SELECTING A HOMEBUILT DESIGN
PART 3
Okay, we're finally back out at the air-
port again. The past couple of months
you've been occupied with doing a per-
sonality profile on yourself and your life
and getting your hands dirty building
your workshop. But, now we're back out
at the airport and ready to make some
hard decisions. We're ready to leap into
the sea of available airplane designs
and emerge with the proper one
clinched in our teeth.
Going back to the original conversa-
tion about matching the machine to the
man and the mission, it immediately be-
comes evident upon looking at the hun-
dreds of designs available that they
break down into convenient categories.
These categories address the mission
at hand, more or less, and can be
further segmented to address the man.
The major categories are:
1. Single, two- or four-place ma-
chines
2. Serious cross country
3. Cross country capable but with
more time to spare
4. Around the patch, personal amuse-
ment machines
5. Aerobatic, personal amazement
machines
Obviously, there are lots of airplanes
that cross over from one category to the
next, but in the main, they tend to center
themselves in one primary category.
Each of the categories naturally are
broken down even further by material
and whether they are kit built or plans
built.
THE TRADITIONAL MATERIALS
Is there a "best" material to use in
Grafting airplanes? The answer is "no",
because, among other things, the defi-
nition of "best" is so subjective. Each of
the materials has its own advantages
and building characteristics and some
32 MARCH 1989
The Airplane
by BUDD DAVISSON
66 Scudders Rd.
Sparta, NJ 07871
lend themselves better to some types
of structures than others, but none is
absolutely "best." If there was one
"best", all airplanes would be made with
that material.
In speaking of the difference between
different building mediums, it can be
said that all things being equal, tubing
and fabric builds as fast as aluminum.
The real difference is in the progress
seen at different stages. A tubing fuse-
lage, for instance, goes together in a
week, so it looks like real progress is
being made. In the same time frame,
the aluminum builder is still tracing out
patterns. Later on in the project, how-
ever, when the aluminum airplane is
finish riveted, the structure is airworthy
and ready to go once the systems are
installed. It needs no further finish. Rag
and tube slows down the closer you get
to the final stages and progress drags
as coat after coat is sanded and
stitched and taped and . . .
In terms of which of the two is more
difficult to learn . . . again the answer is
neither. Learning to do a good weld is
no more difficult than learning how to
buck countersunk rivets in thin sheet. If
there is a difference, it is in the more
forgiving nature of fabric and tubing.
The tubing structure itself is designed
to be redundant and because the wall
thickness is so small, it isn't difficult to
get adequate weld penetration. In fact,
there have been many airplanes built
with questionable welding, but there are
practically no documented cases of in-
flight weld failure. All the same, there is
no excuse for not learning to weld cor-
rectly.
Aluminum is more critical of builder
work habits. Because aluminum
scratches so easily and those scratches
and burrs are stress risers, the builder
has to be right on top of keeping his
surfaces and components scratch and
burr free. By the same token, however,
there are also practically no known
cases where fatique, accelerated by
scratches, have been the cause of a
failure. But, down the road, who knows?
In terms of appearance, aluminum is
the harder of the two to make perfect.
Although it makes little difference struc-
turally, it is difficult for the first time
builder to get a riveted wing skin abso-
lutely smooth and ripple free. The fabric
man has only to keep shrinking and
sanding, although a good fabric man
has as much magic in his hands as a
hotshot metal man. On the up side, if a
good aluminum surface is produced, a
couple of passes with the spray gun
(again with magic hands) and the
builder is ready to go flying.
Wood designs have a tendency to be
more complicated and time consuming
than most other structures because
they have so many tiny parts that need
to be glued together. They also take
longer to finish than aluminum because
they share a portion of the finishing pro-
cess that is more typical of rag and tube.
Correctly done, wood has the potential
to be one of the strongest, lightest struc-
tures available, however, there is the
controversial question of crash surviva-
bility.
In a tubing airplane, the tubing de-
forms slowly in a crash, absorbing tons
of energy and protecting the pilot.
Aluminum lets go much more quickly
and wood breaks almost as soon as it
passes yield strength. And that is
exactly what it does . . . it breaks, not
bends, and that produces a mass of
slivers and jagged ends. Although crash
survivability is as much a function of the
way the structure is designed as it is of
the material itself, the fact still remains
that the ability of the material to deform
before breaking is a primary contri-
buting factor to energy absorption. The
more energy it soaks up while yielding,
before reaching ultimate allowable
strength, is a key to pilot/passenger pro- Just building accurate molds to do a is not completely eliminated, however.
tection. sandwich composite airframe takes as Polyesters don't have the allergy
much time as building dozens of the problem and manufacturers claim they
THE COMPOSITES real airplane. That's why molded com- can handle higher skin temperatures,
posites are the strict purview of kit man- which is why airplanes like the Lancair
Ten years ago, any discussion of ma- ufacturers. It allows them to bang out are showing up in dark colors. Now the
terials for homebuilts would have parts in which the superb finish is built color of speed is no longer necessarily
stopped with wood, tubing and in and the repeatability from piece to white. (See Lance Neibauer's com-
aluminum. Now those are usually the piece is nearly 100%. This is where ments on this subject in the December
last materials discussed because com- homebuilding begins to look like we're 1988 issue of SPORT AVIATION.)
posites have become THE building ma- cranking out giant plastic models. The The bad news about polyesters is . .
terial of the generation. concept of joining prefinished parts is . they smell. It's not a bad smell, but
In actuality, the word "composites" exactly the same. Predictably, the again, the definition of "bad" is in the
originally meant the airframe used a speed of construction borders on light- nose of the beholder. If the shop is at-
variety of materials. An alluminum ning fast, compared to the others. tached to the house, count on the
airplane wasn't composite because it Bear in mind that "lightning fast" is a domestic definition of bad as being
used one material. A rag and tube
airplane was composite because it had
wood wings and steel fuselage.
Today, "composite" means some sort
of thin, semi-rigid skin composed of a
woven cloth (generally fiberglass) in a / « •
hard matrix (usually epoxy or polyes-
ter). The skin is stabilized by either a
''V\
shaped, foam plug or the skin is part of
a formed 'glass sandwich with foam or
honeycomb as a stabilizing filler be-
\ 11 </
tween two layers of 'glass.
Today, what was once thought of as
an exotic building medium, composites
have become much more familiar to
builders than any of the others.
Rutan pioneered composites in the
homebuilt field and his original concept
of "moldless composite" construction
was aimed at bringing composite struc-
tures to a guy's (or gal's) garage with a
minimum of hassle. Where true aero-
space composite structures relied on the
filled-sandwich concept for skins, Rutan
went with putting a skin over a foam
plug that was the shape of the final
structure. This eliminated the wildly ex-
pensive and time consuming molds
usually associated with composites.
In normal molded sandwich compos-
ite structure, the first thing applied to
the mold is the gel coat, which becomes
the finished outer surface of the struc-
ture. Then the skin, the filler and
another layer of inner skin. In other
words, using molds, the airplane is built DECISIONS! DECISIONS! DECISIONS!
from the outside to the inside.
With Rutan's methods, just the re-
verse is done. The first thing built is the relative term. Although lots of claims are unanimous throughout the rest of the
inner core and the fiberglass skin is built heard for being able to build your 300 family. Epoxies don't smell. Not a bit.
upon it until the last thing done is the mph super-ship in a weekend, don't be- Another possible drawback to com-
smoothing of the outer layer of finishing lieve it. Go find some folks who are posites in general is they don't like cold.
resin. The structure is built from the in- building that particular design and find If there is a problem keeping the shop
side out. The penalties paid for avoiding out what the actual time commitment constantly in the mid-60s and up, there
the molds are a labor intensive outer is. It won't be nearly as high as the tra- will be a problem working with some
finish that rivals fabric in terms of the ditional materials, but even composite composites. Even if a heat source is
amount of sandpaper consumed. Also, airplanes take lots and lots of time, even available, if it is necessary to exhaust
carrying the complete foam plug inside when building from a kit. the smell from the shop to ensure
results in extra weight. However, the A factor to be considered in choosing domestic tranquility, a lot of heat is
structure is simple, easy to build, allows a composite design is which type of sys- going to get pumped overboard.
complex shapes to be done with a tem is used - polyester or epoxy. As Polypropylene sheeting comes in
minimum of sweat and gives the builder with everything else, there are trade- handy in controlling heat and smell in
a relatively wide margin for error. Even offs. Some people develop an allergy to shops. A tent or booth made from
with all the sanding, this type of con- epoxy, although the new generation of sheeting nailed to the ceiling with furring
struction is much faster than the more materials are formulated especially to strips can be heated readily with a small
traditional methods. work around that problem. The problem heater. It also helps contain any smells.
SPORT AVIATION 33

Tracy Johnson covers a Monocoupe wing in the EAA Restoration Shop.
( KIT OR PLANS BUILT?
Although the traditionalists decry the
advent of the quick-to-build composite
kits and generally moan about how the
kit concept has done away with tradi-
tional homebuilding, they overlook one
important fact - like it or not (and many
of us don't), the kit concept has done
more to bring people into homebuilding
than any other single factor. And the
exploding kit market has made it profit-
able, and therefore possible for man-
ufacturers to do amazing aerodynamic
and structural tricks that have given us
an entirely new breed of homebuilt. We
now have performance and profession-
ally crafted handling characteristics we
only dreamed about a decade ago and
most of the advances are due to the
rise of the composite kit industry.
The guy with the beautifully crafted
Pitts or Cassutt is in the minority today
and deserves a special hand. But that
takes nothing away from the gentleman
who has worked slavishly to make his
Lancair or Velocity into a thing of
beauty. It's different strokes for different
folks.
The question as to whether to use a
kit or not is often a moot point because
most of the new designs are not avail-
able any other way. Airplanes like Lan-
cairs and Glasairs couldn't be built from
a set of plans anyway, since they re-
quire female molds, bags and, in some
cases, autoclaves, to make the major
components. Conversely, many of the
older, more traditional designs, the
Miniplanes and Tailwinds, exist only as
plans sets. The only way they come to
life is through the aforementioned set of
magic hands. ; y(i
34 MARCH 1989
Somewhere between the complete,
ready to stick together composite kit
and the blueprints-only airplane are the
materials kits available through many
suppliers. These are not so much kits
as they are boxes which contain all the
necessary raw material. The builder still
has to do all the manufacturing work,
but someone else has done all the
shopping and this convenience can't be
overlooked. Even with all the parts
suppliers listed in the magazines, it is
still a hassle laying your hands on that
last widget to finish the lower dinglef-
ramus because you never run out of
anything until it is too late to order it
UPS or it is late Saturday and all the
stores are closed.
Before buying from any supplier,
seek out a number of builders and get
their advise based on their experiences.
For the most part, you'll run into very
few problems because kit and materials
suppliers have gone through a revolu-
tion in the past few years and most of
the more questionable among them
have been weeded out. In fact, the
"name brand" suppliers and kit man-
ufacturers are multimillion dollar enter-
prises and are run as such. The guy
selling parts out of his back bedroom
still exists and is providing an essential
service, but he is very definitely out-
numbered. As it happens, some of the
smaller guys have been known to give
better service and materials, so big isn't
necessarily better.
BUILD IT OR BUY IT?
When building a large number of the
airplanes available in plans form, a de-
cision has to be made as to how much
to build and how much to buy. For in-
stance, a Falco can be built strictly from
the plans, if a person desires. However,
there are a number of kit packages for
the airplane that include pre-cut mate-
rial for the wings, tail and other areas.
The landing gear is available com-
pletely machined and ready to go from
at least one supplier. The decision as
to what to buy and what to build must
be based on the trade-off between cost
and time as well as the ability to build
certain parts. In this case, most builders
could do without any of the wood kits,
assuming they wanted to invest the ad-
ditional time. However, few builders can
handle the complete landing gear. At
least part of it would wind up being
farmed out. At what point does it make
sense to buy as opposed to build? On
most airplanes, purchasing all supplier-
completed components increases the
final investment 30%-100% but reduces
the building time tremendously.
Most traditional designs (Tailwinds,
Pitts, etc.) assume the builder is going
to do it all, so they are blacksmith simple
with the axles being the only machined
part in the airplane. As designs get
more sophisticated and offer higher per-
formance, they tend to include compo-
nents that lend themselves to machine
shop production. Suppliers like Ken
Brock Manufacturing, which specializes
in component fabrication, can easily tool
up to bang out a part such as a propeller
extension or T-18 landing gear. Even
relatively simple parts like these chal-
lenge the skills of a normal builder and
make his life miserable. The question
is, what price do we place on our time
and misery?
The final buy/build decision must be
made by each individual builder based
on his own unique set of circumstances.
DESIGN DECISION GUIDELINES
The following paragraphs form a
checklist that can be followed when
looking at a particular design and decid-
ing whether that particular one should
be your shopmate for the next few
years.
Does it fit your mission?
Earlier we said the airplane has to fit
the mission you have in mind and that
mission has to be realistic with the limi-
tations presented by your own life situ-
ation:
1. Do you really need serious cross
country capabilities?
2. Do you have time for serious cross
countries?
3. Can you rent for cross country and
build for local fun?
4. How many times do you really
need two or more seats?
Will it work in your local airport en-
vironment? - Not every airplane fits
every airport. For instance, most canard
designs are not meant for grass fields
or, if you are based at O'Hare, how is
the tower going to take to a Pietenpol?
Also, do you really need a specialized
aerobatic airplane when the closest
legal aerobatic airspace is 93 miles
away? (Don't laugh . . . in some areas
of the East Coast, it's coming to this.)
Look at the type of field you plan on
flying out of and decide if you are willing
to change airports to fit the design.
How much demand does it place on
you as a builder?
Taking into account the entire build-
ing experience, is the airplane a high,
medium or low demand airplane to
build.
1. Does it use a material you feel you
can be comfortable with?
2. Will it fit in your work space?
3. Will it require purchasing many
new tools?
4. Is it a long or short term project
relative to other designs?
5. Are prefabbed components avail-
able and will you use them?
6. Speak to at least two builders and
get a real sense as to its difficulty. (EAA
Headquarters maintains an Aircraft
Registration card file on member's pro-
jects. Contact the EAA Information Ser-
vices office for some builders' names
and addresses.)
How much demand does it place on
you as a pilot?
Are you willing to rise to meet the pilot
qualifications required? Or is it an
airplane you will become tired of easily.
If it is assumed that a Pitts is a high
demand airplane and a Cub is a low
demand machine, where does this par-
ticular design fit into your experience
level? It is critical you get to know as
much about the airplane as possible.
1. If it is a two-place airplane, beg or
throw cash at the owner until you get a
ride.
2. If it is a single place machine, a
flight is unlikely but at least sit in it for
no less than 10 minutes to get a feel of
it.
3. Interview at least 3 owners and
cross reference their inputs as pilots.
4. DO NOT take a magazine pilot re-
port as the final word. We all lie a lot!
5. Take a Polaroid of yourself in front
of it to see if it makes you look like a
hero.
Number One Rule: Don't be the first!
The best standard to use in judging
a homebuilt airplane's overall design
quality is the number of them flying 3-4
years after it is introduced. This initial
success will reflect every aspect of the
design, from supplier support to plans
quality. If it is weak in any area, that
weakness will limit the number which
take to the air. If it is well supported and
designed, there will be lots of them. For
example, nearly 300 VariEzes flew in
the first four years of that design. Other
designs have been around for a decade
and none have shown up at fly-ins.
Unless you have built airplanes be-
fore (in which case you don't need to
be reading this now), do not decide to
build a design if the only example flying
is the factory prototype. If there are no
examples flying, don't touch it with
someone else's ten foot pole.
The first few builders of any airplane
are actually doing prototype work for the
designer. Any mistakes in the drawings
or his design are worked out by those
first few and it's no fun being a pioneer
on your first project.
The fine art of welding.
Kit and parts availability and
reliability are important
Unfortunately, a portion of the kit
manufacturing industry is always in a
state of flux with names coming and
going with dismaying regularity. Since
getting stranded halfway through a pro-
ject with portions of the kit not yet deliv-
ered is a real problem, check out the
manufacturer first. Also, if the airplane
has some sort of high tech assembly
that will ground the project, i.e. landing
gear, make certain the supply lines for
that component look solid. Plans built
airplanes don't have that problem. As
long as the builder has those sheets of
paper, he's in business.
Plans and instructions must be clear
Plans for homebuilts range from pro-
fessional quality blueprints with one part
per drawing to plans sets in which all
the parts for a complete airplane are
jammed together in a dozen tablet sized
pages. An airplane can be built from
practically anything, but the better the
plans, the easier the project.
Instructions for some airplanes are
also critical. Some of the building pro-
cess, i.e. cutting a foam wing core, are
totally alien to everyone on the face of
the Earth. Almost all kits come with in-
structions of varying quality. Before
plunking your cash down, borrow the
plans and the instruction book from a
builder in your area for a couple of hours
and really pour through them. Even if
they make sense, talk to several build-
ers and find out how they work in real
life.
Builder support is critical
Builder support comes in all different
flavors, but regardless of how it is pack-
aged, it is critical there be some sort of
fall back position for those times when
you find yourself stuck.
1. Does the kit manufacturer put out
a newsletter?
2. Is there a builder association with
a newsletter?
3. Does the designer put out follow-
up design changes?
4. Is there a builder in your local
area?
AND FINALLY...
By this time you are ready to get your
checkbook back from your wife and
head for the Oshkosh Convention.
Which is exactly what you should do,
but do so with some foreplanning. Once
you've narrowed the field down to a
small number of designs, corner every
builder of that type you can find. They
will give you the answers you so des-
perately need. Attend some of the forums
to hear what the designers/builders
have to say . . . visit the EAA Work
Shops and test your skills or learn a
new one.
In the meantime, happy flying and we
hope to see your airplane at Oshkosh
'91.
(Editor's Note: Still feel the need for a
little more education in the field of build-
ing? A series of articles on "Aircraft
Welding and Steel Tube Fabrication" by
Budd Davisson appeared in the August
1987-June 1988 issues of EAA Exper-
imenter (The "How To" Magazine for
the Aircraft Builder). The publication
also features a monthly article by Dick
Cavin entitled The Tin Bender, which
covers a lot in the line of sheet metal
fabrication, riveting, etc. Several arti-
cles on painting have also appeared.
This publication is a good source for the
beginning builder. Back issues ($1.25
ea. ppd) are available or reprints of the
articles can be purchased. See page 90
for subscription information.)
SPORT AVIATION 35