Dave Morss has a different take on it.  He believes that it may add to the burden of proof that the builder has to do should an accident occur and may increase his liability to the person he sells the plane to.  But Dave is also a professional FAA Designated Airworthiness Represenative (DAR) so has more exposure than the pure amateur. 

I am one of those "pure" amateurs.  And a careful one at that.

 

You know, I just followed the 1989 directions in the Lancair construction manual, kept an adequate log (mainly annoted fotos) as required by the ever interesting FAA and occasionally noted the test results of a new batch of "epoxies".    My last "coupon" was a piece of glass epoxied to the saw horse I was using -- Later, I tried to delaminate it -- It resisted enough to indicate that that there was enough stickiness to the material. 

 

After all these sophisticated procedures, my airplane is still holding together because of Lancair's conservative (no negativity towards liberals implied) approach to the structure and my adherence (no pun intended) to their "slow" building process.  I used epoxies, sealants and structural adhesives that are not used or suggested for use today.  So what? 

 

I even closed out the bottom of my wings with the 5/8 inch wide "bonding" technique instead of the later improved "flange" method. Yada, Yada, Yada.  The result:

 

1.  I have an aircraft certified for "Experimental" use and all that that implies.

 

2.  With over 600 hard flying hours (harder landings), no structural failures, no cracks, no delams and no part separations I guess it all worked out.

 

3.  I didn't build it to sell it.

 

4.  However,  if you want to pay for a fast 320, make me an offer I can't refuse.

 

5.  Please let me know if any Lancair structurally failed from flight within the specified regime before reaching the ground.  I want to know if I should add some pop rivets in a weak area.