BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jan 2014, 14:57

Username Protected wrote:

What completed tasks? If you hire someone to build you an airplane you are not the manufacturer, which is the whole point of amateur built aircraft in the first place.

The FAA has a list of tasks. One of them is completion of rib attachments to the wing spar. So you can hire someone to have the rib precut, drilled, and even tack welded in position. You then come along and put in the final nut and bolt. Per the FAA you have completed the task.

At the end of the day, you are the manufacturer of record.

Lastly, most kits now have been evaluated by the FAA for compliance against the 51% rule. So much easier to get this completed.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jan 2014, 14:57

Username Protected wrote:

That's not the impression I got of what was going to happen. But even if that's the case there still won't be a market for more than a few a year.

No idea if it changed, but when I evaluated the Lancair Evolution almost three years ago (which ended up being outside my budget) they made 24 a year. Basically two a month; they were counting on increasing production to four a month, no idea if they did it.

So, yes it is a limited market.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jan 2014, 14:59

Username Protected wrote:

The FAA has a list of tasks. One of them is completion of rib attachments to the wing spar. So you can hire someone to have the rib precut, drilled, and even tack welded in position. You then come along and put in the final nut and bolt. Per the FAA you have completed the task.

At the end of the day, you are the manufacturer of record.

Lastly, most kits now have been evaluated by the FAA for compliance against the 51% rule. So much easier to get this completed.

Tim

That's not the impression I got of what was going to happen. But even if that's the case there still won't be a market for more than a few a year.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jan 2014, 15:05

Username Protected wrote:

That's not the impression I got of what was going to happen. But even if that's the case there still won't be a market for more than a few a year.

No idea if it changed, but when I evaluated the Lancair Evolution almost three years ago (which ended up being outside my budget) they made 24 a year. Basically two a month; they were counting on increasing production to four a month, no idea if they did it.

So, yes it is a limited market.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jan 2014, 15:13

Username Protected wrote:

The way it was explained to me is that the owner could hire someone else in their stead to do the build if they didn't have the time to do it themselves. That is where a lot of the build assist comes in.

I'm pretty sure that's not allowed. I'm sure it happens but it's not the intent of the amateur built category. And it sounds like what you really want is somebody else to manufacture a plane for you. What happens when the inevitable crashes start happening? Who's going to get sued?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jan 2014, 17:11

Username Protected wrote:

If I only sold 10 a year I'd be happy with that. I don't want to do it to make a ton of money. I want to make something fun and exciting that somewhat fills a niche and make people happy. That is why I would want to do this. Oh, and give me an awesome performing airplane for 1/3 the price of a certified.

So you do want to be in the airplane business but yet still call it an experimental. Not gonna happen.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jan 2014, 17:18

Username Protected wrote:

The way it was explained to me is that the owner could hire someone else in their stead to do the build if they didn't have the time to do it themselves. That is where a lot of the build assist comes in.

I'm pretty sure that's not allowed. I'm sure it happens but it's not the intent of the amateur built category. And it sounds like what you really want is somebody else to manufacture a plane for you. What happens when the inevitable crashes start happening? Who's going to get sued?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jan 2014, 17:18

Username Protected wrote:

If I only sold 10 a year I'd be happy with that. I don't want to do it to make a ton of money. I want to make something fun and exciting that somewhat fills a niche and make people happy. That is why I would want to do this. Oh, and give me an awesome performing airplane for 1/3 the price of a certified.

So you do want to be in the airplane business but yet still call it an experimental. Not gonna happen.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jan 2014, 18:29

Username Protected wrote:

If I only sold 10 a year I'd be happy with that. I don't want to do it to make a ton of money. I want to make something fun and exciting that somewhat fills a niche and make people happy. That is why I would want to do this. Oh, and give me an awesome performing airplane for 1/3 the price

What do you think Lancair, Epic and others are doing?

[/quote]

Perhaps I misunderstood. You said above that you'd like to build approx 10 planes per year and sell them. Did you not mean completed planes, turnkey for the owner? If so that is not what Lancair and Epic are doing. They are selling kits where the future owners actually build most of the plane.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jan 2014, 18:46

Username Protected wrote:

If I only sold 10 a year I'd be happy with that. I don't want to do it to make a ton of money. I want to make something fun and exciting that somewhat fills a niche and make people happy. That is why I would want to do this. Oh, and give me an awesome performing airplane for 1/3 the price

What do you think Lancair, Epic and others are doing?

Perhaps I misunderstood. You said above that you'd like to build approx 10 planes per year and sell them. Did you not mean completed planes, turnkey for the owner? If so that is not what Lancair and Epic are doing. They are selling kits where the future owners actually build most of the plane.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jan 2014, 19:37

We have put the -35 on several King Air 90s, they do an excellent job. Some propeller STCs have us turn down the take of RPM to 1900. Don't know what take off HP the Evo uses but there should be more than enough -35 gearbox to handle that job.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Jan 2014, 19:44

Username Protected wrote:

We have put the -35 on several King Air 90s, they do an excellent job. Some propeller STCs have us turn down the take of RPM to 1900. Don't know what take off HP the Evo uses but there should be more than enough -35 gearbox to handle that job.

The Evo uses 750 HP.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jan 2014, 00:55

Username Protected wrote:

I am a Designated Pilot Examiner, DPE, and Pilot Proficiency Examiner, PPE, in the B-25. Here is my understanding of the new rule.

It now says to fly an aircraft type certificated for a crew of 2 or more, or a turbo-jet, requires a FAR 61.58 check (or a new type rating or a few other things) within the preceding 12 months in something, and within the preceding 24 months in the type that you are flying.

That means if you have two type ratings you can alternate them every year, but if you only flying one type you have to complete a pilot proficiency check administered by a PPE, Pilot Proficiency Examiner.

A PPE is one step below a DPE. Most (really all) DPE's have PPE privileges but many PPE's do not have DPE privileges.

The PPE checkride has EXACTLY the same TASKs as the Type Rating Checkride. But, the PPE may incorporate some training in the event. The PPE doesn't issue ratings or failures. They are authorized to endorse a logbook.

Great answer Doug, thanks. Is it productive to take the same check ride over and over? Seems backwords, maybe should be something like "advanced training and may incorporate some checkride tasks"?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jan 2014, 02:32

Username Protected wrote:

Great answer Doug, thanks. Is it productive to take the same check ride over and over? Seems backwords, maybe should be something like "advanced training and may incorporate some checkride tasks"?

Look at the accident stats on jets vs ga and also jets vs turbines and I think that answers the question that it is beneficial. Keep in mind most insurance companies require almost an equivalent for insured turboprops. I can assure you a pc-12 in plane recurrent is more demanding than a BFR by a local cfi (yes, I know that is not always true, but you all know the ones I am talking about). At the very minimum, most of the recurrent includes an IPC.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Jan 2014, 10:32

Username Protected wrote:

Great answer Doug, thanks. Is it productive to take the same check ride over and over? Seems backwords, maybe should be something like "advanced training and may incorporate some checkride tasks"?

Look at the accident stats on jets vs ga and also jets vs turbines and I think that answers the question that it is beneficial. Keep in mind most insurance companies require almost an equivalent for insured turboprops. I can assure you a pc-12 in plane recurrent is more demanding than a BFR by a local cfi (yes, I know that is not always true, but you all know the ones I am talking about). At the very minimum, most of the recurrent includes an IPC.

OT: Lancair Evolution