Captain Avgas
Well Known Member
Well, in reality the proverb is actually: "Misery loves company". But on VansAirforce it might well be interpreted as: "Miserable quality loves company".
In other words people who have built to a low standard tend to encourage other builders to do the same.
A recent thread on VansAirforce asking for advice on whether a damaged rudder skin should be repaired or replaced attracted a lot of disparate suggestions and was revealing. This was the thread https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=195668
I have started up this new thread because I believe that the time is well overdue for a serious discussion about attitudes to quality control (or lack thereof) in the Experimental Category.
In the end the quality of aircraft being fabricated in the Experimental Category is largely unregulated and virtually entirely dependent on the personality of the builder. It is therefore not surprising that a very broad spectrum of builder personalities tends to result in a very broad spectrum of build qualities. Toss in the fact that many builders are not even that interested in building and the scene is set for a lot of very poorly constructed aircraft.
I have been a technical counsellor for the Sports Aircraft Association of Australia for the best part of two decades and was an aircraft judge for 7 years straight. I have closely inspected literally hundreds of Experimental aircraft. Some of them were works of art...but many off them were truly appalling.
I constantly hear builders say: "I'm building to go, not to show". I tend to interpret that as the builder saying he is not building to the best of his abilities. Another common one is: "It's not a show plane but it's airworthy". But in my experience a lot of them are not airworthy at all.
I believe that when we post on VansAirforce we have a duty to encourage excellence as a standard....not to promote the concept that close enough is good enough. I believe that the safety of the builder and his family and the future of the Experimental Category at large will be better served by this approach.
I'll finish with a quote by Michelangelo: "The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it; but that it is too low and we reach it".
He was a pretty smart guy that Michelangelo.
In other words people who have built to a low standard tend to encourage other builders to do the same.
A recent thread on VansAirforce asking for advice on whether a damaged rudder skin should be repaired or replaced attracted a lot of disparate suggestions and was revealing. This was the thread https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=195668
I have started up this new thread because I believe that the time is well overdue for a serious discussion about attitudes to quality control (or lack thereof) in the Experimental Category.
In the end the quality of aircraft being fabricated in the Experimental Category is largely unregulated and virtually entirely dependent on the personality of the builder. It is therefore not surprising that a very broad spectrum of builder personalities tends to result in a very broad spectrum of build qualities. Toss in the fact that many builders are not even that interested in building and the scene is set for a lot of very poorly constructed aircraft.
I have been a technical counsellor for the Sports Aircraft Association of Australia for the best part of two decades and was an aircraft judge for 7 years straight. I have closely inspected literally hundreds of Experimental aircraft. Some of them were works of art...but many off them were truly appalling.
I constantly hear builders say: "I'm building to go, not to show". I tend to interpret that as the builder saying he is not building to the best of his abilities. Another common one is: "It's not a show plane but it's airworthy". But in my experience a lot of them are not airworthy at all.
I believe that when we post on VansAirforce we have a duty to encourage excellence as a standard....not to promote the concept that close enough is good enough. I believe that the safety of the builder and his family and the future of the Experimental Category at large will be better served by this approach.
I'll finish with a quote by Michelangelo: "The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it; but that it is too low and we reach it".
He was a pretty smart guy that Michelangelo.
Last edited: