Experimental airplanes. Would You??????

The EAA is working with the FAA (and supposedly it's coming out soon) for a procedure to allow two pilots in a very limited way during the test phase. It's not a general passenger carrying exception, just a way to bring a instructor or tech guy along.
 
I'd have to check if they actually put the limitation there, but IIRC my Life insurance has a 'no Exp' clause in it. At the time I bought it, I didn't care because I never thought I'd be interested in Exp. I'm slowly coming around now that I know more about what Exp means.
 
Thanks for the Replies. I'm what would be the deciding factor for when I decide not to fly in a Experimental or Not. I wonder if the opportunity will even come up. I guess I need to make more pilot friends.

This is all interesting with all points of views.
 
evapilotaz said:
Thanks for the Replies. I'm what would be the deciding factor for when I decide not to fly in a Experimental or Not. I wonder if the opportunity will even come up. I guess I need to make more pilot friends.

This is all interesting with all points of views.
Click to expand...

The same reasons apply to fly certifieds or E-AB.
 
Geico266 said:
While generally true there are exceptions. Phase one can carry crew members "essential to the operation of the aircraft". EAA is trying to get those rules loostened up to include an experience pilot as another set of eyes and skill set for Phase 1. It is clear the majority of issues on a new build are seen in Phase 1.
Click to expand...

The local T-18 guru used to perform first flights for new T-18s, with the builder along to monitor the gauges/engines/radios etc. Worked very well. Lost the engine on one such flight. He shoved the nose down and established a glide back to the nearby airport. "Hey, we've lost the engine!" he told his builder/co-pilot.

The builder tapped the tach..."No, we didn't," he said, pointing at a the tach, showing the RPM of the *windmilling* engine.

All landed OK.

I like the concept of the program, but it's fraught with danger. I'd like to see specific qualifications required of the second person (e.g., X hours in the same make/model, involvement in ground testing, etc.) and have them listed in the Phase 1 Flight Limitations by name.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
The local T-18 guru used to perform first flights for new T-18s, with the builder along to monitor the gauges/engines/radios etc. Worked very well. Lost the engine on one such flight. He shoved the nose down and established a glide back to the nearby airport. "Hey, we've lost the engine!" he told his builder/co-pilot.

The builder tapped the tach..."No, we didn't," he said, pointing at a the tach, showing the RPM of the *windmilling* engine.

All landed OK.

I like the concept of the program, but it's fraught with danger. I'd like to see specific qualifications required of the second person (e.g., X hours in the same make/model, involvement in ground testing, etc.) and have them listed in the Phase 1 Flight Limitations by name.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

I agree 100%.....
 
Jaybird180 said:
I'd have to check if they actually put the limitation there, but IIRC my Life insurance has a 'no Exp' clause in it.
Click to expand...
My life insurance doesn't, but a supplemental Accidental Death or Dismemberment policy does.

Mentioning that I fly Experimental Aircraft (and the fact that I'm SCUBA qualified, and have sky-dived) tends to weed out the peskier insurance salesbeings.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
The local T-18 guru used to perform first flights for new T-18s, with the builder along to monitor the gauges/engines/radios etc. Worked very well. Lost the engine on one such flight. He shoved the nose down and established a glide back to the nearby airport. "Hey, we've lost the engine!" he told his builder/co-pilot.

The builder tapped the tach..."No, we didn't," he said, pointing at a the tach, showing the RPM of the *windmilling* engine.

All landed OK.

I like the concept of the program, but it's fraught with danger. I'd like to see specific qualifications required of the second person (e.g., X hours in the same make/model, involvement in ground testing, etc.) and have them listed in the Phase 1 Flight Limitations by name.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

RV's, T-18's, etc. are simple airplanes. They don't require a two person crew. If the builder/owner isn't capable of making the first flight safely, s/he doesn't need to be in the airplane on the first flights. There is no benefit in doubling the downside risk of a first flight.
 
kyleb said:
RV's, T-18's, etc. are simple airplanes. They don't require a two person crew. If the builder/owner isn't capable of making the first flight safely, s/he doesn't need to be in the airplane on the first flights. There is no benefit in doubling the downside risk of a first flight.
Click to expand...

Amen. Preach on, brother.
 
Anyone want a ride?

iUR441m.jpg
 
After a few hundred hours on the airframe and engine, I'd not only fly with them, I might even buy it.
 
evapilotaz said:
If I was given the opportunity to fly in a Experimental Owner built airplane, I'm may decline the opportunity. I'm not sure why I feel this way. Maybe because I do not know the owner building skills. Sure I know it has to be inspected for airworthiness and registered.

Anyone else feel this way?
Click to expand...

There is no airworthiness in the EXP world, it is either safe to fly or not.
The FAA's inspection is for the issuance of the certificate nothing more.

it is a good thing Orville didn't believe like you.
 
I'm sure if it happened to be an obvious piece o' junk, I would probably pass. If I don't have a good reason to suspect it won't fly, I'll take it for a spin.

I flew an RV-12 built by a fellow with a disease that made his fingers curl up, and he actually had portions of some fingers amputated. I'm not sure he can even operate a pair of pliers with one hand, but he built a fine airplane. The RV-12 is fun.

Frankly, I'd sooner decline based on the pilot rather than the plane.
 
Many times and continue to do so without hesitation. The most terrifying airplane I ever flew in was a privately owned certified Piper Arrow. Flight review for a owner that must have had at least thirty years of pencil whipped annuals done on it.
 
OkieFlyer said:
I'm sure if it happened to be an obvious piece o' junk, I would probably pass. If I don't have a good reason to suspect it won't fly, I'll take it for a spin.
Click to expand...

In 2006 I was hired to ferry this newly purchased biplane from Phoenix back to Copperhill, TN.

Enroute:

16161389907_f62001f1ef_z.jpg


15727328893_03015479e2_z.jpg


Fascinating experience.

The plane started sucking oil at a prodigious rate on a leg to mid-Tennessee, and I declined to fly it further. Eventually another pilot made that final leg.

I've always questioned my decision to fly that thing. It turned out OK, but there was so much I did not know about the builder and construction and design decisions. Really everything, to be honest. In retrospect, to follow my "Most Conservative Action" rule, I probably should have declined.

One example of "quirkiness" was a fuel level indicator that indicated backwards:

16161090049_ee1d88d2d7_z.jpg
 
A plane that has flown for a couple hundred hours at least and passed my personal muster sure why not. I would guess most are no worse than a certified poorly maintained beat up rental plane. I would be more worried about the nut behind the yoke. :wink2:
 
DFH65 said:
A plane that has flown for a couple hundred hours at least and passed my personal muster sure why not. I would guess most are no worse than a certified poorly maintained beat up rental plane. I would be more worried about the nut behind the yoke. :wink2:
Click to expand...

And a lot of them like the RV7 and Super Cub I built are constructed and maintained to a much higher level than factory. But there are some real dogs out there for sure. Don
 
Yes. Why not? The only experimentals I have been in so far though were the EAA's B17 and a traveling T6, and both times I paid well for the opportunity. There is some nice machines out there. Why limit your experience?
Each opportunity needs to be evaluated on its own merits. Certified or experimental cannot be your only limiting criteria.
 
A freshly built and inspected HB fall into the look it over, taxi, test controls, etc, before flying.

One that was built years ago, has sat in a hanger disassembled, sold, hauled by trailer by a new owner, put back together by head scratching and turning the plans (if they still exist) ever which way needs far more caution.
 
It's all a matter of design, construction, and MAINTENANCE as with any other plane. You get a pass on the first two on a certificated aircraft, you still have to be concerned with the latter.

I've flown in a few experimentals that I either knew the builder or I knew the guy who was maintaining it and had faith that they had inspected what had gone before.

I've passed up rides in certificated aircraft that looked sketchy. We used to have an Apache on the field and it was really in doggy shape as was the owner and mechanic (same guy).
 
I've done the initial test flights on 12 homebuilts and flown over 50 different homebuilts. I have been asked to do test flights on a couple of airplanes that I declined. I check them over very carefully before I fly them the first time. There are a few factory built airplanes I have declined to fly also because of poor maintenance and general condition of the airplane. There are also some pilots I won't fly with because they have demonstrated poor judgement and piloting abilities. Bottom line is look the airplane over and know the guy you are flying with. Don
 
I own an experimental gyroplane designed and built by an A&P.She is a two place tandem that is not a copy of anything.She has 1,500 hours on her and I have had very little trouble and no unplanned landings.I purchased her in 2007 with less than 200 hours.
I have given more than three hundred rides in her so it seems many people will fly in an experimental.
I conduct a careful preflight and have my annual condition inspection done by Costal Valley Aviation.
I am also flying a Cavalon two place side by side kit built gyroplane with 260 hours on her and no issues.Three people built her in three weeks and finished her up last June.
I conduct a careful preflight and Costal Valley Aviation performs her 100 hour services.
When the 40 hours of testing were done I flew her from Spanish Fork, Utah to Buckeye, Arizona for my commercial practical test and then flew her home to Santa Maria.
I have given more than 40 rides in her.
I have seen many aircraft I would not go flying in, both certified and experimental.
 
FlyingIsGood said:
Anyone want a ride?

iUR441m.jpg
Click to expand...

Another possible candidate for the Samuel P. Langley Award for spectacularly failing to achieve flight. A this point I don't think the Kenyan guy has attempted to fly it.
 
flyingron said:
Another possible candidate for the Samuel P. Langley Award for spectacularly failing to achieve flight. A this point I don't think the Kenyan guy has attempted to fly it.
Click to expand...

Well....

It is a auto engine conversion so it will NEVER work...:no:...:nonod:.....;)

I really hate to admit it,, but word on the street is.... the guy did see my Zenith on the internet and attempted to copy it... Notice how it looks very similar to a 701/801......

I do commend him for trying though....:thumbsup:
 
flyingron said:
Another possible candidate for the Samuel P. Langley Award for spectacularly failing to achieve flight. A this point I don't think the Kenyan guy has attempted to fly it.
Click to expand...

There is a Youtube video of his flying attempt. As I remember it got nowhere near flying speed and the nosegear collapsed. Don
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top