Not really looking at getting a plane, but this might just fall into my lap. One problem: Do the words EXPERIMENTAL and HOMEBUILT and AEROBATIC go together????? Does anyone have any experience with the Skybolt? Pic is not of the actual plane for sale..... Image Unavailable, Please Login
The Steen Skybolt is a pretty good design that is Homebuilt, Experimental, and Aerobatic. That plane in the photo can stay but that crazy paint job has to go.
To me the scribbly swirls completely destroy the beautiful lines of the airplane and are a total distraction. How do we write it now? IMHO. All respect to you , Lou, you've got to be okay if you fly a 747.
Looks like this might just happen. October. Can't wait to take it for a spin. The planes pretty much all white. Planning on painting it like the one pictured below. Thoughts? The airplane has a 230 (possibly 235) HP Continental O-470-13 from a Beechcraft Mentor (T34). Anyone with experience with this engine? Thanks, Lou Image Unavailable, Please Login
That's the one...get that CFI rating back up Lou and it looks like I just found where to get my tail wheel and aerobatic endorsement's all in one place
Carb, which will limit your maneuvers. Many claim the O-470 is bulletproof, but I personally did not like it in my 180. Poor induction system that leads to very uneven fuel distribution between cylinders. I prefer an injected engine over carb, especially in the higher (>200) HP category. Swap it out for the new Lyc IO-390 and install an inverted oil system.
WARNING! WARNING! IMHO (thank you Bob) the 'starznstripes' is just as bad as the swirlygig one......IMHO However, since your new plane is 'pretty much all white', I'll be happy to help you come up with a new paint scheme......and it will only cost you one free ride!
Here's the ad.... 1984 STEEN SKYBOLT Experimental/Homebuilt Aircraft For Sale At Controller.com My friend has actually just bought it ( a good friend of his owned it before). I get the best deal. If I pay half insurance, hanger, annual, I can fly it whenever I want. My share around $300/month. Looks like inverted fuel/oil. But I've been told inverted limited to 30 secs. Should be more than enough for me. In the ad it lists possible maneuvers. The previous owner will check us out for free and teach us whatever maneuvers we want to learn. Yeah, I'm a little skeptical about someone else building it. It does come with 2 parachutes....
People people people. The Skybolt is +9 -6 and is a wonderful aerobatic airplane. Experimental means that there is less government meddling which means important safety and performance upgrades are not prohibited or made unfordable due to type certificate restrictions. If you want to install a Skyview synthetic vision system you just do it, no STC, no 337. Homebuilt means that the builder made every weld, glue joint, and assembly without time pressure or a profit margin, anything could be done over if not perfect, and was done with the knowledge that their life would depend on it. Unlike the factory built airplane that was just another job.
Depends. Most (nearly all) homebuilt aircraft have restrictions on what can and cannot be done without FAA oversight.
Except your health, life, and disability insurance probably wont like it. Are there insurance policies that cover experimental aircraft?
I have seen many homebuilts and some were not what I would consider flyable, but this was in the 60's-70's. Most are well done and safe now and better done because of the higher skill levels now. A lot of builders have learned to weld and the wooden airplanes have benefited from expertise of the EAA members and improved materials. Composites have made an appearance too. Something like the Skybolt can easily be inspected and the builder can also be verified now. Skill levels have become much better in the last 20 years.
Absolutely. Most major companies cover experimentals, I carry insurance for liability and hull value on my experimentals just as I do on any type certified plane. The largest airplane producer out there now is Vans which makes kit planes, experimentals are very much mainstream. What the experimental classification means as it applies to home built aircraft (there are other types of experimentals too) is that you are free to use equipment types and combinations prohibited on factory produced aircraft. To elaborate, you can use better gear in many cases and apply common sense to choices. For example the Piper Cub was manufactured with a variety of engines with the Continental A65 and Franklin being two of the choices. The planes were fitted with whatever engine was next on the production line and there isn't meaningful difference between them. You cannot however simply replace a Franklin with a Continental even though it has been demonstrated to perform well on tens of thousands of the same airplane. On an experimental Cub clone you can use either one freely or even a totally different engine such as an automotive engine conversion. The Cub I own is an experimental built from a Wag Aero kit and it has an 0-200 on it which makes 100Hp as compared to the original A-65 which was 65Hp. What you also could no simply do with that factory Cub is remove the analog instrument panel and install a Dynon Skyview or comparable system and a Garmin weather equipped GPS nav system. That setup provides you with incredible safety in the form of situational awareness about weather, terrain, engine performance, fuel consumption, etc. Due to the legal system and lawyers that have attached like leeches to the aviation industry an FAA/PMA part is a defacto more expensive component with none of that extra cost going to the products performance or safety, just to the leeches who feed off the industry. For example sticking with the Cub again, an FAA PMA authorized cowl set for the Cub is about $1,200 while the exact same part is also sold for experimentals for about $260. If you look through suppliers such as Wicks, aircraft spruce, Wag Aero etc. you will often find a given part sold as both PMA and non PMA for a significant price difference. People who undertake the time, effort, and expense to not only become a pilot but to also build their own aircraft are not usually looking for shortcuts or substandard components. Your aircraft must also be inspected for airworthiness just like any factory aircraft. So while you can use for example a more efficient composite prop it must be attached with aircraft grade bolts and safety wired in the approved way. Homebuilt experimental aircraft are a wonderful hobby and an industry populated by some very brilliant and creative people. EDIT; Commenting on what Bob added, the skill set and materials have advanced for sure. It is a mixed bag though in my opinion that there isn't much experimental left in experimental aircraft, you just don't see the wild designs that were coming along during the post WWII - 70's. And instead of wild creativity you can have what amounts to an aircraft shaped box dropped off at your house such as one of the Vans RV series quickbuild kits. While they are amazing performers and very well built we guys who build from plans where you do it all yourself tend to look at those guys as assemblers and not builders. Also just thought of a very recent personal example. The exhaust system on my Cub was from a type certified aircraft, made out of mild steel and was starting to rust. With a factory produced aircraft I would have been stuck with replacing it with the same type, instead I had an aircraft exhaust specialist fabricate one that is lighter, better flowing, has better cabin heat, and is made from stainless.
Apparently the builder of this airplane has built 3 aircraft, this being his 3rd. It was inspected at certain stages during the build. Not sure if that's required or not. Insurance for 2 pilots is around $1300/yr. That's 2 airline ATP pilots without tail wheel time. Sounds relatively cheap to me. Our annual will be performed by another airline pilot (AA) who's been doing the annuals on this plane for the past 5 years. Not sure whether that's good or bad, but he does know the plane and its history. Looking to getting a tail wheel checkout in the next few months. Probably in a Citabria as it seems to be the only tail wheel for rent nearby. I've read that the Skybolt is a very easy taildragger, as opposed to the Pitts which can be a handful. Will probably go check out the plane next weekend. Will take a few pics....
The only required inspection is the FAA one after completion. However, the EAA has a voluntary program for inspections during construction by tech advisers who are people granted that title by the EAA based on actual experience building aircraft. Participating in the program makes the FAA happier when they come to inspect and is just a good idea all around as it both affirms your work and can find things you have missed. I would suggest doing an owner assisted annual if at all possible. A Citabria (Arirbatic) spelled backward is a good plane to do your transition in, what did your insurance company specify for dual tailwheel time, 10 hours usually. Who did you insure through? You can also take instruction in an experimental if you own it so you can easily get some dual transition time in that Skybolt too. The Skybolt is going to have allot more sink rate and slow down faster than that Citabria so just expect that. But it is one of the best tailwheel planes, probably second only to the AcroSport II in good manners. Check out Biplane Forum if you haven't found it already, there are some good Skybolt sources there. And check out Steen Aero labs, they make the kits and parts for it, good people too. I bought several things from them and got great service.
