewed. Is this such a crazy idea? Am I being too much of a granola cruncher?
I don't really have any targeted questions to ask with this thread... I'm just curious about general opinions regarding opening up your work within the field of experimental aviation...
