Contemplating a Scratch Build ch601

[Gribble]

So im thinking about scratch building a plane. Most likely the older ch601hd, or hds but Ill have to lie about its stall speed, and i dont particularly want to start doing that, so for the moment its the hd (or something similar to it).

 

Instead of just asking YOU a series of questions I more or less want the experienced people out there to ask ME the questions regarding my decision. It might sound silly but the idea is to bring out any key points I might have overlooked regarding scratch building. For example;

 

You might ask "What technical and metal work experiance to have?"

 

To which I would reply "High school design and tech, a mig/oxy welders ticket, Mechanic by trade in cars, trucks and plant machinery, a half completed adv diploma in Mech engineering, plus many years buggerising around modifying cars, motorbikes and boats."

 

You might ask "Why are you choosing a Zenith? What about a <insert product here>?"

 

To which I would reply "Well, there are plenty of zeniths flying around, their website it easially the most comprehensive display of what they have to offer. Bar the wings ALLEDGEDLY falling off a particular model their reputation is very good. There are plenty of 3rd party websites dedicated to their product. Please send me the link to <insert product here>'s website so I can make a rational, practical and totaly non-emotional comparison"

 

You might ask "Why do you want to build a plane?"

 

To which I would reply "Because I enjoy a challenge and I enjoy torturing myself. Because I DONT enjoy sitting down and watching Dancing with the Stars night after night with my girlfreind when I could be in the shed. Because I enjoy throwing tantrums and spanners at the wall or other inanimate objects when things go wrong. Because I need something to keep me occupied. Because I like building stuff. Because I LIKE flying. Because It would simply be the most AWESOME thing ever!"

 

You get the point. So, go nuts. Ill answer every question to the best of my ability and promise not to big note myself or start any arguments.

 

Cheers in advance!

 

:thumb_up:

 

 

[Guernsey]

What about a Morgan Sierra.

 

Alan.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

you are better off building something quick and if that goes ok build something more complicated.

 

 

[Gribble]

What about a Morgan Sierra.Alan.

I knew this one would come up.

 

I havent ruled a sierra out, its just that there isnt alot of information about them out there. Last time i was in Taree I didnt get around to visiting the shop due do a stupid family reunion (ie, her family). When I get to the serious decision time I'll hopefully get up there and get a good look at one.

 

 

[Gribble]

you are better off building something quick and if that goes ok build something more complicated.

Boring...... I could just buy a factory one and have it shipped over, bolt the wings on and it would feel much the same. So no im not the slightest bit interested in a quick build. Plus if im going to be doing owner maintainence I would rather have intimate knowledge of every nut, bolt, rivet and bellcrank.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I vaguely recall reading once that the average vans aircraft RV3 had 3 different owners before getting flying

 

http://www.barnstormers.com/Projects+Only%20Classifieds.html?page=1

 

 

[Gribble]

I vaguely recall reading once that the average vans aircraft RV3 had 3 different owners before getting flyinghttp://www.barnstormers.com/Projects Only Classifieds.html?page=1

Well, I wont know if I never try. That attitude is how i got into a plane in the first place.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

after all, whats the worse thing that could happen? you sell your project and take up golf?

 

my approach would be to build something to fly whilst you are building your dream project.

 

 

[Gribble]

after all, whats the worse thing that could happen? you sell your project and take up golf?my approach would be to build something to fly whilst you are building your dream project.

I play golf already, so maybe it will need to be knitting or interpretive dance.

 

 

[PapaFox]

Sounds like you just need someone to push you over the decision line. I'd say go for it... I did, and it is definately worth it.

 

Couple of suggestions. You have to have the right motivation. Some people build in order to get a cheap plane to fly. Others like to build a project, that can also fly when finished. I take it you are more toward the later, otherwise just buy 2nd hand.

 

We built from a kit, but scrap scratch building is certainly another level. I'd recommend to make up a 'kit' first, and then start to do the construction.

 

 

[crashley]

I have been told only about 3 % of scratch built aeroplanes ever get finished but you have to decide what you really want to do If you just want a project it may be ok but if you want to fly within the next few years build a kit plane still lots of work but achieveable I built an rv12 which took just over 12 months which is long enough to wait when you want to go flying

 

 

[rgmwa]

I'm with Crashley on this. I'm building a kit at the moment, and when I look at the work that went into just producing the parts for the kit, I'd be thinking twice about scratchbuilding. Not saying you shouldn't give it a go. Just be prepared for a lot of very tedious work fabricating your own kit from stock. There are a LOT of parts in a plane, and if it is anything other than a very basic design, you will be in it for the long haul. A CH601 is not your basic plane.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[eightyknots]

Why not a high wing Zenith plane? (CH701 or CH750)?

 

 

[Gribble]

I'm with Crashley on this. I'm building a kit at the moment, and when I look at the work that went into just producing the parts for the kit, I'd be thinking twice about scratchbuilding. Not saying you shouldn't give it a go. Just be prepared for a lot of very tedious work fabricating your own kit from stock. There are a LOT of parts in a plane, and if it is anything other than a very basic design, you will be in it for the long haul. A CH601 is not your basic plane.rgmwa

Like i said before, i wont know if i dont try. And if my skills as a fabricator fail me, there is the option of getting the kit parts individually. Im not expecting this to be easy, dont get me wrong. Im sure I will muck up a few bits here and there, thats the way it goes. If anything it will be easier to remake a part that is stuffed than wait 4 weeks ex us for a part from zenith. Find me a factory that doesnt make a few mistakes and throw out parts every now and then and i will be impressed. Thats why warranty exists.

 

If you dont mind me asking, what are you building?

 

 

[Gribble]

Why not a high wing Zenith plane? (CH701 or CH750)?

Mostly because the need for something that lands on a postage stamp doesnt exist right now. I would prefer a more comfortable cross country cruiser than a STOL. If my dreams come true and I end up buying a decent parcel of land out west in the future, then sure ill build one then because I will have a need. Right now its aerodrome to aerodrome.

 

I like the idea of a 701, 750, savannah etc, dont get me wrong, but I just dont have a specific need for one at the moment.

 

 

[rgmwa]

If you dont mind me asking, what are you building?

An RV-12. Empenage done, fuselage half done, wings next. Time spent 400 hrs, time to go, around 600-800 (I think). Good luck with the project. I don't doubt that you could do it, but it will take a while.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[djpacro]

You'll do fine, Gribble. Regular sessions in the shed, one bit at a time and you will get through it. Estimate for one of my projects was 3500 hrs with associated bottles of coke. The finished airplane servedme well for 25 years and still going well another 10 years on.

 

 

[Gribble]

An RV-12. Empenage done, fuselage half done, wings next. Time spent 400 hrs, time to go, around 600-800 (I think). Good luck with the project. I don't doubt that you could do it, but it will take a while.rgmwa

Nice. e-lsa for the rv-12?

 

 

[sain]

what makes the ch601 a good fit for the flying you want to do?

 

was it because you can build from plans?

 

was it the range?

 

was it the useful load?

 

was it the looks?

 

your going to put around 1000hrs into building the thing - why did you pick that aircraft over others?

 

 

[rgmwa]

Nice. e-lsa for the rv-12?

No. AB(E) and VH rego is the current thinking, but will be built very closely to the E-LSA plans with no structural or performance changes. Just some analogue backup instruments and a fuel gauge, and a couple of other minor tweaks. It will be LSA compliant.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[Gribble]

what makes the ch601 a good fit for the flying you want to do?was it because you can build from plans?

was it the range?

 

was it the useful load?

 

was it the looks?

 

your going to put around 1000hrs into building the thing - why did you pick that aircraft over others?

1. Cross country flying is what im aiming for.

 

2. Yes,

 

3. No. Most aircraft that have good range you wont be able to use with 2 people and some luggage anyway.

 

4. Kind of, if i build a ch650 to 544kg mtow I will loose 45kg of usefullness, so between those two, yes.

 

5. No, im not that worried about looks. Ive even considered a sonex (no offense to sonex owners), but the cabin seems a bit thin.

 

6. Because its the one aircraft ive managed to find plenty of info about and there are plenty flying around. And for the record its not the final choice, but its at the top of the list. If you have any other suggestions then im all ears.

 

 

[djpacro]

.... and a couple of other minor tweaks. It will be LSA compliant.

My understanding was that any change had to be OKd by the OEM to be LSA compliant?

[rgmwa]

My understanding was that any change had to be OKd by the OEM to be LSA compliant?

This is probably getting a bit off-topic, but ....

 

That's true if you're building E-LSA because then your plane has to be an exact copy of the manufacturer's certified S-LSA prototype or production aircraft Any deviation from the plans would have to be approved by the manufacturer, and in the case of the RV-12, Vans are very reluctant to do this. They have done it, for example for a builder in the UK who needed a backup magnetic compass by law, and for a group of South African builders who needed a parking brake as well as the compass to comply with their regulations (in fact, South Africa doesn't have an E-LSA classification, but I believe they wanted to do the right thing and got Van's approval for the modification anyway).

 

One good reason for Van's reluctance to approve deviations, apart from creating a potential administrative headache, is that in the US, the registered builder of the aircraft is Van's Aircraft Co. It's their name on the aircraft data plate, not the homebuilder's name, so it's their reputation at stake. However, I've discovered that CASA doesn't accept that argument over here. In Australia, the name of the person who put the plane together is the name that has to go on the dataplate. Even so, CASA also doesn't allow any deviations for an E-LSA, at least not until after the plane has received its C of A.

 

However, you can also build the RV-12 as an AB(E) aircraft, in which case you can make changes during the build, just as you can with any other experimental homebuilt. Provided the changes don't take the plane out of the LSA performance parameters, such as 600kg MTOW, min stall speed, no variable pitch prop, etc, it remains LSA compliant. LSA is a performance category, not a licensing system, and that often causes a bit of confusion. That means, that your LSA compliant plane could be registered with RAA-Aus, and be flown by a pilot with a Rec Certificate. Or it can be registered VH and flown by a PPL. However, the PPL can't fly the RAA plane (unless he/she also has a Rec Cert), and the RAA pilot can't fly the VH plane at all (well, not unless he/she has a PPL too). Same aircraft, different rules - stupid really, but that's how it works.

 

The one potential catch that I can see with building the RV-12 as AB(E), is whether CASA will accept the FAA's ruling that the plane meets the 51% rule. As far as I know, that hasn't actually been tested yet. All the -12's that have flown so far, to the best of my knowledge, have been RAA registered. Although I understand that CASA usually accepts the FAA rulings in these matters, the first person to register an RV-12 as VH and AB(E) will be a test case. We live in interesting times.

 

Edit: Having said that, I think that one or two of the RAA planes have been built as AB(E), so maybe that's already been resolved.

 

rgmwa