Talk:Homebuilt aircraft

message: Let's be sure the word exists before we write homebuilt.  And then let's be consistent throughout the article.  Paul Beardsell 12:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Homebuilt" seems to be pretty widely used in the magazines on the topic. --Robert Merkel 13:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homebuilt, home-built or home built?   

message: But what if I rent a hangar and build my aircraft there?  Not at home.  What if I am a professional aircraft designer/engineer/mechanic?  Not amateur.  I reckon we should use the terms used by the various aviation authorities.  (e.g. "experimental" in the USA.)  I don't think it is useful to lump together a one-off experimental with a kit for an aircraft of which hundreds are flying.
I reckon if this article is to survive then best we make it a short one with a series of links to other articles on "permit to fly" aircraft (UK), "experimental" aircraft (US, NZ, ...), ...
Paul Beardsell 12:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general usage by the industry & enthusiasts, "home" is accepted to mean "not (at) a factory" (even when assembling kits which are from one) & "amateur" to mean "owner-builder" (which, agreed, might be a better term); also, re "amateur", recall the definition of "professional": is the owner-builder being paid to build his aircraft?  Trekphiler 06:30 & 06:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There's actually another twist to that, due to the existence of the light-sport rules. There isn't very much difference between them, but you can build, from a kit, the same aircraft as a factory built S-LSA, as an E-LSA, which is perceived to have a little more connection with an approval process than if it were built from plans as an E-AB (experimental, amateur-built.) I have spent some time just getting my head around the regulations and will write something about all this in the future, if it's not elsewhere in WP to refer to. And then there are aircraft built at home one at a time because the builder owns the type certificate. So "it depends..." Altaphon (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Not at home? not by amateur?

message: The article says "homebuilt aircraft may be licensed Experimental under FAA regulations." I've always understood by FAA reg it was must be, because they're owner-built, not factory-built.  Trekphiler 06:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's actually another twist to that, due to the existence of the light-sport rules. There isn't very much difference between them, but you can build, from a kit, the same aircraft as a factory built S-LSA, as an E-LSA, which is perceived to have a little more connection with an approval process than if it were built from plans as an E-AB (experimental, amateur-built.) I have spent some time just getting my head around the regulations and will write something about all this in the future, if it's not elsewhere in WP to refer to. And then there are aircraft built at home one at a time because the builder owns the type certificate. So "it depends..." Altaphon (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: What's in a word?

message: I have deleted an external link for a commercial homebuilt aircraft website from this article for the second time. This external link fails to meet the Wikipedia Links Guidelines in three areas:
* It does not does not "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article"
* It was posted "strictly to promote a website".
* It was posted by the owner of the website who is in a Conflict of Interest
Additionally it does not provide any reference material for the article.
The initial deletion was reverted by the owner of the website who posted it in the first place. Please do not re-post this link without discussion and a consensus decision from the editors working on this article that it is appropriate to re-post it. - Ahunt (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External link deletion

message: What does this sentence in the intro mean: The safety record of homebuilts is not comparable to certified general aviation aircraft. Does it mean that comparisons to general aircraft are meaningless due to confounding variables, or that the safety record for homebuilts is much worse. Either way, the sentence should be modified to make it clear what it is trying to say. Ashmoo (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Corrected, with references, the comments about who may build and inspect a homebuilt. It is still not the complete story (kits, kit approval etc. need to be discussed) but the 51% rule applies not only to an individual -- a class of students can build an airplane, with no one doing 51% of the work. The rule is that more than half of the work must have been done for the builders' recreation and education. One person may then be designated as the "primary builder" and that person can apply for the repairman's certificate for that aircraft. Altaphon (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 51% rule

message: I don't want to edit the article because it's possible that I'm misreading what the NTSB report says, but the article says:
"9% of first flights by purchasers of used homebuilts resulted in accidents."
And the NTSB report says:
"and 14 out of the 125 accidents in aircraft that were sold crashed on the new owner's first flight."
I'm reading that of the 125 sold aircraft that crashed, 14 of those crashes were on the new owner's first flight.  I don't think that it follows that 9% of all first flights in a sold aircraft resulted in a crash, as that'd mean that there were only 125 sales, and they all crashed eventually.  I think, rather, that 9% of the crashes were on the new owner's first flight.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.18.122 (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is what the article says, but perhaps it could be made clearer? - Ahunt (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New owner crashes