When Builders DON'T FOLLOW the PLANS
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ส.ค. 2018
- Success in building an aircraft kit relies on carefully following the plans and instructions. Once in a while, a builder will deviate wildly from those instructions for the purpose of creating their own version of the manufacturer's original design. This has to be done with great caution for safety and performance reasons. Watch as a master builder, Mark Phillips presents his highly modified Zenith CH701 creation. The quality and workmanship of his unique modifications will inspire other builders who contemplate adding personal touches to their own aircraft.
Past TIPS: homebuilthelp.com/Tip_of_Week/... - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
Judging from the comments that have come before me - looks like your negativity is not shared by most.
In most cases he built what Zenair should have designed! The retro look is personal taste. Looks to me like his coloring outside the box is an improvement in most cases. REMEMBER -------THESE ARE EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT. If you want what everyone else has built go buy a Cessna! My only concern would be the added weight of his engine and the additional baggage area maybe he did the engineering studies to cover those changes.
Honestly was expecting to see a heap of junk hobbled together. Definitely wasn't expecting to come away from this video with inspiration and ideas for my first plane. (obviously the plane will be fully built and operational before starting any sort of changes). I'm 24 years old and LOVE when gentleman like the one in this video have that "excited to show people what i've done" mentality. Of course not in the arrogant sense but showing off the pride he has in his craftsmanship. You can tell by the way he talks about his airplanes that those are his figurative children. I love this sort of stuff and would love to see more creativity put into the smaller planes like this, granted it's done by competent builders.
I want to drink a beer with that dude. Great work!
That has to be the coolest 701 I've ever seen
That's one well thought out 701, not exactly what I would want, but dam well done and that's the beauty of the Experimental category.. 👍🇦🇺
Every Pietenpol is different, so what the guy did was his own thing with this design. It's really, really cool.
You need to re-read what I wrote...
@@HunterBenbow yes, and he wrote that every Pietenpol is different... so what the guy did with THIS DESIGN is fine.
there is no negative connotation towards that aircraft...he simply sets you up to be even more impressed by the craftsmanship of that beautiful 701...im pretty sure you people complaining in here have never watched tv before...
The owner modified a lot of things, some to just get the look that he wanted, but you can see that he also reinforced others. Like the primary flight controls. So he knew what he was doing...
Admirable craftsmanship here. This is way beyond the average builder.
man that 701 is beautiful. It''s like classic car and steampunk had a Zenith baby. Cool vid.
Personally love the retro look, with all the mod-cons hidden away.
From a period where people had style.Things can be so generic these days.
You seem to have an attitude about this that indicates you have a problem with people not following the plans to the letter. your video gives mixed signals. you seem to be about to show us some failures with not adhering to plans, then you have some text on the video that says "when to NOT follow the plans" then you show a beautiful, well thought-out set of modifications, then you grill the guy about "not being able to follow plans closely"
Seems like he can follow plans perfectly fine, as he has a functioning aircraft. in fact, he knows how to utilize the plans the build a base to expand on, which he's done brilliantly. It's certainly not my style, but it's certainly well executed.
If he ignored the plans for something like a Part 103 Ultralight or a Private aircraft, fine, it's not good to do that. But don't hate on this knowledgeable man's Experimental aircraft. His climb rate might be a bit reduced, and he might need to burn more fuel per hour, but he doesn't seem to mind. He's obviously very proud of his plane and everything he added to it. If it flies as well as he says it does, then he did nothing wrong. Great build sir! :)
Cadillac of the air. Super job sir. He knows what is doing
That landing light set up is pretty cool imo
That plane is AMAZING!!! Love it 👍👏 Attention to detail is stunning!
As an EAAer from the 70s and my fathers Stits Playboy was featured in the magazine back in 1960. The EAA was always about coloring outside the box BUT staying within the weight & balance. And there have been many instances of incredible ingenuity shown. The RV line as an example started with a Stits Playboy that Dick Van Grunsen built then started modifying, loosing the turtleback adding a bubble canopy,changing the cowl to a Mustang1 style. That then became the RV-1. Good engineering skill or a little know-how will keep the EAA alive.
Beautiful!
Nearly every difference from the original design in this case, appears to be well thought out, sensible. They can reasonably be called an improvement on the original design, or a personal customisation that does not negatively affect either efficiency or safety. I can certainly vouch for the Jabiru engine as a reliable, good engine, well suited to aircraft of this size and configuration. In Australia, the Sport Aircraft Association of Australia has to have an engineering inspector sign off on the plane as it is built, to legally be allowed to fly. I don't think any competent aeronautical engineer would knock back anything that this bloke did here. As you pointed out, a lot of the engineering and workmanship is beautifully done. I think your negative judgement of this man for not following the original design to the letter, is unfounded, and unfair.
Daniel, you are humorous. This video was a tribute to his efforts based on my positive judgement of his work! Sounds like you better watch it again!
My only criticism would be that the tray tables are not good for crashworthiness. While they look flimsy, and may be frangible, I would not want a horizontal surface so close to my chest.
Definitely not what I would do to a 701... but the workmanship seems to be top notch.
The key phrase " when they know what they are doing". The builder obviously does and WHAT A BEAUTY in a homely sort of way. Looks like a brand new 1930's luxuryflyabird something or other!
So many planes look alike....NOT this one!!! Great job!!!Love it very much!!! Classy Classic!
I'm not a pilot but I love your vids, thanks!
Wow that is one beautiful airplane.
This guy clearly has an eye for details and craftsmanship. Even the distributor cap has a custom holddown @4:27.
If you're going to deviate from Chris Heintz's plans, you'd better know what you're doing. People who didn't have died as a result. The builder of this machine appears to be knowledgeable. I don't care for the appearance, but still admire the craftsmanship.
You nailed it.
I bet he changed wing aspect ratio(added 2' lenth maybe). The plane doesn't look lsa to me.
Amazing job, this plane is awesome. Innovative engineering at it's finest :) :)
Looks beautiful :P
If you are a competent builder (ie have completed multiple 2+ kits in the past) and are improving upon the designated build procedure; sure.
If you are looking for short-cuts, or weight reduction, or added power without added stability, or changing the weight distribution, generally no. But this is what experimental category is meant to do, take test proven design and expand upon it and make it more efficient or find its realistic maximums and minimums in practice; outside of theory.
"The Pussum Works" ! :-D Nice detail.
I understand that keeping to the "tried and true" plan is extremely important, especially with regard to predictable results and/or with novice builders. But isn't the EAA all about innovation, experimentation and plain old fun? I do not like what he's done to the 701 - it looks a bit too "Chitty-Chitty Bang Bang" for me. But he likes it, it's his plane and it obviously works just fine. Cut the guy some slack.
This video was made to honor and acknowledge Mark's wonderful creation. Sounds like the tongue-in-cheek was not conveyed!
No, Jon.... you conveyed it masterfully! :D I got a huge laugh when I discovered you were going in the other direction with your narrative! And a big thumbs up! ;) It's a gorgeous airplane.
Incidentally, of all the experimental aircraft videos on TH-cam, yours are my favorite! They are very educational; you cover the topics well, and, btw... you speak at just the right cadence! ;) Big fan here. Hope to be able to build an airplane myself, someday, because you've given me confidence that I could actually be successful at it!
Exactly, EAA. Is experimental! !!!
This guy did a great job .
I LOVE IT! This plane has character. Not simply ---> in robot voice --> "Plan #2-3-6-5 rivot rivot ...rivot rivot...I - am - 701- I - Fly - stol - watch- me - land"
looks good to me this feller is brilliant
Nicely done!
>^..^< Just a lovely aircraft - piece of functional art work along with an equaly crafted video presentation. Thank You Both..........
interesting date on the compass compensation card. just built it?
I would be very curious to see where this aircraft comes out on its cg & balance...
That was wonderful, thanks..
Stunning work, it reminds me a bit of older Stinson and Staggerwing
I need to know, where does accelerator of aeroplane located?
That was a very good episode
One more comment,, I did not think in any way this was presented in a derogatory way. All of these TH-cam videos are done and kind of a monotone but they are very professionally done and coming from a person who has done a lot of public speaking I saw absolutely nothing wrong with this presentation at all.
do you know where i could find low wing plans that i can build?
Very cool plane , nice job
I have seen some Experimentals with changes that would make them not safe to fly. What do you do when the plans have errors. I have made many changes to mine that have worked out quit well. I have worked in aerospace in R&D and engineering departments as a machinist/toolmaker. I enjoy R&D.
The thing with kit building is that you have some leeway to customize the build to your liking. He built one to his liking and was able to get the bird it's airworthiness certificate, which in reality is all any builder wants(exception is given to FAR 103 and select drones)
you gotta put some style in it ....what a beauty
What a beautiful job ! The man is a mechanical genius.
So nice to see someone who has the knowledge and experience to take something that is usually a cookie cutter kit job and really put the time and effort into making something that blows all the others out of the air in this case. Anyone who can find fault in what this man has done is either a mental midget or seriously ashamed of their own lack of abilities.
Probably Both.
I think we also have to understand that the kit and plan providers have limits on what they can design and test if they are to still keep the kit affordable, and buildable by people of 'average' skill level. If someone wants to take responsibility for properly designing and testing the changes they make to the standard plans, then it's great that they can do this with in the Experimental system.
Nice content!
Did this thing fly with all the extras.
What is that white thing in his hand? A microphone? I thought it was a wind gauge at first.
Very nice
I don't know about this one. My taste buds give me a sour sensation. But he loves it, he's put a huge amount of work into it, and I guess it's payed off.
Exquisite.
Expectacular 701
This man certainly seems to know what he is doing
good job
Over done , But you had fun and very prod , My HDS done as planes and I have 1660 hts on it in 24 yrs of flying thanks well done
True engineer ,thanks
Two thumbs up on the plane. Just a smart and beautiful look. Maybe not a good example of coloring outside the lines. Thanks for the video. Why are airplanes guys so nice ( :
Was there much of a weight increase because of those mods? Also, was the design stressed for that more powerful engine?
Oh, OK!
Wow, interesting machine
world's most beautiful 701.
Wow. Amazing deviations. Got to do that in my boeing 747....hahaha
Really is a great job he did there.
I'd be concerned about added weight mostly
The nose gear on the 701 and 750 is horrendous, basically amounts to some vertical sliding tubes and bungee cords, this guy made a serious upgrade in that department. He did a wonderful job on the whole plane.
as long as the all up weight/C of G doesnt exceed the designers figures, it should be ok. I like the center instrument panel. I had a go with a Cessna 172 a while ago and struggled to see the instruments as I was in the right hand seat.
I had the opportunity to sit in that plane in Oshkosh what a beautiful plane
thanks
Wow that's a sweet plane!
Great video, great Art Deco plane. Although, it could use more cowbell.
How does it weigh out? He stated it is heavy,but how much? I wonder about the wing attachments being strong enough.
Zeksteve - Every bit/piece of the aircraft has to be accounted for when determining weight and balance. Ounces here and there become pounds overall. The smaller the aircraft, the more sensitive the weight and position of each bit of weight becomes. Even though it is experimental, you have to get a airworthiness certificate to fly it (from the FAA).
Of course they would. It doesn’t change your max gross weight; it changes your empty weight and reduces useful load.
I don't have to ponder that thought my first plane will be a totally custom expairamentle desined by me . I hope mine comes out as well !
0:18 I was half expecting he'd start cruising around when he put his feet on his contraptions apparent footrests.
Good for him.
Seems like he did a great job. He might have improved it.
Just downright sexy! Gorgeous machine.
i like it
Instructions, what the heck are they and can I get them while I text and drive?
Barney Five-0, where there is desire there will be a way. Good luck on your quest.
caviat emperor, but really, this is how innovation happens, good boys tinkering in the shop.
When someone has the sheer amount of skill required to put something like that example together, regardless of any individual aesthetic preferences, I think that a little creative license is well-earned. This is, quite overtly, the "E" in "experimental" aviation.
I always leave parts off and the plane flies better. ;)
I'll say that plane is really cool it's like some people get those kit cars to do the same thing
I think you were being a bit offensive with the tone of your question about following the plans. It might not be advisable and will lower the resale if he ever sells, but that's why it's called experimental. It's his butt strapped to the aircraft, not yours.
That’s actually a misconception, it’s not experimental in the sense that you are expected to be doing new and innovative things, it’s experimental in the high school classroom sense, where you do “experiments” for your education. Those experiments tend to be the same ones every class before you did for the last 20 years or more so there’s very little to no actual new innovation being done nor expected.
The experimental category for home built aircraft is meant to educate the builder on the craft of aircraft building, it’s not a pass for someone to rewrite the rules or aeronautics.
Every builder over an extensive amount of time building a private aircraft, whether it is from plans, or a kit comes up with different ideas. One for example on aesthetics and cosmetics. I get that. Don't we all. "This comes in white, I want blue". Or, I "will give it 5 coats and top it off with a clear coat"! Why not? But is this ok within the design limits? It's surly not a car. Proven is one thing, but these changes are another
My concern is that there was no mention of the engineers who designed this particular build. Nor have I seen comments mentioning this, or did I miss it. I am sure this man is experienced and I am not singling him out. It did after all fly, right? I want to believe he contacted them (engineers who designed this acft) for changes that he thought, might be detrimental to the structural design and performance. It would be misleading if every builder and inexperience builders get away thinking, "If he can do it, I can as well". What about the push pull tube change for the cables? Was there a reason cables were used and think a push pull tube was an option? Or totally eliminated? And for a reason? No, I am not an engineer. Regardless, A very fine job! My last thought,. When he had his parts chromed, I am almost sure it was in the new process that is available today which doesn't change the tensile strength of the aluminum. As far as the extra cargo? again. If it meets the CG range and the loads given by the engineers, why not? I am not judging anybody or anyone. Just thought I'd like to put out some info. My credentials? 40 years aircraft structural repair, Just spreading safety!
Keep em flyin!
well ive seen plans the leave stuff out,, then what
For a second I thought they used an oosik for the control stick.
Some people put the "MENTAL" in _experimental._
Wow
What a hoot, maybe he could add some gold plate just to keep the weight up!
Love his imagination
Sounds like zenith had been consulted on these modifications.
As an AME and FAA A&P with over 20 builds. My advice has always been, "If all else fails, follow the instructions". Self proclaimed aeronautical experts usually learn the hard way and if they live, then blame the kit supplier. Your example of the 701 is a classic by an true aeronautical designer. I've built two 701's by the plans and they are great hands off flyers. Problem is Zenairs name is attached to this "what ever". Great video.
美しい！！
If he ever wants to sell it...notify me PLEASE!!!!
Gosh - plans are to fit a pattern. I know nothing of flying, but a grandfather who trained to fly a Sopwith Camel in WW1. He admitted to me, that he was the only graduate. of the training. 21 Funerals. Either you got IT and flew - or you hit ground. I have to wonder about the Scrapes this guy could tell - if he was so carefree with proven ideas. Cheers
Nothing carefree about it.
That’s why they call them EXPERIMENTAL aircraft.
What do you call someone who doesn't follow the plans? ... Mr. Patey?
I built my carbon-cub ex-3 I did-not order the power plant or the fuel systems. we made our own battery packs using Samsung graphene batteries seamen controller and inline motors with contra rotating blades that are electric pitch for both 5 blade propeller setup . using the same cooling as Tesla in the batteries so I have 500kwh "fuel" spread throughout the plane spars the length of the wings with 2 60kw motors turning 10 48" blades my wing is 2 ft longer(along the long part of the entire wing) and 6 inches wider I extended my control surfaces 4 inches and installed 35x10x15 Alaskan bush tires front and titanium aluminum composite tail drag-er. I did opt for the executive glass and synthetic vision.
Fyi STOL is not a word its an anachronym.
I didn't see anything there that was contrary to acceptable standards and practices. As long as he keeps the weight and balance within the design envelope he should be okay. All those mods must have added quite a bit of weight, but his craftsmanship is excellent.