"Time building" in experimental AC?

[Holocene]

Would potential employers laugh at your wealth of day VFR time in some random AC nobody has ever heard of?

Owning a C150 or something isn't necessarily out of my reach, but the associated repair costs might change that. If I buy an experimental, I can do any repair I feel capable of.

[BajtheJino]

Originally Posted by Holocene

Would potential employers laugh at your wealth of day VFR time in some random AC nobody has ever heard of?

Most of the guys I fly with have no idea what a Duchess or Seminole is. The guy that hired me hadn't flown anything other than a transport category for 30 years. He wouldn't know what a Aztec from a hole in the ground.
I wouldn't worry about having an airplane that might not be popular.

I think this was covered the other day. As long as its not a powered parachute or whatever its logable and legal.

[ntbjounin]

any time that's loggable is good for what it is. hell, Powered Parachute time is loggable... but it's not exactly beneficial for that Learjet job...

but any time aloft can show you're expereinced in different types of flying etc. aside from price, there's no difference in logging C150 time vs RV4 time or Kitfox

[OldTownPilot]

Originally Posted by Holocene

......If I buy an experimental, I can do any repair I feel capable of.

Not really. The repairman certificate on that airplane on an experimental is only given if you built a majority of the airframe. Just buying an experimental will not allow you to do any more maintenance than you can as a pilot on a part 23 (normal) airplane.

[OldTownPilot]

Originally Posted by ntbjounin

any time that's loggable is good for what it is. hell, Powered Parachute time is loggable... but it's not exactly beneficial for that Learjet job...

Not if its a part 103 ultralight (which most powered parachutes are).

[ShyFlyer]

So my plan of getting an AirCam to build cheep multi time is a good one, no?

[USMCmech]

Originally Posted by OldTownPilot

Just buying an experimental will not allow you to do any more maintenance than you can as a pilot on a part 23 (normal) airplane.

Not true.

The only maintaince task on an experimental that requires an A&P is the annual "condition inspection". This does NOT require an IA. If you were the origional builder, you can apply for a repairman's cert to do the condition inspection on that specific airplane.

ALL other maintaince can be done by the owner (or the neighbor's kid). He can use any parts from any source he sees fit. The owner can modify the design any way he sees fit.

Basicly the FAA doesn't care or even want to know what goes on with homebuilts.

[USMCmech]

Originally Posted by ShyFlyer

So my plan of getting an AirCam to build cheep multi time is a good one, no?

It's airworthiness cert says it's a multi engine land airplane. You must have your PPL, with AMEL to leagly fly it.

Why wouldn't you log it?

[ShyFlyer]

Originally Posted by USMCmech

It's airworthiness cert says it's a multi engine land airplane. You must have your PPL, with AMEL to leagly fly it.

Why wouldn't you log it?

Got the PPL already and I know I'd need to add the ME (Taildragger too). I'm just not sure if it was an ultralight or not. I thought I remember reading somewhere that it wasn't, but I can't find that source though.

And I would log it, with a big even.

[USMCmech]

Originally Posted by ShyFlyer

I thought I remember reading somewhere that it wasn't, but I can't find that source though.

If it has a N number, then it has an airworthiness cert, and is therefore NOT an ultralight.

Even if it does look like one.

[Holocene]

Originally Posted by ShyFlyer

So my plan of getting an AirCam to build cheep multi time is a good one, no?

I was checking it out; $100,000 for an unassembled open-cockpit kitplane???????

[///AMG]

Yeah it is a bit of a spendy aircraft (for it's use), but one that seems like about the purest aviation experience around

[Holocene]

Originally Posted by ///AMG

Yeah it is a bit of a spendy aircraft (for it's use), but one that seems like about the purest aviation experience around

Haha, for 1/10th of a million dollars, I'd probably just buy myself some MiG time.

[seaav8tor]

ME jet time on the cheap

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0275.shtml

http://www.ioffer.com/i/CRI-CRI-TWIN...PPING-95676989

[JordanD]

Originally Posted by seaav8tor

ME jet time on the cheap

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0275.shtml

http://www.ioffer.com/i/CRI-CRI-TWIN...PPING-95676989

I've thought about this one for a while.

[///AMG]

Whatever floats your boat (or wings in this case). I'd personally rather go low and skip trees with my wheels if the flying is just for fun

[granlistillo]

Originally Posted by OldTownPilot

Not if its a part 103 ultralight (which most powered parachutes are).

The two seat jobs with an N number that require at least a sport pilot certificate are? That is my understanding...

[OldTownPilot]

Originally Posted by USMCmech

Not true.

The only maintaince task on an experimental that requires an A&P is the annual "condition inspection". This does NOT require an IA. If you were the origional builder, you can apply for a repairman's cert to do the condition inspection on that specific airplane.

ALL other maintaince can be done by the owner (or the neighbor's kid). He can use any parts from any source he sees fit. The owner can modify the design any way he sees fit.

Basicly the FAA doesn't care or even want to know what goes on with homebuilts.

Yeah, thats it. I knew there was a deal with the repairman's cert, and I thought that was the only way to get "A&P and IA privileges" on your airplane. My bad.

Originally Posted by granlistillo

The two seat jobs with an N number that require at least a sport pilot certificate are? That is my understanding...

part 103 ultralights don't have N-numbers. A "2 seat ultralight" that has a N-number falls under all the light sport rules.

[escapepilot]

IMO, your resume would look better w/ different aircraft logged than w/ a bunch of C-150 time. If I were a hiring manager, I'd be more interested in someone that has shown they can fly different aircraft with different performance.

[tonyw]

You know, lately I've noticed a lot of "should I log this" threads.

I just don't get it. If the FAA says you can log it, then log it.

What a lot of people are doing is like looking at a $20 and saying, nah, I can't use that. It's all old and wrinkly.

[Murdoughnut]

What were the pre-req's to do this? I'm just down the road and would be very interested in doing it.

[Adler]

Variety is key in my book. So you have 500 hours of caravan time. One could argue that the caravan is a big heavy turbine powered plane - you're not going to have to worry about engine failure, winds (as much); like you would have to if you were flying an ultralight. Conversely if you only had ultralight time you would have no experience with going fast and heavy ifr flight. I'm trying hard to build my variety, I've got less then 300 hours and I've flown T-Goose, 172, diamondstar, Seminole, glider, cirrus sr20/22 , cub, Aircam, and still building.

Originally Posted by ShyFlyer

So my plan of getting an AirCam to build cheep multi time is a good one, no?

not exactly cheap, kits are 100k. But I've heard once its built, operating costs are <$30 an hour!

[Murdoughnut]

Originally Posted by Murdoughnut

What were the pre-req's to do this? I'm just down the road and would be very interested in doing it.

Sorry, that was meant for another thread!

[ShyFlyer]

Originally Posted by Adler

not exactly cheap, kits are 100k. But I've heard once its built, operating costs are <$30 an hour!

Yeah, but if I'm gonna shell out 100k on getting into flying professionally, I'd rather give it to Lockwood than (insert pilot mill du jour here).