Original Posted By: Jack
Oz,The math says building a Pietenpol is poor investment of one's money, While theheart says that it is an excellent investment in one's life. As you well know,you can figure out costs with a calculator, but the can not measure value, whichis best done with that organ in your chest..Consider that a $3,000 overhaul at 300 hrs is about twice the hourly amortizationrate of a Lycoming. which will cost four times as much but go eight times aslong, to say nothing about down time nor reliability..I have 3 close friends at our airport, Dan Weseman, Vern Stevenson and Alex Follen,who each flew hundreds of hours behind two stroke Rotaxes in the 1990s. Theyare all super mechanical guys, alert to fine signals of an issue, all intoextreme maintenance. They liked those engines, but I have to think that any twostroke engine is a poor match for a typical S-LSA buyer who might like flying,but has no real interest in nuts and bolts. Conversely, I think a big partof the success story of planes like J-3's was the fact the A-65 (or 75) on thefront of your Piet, required no such special attention when it was the "S-LSA"of it's day. .In 1946, almost every modest sized or larger airport in the US had a professional mechanic ready and skilled in the care and feeding of the A-65 for the "S-LSA" pilot of that day. Today, no such service system exists to support a non-mechanical flyer trying to operate a $40K plane with a two stroke Rotax power plant. (there isn't really one for the 912 either) Yes, there are plenty of people who have been through some 20-40 hour Rotax training session, but suggesting such a person is then qualified to determine what is airworthly on a human carrying aircraft is a morbid joke. My A&P from Embry-Riddle had an FAA mandated 2,880 classroom and lab hours. If I suggested to the department chair Dick Ulm, USMC (
http://flycorvair.net/2014/02/23/erau-m ... integrity/ ) that I was ready to work on planes at the end of my first week in the program, he would have laughed his ass off....and then probably punched my lights out. .Real Homebuilders, people in it to learn build and Fly, are immune to the vulnerabilitiesof typical S-LSA flyers, who are often just looking for another mechanicaltoy. Homebuilders are looking for freedom in all it's forms, and thisincludes educating oneself so you are free of being dependent on the availabilityand quality of maintenance professionals. The quote below is the core of thematter. Every few years they roll out a program to "get new people" interestedin flying. All of these programs that fail to acknowledge that the commitmentand motivation for success in aviation are higher, are bound to fail. Yetthey never stop trotting out the comparisons between the cost of S-LSA planesand new boats, as if the whole issue can be solved with a calculator, ignoringthe organ in the chest..------------------------------------------------.At any real level, flying is not a sport, a hobby a pastime nor entertainment.It is an Endeavor, worthy of every hour of your life you invest; Those that dabblein it find only high cost, poor reward and serious risk. They are approachingit as consumers. Conversely, for those who devote their best efforts andtheir serious commitment, the rewards are without compare.-ww.(From the 'thought for the day'
http://flycorvair.net/2015/01/12/though ... ollection/)Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cub Fuel Tank from project