If a builder manages only half of them OK, the aircraft is still within “specs”
I think that was a joke 
I should take some photos of the workmanship on the certified Luscombe wing hanging on my hangar wall… extra rivet holes drilled here and there included, a result of the first try not working out. They don’t fail in service, a strut braced wing on a light aircraft is a very fault tolerant structure, so the factory workmanship was good enough.
This article looks a bit like Vic Syracuse (well known in the RV10 community) telling pilots from the certified world and tempted by going experimental « be extra cautious, those homebuilds have been built by somebody in his garage. You should do a thorough prebuy. BTW, here is my business card, I have ample experience….. » Like in any magazine.
Experimentals are very fashionable there and with the crisis coming, people are tempted to lower their maintenance costs.
You read the opposite in Kitplanes, like « Those certified pilots don’t know how their plane were built. With us you can learn all the techniques to build your own plane, safer than a factory built. »
The reality is that many high-perf “homebuilt” (ie RVs) are built with the help of serial builders from standard kits (when you spend 150k on plane and avionics parts, you can spend 30k for building help). My RV7 was built “with the help” of an ex test pilot who has built 13 RVs and countless ULs. From a quality-standard point of view, I feel as safe as flying a Cirrus (and I know a couple of Cirri who seemed built on a Friday evening, from the amount of time spent in maintenance). A first time builder is another story (not for me).
I was very interested to learn about experimentals, especially the low costs involved and the freedom the ECAC treaty offers (vfr, that is). But, the more I read and learned combined with not having enough engineering knowledge myself I decided not to pursue this path. I consider a simple certified SEP a safer option.
The problem is that fast, aerobatic (which means fast also in turbulence), side-by-side, with BRS, with IFR modern avionics, able to use mogas, is non existant in the certified world, at any price.
This article looks a bit like Vic Syracuse
That US AOPA mag article was written by Dave Hirschmann; a staff writer.
Hard to say whether he is one-sided. If it was the US Flying mag, which contains mostly high-end reviews and frankly publishes totally shoe-licking stuff to keep advertisers happy, that would be one thing, but the US AOPA mag seems to try to cover the whole GA ground, e.g. trying hard to appear “inclusive” by the usual method of nearly always featuring vintage taildraggers on their front cover
I don’t think AOPA is above doing an advertorial to generate editorial content.
Vintage taildraggers are surely a big part of US GA, more so than the Cirrus, Diamond etc element just because of the numbers involved – only something like 8,000 Cirruses have ever been produced. Same comparison with US E-AB – it’s grown to the point where a sizable fraction of private aviation is doing it, and certified planes look from some points of view like a minority activity. As the owner of a certified plane, I benefit from the culture of increased owner involvement in construction and maintenance: lots of people at the airport working on their own planes daily, with associated growth in local expertise, and (it seems to me) a increasing tolerance towards owners of certified planes doing almost anything as long as some A&P is around, somewhere. It’s definitely a win-win.
AOPA tries to cover every aspect of GA, and I suppose an article on hands-off people buying homebuilts is part of that approach. However, the broader perspective on homebuilts is different. When the airport is filled with owners doing major and minor work on all sorts of planes, modifications and reworks included, the issues addressed by the article start to look less like a problem and more like the core activity itself, combined with lots of flying.
The experimental category seems to be pretty good, and the fact that you can operate them ifr also works very well. I’ve also noticed there’s a chap who has put his huksy onto the experimental category and has really gone to town with some mods. Dropping the VP for fixed pitch prop, gear mods and all sorts. Makes for interesting variety, It’s not what I’d have done but I’m pleased he can and interested to see what he does and how it works.
home builds I guess will be pretty variable, and if you want a known best, you’ve either got to get the skills and do it yourself or pick the builder very selectively.
