Category: Mailsack

Posted on

Mail Sack, 10-19-12, Piet and Wagabond notes.

Friends,

Here are some of the letters sent in. On the topic of Pietenpols;

Pietenpol builder Harold Bickford writes:

“Thanks for posting this William. The article certainly adds to the information base re: a Piet with Corvair. I’m assuming the Lycoming weighs about what a Continental 65 weighs, i.e. 170lbs. so about 55 of the 95 lbs would be from the Corvair. The performance and CG advantage for the reasons stated are incentive enough to use the Corvair.. I am curious at what gross Bob’s Piet is operating given that the typical gross per Pietenpol is 1080lbs. As an aside enough 1/4″ x 1/2″ was processed over the last two days to make the ribs for our Pietenpol. A band saw, planer and Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators are three useful tools/items that I’m glad are in the shop. – Harold”

Harold, the photo below is our Pietenpol at Brodhead 2000. We flew it up from Florida in 14 hours. We stopped about every 2 hours to take a break and gas up. The empty weight of the plane was 734#. On every one of the loaded take offs the plane was leaving the ground at 1270 to 1280 pounds. At other times we flew the plane as high as 1360 pounds. It was really limited by space, not weight. In air cargo slang it “Cubed out instead of grossing out.”

 

Bobs Piet in the story is 739# empty. He has an 18 gallon fuel system. The 8oo fpm number refered to the plane with full fuel and two 180 pound people in it on a 70F day. The piet is a very strong plane when it is well built. The traditional 1080# gross weight is a number that was based on a Ford engines climb performance limitations. Bob’s previous gross weight was limited to 900 pounds or so on a very hot day for performance reasons, and maybe 1100 pounds on a very cool day with a long runway. These types of limitations on his aircraft are effectively removed by the Corvairs power.

——————————————————-

Builder Sonny Webster writes:

“Saving weight to increase climb is like saving money to increase profits – eventually you run out of places to cut. To increase performance in a sustainable fashion you will eventually need to increase power/revenues.”

—————————————————————————————–

On the temps article with the Wagabond picture;

Builder Jerry Mcferron writes:

“Would you please post the real world cruise, climb, and useful load numbers for the Wagbond?-Jerry”

 

 Jerry, the picture above is just after Gus did the first flight in the plane, he is shaking hands with Dave. You can’t tell these things in pictures, but both Gus and Dave are about 6’3″ and they are both built like NFL defensive linemen. The empty weight of the plane was 804 with a 2700cc Corvair. The plane didn’t have a 5th bearing, but it had the heavier pre-gold oil system. It also had a full panel of vacuum driven gyros. We arbitrarily set the gross weight on the paperwork at 1320# to make it light sport compliant. We did a test flight at 1625 pounds during phase one. I was not worried structurally because we used a PA-22-108 colt airframe as the basis of the plane (this is no long legal under the current FAA guidelines for homebuilts) which has a gross weight of 1650 pounds. The lift struts are off a 160 hp tripacer with a 2,000 pound gross. If you study the gross weights vs the gross climb rates for all the PA-20 and -22 series of pipers, I believe that they set the gross at a number that still gave 500-600 fpm on a standard day. In short it was performance based, not a structural issue. If you are working from the Wag-aero plans and working with wood spars, it would pay to go back and not assume the information to be interchangeable metal spared planes.

The plane is not a speed demon. its fair to say that it will do 100 mph on 5 gallons per hour. It 100 hp climb rate at 1320 pounds is about 700 fpm on a standard day. It is a good all around aircraft, but not an outstanding performer on any single front. We are currently redoing the plane with some detail work intended to clean it up and repower it with a 3000cc Corvair. I am shooting to bring down the empty to 780 pounds or so. We will have more data in a month or two. If you would like to see a video of the plane in flight, look at this link to you-tube, it has 7,000 hits:-ww

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7XhuWmqcPw

 

Posted on

Mail Sack, 10-16-12, Unicorns vs Ponies, CC#24

Friends,

A few comments on the subject of Unicorns vs Ponies:

Old School EAA member Dan Branstrom writes:

“Great writing! Over the years, unfortunately, in the airframe aspect of unicorns, there have been many designs debuting at Oshkosh that represent the wings of unicorns. The most spectacular being the BD-5, which garnered thousands of orders, and shipped hundreds of kits, minus an engine before going belly up. It is a sexy plane, and it was supposed to go fast on little hp. Read the sad story under “Bede BD-5″ in Wikipedia. Yes, there’s a number flying,but they’re modified substantially from the original, and way too many pilots died along the way. You can not only lose money and time on unicorns, but your life.-Dan”

Corvair/Merlin on floats, builder and flyer Jeff Moores of Canada writes:

“Very smartly done, William. That was humourous, insightful, and sadly true. Many would-be builders waste too much money on unicorns. I am very pleased with my WW Corvair Pony!!-Jeff.”

Builder Harold Bickford writes:

“Hi William,
It looks to me like the internet guy aka TB is thinking about automotive or race applications.and high rpm levels. Nonetheless his commentary is only speculation. If he would take the time to read the SAE papers from Chevrolet specific to the Corvair he might better understand why and how Ed Cole and company designed the engine and car the way they did. Or he could read what the tuners of the day did and why. In either case they did the work (engineering and/or tuning) and it was for automotive and not aero applications. And they did “find” the 15-20 HP with far simpler changes than this fellow is imagining but again it is an automotive application.

As we know, Bernard Pietenpol realized the engine had potential for aircraft use and pursued that path. You and your cohorts have gone from there and developed a good 100 HP engine based on the Corvair. When folks ask why I’ve chosen to use a Corvair for the Piet the first question to them is this: what do they know about the Corvair? Almost immediately they want to change the subject. It may not be fun for them but does provide a great opportunity to have a factual rather than speculative understanding of how and why the Corvair is a good choice for a variety of aircraft. -Harold”

Waiex/120 hp Corvair builder Greg Crouchley writes:

“Excellent post! Seems that 1 unicorn converts nicely into 100-120 ponies. Looking forward to 24- Greg”

—————————————————————

750 builder Blaine Schwartz commented on Corvair College #24,

“William, CC#24 looks like it will be a fantastic event! Due to work and distance it took a while, but I finally made it to CC#22 in Austin and had the best time of my life! I underestimated the great group of motorheads and the help you provided me while assembling my 2850cc engine. The friendship and learning that the CC provides is simply not available anywhere else. I hope to be in the air soon and plan to fly in to my next CC!- Blaine”

 

Posted on

Mail Sack, 10-11-12…..Cleanex notes

Friends,

On the topic of Intakes and the Internet,

West Coast Pietenpol builder Pete Kozachik writes:

Thanks for the informative (and very entertaining!) piece on vapor-expertise vs. real-world expertise. That rear alternator mount looks great! Have been waiting to see it since you described it some time ago. How does it test out?

Pete, Dan and I are still working out manufacturing details, and then are going to stick it on a test bed aircraft. We want to affirm that the unit spins fast enough and runs cool enough in an actual engine compartment. We will have all the parts at Corvair College #24.-ww

500 hour Zenith Corvair builder/pilot Andy Elliot writes:

“For anyone who would like to learn more about the truly amazing development of piston engine technology during WWII, I wholeheartedly recommend the book “Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of World War II”, by Graham White. It is published by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and is available on their web site (http://books.sae.org/book-r-154) for only $60.
The development of the V-1710 is covered in detail, from the first 650 HP version built for the Navy in 1931, through the development of the “ram’s horn” intake manifold in 1935 which resulted in the 1000 HP -C8 version in 1937, through to the G model which made 2200 HP (with ADI) at 3200 RPM, but never saw large production as the war ended. (They are used at Reno, though.)
As is well described and documented, the V-1710 was ahead of the Merlin throughout most of its life, but suffered for its single-stage engine-driven supercharger when Rolls-Royce added the 2-stage, 2-speed, intercooled/aftercooled supercharger with the -60 series Merlins.
Allison introduced the -199 version of the V-1710 for the XP-51J, the fastest of all the Mustangs. It used a 2-stage supercharger with a liquid-cooled aftercooler and was the first to meter fuel directly into the supercharger without a carburetor. It produced 1700 HP, at 3200 RPM ** at 21000 ft! **
Another very good book, specifically about the V-1710 is “Vees For Victory!: The Story of the Allison V-1710 Aircraft Engine 1929-1948″, by Dan Whitney, who provided engineering support for Reno air racers for many years. Available on Amazon for $50. Interestingly enough, if you check out the presentation at http://www.enginehistory.org/Reno/EngineeringUnlimiteds120304.pdf, you’ll find about 1/2-way through, a picture of Graham White at Reno in 2002, working with Pete Law, who is more or less the “godfather” of racing engines at Reno! -Andy “

————————————————————————————–

On Cleanexes, builder Jackson Ordean writes:

I’m amazed there aren’t more Sonex powered by Corvair? Beats Aerovee by any measure, not to mention Jab. Anyway, just keep up the awesome work – hope you guys are blessed doing it.

Jackson, Different engines for different people. We try to just present the appeal of the Corvair without getting in to debates about merits. Over the years I have found that guys who just want a by-it-in-a-box  imported engine have very little interest in Corvairs, and people who really want to know every nut and bolt on their airframe and engine will find little satisfaction in engines from companies that are focused on selling a consumer good rather than an educational mission. This is the most important division in engine choices. A guy who really wants to be self-reliant and his own mechanic, but buys a Rotax 912 because its lighter than a Corvair, isn’t likely to be happy in the long run. Neither is a guy whose sole interest in Corvairs is because they are comparatively inexpensive. This is why I spend a lot of time speaking about philosophy and motivation, these are important things to understand before people start shelling out money.

At Oshkosh last year, a nice enough guy, new to homebuilding showed me a spread sheet he had made with every possible 100-120 hp engine on the market. A lot of the data was brochure stuff like liquid cooled engines weighed without water and fuel burns a Cox .049 couldn’t match. This guy even invented new concepts like engine weight divided by dollar cost, not a particularly useful value. I tried to get him to switch gears and think differently by pointing out that his marriage works because he and his wife are a good philosophical match, not because her height x weight divided by her gross income is in some target range on values. I think he understood the point, but I suspect he went home and graphed out the last equation.

On the subject of Cleanexes, There are a lot of photos of them on Dan’s site Flycleanex.com. Hard to believe, but Dans plane has been flying for seven years. Time waits for no one. In the first years, Dans plane was followed quickly by Chris Smiths “son of Cleanex.” At the time there was debate about what the ‘right’ engine was, or how well the Corvair worked in the sonex airframe, mostly driven by people who spent a lot of time on the net and had never seen a Corvair or Dans plane. 

In the foreground Dan’s Cleanex, behind, Chris in the “son of Cleanex.”

In 2009 Dan and Chris flew up to the Crossville fly in for Sonexes. Chris later told me that he and Dan, who fly together a lot, did a full power, formation flyby at 5 feet, 180mph, 3,500 rpm and 12 cylinders, followed by a sharp pull up and a clean break. Chris said after the came back around and landed it was like Lindbergh landing in Paris, they were mobbed and questioned by people who had only heard from internet experts that the Corvair was a heavy, oily, old American engine that made no power. After one look at reality, opinions change. Today there are about 14 Cleanexes flying. many of these were built by people who were present at the Crossville moment, and they cite the sound and the power as the decision maker. All of them report that the performance had been astounding, partially because the internet experts, people who had never seen the Combination fly, had them expecting much less. One of these successful Cleanex builders whose mind was made at Crossville is already regestered to fly his creation into Corvair College #24-ww

Posted on

Mail Sack, 10-9-12 , Various topics

Friends,

Another round of mail on the last week’s topics;

———————————————————————–

On the subject of alternators:

2850cc Zenith 750 builder and Pilot Jeff Cochran writes:

“I’ve had John Deere tractors since 1974. My ID photo on zenithaero is me on my new JD 5103 tractor (made in India). My new CH750 is green and yellow. But I am more than happy to have a Yanmar dynamo out front. I had to buy the regulator from JD, and while there asked to see their dynamo. The box does not look that much better, and the part was exactly the same except for price.
Jeff”

—————————————————

On the subject of Florida Beavers and info sources:

 Builder Bruce Culver writes:

“Didn’t these clowns realize that Florida is several hundred miles long north to south, and that the northern part of the state is not at all tropical? My youngest brother lives in Jacksonville, and the first time I drove there to visit him years ago, there were so many pine trees I thought it looked like Germany without the mountains….. There is a lot more to Florida than Miami Beach.”

Builder Matt Lockwood writes:

“Your opening paragraph on this one made me think you ran afoul (pardon the pun) of the spark plug guy who may have been with the mob. “leave the spark plugs, take the cannolli”

 Builder Tom Griesemer writes:

“I have been reading a lot of your stuff lately as I have been researching Corvair flight engines for a while. As a retired prof of 30 years I like your style. Missed #23 and may come to #24.  Working on my 4th plane at the moment. Keep up the good work, Tom”

Zenith 750 builder and student of 6 colleges Dan Glaze writes:

“I tend to draw my info from a much smaller pool, It consists of William W., Dan W, Roy S. and Mark P. I would advise all Corvair engine builders to do the same and stop playing into the interned synthetic intelligence. That is if you are looking for success on your project. Just my two cents worth, Dan”

 2850cc 750 builder Gary Burdett writes:

“Yes , one “been there done that” is worth a hundred “I think’s”and even then, verify. That has been some of the education part of my EAB education and recreation experience.”

 Zenith 601XLB builder and flyer since 2005, Phil Maxon writes:

Great post. This is true. This is why I start all my posts with “This is what I did on my plane… ” or I don’t answer. There is a very strong desire on the part of Internet writers to comment on stuff and be “right.”

 Zenith 701 builder Terry Samsa writes:

“Must be a consequence of the global warming. I wonder when I’ll see alligators in my back yard up here in Northern Minnesota! :)“

 Terry,  Why wait 25 years? We will mail you one, we have plenty-ww

———————————————

On the topic of spark plugs;

International man of mystery and DC-3 owner, Tom Graziano writes:

“William, Just because “Guys “A” and “B” have more than 10,000 flight hours between them” doesn’t necessarily mean they know anything about the mechanical aspects of aircraft and aircraft engines, troubleshooting, repair, etc. (that’s kinda like saying an aircraft mechanic with 30 years experience who is not a pilot would know a lot about flying). Having both – 30+ years & many thousands of hours – it is incredible how many times I’ve seen aircraft with simple, easily diagnosed and fixable discrepancies come in with pilot applied “fixes” that exacerbated the problem sometimes causing serious damage & expensive repairs. Not berating the two guys at all, simply saying that just because someone has a bunch of hours flying doesn’t mean they know anything about maintenance or troubleshooting. Tom”

Good point Tom, I just wanted to point out that people who already know that aviation is all about the detail being correct sometimes get a little careless about this as the experience builds up. Thanks for the perspective-ww

——————————————————

On the topic of trucks vs planes;

Builder P.J. (USN) writes:

“Loved the story about the old pickup truck, At least you live on the east coast where they don’t stick a probe up your tailpipe every year to check for noxious gases. Long live the carburetted 350 but I gotta ask, what would your second choice be? sign me antique air-cooled vanagon driver”

 P.J., We still have Grace’s Greenbriar Van, so were of the same air cooled van idea as you. I still have my ’66 Corvair and Grace drives her CTS-V every day., But we are doing better, the score at our house is cars and trucks 5, planes 4.-ww

Posted on

Mail Sack 10-3-12

Friends,

I write a lot about motivation and philosophy, and most of the stuff rarely generates email, but if I write a piece that sounds cranky, people write in response.  Below, a few thoughts from builders. keeping in mind that independent, intelligent people often see things from a different angle, I rarely expect builders to see eye to eye on perspectives, and it worth including that I am often more entertained by people I disagree with than people who see a subject the same way. I am open-minded, notice that “Guy A” gets the last word on the subject with his own letter.I wrote a long detail piece on plugs a few months ago, to read it type the words “Spark Plug Woody Harris” in the search block on the above right.

At the very bottom is a very thoughtful letter from Harold Bickford on the article Mastery or ?. Well worth reading -ww 

—————————————————————

From builder Matt Lockwood:

Good points (pardon the pun). Speaking for myself, I have learned tremendously from you, WW, thanks for being a pioneer.

———————————-

From 601 Builder/pilot and DVM Gary Ray:

“You are not alone.
I have seen similar behavior in my profession. If West Nile virus is reported in the press then all animals that die in the next year were one of the unlucky ones that got it. Or if the Chinese contaminate dog and cat food with sawdust, then all animals that die of kidney failure must have been poisoned even though no toxic agent has been found, no animal gets sick when deliberately fed the suspected food, millions of animals that have eaten it have perfectly normal health and blood work, and none of the tissue damage found on necropsy of animals that die is related to other cases. Or, when a client states that they think their cat is responding poorly to a vaccine that he got two months ago and it is making him sick, they are not convinced by me when I tell them that the tire imprint on the white-haired abdomen probably has more to do with his current problem. “

——————————————————————————

From west Coast Pietenpol builder Pete Kozachik:

“Hi William, I’m having a Dickens of a time with your tale of two spark plugs; seems I used the wrong gap on my test run some time ago. The last line in your piece calls for .016″, but I used the 1965 Corvair Shop Manual’s spec, .030″. I used AC-R44F plugs, and ran the test using high octane no-lead gas as prescribed. What gap should I have used under those conditions? Same as for 100LL? One thing I noted after the run was some wet(?) soot on one plug, which I figured was due to any number of things, but not the wrong gap. What’s your diagnosis? Best wishes, Pete”

Pete, I included your note here in case anyone else read the story and got a detail wrong: .016″ is a gap that is correct for a magneto ignition, as on the Franklin in part “B”. Corvair should have a gap of .035″ and use ACR44F plugs.  Other ones work, but if anyone wants old reliable, this is the best set, especially if you are trying to track down any kind of issue of experimenting with some other variable. We soot on a plug on a first run is often assembly oil from the engine’s build up.-ww

————————————————————-

From Builder Mr. Jaksno:

“Sorry to hear this. Aviation does not suffer fools. The rant was well deserved, AND instructional. Thank you for being a ‘Lifeguard’. And thanks for being the Godfather of Corv-air!”

If you read the letter from Guy A you will see he is a pretty good cat, just missed it on the plug issue. A lifeguard will rescue people, (I tried it once, worked, but I promised Grace that I would let professionals and those clad in asbestos extract trapped people next time.) Just think of me as a guy standing on the beach pointing out where the rip tide you can’t see is. -ww

—————————————————

From Builder Bruce Culver:

“Don’t that make your brown eyes blue…..?”

———————————————

And a response from the ever mysterious “Guy A” Himself, with whom I had a very pleasant 25 minute phone call today. If I ever sound cranky in email, it’s probably an attempt at humor gone bad. There is little between friends that can’t be fixed with a phone call……Guy A is obviously a thoughtful guy who considers risk management seriously, he just missed a basic important point on his engine.

I (Guy “A”) had night of introspection, and not much sleep, after reading this over a few times. I know that I’m *not* a taker of unmitigated risks, as you might infer. Instead, like nearly all long-time pilots, I recognize that flying, especially flying an airplane I built-in the garage with an engine not originally designed for a plane, is an inherently risky activity. And I believe that the risk can be reasonably managed through precise construction and maintenance, well thought-out testing, careful operation, and learning from the experience (and mistakes) of others.
I retorque my wooden prop at every oil change, and I do those at short intervals recognizing that Rotella-T and a $6 oil filter are not expensive compared to the engine. I have two batteries and an alternator in my electrically dependent airplane, and every year at annual, I put in a fresh battery in the #1 spot and move the #1 battery to the #2 spot, so that I always have at least one battery that less than year old. The manufacturer says the batteries should last 6 years, but what’s a battery worth when you’re in the clouds, an hour from the closest airport, and the alternator belt breaks?
I change my tires before they’re bald. I use flight following whenever I can and file flight plans when I can’t. I check the weather before I fly, every time, and I talk to Flight Watch a lot when it doesn’t look good. I use carb heat at low power whenever it’s below 75 degrees, even if I know the relative humidity is 20%. I attend FAA safety meetings regularly, because that one minute reminder of something I’m supposed to know might make the difference, making the two-hour presentation worth the time.
When I had a certified plane, I only used the specified plugs, and I cleaned, gapped and rotated them on a regular basis. So how did it happen that I flat-out “missed” the *requirement* to use the right plug with the proper gap in my engine?
I could try to explain that the plugs I used *are* listed in the spark plug cross references, and that I ground tested a range of supposedly acceptable heat plugs, found no apparent differences and stuck with the middle of the range. I could note that I’ve flown probably 400 of the 500 hours on my plane with those plugs. I could mention that modern cars with computerized adaptive ignitions are much less sensitive to particular plug heat and gap, so it wasn’t on my mind.
But all that would just be underlining the remarkable strength and robustness of the Corvair design. During all those hours, I was probably getting less-than-optimal performance and building up lead deposits on the valves. And a choice to use conservative timing (about 28 degrees max advance), in case I had to run on auto fuel, probably kept me from seriously damaging the engine.
So I’m just going to say, “I missed it, and messed up.” My bad. Experimental aviation is supposed to be a long journey of learning, and now I’ve learned this one,Luckily, no metal got bent and no one got hurt. ACDelco R44F plugs, gapped .035-.040. Got it.
Final note – If you also cannot find these plugs in your local auto parts store, try Rock Auto on-line (www.rockauto.com) for the best price.

————————————————————————————

On the subject of Mastery or ?  Builder Harold Bickford wrote:

William,

It seems to me that when you build something from components or better yet from basic materials you have to learn about craftsmanship, patience, accuracy and so forth. By it’s very nature homebuilding is not instant gratification and that is a good thing in a society that seems to want things right now for little or no cost. It is better to invest yourself and learn than to simply have someone else say “this is the airplane you want”.

Certainly part of the building adventure has been to visit and work with a fellow Piet builder. He ultimately chose an O-200 which he rebuilt. The Corvair engine mount he had is now in my shop along with a Corvair engine on an engine stand that will be torn down when it gets colder Meanwhile the wood for the fuselage is ready for cutting and framing up while we still have nice temperate days. True it is labor intensive (and we are on a budget) but the point is that when done the Piet will be a known quantity and at virtually every point Edi and I will be able to say “we built that”.

Harold

 

 

Posted on

Mail Sack, Affordable Aircraft…..

Friends,

Below is a collection of mail we took in covering the three articles on Affordable Aircraft. A wide range of perspectives on the subject. Anyone could read the thoughts and find something to object to, but I like to look at it from the point of view of how much the views of diverse homebuilders have in common.  I truly think that builders with thought out perspectives should have a place where they can be heard.  We can do this here without it dissolving to typical Internet drama. All perspectives welcomed.

 

Blast from the past: In the Zenith booth at Oshkosh 2003. Between Grace and I is the 601XL kit that we purchased that week that became our aircraft seen at the right side of this page. We had just finished speaking to Burt Rutan, who stopped when he saw Grace’s shirt that said “My ex wanted me to quit flying.” He liked the shirt, but he specifically made a joke about rivets. I pointed out that rivets cure to full strength a lot faster than epoxy cures. Burt laughed. In the center of the photo is Arnold Holmes, our guest editorial writer. The photo was taken by John Warren.

Jackson Ordean writes:

Absolutely right on. Although, at age 69, I’ll probably go for a ‘lazy’ kit. Thank you!

Piet builder Dave Aldrich writes:

Arnold hit the nail on the head when he talks about “instant gratification”. The Farcebook and Twitter generation have no clue about what pride in craftsmanship is, nor are they apt to find out. Our school systems put so much value on “self-esteem” that pride and a feeling of individual accomplishment are pushed to the fringe, if not devalued completely. I would love to have some local high school kid come out to the hangar and help me build my Pietenpol but I’ll win the Megaball Super Dooper Jumbo Lottery before that happens.

On a slightly different topic, affordable planes do exist, just not “new”. I’ve got an almost 50-year-old Piper Cherokee that has been well maintained, marginally IFR, and is worth about what you’d pay for a new mid-sized car. Solid, simple airplane and built in the USA.

Stepping down off soap box….

Zenith builder Brian Manlove writes:

Would you consider a Zenith CH650B (not quick-build) to be a “fancy kit”? At the current price of around 18K for the complete airframe and finishing package, (less FWF) I guess it’s relative to one’s viewpoint. In my case, I’m 59 years old, only now getting into the “arena” and unfortunately have an unknown life expectancy. After including the costs of the Corvair conversion, propeller, and “steam” gauges, it’s still around the cost of a mid-priced new car. It’s not only totally affordable, but I will still get a lot of satisfaction and learn a lot about aircraft construction by putting it together, and I will probably actually live to fly it. If my only choice is to look forward to an unknown number of years of trial, error, and very likely close to that much expense anyway (who knows how much wood and aluminum will keep going up in cost) then I should just hang it up now. While I’m at it, why not make my own tires, brake pads, propeller… heck, I could even turn my own nuts and bolts with a nice lathe… I’ll get my daughter to start weaving linen… Seriously though, aren’t Zenith and Sonex at least trying to produce a truly affordable product for the “common man?”

Brian, both Arnold, myself and most other people I know consider both Zenith and Sonex kits a good value, and part of the solution and not the problem. In 2005 I wrote an article published by the EAA called “The P/K LSA” and the subject was these two aircraft, and how both outfits were glad to offer them as kits, plans, or even by the individual part, addressing many people’s needs. Keep in mind that Grace and I thought the 601 kit was a good enough value to buy one ourselves at Oshkosh 2003 for $15K, which was a giant amount of dough to us at the time. Our main beef is stories about real builders like yourself being displaced by stuff about $150K LSAs from China and million dollar turboprops. Keep building, looking forward to you flying your creation into a College soon.-ww

Larry Bird in Virginia writes:

Bravo — I’m sure this was just a bit of a rant – it was penned with too much passion to be anything else; however, it is also painfully true as most of us who still harbor flying dreams, but must live paycheck to paycheck, know… (Please pardon the turgid parentheticals, that’s the way I think).

It is popular these days to insist that “someone” should do this or that to relieve me of my plight, but the truth is that if I can convince myself to be content with the product of my own hands, then I have few excuses and the solution is readily available. I’d love to be in the position to afford (and build) a Lancair IV, but even though I have Lancair’s first VHS promotional tape from way back when, that will never happen…

Thankfully there are still folks fully engaged at the unpretentious end of sport aviation to “help” geriatric neophytes with encouragement, advice and (dare I say it) parts/assemblies I can’t easily make myself. I’ve been involved/immersed in several sports; motorcycling, sailing, auto-racing and flying among them – in one fashion or another all have betrayed their populist roots and become more spectator sports built on ersatz pageantry than the participatory sport they once were…

Nonetheless, after years mildewing on the couch waiting for my “ship to come in,” it is good to be back in the shop attempting to learn those skills that would have afforded me my (air) ship, decades ago… plus, I get to take frivolous pleasure in the satisfaction that comes with having a fantastic excuse for all that low-cost dirt and grease under my finger-nails… All on the anticipation that I may yet get back in the air, and for less than many pay for a used car…It’s up to me…

Noted aviation journalist Pat Panzera writes:

Although you won’t find much in the way of homebuilding in the pages of EAA’s Sport Aviation (as compared to years past), I’ve spent the past 3.5 years bringing the type of homebuilt articles we’ve come to miss to the (virtual) pages of EAA’s Experimenter eNewsletter, AND for nearly a decade, I’ve filled the pages of CONTACT! magazine with articles from the trenches of experimental aviation, many of which are one-off designs. For Experimenter, I campaigned from the beginning to make it FREE to everyone, not just EAA members, and so far I’ve been able to keep it that way. http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/ Unfortunately, changes are being made outside of my control

Pat, People who follow your work understand that you are one of the very few journalists committed to publicizing the efforts of the common man, with a long portfolio that shows that you have always backed this concept. Thanks for the efforts to cover our Arena.-ww

Bruce Culver writes:

This and your previous essay are outstanding. I am among those who would love to fly, but hover at the lower end of the monetary threshold. Yet I never miss a chance to go outside when I hear a plane go overhead, wanting to see what it is. In a real sense, EAA has sold its soul to the march of commercial aviation. As you said, “Sport Aviation” looks more and more like “Flying”, and there are tens of thousands of us out here who would love to get up there, but can’t quite make it, yet. But with the proper attitude and some assistance in planning and more economical designs and materials, many of us can, and will… I was a logistician in the defense industry for 25 years, and I love the Corvair movement because you have no real competition, and have fought for so long to make this wonderful engine all it could be for light aviation. The watchword in military logistics is “life cycle costs,” and that means acquisition, operation, and maintenance and repair. This is where the Corvair is the engine for the DIY homebuilder on a budget, not only getting the engine but using it and repairing or upgrading it. You can replace the entire internals in a Corvair for less than just the valves in a Lycoming or Continental. Please keep up the fight to make flying accessible to all who desire to slip the surly bonds. What you are doing is incredibly important – there is NO other way to keep general aviation healthy without making flying more accessible. The pilots who got their training in the 1960s are retiring pretty quickly now, and the military services are not training the number of pilots they used to. Only by encouraging new pilots to join the decreasing crowd can the decline be slowed. When GA gets small enough, many of the services now available will disappear due to lack of sufficient demand. That will affect even the 5% catered to by EAA and AOPA. But by then it will be too late….

J.A. Oliver writes:

I agree wholeheartedly with your take on “Sport Aviation.” When the much-ballyhooed January 2010 issue hit my mailbox, the first thing I said (to myself) was, “They’re trying to make it look like ‘Flying.’ ” This was without knowing who was involved and where they had come from. There have been some good articles, but there is also a lot of stuff that I classify as “filler.” I hope they get back on track. I still haven’t recovered from the spin-off of “The Experimenter” from “Sport Aviation.” Don’t let this issue distract you from the Colleges and Oshkosh, etc. They have made some changes.

Zenith builder Rebecca Shipman writes:

The future of aviation among real people in the U.S. will depend on affordable access to GA aircraft. I like your analogy to sailing. My first sailing experience was in Berkeley on a sailboard. I got access through Cal Sailing Club, which was $20/month. Later, I had my first real sailing experience on a 16′ Hobie Cat owned by a co-worker. (I was invited because his wife thought it was too windy, but that’s another story). I was able to get a lot of experience with motorcycles, and currently ride a very nice one, and I never paid over $5k (my BMW R1100RT-P ). Reliable entry level used planes that cost about what a new SUV would cost would go a long way to ensuring the future of flying for real people. Right now that is possible if you build your own plane. But now you need to have the time, skills, and doggedness to build your own plane. Would I be a motorcycle rider if I had to build my bike?

Regarding the China thing, they are actively investing in developing high end aviation technology. In fact they are investing in all kinds of technology. And we just give it to them, because there is a tremendous short term monetary advantage for moving jobs and capital to China. Plus, it is a growing market because they are developing a middle class. China is huge on “buy China” – unlike the U.S. and “buy American”. So if you want to dominate the market, you have to produce there. In my engineering job, I am training Chinese engineers, and transferring all kinds of trade secret technology to China. We know we can’t protect it – China is lousy on IP law. But it doesn’t matter – there is a fast buck to be made.

Finally, what I train both Chinese and U.S. engineers in at work is a way of thinking that involves the combination of theoretical knowledge and practical mechanics and electronics. I think aviation is a great way to do this. There are many small airports around the country which have shops and planes and flight instructors. Bringing high school students to the local airport / FBO and training them in some basic mechanics, giving them an intro flight, and giving them a basic ground school experience could be a win-win-win. Students would get instruction in an interesting and fun environment, FBOs and small airports would get business and the GA industry would get exposure and new blood.

Tim Smart writes:

Great article, spot on by my thinking. 

Jerry McFerron writes:

Years ago I purchased an hour of dual instruction in a Navy N3N biplane with a P&W R-985. It was my first open cockpit – biplane – radial engine experience. The airport was small, with a road that passed next to the south end of the runway. As we taxied out to take off, a woman driving along the road stopped her car so that her young son could watch. It took me a while to realize that much of my life is spent being the guy looking over the fence instead of doing something that will cause people to stop their car and watch.

Looking back, it seems that the fence gets taller and further from the runway as time goes on. Even more years ago I had a Hobie 16 with blue hulls and Tequila Sunrise sails. . . Hummmm

Jerry, My Dad learned how to fly at Annapolis in N3Ns in 1946. You keep building and we will keep the fence as low as possible.-ww

Zenith 750 builder Mike Festa writes:

William, I can always count on you for eye opening account of the exact happening in my hangar in 2010. It was there that I felt like a spectator! My partner in the hangar was building an RV-6A, and my other friend was completing an AcroSport II. I was happy, or so I thought, being a wrench for these guys, basically doing what was needed. Then, along came the idea of the Corvair as the powerplant for an aircraft I had not chosen. Along came the new 750 from Zenith, and that’s when I was NO LONGER a spectator. As you explained, I could not afford some of these Sport Aircraft, so the 750 was clearly my choice. I experienced Corvair College #20 in Michigan and solidly was convinced I made the right choice. Thanks for the time and effort you have made for, not only me, but countless builders and dreamers who were able to make my “bucket list” reality. Thanks to Grace for being so important in your efforts, also. Peace you all! Hope to see you at Oshkosh. A grateful builder, Mike Festa CC #20 

Builder Rodney Wren writes:

That is one very well written and well thought out article. I recently called EAA and inquired as to plans that might be available for a motor glider. Surely, the premier homebuilt organization in the world should have a list of options available for “homebuilders.” I was referred to a book in their library that “might have some information in it.” They did not, and could not cite one airplane, or set of plans that could be purchased. I can’t tell you how disappointed I was; the individual I talked to was not even aware of the Xenos which is manufactured by Sonex and even located right there on the same airport as the EAA.

Last year, a friend I work with brought me several issues of the EAA magazine. In one was an article on the Cessna 182. WHAT?????? What the heck is a review of a 182 doing in a magazine for homebuilders? Since I plan on selling my 172 this year, and start the process of building a Xenos with a Corvair engine in it, my friend suggested I join EAA. I love all the EAA Webinars and short instructional videos that are available; but where is the organization headed long term? I don’t want to be too hard on them – just wanted to note that my experience with them has been less than what I expected. I’m not too sure that they deserve any of my $$ at this juncture. I appreciate the efforts of people like Mr. Monnett and William Wynne, who really are in the forefront of helping us “common folk” find affordable solutions to our desire to fly. You guys keep up the good work! Regards, RW.

Steve Kean writes:

My guess is it takes money and sponsorships to run EAA glitz, hence the focus on the unattainable French Turbo Prop. Perhaps seeing what EAA financial obligations are being proposed in the yearly budget, members could vote on how EAA spends our membership fees and where endorsement $’s must be used. I whole heartily agree we need more kit and home built coverage. EAA could separate (or sever) the money and glitz financial obligations side of their business from that 98% of the future of aviation, and FOCUS on attainable aircraft.…and I thought there was something wrong with me for not reading “Flying”…

Georgia H. Trehey writes:

William, You give me great hope. Kudos!

 

 

Posted on

Mailsack – 5/15/12 Economic Issues & Webinar Notes

Friends,

On the topic of Economic Issues in Experimental Aviation, experienced builder Greg Crouchley writes:

Dear William, Absolutely outstanding. Thank you.- Greg

Builder Brian Manlove adds:

Actually, F. Scott Fitzgerald lived very close geographically to Cherry Grove – 121 miles. He was born in St. Paul, MN – and moved back home from NYC to a huge house at 445 Summit Avenue, St. Paul, MN, in 1921. Bernie might have even flown right over the house on his way to Minneapolis to show his “automobile-engine powered airplane” to the editor of Popular Mechanics. Maybe he released his relief tank as he passed overhead – now THAT would be funny. (FSF, sitting in garden sipping mint julep, comments to butler: “I do believe I just felt a raindrop.”) Seriously though – I am VERY interested in your carb experiments. This is great stuff.

Brian, I actually meant to imply that Bernard was far from the world of Fitzgerald’s character, Gatsby. I don’t know much about F. Scott other than reading his master work and seeing his film biography beloved infidel a couple of times. My old friend Chris who is in the glider flying story is very fond of Fitzgerald, and often brings up Gatsby’s main objection to the idle rich of the 1920s, that everything they did was “sloppy.”-ww

Builder Harold Bickford shares:

William,
That is a very far-reaching piece you’ve written. For me the working class effort started with a paper route when I was 11.My folks made clear that if I wanted something it wouldn’t be handed to me.
In that context you grow up valuing what you have earned and owned. The high school years Corvairs were in the same mold. Bought with earnings and not handed to me, they were chosen because of the engineering and concept behind them. Reading more than Ralph Nader’s critiques was useful too.
So now it’s the beginning of an Air camper with Corvair power. The plans and manuals were purchased from Andrew Pietenpol, William Wynne and Clark’s Covairs. A few parts have been sourced from another Piet builder and the last year saw a dedicated building constructed. A few fuselage parts are done. Later this year the big wood order comes and then things should progress a bit. In the meantime work on the engine (i.e. teardown) can start. Why do all this? it’s the working class thing, the desire to build and create, learn something new. Rather than getting in the way, education and life experience inform the decision.
It fits the desire for an economical, fabric covered airplane in a classical mold and my wife likes the idea as well. In fact she insisted that we do the Piet in red as she likes cardinals. Anyone up for a short b&w film, “Why we build”, complete with grainy images?-Harold

  Builder Gary Burdett writes:

Thanks, I needed that. -Gary

Sprint builder Joe Goldman writes:

Thank you William, -Joe

International man of aviation Tom Graziano asks:

 William, Does the Ford carb have a mixture control or a means of leaning/enriching? If not, is there anything in the works to do so (e.g. McNeilly leaning block)? Thanks.-Tom

Tom, We have not dug into it, but the bow is vented in such a way that some sort of back suction mixture control may be possible. Even if this turns out not to be practical, the carb may still have a lot of fans, even without mixture control. I understand the limitation of this for a guy from the Rockies like you, but many guys from east of the Mississippi rarely have use for mixture control on low and slow type planes.-ww

 

————————————————————————————————-

 On the EAA Webinar, Andrew Shearer writes:

Dear William
I listened to the webinar and was very, very impressed, both with your presentation and with the professionalism of the webinar itself. Thank you for this very informative session.
I had listened to a few webinars before yours but they did not have the pre-seminar audio visual confirmation that yours did, and this was very helpful. Most of them seem to start just a few minutes late, and that is understandable given the limitations of the technology used.
I did have 2 questions.
1. Will a Corvair match a Thorpe S18 and
2. Have there been any crankshaft issues with engines running any of the 3 types of 5th bearing setups

Andrew, I have a feeling that an S-18 would be a lot happier with an engine bigger than a Corvair. Out of nearly 200 5th bearings on running engines, the only aircraft that has had any kind of crank issue is Mark Langford’s. His 3100 ran my bearing for 450 hours, but broke the back-end of the crank last year. My personal opinion is that was caused by an issue unique to Mark’s engine. Neither he nor I think it had anything to do with flight loads from the prop. Other than this, no one has had an issue with a 5th bearing -ww

Pietenpol builder Pete Kozachik writes:

 Hi William, I enjoyed your webinar last night; smooth presentation and minimal repeating of the same stuff. My question was about auto gas instead of 100LL; is there any specific engine part that would not fare as well with auto gas, with or without ethanol? Am thinking valve guides maybe? On topic, what was lead added for anyway back in the day? Thanks,-Pete Kozachik

Pete, The engine runs cleaner internally on fuel without lead in it. Nothing about the metal parts of the engine has a problem with fuel with ethanol. Lead was added to fuel to improve it’s anti knock characteristics. -ww

 Sp-500 designer and builder Spencer Gould writes:

Hi William, Would you happen to have a link on where we can see old Webinars including your one done on 5/9/12? A search in the EAA video player only pulled up one result. –Thanks, Spencer

Spencer, I am pretty sure you can find it on the EAA’s website, EAA.org/webinars. It is archived there so people will always be able to go back and look it up.-ww

 

Posted on

Mail sack – 5/10/12

Friends,

Here are some notes that came in the last few days….

———————————————–

On the EAA webinar, Military and commercial pilot Terry Hand wrote:

William,

I attended the EAA Webinar last night, and wanted to let you know how much I appreciated your time and knowledge. It was well-laid out, informative, and interesting. I am already a believer in the Corvair engine. You just gave me more ammunition for when I talk to other pilots and builders.

Just one question – you spoke about the potential to fly with a high-octane fuel that had ethanol additive in it. Is there a limit to the amount of ethanol, and is it something that is more suited to a low altitude flyer like a Pietenpol as opposed to a higher flying and faster airplane like a Cleanex or a Zenith? Just looking for clarification. Thanks again for a great webinar. Semper Fi, Terry Hand Terry, The engine itself has no issue with ethanol.

However, each builder needs to look at his airframe and make sure that things like his tank material and fuel lines and gascolater gaskets are all ethanol tolerant. Second, builders need to understand that certain carbs lean differently on fuel with ethanol, and there are limits to how much ignition advance you can use with auto fuel. For these reasons, I suggest that builders run the 40 hours of test time on 100ll to establish what ‘normal’ is for their aircraft, and after getting to know this move on to different fuels if they wish. -ww

Builder Harold Bickford wrote:

I rather liked the presentation as the logic behind using a Corvair was well presented. I was surprised that the helicopter engine story came up. Conversely I though the rebuttal was tremendous. Come summer it’s on to Brodhead and Oshkosh and then to actually start an engine project.- Harold

Highlander builder Pat Ray wrote:

Good Morning William Thoroughly enjoyed your EAA webinar last evening. Thank you.  I have just purchased a Highlander kit.  While at the factory I was pleasantly surprised to discover a Just with a Corvair installed.  Anything you can advise me about the possibility of a Corvair powering my Highlander?  Thanks a million.Incidentally I retired from AlliedSignal/Honeywell flight department and worked with your cousin Irma Hujer.  Everyone loved her.- Pat Ray

 Pat, I took the liberty of answering your note on this forum. Thanks for the nice words. You likely saw Scotty’s plane at the factory, everything to this point says it’s an excellent combination. In the coming months I am also working with Dick Holt to get his installation together. Scotty has a number of custom hand-made items on his plane, on Dick’s I am working to see if we can use more of our regular production items like the U-2 exhaust and an Ma3 intake and Gold oil system, so that the installation will be easier for people to replicate at home without the metal working and fabrication stuff that Scotty had access to at the factory. We will have lots of photos as we progress post Oshkosh.

Nice surprise to hear you worked with Irma. Everyone in our family knows her by the life long nick name her father gave her as a child, “Birdie.” Both her father and grandfather were master tool and die makers in the pure Germanic tradition. Her Father Robbie was a major influence on my mechanical world, he lived only 5 miles from us in NJ. He was the best kind of uncle you could imagine. I made a 12″ long brass cannon under his supervision on the metal lathe in his basement when I was 13. Always fun before caution, Robbie showed me how to bore it to .32 caliber and even gave me black powder for it, after swearing me to secrecy. Very exciting when it shot straight through a 4×4″ post in the Masterson’s backyard.  Robbie taught me a thousand lessons in the shop, the lasting and most valuable ones being about how to behave in the presence of adults in their shops and that there is tremendous pride in a craftsmans life, a feeling that many people wearing a suit to work long for. He passed away about 10 years ago. Four drawers of my main tool box contain metal working tools from Robbie and his father Max, Starret and Brown and Sharpe stuff, some of it 100 years old. I use it all the time, as both of these men defined themselves by the work they did, and it seems wrong to let their tools be idle.  A world without men like Robbie and Max is a lesser place, they left some very big shoes, and I honestly feel my tiny little feet will never do much to fill their empty shoes.-ww

———————————————————————————————

On Corvair College #23, Corvair aircraft designer Spenser Gould asked:

Hi William, For CC #23 I’m not sure if this has ben addressed before, will there be an ample supply of build tables on site or should builders plan on bringing build tables? Thanks,-Spencer (TGI)

Spenser, we will have tables at the event, although it never hurts to have one of your own. Folding chairs are also good, and people have started to bring shop stools to colleges because some of the detail work is better done sitting down.-ww

————————————————————————————–

On the topic of economical carbs, Terry Hand asks:

 William, This is a very interesting discussion for those of us looking to build a fun, yet economical airplane and engine combination. This is a question rather than a comment. Is this concept of the single barrel automobile carburetor applicable to both the 2700 and the 2850 engines? Also, how would it affect the use of Autogas? I know your strong opinion of using only 100LL during the initial flight testing, but would this work with Premium, ethanol-free Autogas for flying an aircraft after the flight test phase? I look forward to your response. Semper Fi,-Terry Hand.

Terry, The carb we are testing is straight from a nation rebuilder, and is intended to be used with regular auto fuel  that contains ethanol. The test runs we have done had ethanol in the fuel, and it showed no signs of bothering the carb. If it did, you could imagine that there would be a lot of people bolting these on Ford cars and going to the gas station that would be ticked off. If the carb runs well on a 3,000cc Corvair we know that it is big enough to run a 2700 or 2850. If it shows itself to be a little on the small side, I can always bump up to the same model carb’s bigger brother that was fitted to Ford’s 200cid sixes. Just once in my life, somewhere out in the middle of nowhere, I want to land on a road near a mom and pop gas station and taxi up to the pumps just like John Belushi in ‘1941’. It would ruin the whole moment if I have to ask the owner if the gas has ethanol in it, thus I am always working to develop data that takes into account that automotive fuel in the US is probably going to always have ethanol in it from here on out.-ww

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Mail Sack, 5/7/12, all topics….

Friends,

On the topic of MGL, 601 builder and pilot Andy Elliott wrote:

A partial counterpoint – I have been running an MGL Ultra EFIS in my plane since day one. I was, in fact, attracted by the experimental and highly customizable nature of the system. Plus, the MGL remote data acquisition unit (RDAC) minimizes the number of instrumentation wires that have to go through the firewall, especially compared to the Dynon units.
I also knew, as an early adopter to the Corvair platform, that I would have to do some constructive engineering along the way. Note that this is much the same reasoning that led me to choose a Corvair over a Jabiru or a Continental. MGL had zero guidance on how to hook their EFIS to a Corvair (or any other distributor-driven ignition) at the time.
I claim that it absolutely *is* possible to use the ignition grounds as a reliable source for the tach signal. I have been doing that for ~440 hours, and have never had any trouble at all. However, in order to get the system to work with two ignitions, I needed to add couple of diodes to the wiring to prevent them from shorting each other out. Seemed pretty obvious to me, but perhaps not to everyone.
As William says, getting useful advice is not always easy. I get a lot of mine from him! But I would have been happy to send anyone my wiring diagram, along with the caveat that it worked for me and might not for you! I do agree that plastic sensors have little place in reliable fuel systems. I’m happily measuring my fuel flow with a Flowscan transducer. [Flowscans are all metal-ww]
That’s why they call it Experimental aviation! FWIW,
Andy Elliott

Andy: The setup in Shayne’s plane did not have the same resistors and diodes. While your system obviously works, I still prefer to have builders use a system like Chris Smith’s that is divorced from the ignition. Thanks for the input, all perspectives welcomed. -ww

———————————————————————

On the subject of new brackets, Buttercup builder and CC veteran Daniel Kelley asked:

 

Hi William, will the new bracket work with Roy’s 5th Bearing?
Thanks, Daniel Kelley

Daniel: As long as your starter has a bolted on ear, not a welded one, the bracket will work. It takes a slightly different length spacer, but this isn’t a big deal. Roy makes a tail bracket for builders using his bearing that fits right up against our Gold Front Starter Brackets in a very neat installation.-ww

Corvair College #22 veteran Vic Delgado wrote:

I like it! I saw one at CC#22 on the engine you finished and really liked the simplicity and the functionality of it. Great Job William, no doubt I will be purchasing one too. 

————————————————————-

On the post about Alan Uhr’s 601-XL(B), 601 builder and pilot Phil Maxson wrote:

Congratulations to Alan! This is a very nice looking plane. If your experience is like mine, it will bring you many hours of pleasure in the future. William’s point about relying on a proven design is right. The way to move from building to flying in the quickest and safest fashion is to rely on a proven configuration.     Happy flying!- Phil

 
 

 

——————————————————————–

On the photo of of the core crank decorations on the CC#23 post, Vic Delgado wrote:

Now That is a fine job of wrapping! Nice going Kendall!! LOL

—————————————————————————–

On the subject of College dates, Rob Stapelton, builder from Alaska wrote to ask:

Will there be other College events later this year? If so where, when?

Rob: The schedule for the year is pretty full with Brodhead and Oshkosh this summer. The next College we have after #23 is going to be Barnwell, S.C., the same location where we had #19 and #21. We hold this College as a year-end event, and it is always on the three-day weekend in early November for Armistice Day. We don’t have the exact info yet, But P.F. Beck and his crew have said they are really looking forward to their third round as hosts.-ww

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Mail Sack – Effective Risk Management

Friends,

Here are a couple of letters we received on the subject of risk management:

__________________________________________

Builder David Mehaffey wrote:

“Never thought I would see the truth in print. as one who is looking back , 80 and counting, the truth has usually been the first casualty at the airport. Hope to see more articles. God watches out for fools, he made a lot of them. I can testify to that. Take care.”

 ________________________________________
 

KR builder Donald January shared:

“William. I’ve always liked the saying ‘We do it right because we do it twice’. This shows me that at least the person found a mistake the first time and repaired it. Up here in the Dakotas you see a lot of scabbed together homebuilts and a lot of fools think the whole state is one huge runway. I’ve seen 150 Cessnas blasting down a gravel road for flight. I remember loading my father’s plane with chemical and having a farmer nearly walk into a turning prop. So we learned to ask the farmer to wait in his truck and the pilot will come to him for the daily spray area. You keep up the good work and hope to see you one day. Donald”

 
___________________________________________
 

Zenith 750 Builder Dan Glaze wrote:

“Keep writing William, if your insight saves one life it will all be worth it. The following is the NTSB report from last August from my home FBO. This guy refused instruction just a week prior to killing himself, thank God nobody on the ground got hurt, Dan-o.”

NTSB Identification: CEN11FA597
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Thursday, August 25, 2011 in Heath, OH
Aircraft: Nichols Lancair 235, registration: N777BN
Injuries: 1 Fatal.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. Excerpt Follows……”The experimental amateur-built airplane had accumulated 1,131 hours since being issued an airworthiness certificate on August 10, 1990. The pilot reportedly had not flown the airplane since he purchased it from the original builder on September 14, 2010. He had reportedly expressed concerns with the airplane’s ground-handling characteristics, and in the weeks preceding the accident, was seen performing several high-speed ground tests.”