Don't let the "kit" part put you off. It still requires a ton of effort and skill. You aren't getting an Ikea plane in a box, you're getting a bunch of rough cut aluminum and some plans. You still have to trim and debur the parts to their final specifications, align everything, and rivet it together all without damaging things.<p>Source: currently working on an RV-8 in my garage.<p>For those interested in what you have to do, here's another builder's blog (not mine) <a href="https://www.rv8-hangar.com/latest-progress-2/" rel="nofollow">https://www.rv8-hangar.com/latest-progress-2/</a><p>The contents of a typical kit: <a href="https://www.vansaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/rv-7_standard_kit_lg.jpg" rel="nofollow">https://www.vansaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/rv-7...</a>
I saw this article when it appeared, but was a little disappointed that "homemade" means "built the aircraft ... from a kit manufactured in South Africa by the Airplane Factory". Not to belittle the time, effort and skill involved (both in assembling and flying it), but to me "homemade plane" carried slightly different connotations than "assembled from a kit".<p>(I'm no expert carpenter, but I have built some pieces of furniture from basic pieces of timber, etc.; I would consider these to be "homemade". I've also assembled flat-packed furniture from places like Ikea or Homebase; I wouldn't refer to those items as "homemade".)
Not sure it's fair to call a $120K - $140K† kit (not including the cost of having the engine and avionics professionally installed) "homemade", but still an impressive flying achievement for the 17 year old pilots.<p>† <a href="https://www.airplanefactory.com/aircraft/sling-4-kit/" rel="nofollow">https://www.airplanefactory.com/aircraft/sling-4-kit/</a>
The #1 problem with commenting online (including this post) is the nitpicking of semantics. Truly the best way to generate engagement online is to be "wrong".<p>Congratulations to the pilots and those who assembled the plane, it must've been an amazing ride.
To be fair, “homebuilt” or technically “amateur built” is a category defined by the FAA. So homebuilt is the accurate term for this story.<p><a href="https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/amateur_regs/" rel="nofollow">https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_buil...</a>
I usually see Hacker News praise African youth for building something, no matter how trivial. I wonder what makes this case different from those others.<p>In any case, good for them.
How feasible (I guess in terms of costs) is it to build a <i>real</i> home-made airplane? I guess the obvious place to start is to reproduce the Kitty Hawk plane with modern (ostensibly lighter and cheaper) materials?
If anyone is also disappointed that this was assembled from a kit, there's a Youtuber (Peter Sripol) actually making homemade planes: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6sy5bt4D-Y" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6sy5bt4D-Y</a>. Would recommend his channel.
Really top quality journalism by the BBC to conveniently redefine the definition of homemade to "pre-made parts and watched over by people who know what to do" in order to get more clicks through 'shocking' headlines.
You also don't have to understand anything about anything. That's not to take away from what you are doing, but the title completely misrepresents the amount of competence of these (likely spoiled) kids.<p>Also, what's the total cost (for ALL parts, but without labor)? I looked at their site and it seems to list $30-40k but I don't see the engine included in the part list.
German Scientists Pull Off Truly Autonomous Aircraft Landing in Stunning Video:
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20391108" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20391108</a>