Experimental -v- Certified

[Geico266]

Do we really need to bash the planes others fly?

Do we really need to constantly try and tear down an entire class of aircraft that have been extremely successful in keeping GA going?

As members of Pilots of America shouldn't we support all things that fly?

 

[N801BH]

I feel your pain....

 

[X3 Skier]

It IS the Internet after all. If one cannot ignore things, one needs to abandon all hope. :wink2:

BTW, I agree with you.

Cheers

 

[KeithASanford]

The internet is where armchair Quarterbacks, Cowards and Jerks thrive...accept it.

Do we really need to bash the planes others fly?

Do we really need to constantly try and tear down an entire class of aircraft that have been extremely successful in keeping GA going?

As members of Pilots of America shouldn't we support all things that fly?

 

[N801BH]

The internet is where armchair Quarterbacks, Cowards and Jerks thrive...accept it.

Ya really want to witness those folks, visit the Homebuiltaircraft forum... There are DOZENS of keyboard engineers who have NEVER built or even flown an experimental and they will scream bloody murder if someone suggests anything but a Lyc/Cont power a homebuilt will work....

 

[Geico266]

The internet is where armchair Quarterbacks, Cowards and Jerks thrive...accept it.

I don't like bullies.

Most of the "offenders" here are old school pilots set in their ways because they bought a 40 year old airplane and are stuck with it. Why can't they just be proud of what they have, fly it, and support others and what they fly?

I don't bash people who bought these old "spam cans" and love pouring $$$$$$ into them to keep them flying. More power to them! That's great! I love old iron and pilots that fly them. Nothing better than walking down vintage row at OSH and looking at 195's, Beech Stagerwings, 170's, 120s, 140s, ect. I spend hours talking to the pilots and the families of the owners who camp with them. It's a good time.

Can't we all just get along?

 

[kyleb]

Ya really want to witness those folks, visit the Homebuiltaircraft forum... There are DOZENS of keyboard engineers who have NEVER built or even flown an experimental and they will scream bloody murder if someone suggests anything but a Lyc/Cont power a homebuilt will work....

What kind of dumbarse would homebrew an engine? Hello, Darwin. ;-)

The reality is that it takes a special kind of person to succeed. Either someone with a heck of a practical and/or engineering background or someone who is persistant as heck. For everyone like Ben who succeeds, there are probably several less talented people who failed to develop a reliable system.

 

[Geico266]

Ya really want to witness those folks, visit the Homebuiltaircraft forum... There are DOZENS of keyboard engineers who have NEVER built or even flown an experimental and they will scream bloody murder if someone suggests anything but a Lyc/Cont power a homebuilt will work....

My hat is off to guys who fly auto conversions. They are true experimenters in ever sense of the word. It can be done if you are a good wrench.

 

[docmirror]

I see my job here is to attack, ridicule, and belittle every one who isn't like me. Any plane which is not like my plane is inferior, and all pilots who don't fly like I fly are jerks and incompetent.

On a slightly more serious note, what I see happening often is that a poster will set up a strawman so that he/she can knock it down.

Oh - and I like pie.

 

[bbchien]

Can't we all just get along?

Actually much of the abuse comes from the very proud guys who have built there own. Their underlying attitude is "those dangers underpowered spam cans".

So don't be the pot calling the kettle black.

I flew my RV-10 out to Laramie and back yesterday and averaged 200mph on 12.5 gph of $3.60 car gas. 1,000 mile round trip, left at 10 back by 5. Try that is a 30 year old spam can.

I know! the answer is RV10!
I know! the answer is RV10!

 

[Geico266]

Building a plane requires skill, knowledge, and persistence. The first two are skills that can be learned. You have to bring the 3rd to the table based on your life's experience. You'll need a checkbook also.

Buying a plane requires a checkbook and determination to find the most plane for your money. Once you buy a plane you defend your decision against all others. After all you bought the only perfect plane.

Recognizing both aircraft owners are aviators and have a common goal in promoting a dying industry should be fertile ground to find similarities rather than differences.

 

[LDJones]

Personally, I thank God for homebuilders. It wasn't a certified aircraft manufacturer that introduced us to flight! It's fascinating to watch the innovation coming out of the experimental wood. It's ultimately good for all of us.

 

[VanDy]

My hat is off to guys who fly auto conversions. They are true experimenters in ever sense of the word. It can be done if you are a good wrench.

Especially corvairs, right?


-VanDy

 

[bbchien]

Building a plane requires skill, knowledge, and persistence. The first two are skills that can be learned. You have to bring the 3rd to the table based on your life's experience, and a checkbook.

Buying a plane requires a checkbook and determination to find the most pane for your money. Once you buy a plane you defend your decision against all others.

Recognizing both aircraft owners aviators and have a common goal in promoting a dying industry should be fertile ground to find similarities rather than differences.

Sure does. Hear, hear!
But I return you to a post of yours which is clearly untrue: Checkout "Estate of John Denver vs. Adrian davis"

In the history of aviation, there has not been a single successful liability lawsuit by the new owner or an experimental aircraft or their heirs. Ever. Period. There is more liability selling the parts than selling the whole airplane as a flying plane. Your friend was woefully misinformed, wasted a lot of money, and more importantly increased his liability rather than decrease it.

Yes, I am an experimental aircraft dealer.

I rest my case.

 

[poadeleted21]

Bingo! We have a winner! Trash that spam can and enjoy the ride.

Another fine example of "experimental" aircraft design. Aerobatic, the nimble handling of an RV-7, the stability of an RV-9, the cabin room of an RV-10, and the economy of an RV-6. It just keeps getting better, and better when you don't have the shackles of certification to worry about and tie you down to the past.

Ditch the spam cans boys and girls, and get a real airplane.

My answer to "Why chose certified?"

Like I told a friend of mine who keeps looking at experimentals:

"The great thing is that you can work on it yourself, the bad thing is, somebody else already has."

I have seen exactly two experimentals that I would ride in, One was a harmon rocket and the other was an RV-10 both built by quasi-pro builders.

So far in my journey of airplane ownership, my A&P bills are the ones I'm happiest to pay. I've done 100% of the work on my plane I feel confident enough to do, the A&P handles the rest. Being able to work on the plane has not been an issue to me, finding a good mechanic who'll work with you is priority numero uno.

There's typically a few "gotcha" parts on any airframe that are "YGBFSM" expensive (fuel selector valves and stall switches come to mind) but for the parts you typically need, most are reasonable.

The downside is you're stuck with certified avionics to an extent and crap like $300 pieces of paper to stay "legal".

Experimentals have ZERO appeal to me unless I could build it myself and the only plane that I would consider building is an RV10. I have a hard time committing to green bananas much less a multi year, muti thousand dollar, multi thousand hour project.

The response I got.

Clearly, you don't know experimentals, but continue to insist you are an expert in determining their airworthyness. I've bought and sold many experimentals. All were fine to fly because I knew what I was looking at or hired someone to do a pre buy. It is no different than buy a certified. Period.

If you don't know what you are looking at fine, but don't condemned those who do.

I always find it funny here on POA when certified plane owners do their own work and break the rules, then complain about owners of experimentals doing their own work.

and I was told I was breaking the rules by working with my A&P

If you do your own work you have broken the rules.

So when you declined to purchase these planes it was based on what?

Because you don't understand something it is bad?

 

[wsuffa]

I don't see so much bashing here as critiques and concerns across both certified and EAB aircraft. I've seen people express concerns about everything from Cirrus to twins to EAB. Seems there was a thread about "unsafe" Cirri and the everlasting "forked tail doctor killers". And the perennial "overhead break" debate brought on by some in the EAB community.

I currently own a certified plane. I would love to build a kit. Just like certified flying, I pay attention to accident rates and accident causes. Rates alone don't make EAB unsafe - but the fact remains that the same standards of construction don't apply to EAB. That cuts both ways - it allows for a better price point and ability to customize a plane, but carries risks. If I build the plane, I would be willing to accept those risks... But it makes it more difficult for me to buy an EAB built by someone else. For me, and speaking solely for me, the economics are such that I would consider the final value of an EAB that I built as *zero* as I don't think I would be willing to take on the potential liability if someone bought the plane from me. That same risk is substantially reduced if its a certified plane that is maintained iaw the FAA rules . Since I can't control stupid pilot tricks or estates/lawyers that sue deep pockets, I see the liability for EAB to be higher. If I had enough money, that wouldn't be an issue - I'd build & fly the plane and scrap it when done.

The certified planes frustrate me for other reasons - more expensive, less parts availability, and in many cases less performance.

I think we need to be able to have an open discussion here of pros and cons of both sides. Tat includes magazine articles and FAA statements about EAB or certified model safety. That is *not* bashing of a plane or design. It lets us evaluate the relative risks and the major causes of airframe/operator failure. If the big issue is "fuel lines" doesn't it make sense to discuss it so one can evaluate things in a purchase situation or when building/maintaining a plane?

 

[wabower]

or make it back to the airport. For whatever reason(s) it seems to be a lot harder than it looks. I hope somebody finds a better answer. Ben could probably explain it better than anybody here.

What kind of dumbarse would homebrew an engine? Hello, Darwin. ;-)

The reality is that it takes a special kind of person to succeed. Either someone with a heck of a practical and/or engineering background or someone who is persistant as heck. For everyone like Ben who succeeds, there are probably several less talented people who failed to develop a reliable system.

 

[ebetancourt]

GA = all aviation - (commercial scheduled + military)

Pretty damn small world and shrinking. So yes we should get along. Saw a post in another POA thread bashing AOPA for fighting the $100/flight fee for corporate jets. The RV crowd bashes the "spam cans". Posts right here preaching togetherness are bashing "old pilots stuck in their ways." The stiff wing folks bash the helicopters...

Good luck holding hands and telling stories around the campfire.

 

[schmookeeg]

Really? The guy who says "you need an RV" like old-time telegrams used to say "stop" is asking for fair and balanced discussions?

I must have missed a really nice threadload of butthurt recently.

 

[poadeleted21]

Really? The guy who says "you need an RV" like old-time telegrams used to say "stop" is asking for fair and balanced discussions?

I must have missed a really nice threadload of butthurt recently.

Here http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=58181

and I sort of baited him here.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=58216

 

[whifferdill]

What did I miss, and why is this in the acro forum?

 

[wabower]

We didn't have internet boards at the time, but I'll guar-an-dam-tee there was no holding back when the 210's had the fuel line radius issues and fuel starvation issues in the '80's. BTDT.

I don't see so much bashing here as critiques and concerns across both certified and EAB aircraft. I've seen people express concerns about everything from Cirrus to twins to EAB. Seems there was a thread about "unsafe" Cirri and the everlasting "forked tail doctor killers". And the perennial "overhead break" debate brought on by some in the EAB community.

I currently own a certified plane. I would love to build a kit. Just like certified flying, I pay attention to accident rates and accident causes. Rates alone don't make EAB unsafe - but the fact remains that the same standards of construction don't apply to EAB. That cuts both ways - it allows for a better price point and ability to customize a plane, but carries risks. If I build the plane, I would be willing to accept those risks... But it makes it more difficult for me to buy an EAB built by someone else. For me, and speaking solely for me, the economics are such that I would consider the final value of an EAB that I built as *zero* as I don't think I would be willing to take on the potential liability if someone bought the plane from me. That same risk is substantially reduced if its a certified plane that is maintained iaw the FAA rules . Since I can't control stupid pilot tricks or estates/lawyers that sue deep pockets, I see the liability for EAB to be higher. If I had enough money, that wouldn't be an issue - I'd build & fly the plane and scrap it when done.

The certified planes frustrate me for other reasons - more expensive, less parts availability, and in many cases less performance.

I think we need to be able to have an open discussion here of pros and cons of both sides. Tat includes magazine articles and FAA statements about EAB or certified model safety. That is *not* bashing of a plane or design. It lets us evaluate the relative risks and the major causes of airframe/operator failure. If the big issue is "fuel lines" doesn't it make sense to discuss it so one can evaluate things in a purchase situation or when building/maintaining a plane?

 

[Geico266]

My answer to "Why chose certified?"



The response I got.



and I was told I was breaking the rules by working with my A&P

Maybe it was you constant reference to "Shack Built" aircraft that ****ed me off?

 

[poadeleted21]

Maybe it was you constant reference to "Shack Built" aircraft that ****ed me off?

That was our first meeting/discussion on the topic. I thought the response came WAY out of left field. My first introduction to your umm.. enthusiasm. I found your "continue to insist" comment amusing.

 

[schmookeeg]

"Shack-built" is funny.

I guess owning a forked-tailed doctor killer gives me a thick skin about this stuff. I know that every noob that reads these jabs and takes them seriously is one less Bonanza buyer in the pool, and a small-yet-measurable ding to my resale value... but I informed myself prior to purchase and I fly with confidence. I only have "verify empennage attachment" as an hourly checklist item now.

I expect the EAB buyers who actually buy (or build) will go through the same sort of hazing ritual, make the same assessments of the relevant and available planes out there, and those who pursue an RV or similar EAB craft will fly with confidence, being similarly informed of the breed and have decided that that unique mix of compromises was the correct one for them.

Anyone dissuaded by internet forum froth from buying or building an airplane of a specific airplane -- was probably not that "into it" to begin with. When the froth makes the owners of same aircraft insecure and noisome, though, it makes me think there is a kernel of truth in there somewhere.

 

[bbchien]

Maybe it was you constant reference to "Shack Built" aircraft that ****ed me off?

Oooh. The pot is calling.....
And now you did this? http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=58181

Seriously, Geico266, if the appeal had come from ANYONE BUT you it might have succeeded. But you are not the "shiny Stainless Pot".

 

[KeithASanford]

Who cares who's schwanz is bigger?

If you fly without killing yourself and others, what does it matter what the other guy flies? I just read about the poor soul who took off in his Kolb Firefly today, pitched too high and killed himself. He's gone. Forever. You think it matters to his family if it was a spam can or shack built contraption? No, because he had been doing it right for years...until today. I rarely read about an actual plane killing someone. A mistake will end you in a King Air or a Wright flyer. Enough with these adolescent shoving matches. I don't even think there's a girl in here to impress.

 

[whifferdill]

and why is this in the acro forum?

Ah...junk repository.

 

[RV10flyer]

Nobody on here has ever bashed me or my garage built RV-10, but I really try to get along and don't need any drama. I spent 5 years in Army Blackhawks as a crewchief. After the Army, overhauled jet engines, went on test flights in various helicopters, Lears, Falcons, King Airs and Citations. We finally could afford my PPC in 2008 in 172's. I like anything that flies and their pilots, but the -10 fits my family's mission, budget and it was one of my goals since I was 10 yrs old(1980).

 

[steingar]

Used to be you had to have your head screwed on wrong to not purchase an experimental. The price was less than a certified, and the aircraft did more, way more. These days that just isn't the case, since certified aircraft prices have gone into free fall you can get a lot of airplane for the money. It is just another of many options, and there are good reasons not to fly them. Among those are the uncertainties about what the FAA will do when the fatal accident rate doesn't go down, which it doesn't appear to be doing any time soon.

 

[bnt83]

Actually much of the abuse comes from the very proud guys who have built there own. Their underlying attitude is "those dangers underpowered spam cans"

Or very young pilots who aren't mechanics that have had a bad experience that "one day" with an unfarmiliar airplane that frankly could have been on the bottom of the ocean, wrecked or just pulled out of 30 years of storage and nothing has been replaced that aught to be.

 

[bnt83]

Personally, I thank God for homebuilders. It wasn't a certified aircraft manufacturer that introduced us to flight! It's fascinating to watch the innovation coming out of the experimental wood. It's ultimately good for all of us.

Very nicely said!

 

[Trimup]

Personally, I thank God for homebuilders. It wasn't a certified aircraft manufacturer that introduced us to flight! It's fascinating to watch the innovation coming out of the experimental wood. It's ultimately good for all of us.

This is true. However it is not true that all engineering solutions are equally sound. I have spoken with a number of experimental builders and pilots over the years who would do well to remember two things:

1) While we are all most assuredly entitled to our own opinions we are not entitled to our own facts.

2) Anecdotes gathered from a local field or an internet constructors forum does not represent anything even remotely resembling statistically valid data.

From basic materials science to failure modes to most especially powerplant design and selection there is a subset of the experimental crowd that desires to operate in a reality distortion bubble. This crowd tends to become agitated if anyone questions the science behind the decisions they are making.

As an American who places high value on individual liberty and self determination I fully defend experimental aviation.

As an American who also places high value on personal reponsibility, and especially as a Professional Engineer and combustion scientist, I think it is equally important for those builders and pilots to acknowledge both the sub-optimum characteristics of, and dramatically increased risks inherent in certain choices.

 

[dweyant]

This is true. However it is not true that all engineering solutions are equally sound. I have spoken with a number of experimental builders and pilots over the years who would do well to remember two things:

1) While we are all most assuredly entitled to our own opinions we are not entitled to our own facts.

2) Anecdotes gathered from a local field or an internet constructors forum does not represent anything even remotely resembling statistically valid data.

From basic materials science to failure modes to most especially powerplant design and selection there is a subset of the experimental crowd that desires to operate in a reality distortion bubble. This crowd tends to become agitated if anyone questions the science behind the decisions they are making.

As an American who places high value on individual liberty and self determination I fully defend experimental aviation.

As an American who also places high value on personal reponsibility, and especially as a Professional Engineer and combustion scientist, I think it is equally important for those builders and pilots to acknowledge both the sub-optimum characteristics of, and dramatically increased risks inherent in certain choices.

What is your point of all this? You make a lot of vague comments, with no data, or real point, unless I'm missing it.

Can experimentals be more dangerous that certified, of course. Do they have to be, I'd say no, and like most statistics, I can make the data support my belief.

 

[Alexb2000]

If anyone has insecurity about their aircraft choice, just go on a brand specific forum and post about how great your airplane is and how smart you are to fly one. When everyone agrees with you, then you can sleep peacefully in the confirmed knowledge that your bird is the "bestest in the whole wide world".

When you've had a bad day and feel like rumbling, post the same comment here.

 

[Trimup]

Can experimentals be more dangerous that certified, of course. Do they have to be, I'd say no, and like most statistics, I can make the data support my belief.

Acknowedgement of both absolute and relative risk level.

The experimentals I have seen run the gamut from well thought out and wonderfully constructed to those that require battery voltage to run, but have unsupported wiring harnesses held together by crimp connectors. When it comes up the builders response is usually something that includes "but look at all the crashes experienced by the XYZ certified fleet".

For the record my work in combustion labs makes me uncomfortable flying behind a new Lycoming or Continental certified piston engine much less a pickup truck engine being operated at 200%+ of its original continuous design rpm mated to a reduction mechanism.

 

[docmirror]

If anyone has insecurity about their aircraft choice, just go on a brand specific forum and post about how great your airplane is and how smart you are to fly one. When everyone agrees with you, then you can sleep peacefully in the confirmed knowledge that your bird is the "bestest in the whole wide world".

Nothing succeeds like success. I guess I can point to the fact that my chosen 'bestest' has been in continuous production since 1947 when Piper was building rag wings, and Cessna's still had round engines. It is still one of the most efficient designs ever.

Those numbers tend to assuage my insecurity. I'd still like to have a bit more hair, and less gut though...

 

[N801BH]

Huh...

You must not get to fly much then....

 

[Alexb2000]

For the record my work in combustion labs makes me uncomfortable flying behind a new Lycoming or Continental certified piston engine much less a pickup truck engine being operated at 200%+ of its original continuous design rpm mated to a reduction mechanism.

AAaaah, now your other thread about moving straight to a turbine makes more sense. You don't trust pistons.

That's fine, perhaps I can offer a suggestion, maybe a thought, I encourage you to look at the statistics and draw your own conclusions. That said, I would be FAR more dis-trusting of any pilot I hired before an engine of any type.

 

[Ted]

For the record, my work in engines leaves me plenty comfortable flying between two Lycomings or Continentals.

But there are lots of areas where things could be improved...