Experimental Exhibition

Ed Haywood

Ed Haywood

Final Approach
Joined
Jul 12, 2020
Messages
7,624
Location
Tampa FL
Display Name
Ed
Home Airfield
FD77
I'm looking at an Extra 300S. I believe it was originally certified but now is experimental.

What limitations or additional freedoms are bestowed by that status? It apparently lowers the market value, but I am wondering why. Is it just the lack of provenance of maintenance work?

The one I'm looking at is equipped and operated as IFR legal. The son of the founder of Extra Aircraft is a friend of mine. He says there are no IFR legal certified Extra 300's.
 
Last edited:
There are restrictions on what you can use any experimental for (and requirements when you fly them), though for acro planes, that's usually not too much of an issue. You'll want to also look at the operating limitations that were assigned to this plane when they got the ExEx airworthiness certificate. The good news is that (unless prohibited by the op lims), that maintenance is looser and any mechanic can sign off the condition inspection.
 
If it is Experimental Exhibition, you'd need to read its operating limits. Some restrict you to local practice and defined (and filed with the FAA) travel plans to exhibit the aircraft at distant locations and events (e.g. airshows). I think the restrictions can be less onerous in practice than they sound on paper.
 
Ed Haywood said:
I'm looking at an Extra 300S. I believe it was originally certified but now is experimental.

What limitations or additional freedoms are bestowed by that status? It apparently lowers the market value, but I am wondering why. Is it just the lack of provenance of maintenance work?

The one I'm looking at is equipped and operated as IFR legal. The son of the founder of Extra Aircraft is a friend of mine. He says there are no legal certified Extra 300's.
Click to expand...
The why could be due to someone modifying it. A more powerful motor perhaps? Other major modifications?
As Ron said you want to look at the op lims as that will offer the rules for that particular aircraft. I believe these require a program letter specifying what flights when and where they will be. As a long time E-AB owner I've read the exhibition category is significantly more limited but I have no direct experience in this category.
 
Yaks and Nanchangs tend to be ex-ex. You may consider talking to an owner of one of those about the limits. My sense is as said above: the limits on paper are more onerous than in reality but there are limits beyond EAB.
 
FORANE said:
The why could be due to someone modifying it. A more powerful motor perhaps? Other major modifications?
Click to expand...

My guess is that was the easiest path to legal IFR. The owner installed a G3X, GNX 375, and G500 autopilot. Older generation Extras are not going to be on AML for any of those STCs. Autopilot on an aircraft certified in aerobatic category would be the mother of all field approvals.

I know a guy who recently got a certified Decathlon approved for IFR when that was not on the conditions of flight for the original TC. It took over a year, a 500 page document submission, flight testing with an FAA designated test pilot, and tens of thousands of $$ to get it done. And that was without autopilot.

Other than IFR, the Extra is stock. It was maintained by Warren Cilliers, one of the most respected Extra shops in the country. Warren was a friend. Unfortunately he was killed last year.
 
We were looking at an Experimental Exhibition airplane at one point, a Chinese knock off of a Russian trainer if memory serves. We asked the guy about the limits, especially because I think you have to tell the FAA where you're going every time you take the thing out. He had a stack of forms next to his fax machine, would fill them out to where he was going (I'm going to Cleveland to exhibit the aircraft to my aunt Polly...) and fax it off. That was when fax was a thing. Then again it still probably is with the FAA, they move a bit slowly.
 
In most cases EE isn't much more restrictive than E-AB. There's a bit more paperwork involved; the FAA requires a yearly program later and a list of events where you plan to "exhibit" it (but you don't have to go to those and you can go to others not listed). Local "proficiency" flying is allowed. You have to notify the FAA if the aircraft's home base is changed.
 
Ed Haywood said:
What limitations or additional freedoms are bestowed by that status?
Click to expand...
As mentioned, the yearly program letter from your local FSDO is the main limit. Maybe get a copy of the current letter and talk to your local ASI on how it may change if you move the aircraft home. Also review the OpsLimits to make sure they don't have any issues for you with aircrafts current configuration. As to freedoms, you perform the mx and any mechanic can perform the condition inspection. Considering the this is a specialty aircraft don't see where there are any major roadblocks in its operation. The E/E category guidance was rewritten a number of years back that previously was a lot more restricted in its use, but now its pretty easy route to operate under.

Ed Haywood said:
My guess is that was the easiest path to legal IFR.
Click to expand...
The few 300s I've seen moved into Exp/Exh were to install performance "enhancements" that would not have been feasible to install under a standard AWC. Same with the IFR capabilities. So yes, that would be one reason why the market value drops vs the standard AWC versions.
 
I did a bit more reading. Apparently it is a fairly common thing with Extras, often to install a new propeller. High level acro pilots love getting special new props.

Since most Extras are used for airshows and competition, it fits well within the program framework. The S models are single seat so the limits on training and for-hire are not an issue.

Still, sounds like an EAB would be less hassle. I'll probably focus my search on a Lazer or Giles.
 
some misleading advice here so research more or contact a DAR with EE authorization or DER . if your plane is currently standard AWC you just can't swap it for EE AWC, in fact that is specifically not allowed per faa guidance and order. You must have/meet specific reasons for the swap which you explain in your program letter to fsdo, so be sure it's written to conform to that. also, just because it's now in exp, part 43 requires it be maintained per its original standard awc as it was previously certified (except you need annual condition inspection rather than annual, but mostly the same thing)....so you can't technically do all the work on it yourself as with a AB, but you only need a&p to sign inspection report rather than IA.

let me know if you need more info
 
Ed Haywood said:
I did a bit more reading. Apparently it is a fairly common thing with Extras, often to install a new propeller. High level acro pilots love getting special new props.

Since most Extras are used for airshows and competition, it fits well within the program framework. The S models are single seat so the limits on training and for-hire are not an issue.

Still, sounds like an EAB would be less hassle. I'll probably focus my search on a Lazer or Giles.
Click to expand...
I want/ hope to build a DR-109. Most reasonable chance I could own something in the unlimited category lol.
 
Jjackh01 said:
I want/ hope to build a DR-109. Most reasonable chance I could own something in the unlimited category lol.
Click to expand...

Very few people ever need an unlimited category aircraft. At any given time there are maybe 2 dozen active pilots in the US capable of flying at that level.

What you probably actually want is an advanced category aircraft. Best bang for the buck there is probably the Giles 202 if you want a 2 seater.

I was looking at the DR-107 but was strongly discouraged by several people with extensive experience.
 
My new op limits I got last year allow IFR. The previous limits were arguably difficult to legally leave the hangar under. Point is they’ve overhauled that system quite a bit and it’s actually very reasonable now. Keep in mind it took me over a year to get the new limits.
 
Doc Holliday said:
You mean that evil FAA??
Click to expand...
I’m actually honest about what happens. Good and bad. I don’t pretend everything sucks or everything is perfect.

They made improvements for sure, and I greatly appreciate that, but it also took over a year for them to approve the form exactly like I prefilled for them at the beginning. It took me a couple long afternoons to read the rules - going in cold not having a clue mind you - and fill it out properly applying the rules. After I had walked them through it in depth and gave them my version - with notes on each item - they have to actually fill it out, not me, so it took them 15 months to accomplish the same effort “officially”.

Another kudos to them - it’s actually really well documented, but it is very cumbersome, and they apparently don’t do it often enough to understand the process themselves.
 
Ed Haywood said:
I'm looking at an Extra 300S. I believe it was originally certified but now is experimental.
Click to expand...
I'd be very careful, for one. That sort of thing isn't normal (certified to ex-ex). I believe modifications would normally put it into Ex-Flight Test, which it can only be for a limited time.

steingar said:
He had a stack of forms next to his fax machine, would fill them out to where he was going (I'm going to Cleveland to exhibit the aircraft to my aunt Polly...) and fax it off. That was when fax was a thing. Then again it still probably is with the FAA, they move a bit slowly.
Click to expand...
It wasn't so long ago that the registration form for the Mooney went missing.

You can't make this up: We had to email our request, snail mail two dollars in cash, and receive the temporary registration via fax. The fax came in with a cover sheet that said "This fax brought to you by the FAA Registration Modernization System."

Hardest part of the whole thing was finding a place where we could still receive a fax!
 
SpinDoctor said:
Ed, any chance it is N28EJ? If yes, feel free to contact me.
Mark
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of the N number. The ad disappeared a few days ago so I figured it had sold already. Is it the one based in NE Florida and maintained by Warren?
 
experimental ex can be restrictive or it can be almost a non issue. it depends on what the FSDO puts in your op limits. if you bring it into another FSDO you have to resubmit for a new AW cert with your FSOD. the thing there is it takes time. when i bought the harvard mine took almost 8 months. the new op limits were not very restrictive at all. the annual program letter was the biggest thing. they did put a 50 mile limit on me for maintenance and proficency flights, but I was able to get that removed. however, that took another 6 months. so now the only real restrictions i have is no commercial ops, no towing and i have to file the program letter every january, no big deal there. want to add an airshow, send them an email. done deal. you dot even hear back from them.
 
Bob is spot on. As reference, I’ve owned 2 experimental aerobatic aircraft. My current aircraft is experimental. it was originally certificated and was converted to experimental by the owner to accommodate some upgrades.
I’ve never had any FAA problems with A/E aircraft. In fact, generally very good relations with FSDO and I’ve never had a restriction that limited my flying.
I converted the plane in the original question from Ed. Upgraded the prop for better reliability and much better performance. No value lost when I sold it.
Bear in mind that higher performance certificated aerobatic aircraft are often converted to A/E. Take a look at the FAA registry if you need hard numbers.
 
Many EE's basically operate under normal EAB restrictions and don't actually have a restricted "practice area", meaning even though you're technically supposed to submit a program letter each year, in reality the letter is pointless/meaningless without a limited practice area. That's how the EE I had was. Depends how the ops limits are written. The warbird community successfully lobbied to relax this category some years ago.
 
unsafervguy said:
experimental ex can be restrictive or it can be almost a non issue. it depends on what the FSDO puts in your op limits. if you bring it into another FSDO you have to resubmit for a new AW cert with your FSOD. the thing there is it takes time. when i bought the harvard mine took almost 8 months. the new op limits were not very restrictive at all. the annual program letter was the biggest thing. they did put a 50 mile limit on me for maintenance and proficency flights, but I was able to get that removed. however, that took another 6 months. so now the only real restrictions i have is no commercial ops, no towing and i have to file the program letter every january, no big deal there. want to add an airshow, send them an email. done deal. you dot even hear back from them.
Click to expand...
The exp limitations are all standard nationwide, FSDO s should not be arbitrary…reference order 8130.2 for the exact limits you will get aside from unique issues.
 
RoscoeT said:
Many EE's basically operate under normal EAB restrictions and don't actually have a restricted "practice area", meaning even though you're technically supposed to submit a program letter each year, in reality the letter is pointless/meaningless without a limited practice area. That's how the EE I had was. Depends how the ops limits are written. The warbird community successfully lobbied to relax this category some years ago.
Click to expand...
Yea, the warbird guys really made a significant difference in limitations for all exp categories. Again order 8130.2 standardizes limits for all SAWC categories. My exp c172 has essentially same limits as AB thanks to those efforts.
 
AlphaPilotFlyer said:
the warbird guys really made a significant difference in limitations for all exp categories. Again order 8130.2 standardizes limits for all SAWC categories.
Click to expand...
I guess that's why the new operating limitations for my Parrakeet (a single seat open cockpit biplane with 850# gross weight) specifically prohibit me from adding any weapons, military equipment, or jettisonable stores. :rolleyes:
 
Ed Haywood said:
I was looking at the DR-107 but was strongly discouraged by several people with extensive experience.
Click to expand...
Curious to why. I've looked at a Laser etc..myself. The Extra 230 is nice to fly, but.they are rare.
 
Spinka said:
Curious to why. I've looked at a Laser etc..myself. The Extra 230 is nice to fly, but.they are rare.
Click to expand...
DR-107 has an extremely clubby inefficient wing with high loading and drag under G. It does have a nice roll rate though. It can be flown through IAC Advanced sequences OK, but I'd much rather have a stock Pitts S-1S over a One Design if you need something at that price point. DR-107 does have a wing and structure that's nearly impossible to damage inflight though. If you can spring for a 300S though, that airplane is leaps and bounds ahead of the DR-107 performance wise, and presents way better inflight.
 
Spinka said:
Curious to why. I've looked at a Laser etc..myself. The Extra 230 is nice to fly, but.they are rare.
Click to expand...

Handling characteristics. It was designed to snap well. According to my friend Marty F who knows much about such things, it snaps too well. He said it just feels like it needs another 2 feet of wing.

OTOH my other friend Stan M had one for quite a while, and he loved it.

I was also warned about Lasers, or at least some of them. I was talking to a guy at Sebring just last week who built a 2 seat 6 cylinder one. He said the original design used torque tubes for aileron control, and those were problematic. The updated design uses pushrods and is mo better. But there are several that pop up regularly in the IAC results, so I'm going to keep my eye out for any that wander onto the market.

Marty also said I wasn't ready for a Giles. Too squirrely. Pretty sweet looking G-200 on Barnstormers right now.

That does not leave many options for my preferred configuration: a 4 cylinder single seat monoplane. If I ran across an Extra 230, I'd look pretty darn hard at that.

I don't really want a 6 banger, but an older Extra 300S is looking more appealing, mostly because they are plentiful. I complain about the price point, but TBH I could easily afford it. I'm just a cheap bastard.

This discussion is mostly academic, as I plan to compete one more year in my Super D before moving up.
 
Last edited:
Ed Haywood said:
Pretty sweet looking G-200 on Barnstormers right now.
Click to expand...
Yes, that does look sweet. I have to get my current project in the air before I think about the next one
Ed Haywood said:
This discussion is mostly academic, as I plan to compete one more year in my Super D before moving up.
Click to expand...
A years goes by fast when shopping for planes like these.
I've also done a few flights in the Zlin 50. Lovely plane to fly, but would like to try a Cap 231/EX or 232.
 
AlphaPilotFlyer said:
The exp limitations are all standard nationwide, FSDO s should not be arbitrary…reference order 8130.2 for the exact limits you will get aside from unique issues.
Click to expand...
true, but it is still up to each fsdo as to how they apply the wording of the order. they put a mileage limitation on mine that i felt didn't apply under the order. after a few emails and about 6 months i had it fixed. I have a good relationship with my FSDO, they work with you, it takes time, but they will work with you. your mileage my vary depending on the FSDO and the personnel that work there.
 
As mentioned, the FSDO has some say in the limits based on local particulars, mostly the phase 1 flight areas, but usually applicant suggests the area on initial program letter. Curious what exp category you are in.
 
AlphaPilotFlyer said:
As mentioned, the FSDO has some say in the limits based on local particulars, mostly the phase 1 flight areas, but usually applicant suggests the area on initial program letter. Curious what exp category you are in.
Click to expand...
one airplane in eab and one in dual catagory exhibition and racing.
 
Operating limitations created under the latest version of 8130.2 no longer have defined geographical area for phase 1 (at least for EAB); they just say testing has to be done "over an area compliant with 91.305".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top