Oh, crap. An RV-8A owner contacted me...

[Jay Honeck]

...And wants to know if we're interested in buying.

He heard about us through the grapevine, where I've been spreading the word that we may be interested in the next 12 months.

The plane looks every bit as awesome as, well, an RV-8A looks. Which is to say AMAZING.

Dang. We're in the middle of remodeling the hotel, we just met with an architect to add a second story, Atlas is in for annual, and we're coming into the busy season. I don't have time to deal with one more thing, but....

....an RV-8A is just so danged COOL.

Must...resist....

:yikes: :wink2: :yesnod:

 

[Jim Logajan]

I'd want something a lot more thorough than a typical pre buy inspection for a home build.

All homebuilts are supposed to undergo a testing phase where the limits of operation are determined.

Pragmatically, if a homebuilt makes it to 200 hours or beyond, that would satisfy my own threshold with respect to basic soundness of construction.

 

[Jim Logajan]

The track record indicates it doesn't quite work that way. Read the on-point articles in SA mag.

Any possibility you can you summarize how it does work?

I've read the NALL reports and Wanttaja's analysis and seen some of the FAA's analysis. As far as I can tell, once past the initial test phase, EABs still have a slightly higher accident rate than regular GA, but buying a used airplane with a few hundred hours sets your risk due to mechanical failure only marginally greater than certified aircraft. Airframe failures - whether made of metal or plastic - don't seem to happen all that much. All IMHO.

 

[Jim Logajan]

The articles are in recent SA volumes, and the result of EAA's pro-active stance on homebuilt accidents. They speak for themselves.

If I knew for sure who you meant by SA I'd go do that research. Perhaps you mean Aviation Safety Magazine?