Alright, so sometimes my remarks are taken in the wrong way.
I realise this is a court of opinion, and that I should take it more seriously.
Sorry your Honours.
G-BLEW wrote:MichaelP wrote:…As for homebuilds, most are in fact sturdier than factory built aeroplanes.
The Pazmany PL2 became a military trainer!
Hmmm, bit of a sweeping generalisation
The Cessna 172 can be disconcerting taxying on grass as you see the windscreen moving as the wings flex back and forth.
That's what it is supposed to do, it's a floating windscreen
Ian
First point first.
I'll make this sweeping generalisation: 'spinning close to the ground is always hazardous'. Most people will agree.
I ask instructors to always be ready to justify the things they say, and so I will justify my point that most homebuilds are in fact sturdier than factory built aeroplanes.
1. My first spinning was in a Cessna 150 and I was worried about its structural integrity. I didn't know much, but I looked at the way it was built. Clearly the aeroplane has been well up to this task as is proven by time. Homebuilts I have flown have had sturdier structures.
2. I have flown, first flown, and test flown a fair number of homebuilt aeroplanes, and I put my critical eye on all of them.
I've picked up and I have missed snags in both certified and homebuilt aeroplanes. Fortunately I haven't missed anything terribly important so far as I know.
3. The designers of homebuilt aeroplanes know that these aircraft are built by people who are rarely aircraft engineers, and so their structures must be strong and as foolproof as possible.
4. Whereas many of these designs have performance that is usually better than equivalent certified aeroplanes, the designer accepts that pilots may come unstuck, and it would be unfortunate if a design fell apart in the air for some defect... Now I think of the Zenair 601, a type that became my least favourite displacing the VP1 from this position.
So I contend that homebuilt aeroplanes generally are stronger in their designs.
Thinking out aloud:
The KitFox has small tubes, and a seemingly fragile airframe, but this is a very very light aircraft, and so far it has stood up to many tests in its operation.
The floating windscreen on the Cessna 172 always amused me. This is a flexible flying machine while the 150 and 152 are more robust and solid. I prefer to teach in the two seaters rather than the 172, my preference, it's up to you what you prefer.
But this floating windscreen on the 172 is a good tool to use against those who would dare to barrel roll this aeroplane, it's not an aeroplane to play silly buggers in, it's transport.