Building An Airplane

Randy Vanstory, a long-time customer of Texas Top Aviation, decided in early 2017 to build his own airplane. Randy currently owns a Mooney M20J and has been active in aviation for a number of years.  He took on the Vans RV 10, starting in February 2017.  He’s about halfway through right now, with an estimated completion of mid-2020.

A completed Vans RV 10

I asked Randy what gave him the desire to build his own plane.  “I love building things, learning new things, and working on things” he said.  “This satisfies those desires all in one project.”  Randy had a desire to work with his hands, to create something of his own, and building an airplane put several of his passions together in one project.

Lots of pilots out there dream of building their own airplane in their garage.  There is a certain cool factor to putting together an RV or a Lancair in a garage, then trucking it out to an airport, attaching the wings, then flying a personal creation for the first time.  An airplane unique to you, since there isn’t one quite like it any where else.

That’s the beauty of a homebuilt.

Here is a link to Randy’s build video done by Kobalt Tools.

Similar Posts

  • The RDD LX7

    Have a Lancair IV-P?

    Want to make it better than a Cirrus or a Cessna TTx?

    Meet the team at RDD creating the LX7.  Just make sure you are sitting down as you are about to be blown away.

    RDD (Research. Design. Development) is a professional building company for the Lancair line of experimental aircraft (Lancair unveiled the Mako at Osh Kosh this summer, which performs slightly less than the advertised values of the LX7, but is available as a new kit).  For those unfamiliar with the experimental world, when an experimental kit is bought, the owner/builder can build the entire aircraft himself, partially build it then send it to a completion center, or have a professional build company put it together.  This last option is what RDD did with Lancair aircraft before Lancair moved from Oregon to Uvalde, TX.

    Once Lancair was sold, RDD started thinking on how to make the IV-P better.  Boy, did they.  What resulted is the LX7.

    The LX7 is a retractable gear, single engine piston, pressurized aircraft that sits 4.  See it on the ramp and it looks like a Lancair or a Columbia.  Sit in the cockpit and you’ll know something is different.

    Starting with the power plant, RDD put a Continental TSIO 550-E engine in the IV-P airframe, giving the airplane 350 HP.  They redesigned the wing to hold 180 gallons of usable fuel and a much better stalling envelope (anyone who has looked at a Lancair IV or IV-P wing knows that there isn’t much wiggle room with angle of attack on those airplanes), lowering the stall speed to 62 knots dirty.

    The cabin is roomier and the panel is beautiful.  Equipped with 2 or 3 Garmin G3X Touch panels (the experimental equivalent of the G2000), plus a GTN 750 and a fully digital backup flight instrument from Grand Rapids, plus ESP technology built in to the autopilot, this plane seems like a pilot’s dream.

    I haven’t even gotten to the best part:  the speed.  Being pressurized, the LX7 has a 25,000 foot service ceiling where it can achieve cruise speeds of 260 knots at best power (24 GPH) and 250 knots at best economy (18 GPH).

    Yes, I did just say 250 knots at 18 GPH in a single engine piston.

    With 180 gallons of fuel.

    Make sure you bring a Travel John.

    Worried about an experimental?  The airframe is equipped with a full BRS system similar to the Cirrus SR22, keeping everyone safe and sound.

    There is one flying LX7 currently and RDD is working on 3 more.  The price tag for the full conversion is $550,000.  The kicker is, the owner has to provide the Lancair IV-P airframe.  There are currently 10 Lancair IV-Ps for sale on Controller, varying in price from $200,000-$400,000, bringing the total price of the project to $750,000-$950,000.  Owners who already have a IV-P or a IV-P kit can send it on over to RDD to get started on their project.

    Have a Lancair IV-P? Want to make it better than a Cirrus or a Cessna TTx? Meet the team at RDD creating the LX7.  Just make sure you are sitting down as you are about to be blown away. RDD (Research. Design. Development) is a professional building company for the Lancair line of experimental aircraft…

  • Free iPad Webinar

    Are you thinking of buying an iPad and going to a paperless cockpit?  Have you just recently purchased an iPad and are unsure of how to use Foreflight to it’s fullest extent?  Check out this free webinar on Monday, January 19th.  Gary Reeves, a Master CFI from California, will be hosting the 90 minute seminar, which begins at 1800 Z.  He will be able to point you in the right direction for what type of iPad to purchase, how to set up your Foreflight account, and the basics of using the App.

    You can finally get rid of those paper charts, saving clutter in the cockpit.  Just make sure you bring along a charger for those extended flight in case your battery dips low!

    To sign up for this webinar, click here.  There is no cost associated with the webinar.

    Are you thinking of buying an iPad and going to a paperless cockpit?  Have you just recently purchased an iPad and are unsure of how to use Foreflight to it’s fullest extent?  Check out this free webinar on Monday, January 19th.  Gary Reeves, a Master CFI from California, will be hosting the 90 minute seminar,…

  • Lightspeed Zulu 2 vs. The Bose A20

    The debate about which headset is the better product will never cease.  We do know this for sure, though, Lightspeed and Bose make the best noise canceling headsets out there.  David Clark’s offering doesn’t match up with these two.  Newcomer AKG has a light (weight-wise that is, as the headset is equipped with a pair of LED lights as well) ANR headset that the jury is still out on.  For now, Lightspeed and Bose sit atop the ANR kingdom.

    The comparison for this article will be between the Lightspeed Zulu 2 and the Bose A20 headsets, both of which I have used quite extensively in my flying career.  I am officially in the Lighspeed camp at this point and after reading my comparison below, you’ll see why.

    ANR Functionality

    Bose A20

    Between the two, the Bose A20 cancels out more noise, no argument there.  This isn’t to say that the Lightspeed Zulu 2 doesn’t.  Quite the opposite, actually.  The Lightspeed Zulu 2 does a great job of canceling the noise.  But with the A20 on in a C172, you can barely hear the engine running.  The difference before you press the power button and after is extremely noticeable.  I had one client turn to me after turning on the noise canceling function of his new A20 headset and state, “These things are awesome!”

    The other advantage Bose has is a continuation of the noise canceling.  About the only thing I don’t like about the Lightspeed is if you don’t have the headset sized just right on your head, each time you turn your head to look at something, then the suction gets broken around the ear cup and you get some ambient noise.  My glasses probably don’t help with this.  It’s not that big of a deal, you just have to readjust the size of the headset, but, since I’m a little OCD, it bugs me.  Once I get the set sized right, it’s smooth sailing.

    Comfort

    Lightspeed Zulu 2

    Far and away, the Lightspeed Zulu 2 is much more comfortable than the Bose A20.   I flew for 5 hours in the right seat with my Lightspeed set on the other day.  I switched to the left seat for the last leg and used the owner’s A20 headset since it was plugged in on that side already and I noticed quite a bit of difference.  The ear cups seemed to press against my head more.  The pad on top of my head didn’t seem to be as cushiony.  It just wasn’t overall as comfortable as the Lightspeed Zulu 2.

    Bose has made a lot of progress from their original noise canceling headsets.  Those didn’t have much of a cushion on top at all.  After about 2.5 hours, the slim ear cushions began to dig in to the side of your head.  So, the A20 has made some progress, but the Lightspeed Zulu 2 takes the cake in comfort.

    Weight Distribution

    “Wait!”  You Bose boys scream (no pun intended).  “The A20 is lighter than the Zulu 2!”  While this is true (the Zulu 2 weighs in at 15.7 oz while the A20 is only 12 oz), the way that weight is distributed makes a massive amount of difference.  The Lightspeed Zulu 2 feels lighter on top of your noggin than the A20 because the weight of the A20 is firmly planted on the top of your head in a single point.  With the Zulu 2, the weight is distributed evenly across the top of your scalp, so even though the set is heavier, it feels lighter on your head because the weight is not all concentrated on one point.

    All this adds up to why I like the Lightspeed Zulu 2 more than the Bose A20.  As for a practical example, I wore my Lightspeed Zulu 2 set for 9.1 hours one day two weeks ago.  Needless to say, it was a long day.  But, once I climbed out of the airplane, I had no pain on the top of my head and only a very little where my glasses ran along the side of my head.  Now I call that a winner.

    The debate about which headset is the better product will never cease.  We do know this for sure, though, Lightspeed and Bose make the best noise canceling headsets out there.  David Clark’s offering doesn’t match up with these two.  Newcomer AKG has a light (weight-wise that is, as the headset is equipped with a pair…

  • Have You Got Your FAA WINGS?

    The FAA started their Pilot Proficiency Award Program (commonly known as FAA WINGS) in 1996.  It is run by the FAA Safety Team, or the FAASTeam.  The intent of the program was, and is, to “improve the nation’s accident rate by conveying safety principles and practices through training, outreach, and education” (taken from faasafety.gov).  The FAA WINGS program, free of charge, encourages pilots to pursue recurrent training to enhance their overall knowledge of all the aspects of aviation.

    FAASTeam Logo FAA WINGS

    The FAA WINGS program has evolved over the years, but with the current structure, pilot’s accomplish tasks, both knowledge and flying, for credit that adds up to the equivalent of a flight review.  Pilot’s must accrue three knowledge credits and three flight credits to complete a phase, and each phase acts as a flight review.

    FAA WINGS has three levels, the basic, advanced, and master level.  Under each level, you accomplish different phases.  The basic level is “designed for pilot’s [desiring] a higher level of proficiency than … a normal flight review” (faasafety.gov).  The flying tasks in the basic phase are based on the private or commercial pilot PTS, depending on the airman’s certificate level.  The knowledge courses revolve around many different areas, all of which can be viewed on the FAASafety Team’s website.    Most are free, but there are some courses that have a cost associated with them.  In the advanced and master phases of the FAA WINGS program, the tasks have higher standards, challenging pilots to hold themselves to those higher standards.

    One unique aspect of the FAA WINGS program is the opportunity to attend a safety seminar for credit. Throughout the year, there are many different safety seminars that take place in the different FSDO areas. The FAA WINGS seminars range from a study of accidents, to GPS usage and anything in between.  You can even get FAA WINGS credit for attending the Bonanza BPPP or the Cirrus CPPP programs.

    As an instructor, I highly recommend to all my customers to enroll in the FAA WINGS program and use it. This keeps pilot proficiency at a high level, which in turn keeps safety at a high level as well.  Plus, you get to learn a lot too!

    If you’d like to enroll in the FAA WINGS program, visit faasafety.gov to create an account.  Then, find a good instructor and start working on those phases!

    The FAA started their Pilot Proficiency Award Program (commonly known as FAA WINGS) in 1996.  It is run by the FAA Safety Team, or the FAASTeam.  The intent of the program was, and is, to “improve the nation’s accident rate by conveying safety principles and practices through training, outreach, and education” (taken from faasafety.gov).  The FAA…

  • MMOPA Operating Practices for the Piper PA46

    I have the privilege of serving on the Malibu & M-Class Owners and Pilot’s Association Safety Committee.  Along with 6 other Piper PA46 instructors, we were tasked with two things last year leading up to the MMOPA Convention in Colorado Springs last October.  The first was to develop a Master Aviator Program (more on that in a later article).  The second was to develop Operating Practices for the Piper PA46 fleet that we as instructors could all get on board with to teach the same thing, allowing everyone in the fleet to fly approaches and patterns the same way.

    When I started instructing in the piston Piper PA46 line (the Malibu, Mirage, and Matrix), I was surprised to find that there were no recommendations anywhere that I could find for approach and pattern power settings and airspeeds.  This led to some experimentation on my part trying to find out what works well for the airplane.  I had originally been given good training in a Malibu, but hadn’t flown one for several years, so my numbers were a bit rusty.

    I have been in the Cirrus world for a very long time.  One thing I greatly appreciated from an instructing point of view about Cirrus was the abundance of guidance the factory gives instructors and pilots on how the airplane is supposed to be flown.  All CSIPs and all Cirrus pilots should (theoretically) be teaching and flying the exact same way.

    I was quite surprised that Piper didn’t put out similar information.  I wasn’t as familiar with MMOPA at the time, but was surprised they didn’t have any information either.

    I apparently wasn’t the only one with a desire to have a little bit more standardization.

    So, without further ado, here are the MMOPA Operating Practices that the Safety Committee put together.  If you are a new Piper PA46 pilot, these numbers are what you will expect to use when you do your Initial training.  If you are a seasoned Piper PA46 pilot, you probably fly these numbers, or pretty close to them already.

    These are tried and true power settings and speeds for the approach phase and landing phase.  They work. That was the goal of the Safety Committee:  put down in writing something repeatable to enhance safety.  I believe we have accomplished that.

    I have the privilege of serving on the Malibu & M-Class Owners and Pilot’s Association Safety Committee.  Along with 6 other Piper PA46 instructors, we were tasked with two things last year leading up to the MMOPA Convention in Colorado Springs last October.  The first was to develop a Master Aviator Program (more on that…

  • Wind the Clock

    There is truth in the old adage that 99% of flying is routine while the remaining 1% holds the potential for events that cause those who fly to hold themselves above mere ground-bound mortals. My 37 years of military flying might have distorted that ratio a fair bit given the complexity of high-energy fighter aircraft and the uncertainties of combat, but rest assured we all earn our right to be proud of our wings every time we fly.

    The requirement that a single-seat fighter pilot be able to handle rapidly evolving emergency situations and complex systems diagnosis sets a high bar for any who join that group. However, the lessons we learned and techniques we developed for making fighter aviation significantly safer than in yesteryear have direct applicability to general aviation.

    Prioritization and compartmentalization are two important skills that every pilot should have. These skills amount to the ability to look at a complex problem, quickly determine the most critical elements, and mentally set aside those things that can wait so as to deal with highest priorities first. While this does not sound like rocket science, the art is in the doing!

    The technique for dealing with the immediate onslaught of information, such as when that caution tone or caution light presents and different gauges or displays go haywire, provided the title for this piece.

    All flight training will, at some point, involve what is called situational emergency procedures training, know to military aviators as SEPT. We do this type of training in a simulated cockpit that has all the dials and switches for our particular aircraft. None of the switches and dials do anything, some are just decals on a wooden dashboard, but the presentation allows the SEPT victim to reach for the appropriate switch or lever, while telling the instructor what and why they are doing so.

    One of the most common mistakes new trainees make is that of trying to act too fast, before they have fully and correctly analyzed the situation at hand. Herein lies the titled technique. After blurting out a quick and incorrect answer, the instructor would admonish with: “rather than try to react instantly, maintain aircraft control, analyze the situation, then take appropriate action. The best thing you can do is to reach up and wind the clock. This will give your nervous energy some place to channel itself, while your brain takes in the full situation.”

    Waltham clock

    Winding the clock might seem like an archaic notion, but, amazingly enough, even our most modern aircraft have the same clock we flew with as far back as the 1960s. The Waltham A-13A aircraft clock and timer is a wind-up device that only uses power to light up at night. Unless your emergency involved some type of catastrophic impact to the instrument panel, you could count on at least your clock to be functioning normally. Thus, reaching out and winding it was unlikely to cause any worsening of your evolving emergency and would distract your brain from the need to take some poorly-thought-out action, too quickly.

    Now, in most aircraft there are a few emergencies that will require immediate, reactive actions. In fighters, we call these Boldface Emergencies. For each type of fighter, we memorize, to the letter, the few key actions that have to be instinctive, to prevent disaster. For all other emergencies, there is time to reach out and wind the clock while assessing all instruments and lights to fully understand your situation.

    For your aircraft, know those Boldface or Critical Action Procedures, but for all other emergencies, take the time to maintain aircraft control, “wind the clock” while you analyze the situation, then take appropriate action.

    Mike Hostage is a retired USAF pilot with 37 years of experience, flying a wide variety of aircraft.  An instructor pilot for more than half of his 4800 flight hours, Mike is currently qualified in a Cirrus SR-22T and regularly flys his two homebuilt sailplanes.

    There is truth in the old adage that 99% of flying is routine while the remaining 1% holds the potential for events that cause those who fly to hold themselves above mere ground-bound mortals. My 37 years of military flying might have distorted that ratio a fair bit given the complexity of high-energy fighter aircraft…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *