By Budd Davisson, EAA 22483
This piece originally ran in the May 2021 issue of EAA Sport Aviation magazine.
It is often said that “Classic is as classic does,” meaning that when talking about experimental amateur-built (E-AB) aircraft, doing the aerial job correctly never goes out of style. Or maybe it should be “Classic is as classic looks.” You just never tire of looking at some airplanes. But wait! What about “Classic is as classic builds,” pointing out that some airplanes go together easier than others so they have captured hearts for generations? And then there is always “Classic is classic when it doesn’t cost much,” a saying that needs no explanation.
So, what we have above is utility, looks, ease of building, and the almighty buck. Which attribute goes the farthest to make a homebuilt airplane a classic? Obviously, none of them do it by themselves. An airplane that can carry a ton of stuff off the ground but is slow and costs an arm and a leg to operate is lacking some redeeming features, so it is viewed as classic only by a narrow audience. The same is true for the speed demons that can’t fill the tanks and the seats at the same time. Ditto for the aircraft that practically builds itself but is so ugly only a mother could love it. There are some designs from the past, however, that hit the sweet spot by excelling in almost all areas. For that reason, regardless of a design’s age, they are just as viable today as when they initially took off many decades ago.
We’re going to look at some classic E-ABs. For the sake of discussion, we’re defining classic as having been first flown more than 45 years ago. That’s 1976, by which time a lot of what we still consider modern homebuilts (Van’s, Zenith, Monnett) were already on the scene. Other classics have been with us since the late 1920s, and many more were part of the original founding decade of the EAA, the 1950s. Some of these designs are seldom seen today, if at all, primarily because they have been overpowered by the new super planes and their super kits. Regardless, they are still viable homebuilt projects. However, the older the design, the less likely they were, or are, available as kits. Meaning, they have to be scratchbuilt from plans, which was true of practically every homebuilt before the early 1970s. That’s not a bad thing, especially if a builder likes to build and is trying to save a buck. Some of the older designs can be converted from a roll of paper to a flying airplane for less than the cost of some of the modern kits while they’re still in the shipping container with no engine or instruments.
Going Kitless: Let’s Talk About Scratchbuilding
About a third of EAA’s current membership joined in the last decade. So, it’s possible they may know next to nothing of some of the older designs. In fact, since we arbitrarily set our cutoff for E-AB classics at 1976, there’s a good possibility that the designs are older than they are. For the same reason, since kits are the most visible face of EAA, the basic concept of scratchbuilding, which is where EAA began, is also little known.
The kitbuilt airplane has flitted around the edges of aviation almost since the Wright brothers. However, it didn’t begin to morph into the 800-pound gorilla it is now until Jim Bede’s BD-5 showed that prefabbed kits could be done, and then Frank Christensen’s Eagle showed how it should be done. Next, Rutan kicked off the composite revolution. About the same time, Van’s and Zenith showed what could be done with CNC punches. It was amazing that aluminum parts could be fastened together with Clecos right out of the box. In the case of the 51-percent quick-build kits, parts didn’t even need fastening because they were already riveted together. It was an extraordinary time, and a new age of homebuilding was upon us.
Before the kit concept matured, a scratchbuilt like a Tailwind, Skybolt, or Thorp would show up in the driveway as either a long, thick-walled mailing tube less than a foot in diameter or an innocuous-looking 4-by-8-foot wood and cardboard package about 4 inches thick. That was it. The material that arrived would be just that — material. Nothing was laid out on the aluminum, and the tubing lengths weren’t marked. In some cases, the plans might only be 10 or 12 legal-sized pieces of paper. However, those pieces of paper had every structural piece drawn out and dimensioned. So, the builder duplicated the drawing on the material and cut to the lines. However, that was only part of the fun. Building something that flies from absolutely nothing engenders a terrific feeling of achievement. It is the ultimate act of aerial creation.
Today, with kits being the norm, the scratchbuilding process looks impossible to many aviators. However, one of the identifying characteristics of the early classic designs is blacksmith-level simplicity. Think about who started the whole modern homebuilding movement — folks who wanted to build airplanes in their garages. With that in mind, the various designers who jumped into the fray — like Steve Wittman, Ray Stits, Paul Poberezny, and others — knew the builders wouldn’t have full machine shops. In fact, the designers’ assumption behind almost all of the first-generation designs was that the builders might only have hand tools like an electric drill, hand hacksaws, files, tin snips, hand wood, and saws. Maybe not even air compressors.
Today, with China flooding the country with impossibly cheap tools, even the back bedroom of a third-floor apartment can be equipped with the right power tools to do every single operation needed to scratchbuild something like a Smith Miniplane. Some Chinese tools may not be of the highest quality (Taiwan tools are noticeably better even though they are Chinese), but some American brands like DEWALT and Milwaukee are doing their best to keep manufacturing in the United States. However, the truth is that, while we’d like to buy the best tools available, there are some operations in homebuilding that just don’t require machine shop precision and reliability. A bolt, for instance, doesn’t know if it’s being tightened by a Snap-on or a CRAFTSMAN wrench.
More important than the tools needed is the enormous impact the digital age has had on the development of skills. That alone has made scratchbuilding much more possible and palatable. The concept of education has been part of EAA almost from the beginning, but the programs that foster that goal have exploded over the years. Between videos and manuals, there is absolutely no skill needed to build an airplane that can’t be learned through the computer.
Kits and Components for Classics
It should be noted that, as opposed to back in the day, today there are specialty shops that are building components for many of the older designs. In some cases, like the Skybolt and Midget Mustang, complete kits are available. Also, both Aircraft Spruce & Specialty Co. and Wicks Aircraft Supply have developed materials kits for many older designs, and VR3 Engineering makes its magical, precut, click-together tubing kits for some of them. In fact, many of the designs have actual manufacturer websites that offer approved, welded components. Mr. Google can find those for anyone interested.
Building a classic, whether kit- or scratchbuilt, doesn’t mean the builder is going to be working on an orphan design and is going to be a pioneer. Almost without exception, all of the more popular, older designs are supported by energetic chat groups that connect you with several experienced builders. Before the internet, those who were building lots of the older designs were working pretty much solo. Today, it’s amazing how many support groups have popped up, some for really obscure designs. It almost seems as if the very act of having a group chatting about a specific design generates builder enthusiasm for that airplane and more people start building it. That’s probably because knowing all of that help is available raises the newbie’s confidence level.
A standalone fact that needs to be noted is that, although plans for some good designs, the Rutan Long-EZ for example, are no longer readily available through normal channels, there are ways to find them. Jumping on chat groups or running ads on something like Barnstormers.com will usually yield a set of plans. They are out there. At the same time, the search for those plans will plug the wannabe builder into a chat group, the members of which will become the builder’s best friends while building.
Regarding plans, be advised there is a bogus website, reportedly based in Russia, that lists plans for practically every homebuilt aircraft ever designed for sale. However, it doesn’t have the rights to any of them, and delivery may not actually happen. So, buyers be very aware. If you have concerns or are in doubt, call the EAA membership services department at 1-800-564-6322.
Just Because It’s Old Doesn’t Make It Useless
The reasons to be building an airplane should be twofold. The first reason is that a person builds just because they like building. The process is very much its own reward. The second reason to build is to scratch an itch for a certain type of flying machine for a given purpose. If the machine in question is accomplishing that purpose, meaning it’s getting the pilot into the air the way they want it to, then the actual age of the design should have no bearing. There are good reasons why so many of the really old designs, like the Tailwind and Thorp, are still being built and upgraded today. What they offer in terms of performance, looks, and building is still attractive nearly three-quarters of a century after some of them were born. In other words, they’re Classic. With a capital “C.” Enough said.
Listed below are some classic homebuilt designs to consider.
Name: Acro Sport II
Introduced: 1979
Plans/Kits: Both
Source: Aircraft Spruce & Specialty, Acro Sport Inc.
Wings: Biplane
Seats: 2
Landing Gear: Tail wheel
Power: 180-200 hp
Structure: Tube and wood
Building Difficulty Rating (1-5): 3
Flying Difficulty Rating (1-5): 3
Number Built (1-5, 1=rare, 5=common): 4
Comment: An easy-flying “big pilot” airplane
Name: Corben Ace Family
Introduced: 1928
Plans/Kits: Both
Source: Ace Aircraft Manufacturing Co.
Wings: Parasol
Seats: 2
Landing Gear: Tail wheel
Power: 85-125 hp
Structure: Tube and wood
Building Difficulty Rating (1-5): 2
Flying Difficulty Rating (1-5): 2
Number Built (1-5, 1=rare, 5=common): 3
Comment: Very simple, flying and building
Name: Pober Junior Ace (Corben redesign)
Introduced: 1956
Plans/Kits: Both
Source: Acro Sport Inc.
Wings: Parasol
Seats: 2
Landing Gear: Tail wheel
Power: 85-125 hp
Structure: Tube and wood
Building Difficulty Rating (1-5): 2
Flying Difficulty Rating (1-5): 2
Number Built (1-5, 1=rare, 5=common): 3
Comment: Very simple, flying and building
Name: Bowers Fly Baby
Introduced: 1962
Plans/Kits: Both
Source: Aircraft Spruce & Specialty, EAA Sport Aviation Archive
Wings: Low wing
Seats: 1
Landing Gear: Tail wheel
Power: 65-100 hp
Structure: Wood
Building Difficulty Rating (1-5): 2
Flying Difficulty Rating (1-5): 1
Number Built (1-5, 1=rare, 5=common): 4
Comment: Super easy to fly, FUN!
Name: Baby Great Lakes
Introduced: 1970s
Plans/Kits: Both
Source: Aircraft Spruce & Specialty
Wings: Biplane
Seats: 1
Landing Gear: Tail wheel
Power: 65-100 hp
Structure: Tube and wood
Building Difficulty Rating (1-5): 3
Flying Difficulty Rating (1-5): 3
Number Built (1-5, 1=rare, 5=common): 2
Comment: Tiny — not for big pilots
Name: Davis DA-2A and DA-5
Introduced: 1966, 1974
Plans/Kits: Plans
Source: Davis Aircraft Designs, DavisDA2.com
Wings: Low wing
Seats: 2
Landing Gear: Tri-gear
Power: 65-115 hp
Structure: Aluminum and steel
Building Difficulty Rating (1-5): 1
Flying Difficulty Rating (1-5): 1
Number Built (1-5, 1=rare, 5=common): 3
Comment: Easy to build and fly, good performance
Name: Hatz
Introduced: 1968
Plans/Kits: Plans, materials
Source: Numerous, HatzBiplane.com, Aircraft Spruce & Specialty
Wings: Biplane
Seats: 2
Landing Gear: Tail wheel
Power: 100-150 hp
Structure: Tube and wood
Building Difficulty Rating (1-5): 3
Flying Difficulty Rating (1-5): 1
Number Built (1-5, 1=rare, 5=common): 3
Comment: Simple, roomy, fun, slow
Name: Dyke Delta
Introduced: 1966
Plans/Kits: Plans
Source: John Dyke, 937-430-8298
Wings: Delta
Seats: 4
Landing Gear: Tri-gear
Power: 180 hp
Structure: Tube and fiberglass
Building Difficulty Rating (1-5): 4
Flying Difficulty Rating (1-5): 2
Number Built (1-5, 1=rare, 5=common): 1
Comment: Roomy and not weird
Name: Little Toot
Introduced: 1957
Plans/Kits: Both
Source: Meyer Aircraft
Wings: Biplane
Seats: 1
Landing Gear: Tail wheel
Power: 125-180 hp
Structure: Tube, wood, and aluminum
Building Difficulty Rating (1-5): 3
Flying Difficulty Rating (1-5): 3
Number Built (1-5, 1=rare, 5=common): 1
Comment: Strong, fun, roomy
Name: Midget Mustang MM-1
Introduced: 1948
Plans/Kits: Both
Source: Mustang Aeronautics
Wings: Low wing
Seats: 1
Landing Gear: Tail wheel
Power: 85-150 hp
Structure: Aluminum
Building Difficulty Rating (1-5): 3
Flying Difficulty Rating (1-5): 3
Number Built (1-5, 1=rare, 5=common): 3
Comment: Fast and very pretty
Name: Sonerai (Monnett)
Introduced: 1971
Plans/Kits: Both
Source: Sonex Aircraft
Wings: Low wing, mid wing
Seats: 1 or 2
Landing Gear: Tail wheel, tri-gear option
Power: VW conversions
Structure: Tube and aluminum
Building Difficulty Rating (1-5): 3
Flying Difficulty Rating (1-5): 3
Number Built (1-5, 1=rare, 5=common): 3
Comment: Fast for power, folding wings
Name: Piel Emeraude
Introduced: 1954
Plans/Kits: Plans
Source: S. Littner Aircraft Plans
Wings: Low wing
Seats: 2
Landing Gear: Tail wheel
Power: 100-150 hp
Structure: Wood
Building Difficulty Rating (1-5): 5
Flying Difficulty Rating (1-5): 2
Number Built (1-5, 1=rare, 5=common): 2
Comment: Lots of wood!
Name: Pietenpol Air Camper
Introduced: 1928
Plans/Kits: Both
Source: Pietenpol Aircraft Co., Aircraft Spruce & Specialty
Wings: Parasol
Seats: 2
Landing Gear: Tail wheel
Power: 65-125 hp
Structure: Tube and wood
Building Difficulty Rating (1-5): 2
Flying Difficulty Rating (1-5): 1
Number Built (1-5, 1=rare, 5=common): 4
Comment: Antique and fun in every way
Name: Pitts Special S-1C
Introduced: 1963
Plans/Kits: Both
Source: Steen Aero Lab
Wings: Biplane
Seats: 1
Landing Gear: Tail wheel
Power: 85-200 hp, 160 hp recommended
Structure: Tube and wood
Building Difficulty Rating (1-5): 3
Flying Difficulty Rating (1-5): 3
Number Built (1-5, 1=rare, 5=common): 4
Comment: A Pitts is Special!
Name: Pober Pixie
Introduced: 1974
Plans/Kits: Both
Source: Acro Sport Inc., Aircraft Spruce & Specialty
Wings: Parasol
Seats: 1
Landing Gear: Tail wheel
Power: Converted Volkswagen, 60 hp
Structure: Tube and wood
Building Difficulty Rating (1-5): 2
Flying Difficulty Rating (1-5): 2
Number Built (1-5, 1=rare, 5=common): 2
Comment: Economical to fly
Name: Smith Miniplane
Introduced: 1956
Plans/Kits: Both
Source: Sky Classic Aircraft
Wings: Biplane
Seats: 1
Landing Gear: Tail wheel
Power: 85-150 hp
Structure: Tube and wood
Building Difficulty Rating (1-5): 3
Flying Difficulty Rating (1-5): 3
Number Built (1-5, 1=rare, 5=common): 3
Comment: Simple, small, and fun
Name: Steen Skybolt
Introduced: 1970
Plans/Kits: Both
Source: Steen Aero Lab
Wings: Biplane
Seats: 2
Landing Gear: Tail wheel
Power: 180-300 hp
Structure: Tube and wood
Building Difficulty Rating (1-5): 3
Flying Difficulty Rating (1-5): 3
Number Built (1-5, 1=rare, 5=common): 4
Comment: “Big pilot” aerobatic machine
Name: Starduster Too
Introduced: 1965
Plans/Kits: Both
Source: Aircraft Spruce & Specialty
Wings: Biplane
Seats: 2
Landing Gear: Tail wheel
Power: 180-200 hp
Structure: Tube and wood
Building Difficulty Rating (1-5): 3
Flying Difficulty Rating (1-5): 3
Number Built (1-5, 1=rare, 5=common): 3
Comment: Solid two-place biplane
Name: Wittman Tailwind
Introduced: 1953
Plans/Kits: Both
Source: Aircraft Spruce & Specialty
Wings: High wing
Seats: 2
Landing Gear: Tail wheel
Power: 85-160 hp
Structure: Tube and wood
Building Difficulty Rating (1-5): 3
Flying Difficulty Rating (1-5): 3
Number Built (1-5, 1=rare, 5=common): 4
Comment: Very fast for the power
Name: Thorp T-18
Introduced: 1963
Plans/Kits: Both
Source: Thorp Central, Aircraft Spruce & Specialty
Wings: Low wing, folding
Seats: 2
Landing Gear: Tail wheel
Power: 125-180 hp
Structure: Aluminum
Building Difficulty Rating (1-5): 3
Flying Difficulty Rating (1-5): 3
Number Built (1-5, 1=rare, 5=common): 3
Comment: Fast, updated T-18
Name: Van’s RV-3
Introduced: 1971
Plans/Kits: Both
Source: Van’s Aircraft
Wings: Low wing
Seats: 1
Landing Gear: Tail wheel
Power: 100-160 hp
Structure: Aluminum
Building Difficulty Rating (1-5): 2
Flying Difficulty Rating (1-5): 1
Number Built (1-5, 1=rare, 5=common): 3
Comment: Fast and easy
Name: Wag-Aero CUBy/Sport Trainer (Piper replicas)
Introduced: 1975
Plans/Kits: Both
Source: Wag-Aero Group
Wings: High wing
Seats: 2, 3, and 4
Landing Gear: Tail wheel
Power: 65-160 hp
Structure: Tube and wood
Building Difficulty Rating (1-5): 3
Flying Difficulty Rating (1-5): 3
Number Built (1-5, 1=rare, 5=common): 3
Comment: Various models of Piper clones
Budd Davisson, EAA 22483, is an aeronautical engineer, has flown more than 300 different types, and has published four books and more than 4,000 articles. He is also a flight instructor primarily in Pitts/tailwheel aircraft. Visit him on AirBum.com.