Question:

Answer: The regulations do not differentiate between gliders with or without an engine. There should be no problem with adding an engine as you propose. However, since this will be a very major modification, you should talk with your local FSDO or proposed DAR and see how they want to handle it. You will definitely need to submit a new airworthiness application because of the “change of engine type” aspects of this modification.

Question: I bought a Sonex that was completed in 2007. The builder received the initial airworthiness certificate but passed away four days later. The aircraft was never flown and one year later the family donated it to a museum where it sat until being given away in 2022. It was then sold to me a month later. I’ve been able to transfer registration and ownership but all builder’s logs have been lost long ago. Can this aircraft ever be certified for flight without any documentation of the build?

Answer: I’m not sure I understand the question. If the original airworthiness certificate was issued then the airplane is certified for flight. The only reason you would need the build documentation would be to apply for the repairman certificate, but you are not eligible for that anyway. Depending on your location, you may need to have the operating limitations amended to change the flight test area for Phase I. Also the airplane will need a current condition inspection before flight.

Question: When you’re looking at an airplane of a known design and the builder has decided to increase the maximum gross weight above the factory’s number, what is your response? Do you approve this because he’s the builder? Do you ask for documentation? Do you tell him tough luck?

Answer: Typically I ask to see documentation. If he cannot provide some kind of engineering documentation, I will discuss how he justifies such a change. If he cannot convince me that the increase is safe, I will ask him to redo the weight and balance to match the designer’s limits. What he does after I leave is between the builder and the FAA. I have no control after certification. I only have what I approved (with backup data in my records).

Question: What date of manufacture is used on the E-LSA Airworthiness Certificate 8130-6 application and on the aircraft data plate? Must the date of manufacture listed on the Statement of Compliance (Box 4) be used or may I use the date close to the date I expect DAR airworthiness issuance? The date on the Statement of Compliance 8130-15 from Van’s Aircraft for my RV-12 is the date they signed this statement.

Answer: For kitbuilt E-LSAs, the date the airworthiness certificate is issued is the date of manufacture for aircraft. This information is not required on the data plate. The only information required on the data plate is make (for E-LSAs this is the kit manufacturer), model (this is the model designated by the kit manufacturer) and serial number (this is designated by the kit manufacturer).

The post Sailplane to Motorglider, Museum Rescue, Gross Weight Change appeared first on KITPLANES.

Question:

Answer: Bringing in a homebuilt from Canada is very similar to doing an original certification in the U.S. Since Canadian amateur-built rules are different from ours, the primary concern is to prove amateur-built status. Canada allows commercial assistance to exceed 51%, so proof of meeting our major portion status must be submitted. Many times this is easy if the original builder kept good records. If not, it can be difficult. Other than that, the certification process is just as if the aircraft were built in the U.S. One exception is that Phase I flight testing may be waived if records show that the aircraft was properly tested in Canada.

Question: I just read your answer about the size of the N-number on aircraft. Your answer mentions 12 inches for most aircraft and 3 inches for most Experimental aircraft with some exceptions. I have an Experimental aircraft that qualifies for 3-inch numbers. I am wondering if I can put the N-number on it larger than 3 inches but smaller than 12 inches. This is so it will meet the rule of being behind the trailing edge of the wing and in front of the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer.

Answer: The requirement is a minimum size. If your aircraft meets the criteria for 3-inch numbers, they can be any size, as long as they are at least 3 inches high. FAR 45.29 offers additional information:

(c) Width. Characters must be two-thirds as wide as they are high, except the number “1”, which must be one-sixth as wide as it is high, and the letters “M” and “W” which may be as wide as they are high.

(d) Thickness. Characters must be formed by solid lines one-sixth as thick as the character is high.

(e) Spacing. The space between each character may not be less than one-fourth of the character width.

Question: I’m getting ready for my DAR inspection and am curious about what you see as the most common “infractions” when you look at Experimental/Amateur-Built aircraft.

Answer: Good question, and the answer hasn’t changed much over the years. Here’s a sampling.

• The data plate doesn’t match the registration. The data plate, registration and airworthiness application must match exactly. Many times a person will engrave his or her name on the data plate with their first name first or will use a nickname. The registration has the last name first and you may use a nickname only if that’s what you used on the registration.

• Loose or missing jam nuts on control rod ends. Normally control rod ends all have right-hand threads. If jam nuts are not tight, the rod can turn. This will not affect adjustment because the loosening of one end is taken up by the tightening of the other. However, if there are insufficient threads, the loosening end can come completely off. At this point, adjustment is definitely affected!

• Missing safety wire where needed. Example: On many E-LSA aircraft, the prop manufacturer says that its prop bolts need not be saftied. This is contrary to standard aircraft practices, so I require it. To get by my inspection the prop bolts must be saftied in some way. You may either use jam nuts or safety wire.

• Short bolts. There must be a minimum of one full thread extending through the lock nut. Nylock nuts may be used anywhere the temperature is not excessive and the bolt is not subject to rotation. Firewall forward, you might want to consider all-steel lock nuts. Anywhere the bolt is subject to rotation you must use a drilled bolt, a castle nut and either a cotter pin or safety wire. Believe it or not, missing bolts or nuts are common.

• Insufficient range on engine control cables. You must be able to operate all controls from the cockpit throughout the full range of the device.

• Improperly rigged controls. One check I do is to push the stick to one side and align the flaps with the down aileron. Then I push the stick to the other stop and see if that aileron aligns with the flap. If it doesn’t, something is not rigged correctly.

The post Importing From Canada, N-Number Size appeared first on KITPLANES.

Question:

Answer: Assuming this is an airplane with an Experimental/Amateur-Built certificate, the answer is yes. The original builder who received the repairman certificate can still sign off the condition inspection on that specific aircraft, regardless of who owns it. The repairman certificate stays with the individual, not with the airplane.

As far as other work, anyone may perform maintenance of any kind up to and including modifications to the aircraft. Condition inspections must be signed off by an A&P mechanic (no inspection authorization required).

Question: Several years ago, I built a Van’s RV-8 and did basic aerobatics in Phase I, made the appropriate logbook entries and put the plane into Phase II. It was a simple and straightforward process.

I just bought an RV-3B that someone else built—because I’m old, and the wait for a new kit is so long. I would like to do mild aerobatics in this RV-3, but paragraph 15 of the operating limitations prohibits aerobatics. How do I put the new plane back in Phase I, do the aerobatic testing and return it to Phase II? In the face of the current express aerobatic prohibition, I don’t think I am able to do the aerobatic testing. Do I need to first have the operating limitations changed to delete paragraph 15 and substitute the optional paragraph 16 allowing aerobatics?

My local FSDO is uncertain as to how I should proceed. Do I need to go to a DAR, or can the FSDO issue new operating limitations? Will the operating limitations be an amendment of the existing limitations or a whole new set based on the current form?

Answer: Older operating limitations were divided between aerobatic and non-aerobatic aircraft. There can be different reasons that this one is prohibited from aerobatic flight. Either the builder simply wasn’t interested in doing aerobatics, or the aircraft was not built to aerobatic standards. Most likely, it’s the first scenario.

To remove the limitation, you must have the operating limitations amended. The FSDO or a DAR can do this. The inspector may want to see the aircraft to be sure that it was built to aerobatic standards and to confirm that this was not the original reason for the no-aerobatics limitation.

After you’ve completed this process, you will receive new operating limitations to the latest version, which does not prohibit aerobatics. You will also receive a new airworthiness certificate because the date of the operating limitations is listed on the certificate.

Question: This question has to do with modifications to an Experimental/Amateur-Built aircraft after issuance of its airworthiness certificate. Let’s say the airplane in question, when constructed to the original design, cannot be flown by Sport Pilots because it does not meet the LSA max gross weight or stall-speed requirements. However, if it were constructed with and Phase I-tested with mini VGs on the wing and horizontal tail surfaces, it would meet the LSA stall-speed requirement.

Can this airplane be modified after the original certification by installation of the VG system, put back into Phase I testing, shown to meet the LSA stall speed requirement and thus be Sport Pilot eligible? I have been told by some that there is a “you can’t go back” limitation that says that once an E/A-B has been certified and flown in a condition that makes it Sport Pilot ineligible, it can’t be put into an LSA configuration.

Answer: Unfortunately, the scenario you describe cannot be legally done. The definition for Light Sport Aircraft (FAR Part 1, §1.1) in the first sentence states: “An aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following…” Therefore, once an aircraft has been certificated outside these parameters, regardless of the category, it can never be brought “back into” the limitations to satisfy LSA rules.

The post Repairman Certificate, Aerobatics, LSA Rules appeared first on KITPLANES.

Question:

My questions are:

1. Can I import the airplane to the U.S.?
2. Can I apply for the airworthiness certificate based on the Canadian one?
3. Do I have to fly an additional 15 hours (40 total) to get the American airworthiness certificate?
4. What other “gotchas” should I be considering?

Answer: I’ll answer these for you in order.

1. Yes, the aircraft may be brought into the U.S.

2. You can apply for a U.S. airworthiness certificate, but it will not be based on the Canadian certification. Their rules are different from ours. An amateur-built aircraft brought in from Canada must qualify for an Experimental/Amateur-Built certificate as if it were a “new” aircraft. In other words, the applicant must prove that the aircraft meets 14 CFR part 21.191(g). This proof will consist of a builder’s log, pictures, etc., as well as a signed and notarized eligibility statement (FAA Form 8130-12) stating that the aircraft was built solely for education or recreation and was not built “for hire.” The FAA Inspector/DAR will inspect the aircraft as if it were built in the U.S.

3. You will need to fly off a Phase I test program at least equal to the U.S. requirement. The previous flight time can qualify as part of this Phase I if it is properly documented. The total flight time of Phase I testing will be up to the discretion of the inspector but must not be less than the standard 40 hours.

4. Other than that, you should be good to go. If it helps, I’ve done quite a few of these, and it’s relatively painless as long as you have the proper documentation.

Question: I built a Zenith CH 750, but I now have to sell my beauty due to family health issues. My question is: Since I only have 24 hours on the plane and am in Phase I testing, how do I go about it? Can a new owner fly it to their airfield, or does it have to be disassembled and reassembled at their field? What must they do to be able to do the maintenance themselves? I would appreciate your help here.

Answer: First of all, sorry to hear of these circumstances. For your CH 750, the new owner will need to apply for an amended airworthiness certificate and operating limitations moving the Phase I test area to the new airport. As far as getting it there, it will depend on the distance. If it is not too far, you may be able to get the one-time flight contained in the new operating limits. This will be up to the inspector doing the new limits. If it is a great distance, the aircraft will have to be disassembled and reassembled at the new location.

Another option would be for the new owner to complete Phase I testing at the original location. After completion of flight testing, the airplane could then be flown to the new location. In this case, it would still be advisable, but not required, to have the airworthiness and operating limitations amended for possible future modifications.

From the maintenance issue, anyone can perform maintenance on an Experimental/Amateur-Built aircraft. The only thing the new owner may not do is the annual condition inspection unless he or she is an A&P mechanic.

The post Importing From Canada, Selling in Phase I appeared first on KITPLANES.

This comment may reflect a broadly held misconception in the Experimental category that when a DAR issues a Special Airworthiness Certificate, he is doing so after an FAA prescribed rigorous inspection of the project to ensure it is safe for flight in all aspects. The comment seems to imply that it is the DAR’s responsibility to ensure “airworthiness” and minimum safety standards rather than the builder’s sole responsibility. Such a belief might lead a builder to believe that any shortcoming in his build quality affecting safety will be picked up by the DAR.

Answer: You are correct in that the DAR does not inspect the aircraft to assure minimum safety standards. The builder does that. The responsibility of the DAR is to assure that the aircraft meets the requirements of FAR 21.191(g) or 21.191(i), as the case may be. After saying that, I do inspect the aircraft to ensure that it does not have issues that would make the aircraft unsafe. But that is not my job. I do it as a courtesy to the applicant. Different DARs inspect to different depths. Again, the primary responsibility of the DAR is to ensure that the aircraft meets the definition of the relative FAR.

Question: When you issue a Special Airworthiness Certificate, are you stating that the aircraft is airworthy? I would imagine that “airworthy” is impossible for an Experimental aircraft because there is no type certificate that “airworthiness” can be measured against. The FAA Form 8130-7 Special Airworthiness Certificate is, therefore, actually a misnomer.

Answer: The term “airworthy” is used loosely in the Experimental neighborhood to mean, “In a condition for safe operation.” You are correct in that Experimental aircraft can never meet the true definition of “airworthy.”

Question: When issuing a Special Airworthiness Certificate, is the DAR responsible for inspecting the aircraft to fully determine the integrity of the design and the construction and identify any structural design or construction deficiencies?

Answer: The DAR is not responsible for determining the integrity of the design or construction of the aircraft. However, if I see something that really scares me, I have the right to deny the airworthiness certificate for anything unsafe. In that case, the applicant has the right to seek another inspector. However, all inspectors in the U.S. will be notified of my denial and the reason or reasons for such. If they feel that I was too strict with my denial, they have the right to issue an airworthiness certificate.

Question: Does the DAR need to be an A&P?

Answer: U.S. DARs must hold an A&P certificate. An exception is that if the DAR only wants to do Amateur-Built or Light Sport Aircraft, a repairman certificate may be substituted for the A&P certificate.

Question: Is the extent of the inspection before the issue of a Special Airworthiness Certificate largely at the discretion of the DAR? And might some DARs not even be inspecting an aircraft from an “airworthiness” point of view because a) they are not qualified to do so or b) they are not required to do so?

Answer: I think “most” DARs in the U.S. inspect beyond the scope of their minimum requirement as a courtesy to the applicant. When one is so close to a project, it is very easy to overlook things like short bolts, loose jam nuts, missing cotter pins, improper safety wiring, etc. We want to make sure, as much as possible, that every aircraft is in a condition for safe operation. None of us is perfect. I have certificated more than 1000 Experimental and Light Sport Aircraft and have found only four where I could not find a discrepancy.

Please send your questions for DAR Asberry to editorial@kitplanes.com with “Ask the DAR” in the subject line.

The post What’s the DAR’s Role? appeared first on KITPLANES.

Question:

Answer: There should be no problem with your building your own gyroplane. Since you are using some parts from another aircraft, you are required to use the Amateur-Built Fabrication and Assembly Checklist (2011) Gyroplane form to prove 51% amateur-built status. The form will help you determine if you’ve completed enough of the gyro yourself because it counts up the components as part of the original kit (manufacturer/kit component) and those you have assembled and/or fabricated. As with other homebuilts, you have to prove you completed “more than 50%” of the tasks, which combine assembly and fabrication.

The aircraft will be certificated in the Experimental/Amateur-Built classification. You may assign any serial number you wish as long as you have not previously used this number on an aircraft. You will be the manufacturer of the aircraft.

Question: If I design and build my own Experimental aircraft using ideas from existing designs, will I need engineering reports, etc., in order to get my airworthiness certificate? I want to build an airplane that uses ideas from existing designs such as the Piper PA-17, Christavia, Bearhawk and Zenith.

Answer: Good question. Actually there are no specific requirements to supply engineering data on an amateur-built aircraft of your own design. You should, however, have some data to support your design. Having said that, keep in mind that the inspector can deny the airworthiness certificate on the basis of anything he or she feels is unsafe. This, of course, is somewhat subjective. If your design is reasonably simple and straightforward, it should not be a problem. It might be a good idea to discuss this with your chosen inspector before it’s time for the inspection.

The post A Highly Modified Gyroplane and a Piper, Christavia, Bearhawk, Zenith Mashup? appeared first on KITPLANES.

Question: I am upgrading the

According to your previous guidance on similar cases, I understand that I am allowed to do all the work myself installing it and writing in the log, but the aircraft will need a new weight and balance. And I will have to fly off a 5-hour Phase I test.

But you’ve also said that “If the airplane is more than 11 years old, your operating limitations may require a recurrent airworthiness certification.” How do I find out if I need to do this? And how do I go about doing that? Also I am under the impression I need to write to my FSDO and request a box for testing? Same thing here, can I just email them something like this modified for my location?

Answer: Yes, you are correct in that you may perform any and all work on your Experimental/Amateur-Built aircraft.  The only thing you cannot do is to perform the Annual Condition Inspection. That must be done by the original builder, if he/she holds the repairman certificate for that aircraft, or a certified A&P mechanic.

To determine the requirements on changing the prop, check your operating limitations. The operating limitations have changed over the years, and you must abide by the ones issued to your aircraft.  If they are of an older revision, you may have them amended to the latest by your local FSDO or a DAR.

Depending on your operating limitations, the FSDO may or may not require notification in writing.  Give them a call and have your ops limits in front of you so that you can read them to the inspector.

Question: I’m considering purchasing a Jabiru J230/J250 in the SLSA category, but I very much would like to install back seats in it like the J430/J450, and increase its gross weight. These are the same airframes, just less the back seat. How do I go about changing the category/class for this to legally fly it with more than two people on board? Or is it even possible?

Answer: Thanks for your question.  Unfortunately, you’re not going to like my answer.  Aircraft built in accordance with FAR Part 21.190 (SLSA) do not qualify under any other category except for 21.191(i)(3), which is downgrading the aircraft to the Experimental Light-Sport category.  And of course, installing two more seats would not meet anything in the Light-Sport category.

The only possible way to do this would be under the Experimental Exhibition under FAR Part 21.191(d). And this is not one of my favorite categories. It is quite restricted and not really intended for this type of operation.

The post Changing the Propeller, Can I Add Seats? appeared first on KITPLANES.

Question:

What, then, are the maintenance rules for an RV-12 certified as an ELSA? Let’s assume that I assemble the kit exactly as Van’s has it laid out. I know that I can modify after I get the ELSA certificate, but do I have to follow all the maintenance for the RV exactly as stated by Vans and Rotax? Or can I, as the holder of a repairman certificate, decide?

Answer: The ELSA RV-12 in this case is in the Experimental category, like all ELSAs. Because of that, you are not bound by manufacturers’ recommendations, stated as mandatory or not. You as the owner may decide. Although it’s worth reiterating that if there’s an Airworthiness Directive on a part you have on your airplane, it’s prudent to at least investigate the reasons for the AD.

Also, to be clear, you can do all maintenance and/or modifications as the owner of either the E/A-B or ELSA version. The repairman certificate only pertains to the annual condition inspection, which, of course, can be farmed out to an A&P mechanic as well.

Question: As the builder of an ELSA, can I get the repairman certificate when I certify the airplane just like an E/A-B? Or do I have to take the 16-hour course?

Answer: If you certificate the aircraft as E/A-B, you may obtain the repairman certificate simply by applying. This will be good for this aircraft only. If you certificate the aircraft as ELSA, you must complete the 16 hr. course and apply for the certificate. This will be good for this airplane. Any future ELSA aircraft of the same category that you own may be added to the certificate without retaking the course.

Question: I have a Van’s RV-8 currently flying with a fixed-pitch propeller. That’s how it was built and flown through Phase I testing. I want to change the prop to a constant-speed unit. Aside from the obvious hardware involved, my question is this: After the change, do I need to go back into Phase I flight test? If so, for how long?

Answer: There should be a paragraph in your operating limitations that starts out: “After incorporating a major change…” This paragraph states that after making a major change, you must place the aircraft back into Phase I for a minimum of 5 hours. It goes on to state that if you are changing a fixed-pitch to or from a controllable-pitch propeller, you must submit a revised FAA form 8130-6 to update the information in the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch, AFS-750. This should be done through your local FSDO.

The post Ask the DAR appeared first on KITPLANES.

Question: Suppose I were to purchase a completed Light Sport Aircraft powered by a Rotax 912 ULS engine and wanted to replace the Bing carburetors with a fuel-injection system (Edge Performance or AeroConversions). If the aircraft had been licensed in the E/A-B category by another person, would I be able to perform the modification myself, or would the work have to be performed (or at least supervised and signed off) either by a licensed A&P or by the original builder who holds the repairman certificate for that particular aircraft?

If the aircraft was built and registered as an E-LSA, I think I understand that the builder was not permitted to deviate from the design during construction, but can the aircraft be modified after it has been completed and registered? If so, by whom? Same questions for a factory-built S-LSA: Who can approve or perform modifications, if any, on an S-LSA?

Answer: First, anyone can modify and/or maintain an aircraft certificated in the Experimental/Amateur-Built category. You do not need to be an A&P or the original holder of the repairman certificate to sign off on anything except for the annual condition inspection.

Now for an Experimental Light Sport Aircraft: After certification, the same rules apply as for E/A-B except that any modification may not take the aircraft outside of LSA parameters such as gross weight, top speed, stall speed, etc. If the mod takes the aircraft outside of LSA parameters, the airworthiness certificate becomes invalid, and there is no path to return the aircraft to a Light Sport category.

Last but certainly not least, a Special Light Sport Aircraft may not be modified without written consent from the aircraft manufacturer. The alternative here is that you may have the aircraft converted to Experimental Light Sport. This can be done by your local FSDO or a qualified DAR. After that, you may do modifications as in the paragraph above.

Question: I bought an RV-8 four years ago and absolutely love the airplane. After reading something on the Van’s forums, I checked my ops limits and realized that Phase II limitations include the Phase I paragraph stating “This aircraft is prohibited from aerobatic flight…” Many years ago, I was a T-37 instructor, and when I bought the RV-8, I thought I was legal to fly aerobatics and have been doing so.

I live just south of the Atlanta Hartsfield Airport, so the FSDO is close. I’ve printed copies of a new 8130-6 (haven’t filled it out yet), registration, airworthiness certificate, ops limits, and logbook page showing the most recent condition inspection. However, I’m not exactly sure how to proceed.

Answer: Your operating limitations may be amended by a DAR or your local FSDO. You will need to submit a new program letter and a new 8130-6 airworthiness application. The process is pretty simple. If you purchased the aircraft from another part of the country, you probably want to change your Phase I flight test area too. Even though the aircraft is not in Phase I at this time, you may, at some time in the future, make a modification that requires placing the aircraft back into Phase I for flight testing.

Please send your questions for DAR Asberry to editorial@kitplanes.com with “Ask the DAR” in the subject line.

The post Ask the DAR appeared first on KITPLANES.

Ann and Mel Asberry. Best All-Metal Homebuilt, Sun ‘n Fun 1994.

January 9 is my wife Ann’s birthday. It also happens that our good friend, Red Marron, had that same birthday. Every year, Ann and I shared a birthday dinner with him. At one such dinner in 1989, I mentioned to Red that I would like to build an RV-6, knowing that he also loved the airplane. I suggested that we could build two airplanes side by side in my garage. I expected him to say something like, “That sounds great. Why don’t we discuss it further?” But that’s not what he said. Instead, he looked me straight in the eye and said, “You think it’s too late to call Van tonight?”

The very next day, after a lengthy phone conversation with Mr. VanGrunsven, we ordered two RV-6 tail kits. I immediately began converting my garage to an airplane factory. I put up a three-car carport that was closed in on two sides so the ground vehicles wouldn’t have to sit out in the weather. You know we can have some pretty violent weather here in North Texas.

First completed assembly (note dark hair).

A lot of EAA members were very interested in watching the projects go together, so much so that we weren’t getting much work done with all the visitors coming and going. We came to the conclusion that if we put in a hard weekend, we needed a break, so Monday was established as “visitation night.” Anyone interested could visit on Monday, and we didn’t expect to get a lot done. It worked tremendously. We would work almost every evening and Saturday and Sunday. Then show-and-tell was on Monday.

During the project, we had lots of visitors, including Chief Astronaut Robert “Hoot” Gibson and John Kiker. You may not recognize the name Kiker, but he was the NASA engineer who developed putting the Space Shuttle on the back of the Boeing 747. NASA initially came to John and asked him to design engines that could be retrofitted to the Shuttle so it could be flown from California back to Florida. After several attempts with radio-controlled models, John came to the conclusion that the Space Shuttle does not make a good airplane. John was a very sharp individual. Hoot and John were in town to do a presentation for our EAA Chapter and wanted to visit a few projects.

I obtained N168TX for my aircraft in honor of our EAA Chapter 168. Four years later, in mid-May of 1993, both airplanes flew within two days of each other. Four years may seem like a long time by today’s standards, but you must remember that the RV kits of that era did not come with any predrilled holes. We had to drill every hole, including cutting the lightening holes in the wing ribs.

Two RV-6 fuselages out of the jig (often called the canoe stage).

In those days the plans ended at the firewall. Everything forward of the firewall was entirely up to the builder, as were any instruments and avionics.

In those early days, Van had the RV homecoming at his private airport in North Plains, Oregon. We attended in 1994 and literally parked in his backyard.

Over the last 25 years, N168TX has had one engine rebuild and numerous instrument panel upgrades. When Craig Catto introduced his three-blade composite prop in 2003, we jumped on the bandwagon and never looked back. The airplane has won its share of awards: Best All-Metal Homebuilt, Sun ‘n Fun 1994; Outstanding Homebuilt, Sun ‘n Fun 1995; Grand Champion, All American Sport Aviation Fly-In 1994; Rich Gardner Mechanical Excellence Award, EAA 1993; and more.

Distinguished visitors from NASA: Robert “Hoot” Gibson and John Kiker.

In July 1993, I watched a good friend, Bob Newton, take off in N168TX to perform the aerobatic flight testing. I chose Bob because of his history of flying F-101s with the U.S. Air Force and extensive aerobatic experience in his RV-3.

That’s the last time I saw that airplane fly without me in it—until August 29, 2018. That’s when Ralph McRae took off from McKinney National Airport in N168TX, en route to its new home in Louisiana.

Ann and I don’t do much cross-country flying anymore, and rather than letting the airplane sit, we began looking for adoptive parents. Ralph and his lovely wife Anna passed our interview with flying colors and are now the new proud owners. When Ralph landed his L-19 at our private strip and stepped out wearing cowboy boots, I knew we were going to hit it off!

Ann assisting with engine installation after major overhaul.

With 1500 hours in the L-19, the transition was fairly straightforward. Ralph just had to learn to slow down and flare lower.

I have purchased a Legend Cub for puttering around locally, and it’s a blast. Actually, the Legend that I purchased is the first “production” airplane that they sold. But that’s a story for another time.

The post 25+ Years with an RV-6 appeared first on KITPLANES.