South African teens fly from Cape to Cairo in plane they assembled from kit

For anyone interested in a very different aircraft that might meet more people's idea of homemade, I'm building a 1930s Pou-du-Ciel from scratch according to plans I translated from French. It's a wood-and-fabric tandem-wing design that was the start of European homebuilt aviation. My build log is at http://pou-du-ciel.net.

And for those that wonder what a more "modern" scratchbuilt plane is like, check out the Cozy Mk IV: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cozy_MK_IV. Made from fiberglass and foam cut to templates that came with a set of plans (with a handful of pre-fab parts).

A typical builder's log: http://www.cozy.simpex.com/

source: I, too, am building a plane in my garage. https://twitter.com/acozyplane

I have always wanted to build an RV, but I have a car that's sitting to be remodeled, so I know that I shouldn't undertake the plane. How long have you been working on yours? What's your progress rate?

Same. very click-baity title. I was expecting something more like https://giphy.com/gifs/car-homemade-zVMrf7rqfZcQM and was disappointed, not a really expensive kit-plane. I mean ya thats cool, but this is a shitty headline trying to take advantage of 1st world bias and low expectations for some clicks. I've built kit cars, race bikes from parts and other things and never once called them "home made". When they start banging out the skins on a metal press we can talk about home made...

This is still thousands of hours of effort, riveting aluminum, installing avionics, engine, and interior, etc.

IMO, it's much closer to making furniture than assembling flat-packed from Ikea.

To qualify as an "experimental/amateur-built" aircraft (which is the official FAA designation for these planes), the majority (ie > 50%) of the work must be done by amateurs. This means, in particular, that the kit itself can not be more than half the work it would be to build it from raw materials. So, like other people have said, it's not like you're slapping some parts together and you're done.

I'm glad he's able to fly a plane but at this point it really feels like we're cheering on the mid upper class for their accomplishments. I want to see some kid from the slums build a real plane from spare junk yard parts. That would be much more impressive to me.

Build time is approximately 1300 hours. Even if it is a kit, that is really impressive.

I had the same thought, but if the team of 20 all pitched in equally that's only $7k each. Still not pocket money but it's much more attainable that way. If they got a grant then it could have been even less.

What a good reason to use more precise language!

The real issue is the news outlet who wanted to generate clicks for their story.

We can all agree that "South African teens admissible airplane from kit and fly it" Is a bit less click worthy.

But the real story here is about how manufacturing is about to make another shift now that the places we have been shipping our manufacturing off to have raised their GDP.

What does the FAA (and their definitions) have to do with a story in the BBC about a South African aircraft kit flown by a South African teenager, written by a journalist living in Cape Town? Those definitions don't even apply to all of North America, let alone Europe, or Africa.

Perhaps an article without the photo would attract more praise? What do you think?

Very! There's a number of aircraf that are plans only. They used to be the main homebuilt aircraft around. Thankfully kit built is the major bulk of homebuilt aircraft today.

If you had $20K it's perfectly possible to build a day only single/twin seat runabout.

http://www.chilton-aircraft.co.uk Plans available free after permission to build from Mrs. Ward.

https://www.pietenpolaircraftcompany.com Plans available for $180. Wood kits with all the wood for specific parts available in the $75-$300 range.

With the plans and a basic toolshop I'd imagine quite straightforward*

* Assuming mechanical ability and a toolshop and not making the engine.

Wright brothers did it from first principles, built the engine and where bike technicians.

Wouldn't be cheap though for the equipment.

People built planes as a hobby pretty much as soon as they were a thing, the internet and overnight shipping would help, be thousands of hours work though.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/how-to/g631/4-amazin...

This one is really impressive https://generalaviationnews.com/2010/12/05/savor-the-experie...

And he has a site here http://www.aerostruk.com/the-plane/

The airframe is relatively straightforward (albeit a lot of work). Trying to make an engine at home from first principles is, for most practical purposes, prohibitive or at least, ill-advised. Even people who do automotive to airplane conversions often run into issues. Innovate on the airframe if you must, but choose a proven aircraft engine.

That's an entirely unfair characterization. I've seen many different clubs working on many different kit planes, and they all require high-level capability, attention to minute detail, and very little or no tolerance for a sloppy or partial job. It's true that people can start these projects with no experience, but they sure don't end with no experience. Typically people that see these projects through at any level of involvement become experts in some part of the work by the end.

Wat.

You can go off and just buy the kit if you want to die I guess...

I ended up taking a class on airframe construction from a licensed A&P and probably spent several hundred hours doing research at this point.

Engines can be anywhere from a 10k run-out old Lycoming or a $40k+ brand new IO-540 in a crate.

On the issue of "spoiled kids" there are a bunch of schools in the US that do a similar build project (typically an RV-14 LSA). It's not uncommon for more vocationally oriented high schools.

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar.

We detached this from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20396583.