Back to the Future in E-AB Land

Back to the Future in E-AB Land

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

Cox. Pitts. S-1. S-1C. Bill Smith.

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.

Post Comments

comments