Experimental -v- Certified

Goofy said:
Gary and Char Spencer's Long EZ.
Click to expand...

Yup.. They did a REAL nice install too..... Kinda the same motor as I am running... Except his is direct drive and limited to 2900 rpms.. I have a redrive and about another 130 HP....
 

Attachments

  • Picture_204.jpg
    Picture_204.jpg
    78.8 KB · Views: 52
Don't know the numbers but he built the engine to provide so much torque at prop RPM that he has plenty more than most any flying EZ. The funny part of their story is they went from an O-235 to this monster!
 
Last edited:
We don't need to bash other type so of airplanes, but we also need to stop advancing, "RV-10" as the answer for everything.

Also distinction between apparent egregious frequent lousy airmanship in a particular type of a/c, gets mistaken for dumping on the a/c. Or repeated showboating in gaggles by a particular type pilot at the expense of some other- like the canard pilot who didn't understand what Dagger Flight was doing (at a public airport). And, no, it wasn't "some underpowered dangerous spam can pilot".

"I lost my HSI so I pulled". Egad.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't matter to me, it's all about who's turning the wrenches, I've seen newer certified aircraft that I wouldn't let my family fly in due to **** poor mx

Seen it the other way too

Some planes are exp. for political reasons too.

From a work point of view, exp aircraft can't make money like a cert plane

If it's just for personal use, I wouldn't really care as long as the mx is good.
 
bbchien said:
We don't need to bash other type so of airplanes, but we also need to stop advancing, "RV-10" as the answer for everything.

Also distinction between apparent egregious frequent lousy airmanship in a particular type of a/c, gets mistaken for dumping on the a/c. Or repeated showboating in gaggles by a particular type pilot at the expense of some other- like the canard pilot who didn't understand what Dagger Flight was doing (at a public airport). And, no, it wasn't "some underpowered dangerous spam can pilot".

"I lost my HSI so I pulled". Egad.
Click to expand...

Right, don't bash other aircraft but get in your digs at them identifying the pilot by his style of aircraft any chance you get... cute, real cute. You really should stick to medicine. I understand you may at least have some competency in that field...:dunno:

Let me rephrase that to make it more palatable to the moderators and the groupies... you probably have little or no experience in and around the RV10 which can be half again the aircraft compared to most other 4 place rides at twice the price. So drop the side slights and stick to what "they say" you know. Remember why you lost your moderator role at AOPA...and remember that you were recently knuckle slapped for ragging on a fellow's type of aircraft just a couple months ago - contrary to your current preaching.:nono:
Hypocrisy is ugly no matter what the source.....
 
Last edited:
Goofy said:
Right, don't bash other aircraft but get in your digs at them identifying the pilot by his style of aircraft any chance you get... cute, real cute. You really should stick to medicine. I understand you may at least have some competency in that field...:dunno:

Let me rephrase that to make it more palatable to the moderators and the groupies... you probably have little or no experience in and around the RV10 which can be half again the aircraft compared to most other 4 place rides at twice the price. So drop the side slights and stick to what "they say" you know. Remember why you lost your moderator role at AOPA...and remember that you were recently knuckle slapped for ragging on a fellow's type of aircraft just a couple months ago - contrary to your current preaching.:nono:
Hypocrisy is ugly no matter what the source.....
Click to expand...

3aa9090d30.jpg
 
Goofy said:
Right, don't bash other aircraft but get in your digs at them identifying the pilot by his style of aircraft any chance you get... cute, real cute. You really should stick to medicine. I understand you may at least have some competency in that field...:dunno:

Let me rephrase that to make it more palatable to the moderators and the groupies... you probably have little or no experience in and around the RV10 which can be half again the aircraft compared to most other 4 place rides at twice the price. So drop the side slights and stick to what "they say" you know. Remember why you lost your moderator role at AOPA...and remember that you were recently knuckle slapped for ragging on a fellow's type of aircraft just a couple months ago - contrary to your current preaching.:nono:
Hypocrisy is ugly no matter what the source.....
Click to expand...

Uncalled for.
 
DavidWhite said:
Uncalled for.
Click to expand...

And utterly. As I said, Vans, or other sort of experimental aircraft, are no longer an end-all-be-all. I will not disagree that they can be utterly wonderful aircraft. I will once again affirm that they are another just another piece of the puzzle, and not the whole in its entirety.
 
You gotta fly an airplane that fits your mission - in my case that's a Vans airplane (though I'm also a partner in a 172), but they are not for everyone.

It's a Ford/Chevy/Dodge kind of argument, and there will always be haters. Get over it and go fly.
 
steingar said:
And utterly. As I said, Vans, or other sort of experimental aircraft, are no longer an end-all-be-all. I will not disagree that they can be utterly wonderful aircraft. I will once again affirm that they are another just another piece of the puzzle, and not the whole in its entirety.
Click to expand...

As someone who is eagerly about to step into the experimental world of Van's aircraft, I respectfully urge you to go fly one.

You will never look at your certificated plane the same again.

There are good, solid reasons why RVs represent the only growing sector of general aviation. They simply perform better than similar factory-built aircraft, at a price point that doesn't make one laugh out loud.
 
Jay Honeck said:
As someone who is eagerly about to step into the experimental world of Van's aircraft, I respectfully urge you to go fly one.

You will never look at your certificated plane the same again.

There are good, solid reasons why RVs represent the only growing sector of general aviation. They simply perform better than similar factory-built aircraft, at a price point that doesn't make one laugh out loud.
Click to expand...

I have flown them, indeed I flew two. Great aircraft, truly. But, Mrs. Steingar won't fly in one (not under that canopy on a sunny day) and I doubt I could pack enough baggage for the two of us to take a trip like the one we're on. And good luck taking Mrs. Steingar and a passenger. Sorry, not for everyone's mission, and truly not for mine, as much as I like the flight envelope.
 
steingar said:
I have flown them, indeed I flew two. Great aircraft, truly. But, Mrs. Steingar won't fly in one (not under that canopy on a sunny day) and I doubt I could pack enough baggage for the two of us to take a trip like the one we're on. And good luck taking Mrs. Steingar and a passenger. Sorry, not for everyone's mission, and truly not for mine, as much as I like the flight envelope.
Click to expand...

Well, for sure RV-8s are not for hauling people. But with two big luggage compartments, they can haul more "stuff" than I expected.

After owning Piper's premier 4-place people-hauler for the last 11 years, I can attest to the utility of the plane. When my kids were young, no other plane could have performed that mission as well as our Pathfinder.

Still, that mission and part of my life has been successfully completed, and it's time to have some fun.

It's like driving a Miata vs. driving a box truck. If you're not hauling furniture, which one would you rather take to lunch?
:D
 
There are strong arguments to be made both ways. For me, I was in the "No way I'd own/fly an experimental" camp before I learned what I was talking about. I got a lot of completely wrong ideas from friends and instructors. Now that I know more, I've changed my tune. Sure, E/AB is not for everyone, but then neither are certified aircraft of the type, age and condition I could afford to own. Not to say that all E/AB decisions are based on cost; there's a guy at my home 'drome who owns two Lancairs and a pressurized 6-seat turboprop -- all experimentals.

There are some incredibly good experimental designs out there. There are also certified, factory built aircraft from large manufacturers that were designed as kit planes. Corvalis, anyone?

I have seen experimentals I would not fly on a dare. And I've flown a couple of certified planes that I was uncertain whether they'd kill me or not. I have made the decision to fly something new, fast and efficient; there's only one way to do that for less than my house is worth. In the mean time I poke along in a 172 and like it for the most part. What anyone else does is their choice and their business. But there will always be people trying to prove they're the smartest guy in the room by knocking someone else's decisions.
 
DaleB said:
There are strong arguments to be made both ways. For me, I was in the "No way I'd own/fly an experimental" camp before I learned what I was talking about. I got a lot of completely wrong ideas from friends and instructors. Now that I know more, I've changed my tune. Sure, E/AB is not for everyone, but then neither are certified aircraft of the type, age and condition I could afford to own. Not to say that all E/AB decisions are based on cost; there's a guy at my home 'drome who owns two Lancairs and a pressurized 6-seat turboprop -- all experimentals.

There are some incredibly good experimental designs out there. There are also certified, factory built aircraft from large manufacturers that were designed as kit planes. Corvalis, anyone?

I have seen experimentals I would not fly on a dare. And I've flown a couple of certified planes that I was uncertain whether they'd kill me or not. I have made the decision to fly something new, fast and efficient; there's only one way to do that for less than my house is worth. In the mean time I poke along in a 172 and like it for the most part. What anyone else does is their choice and their business. But there will always be people trying to prove they're the smartest guy in the room by knocking someone else's decisions.
Click to expand...

Well said Dale. :yes:
 
If you're more than 6' tall and care anything about preserving the remaining hair on the top of your head, the box truck is the only choice.
Jay Honeck said:
Well, for sure RV-8s are not for hauling people. But with two big luggage compartments, they can haul more "stuff" than I expected.

After owning Piper's premier 4-place people-hauler for the last 11 years, I can attest to the utility of the plane. When my kids were young, no other plane could have performed that mission as well as our Pathfinder.

Still, that mission and part of my life has been successfully completed, and it's time to have some fun.

It's like driving a Miata vs. driving a box truck. If you're not hauling furniture, which one would you rather take to lunch?
:D
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
If you're more than 6' tall and care anything about preserving the remaining hair on the top of your head, the box truck is the only choice.
Click to expand...

I'm 6'7" and my dad is 6'5". We built and have flown several hundred hours each in the RV-7A - with a non-zero amount of time with both of us in the plane together.

Cozy? Yes. But not all that more cozy than in a 172.
 
That's not the question. How do you fit in a Miata?
CJones said:
I'm 6'7" and my dad is 6'5". We built and have flown several hundred hours each in the RV-7A - with a non-zero amount of time with both of us in the plane together.

Cozy? Yes. But not all that more cozy than in a 172.
Click to expand...
 
When I did it the owner was concerned he would be arrested for stealing watermelons and stacking them into a pyramid on the pax seat.

CJones said:
Ever seen the movie "Harry and the Hendersons"? ;)
Click to expand...
 
Jay Honeck said:
As someone who is eagerly about to step into the experimental world of Van's aircraft, I respectfully urge you to go fly one.

You will never look at your certificated plane the same again.

There are good, solid reasons why RVs represent the only growing sector of general aviation. They simply perform better than similar factory-built aircraft, at a price point that doesn't make one laugh out loud.
Click to expand...

I have flown them, and not impressed.

To each his own.
 
RotorAndWing said:
I have flown them, and not impressed.

To each his own.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's my limited flying background at work here? 95% of my hours have been in certificated Spam cans -- Pipers, Cessnas, Mooneys, Ercoupes. I haven't really flown (for any length of time) any truly high performance aircraft.

Thus, by comparison, the RV-8As we're looking at feel like F-16s, and I am astounded by the crisp precision of their handling.

If (as an example) you came from flying Mustangs and A-4s, your perception might be quite different.
 
If you're flying what you really want to fly, that's as good as it's gonna get.
 
wabower said:
If you're flying what you really want to fly, that's as good as it's gonna get.
Click to expand...

True that!

I have never had so much fun flying as I did on hot summer nights in Iowa, puttering along with the top down on our Ercoupe.

Arm hanging out the window, levitating into the wind, landing sideways in a crosswind. Watching our then-17 year old son depart in her, solo, for Oshkosh.

Good times.

Sweetie wasn't a traveling machine, and she couldn't carry squat -- but we loved her, and I wouldn't trade those memories for anything.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Perhaps it's my limited flying background at work here? 95% of my hours have been in certificated Spam cans -- Pipers, Cessnas, Mooneys, Ercoupes. I haven't really flown (for any length of time) any truly high performance aircraft.

Thus, by comparison, the RV-8As we're looking at feel like F-16s, and I am astounded by the crisp precision of their handling.

If (as an example) you came from flying Mustangs and A-4s, your perception might be quite different.
Click to expand...

I would like to try an RV to see how it compares with the diamond I did my primary in. If my mission had not speced a 182 class plane I would likely be in a DA20 now
 
RotorAndWing said:
I have flown them, and not impressed.

To each his own.
Click to expand...

What ARE you impressed by then, besides being an Airbus captain? ;) As an airbus pilot, I guess you prefer an airplane with "airbus" handling. Very fun.

It might not be the airplane for you, but that doesn't mean you cannot find an airplane impressive. What other airplane can cruise as fast, land as short, do aerobatics, have easy and nice handling, all in a straightforward design, in a cost effective and fuel-efficient package? You won't find it. But they ARE impressive. That being said, I am a former RV owner. There are other airplanes out there.
 
Last edited:
Don't know too many professional pilots that are impressed with the Scarebus......some refuse to fly one at all. :yikes:
 
RoscoeT said:
It might not be the airplane for you, but that doesn't mean you cannot find an airplane impressive. What other airplane can cruise as fast, land as short, all in a straightforward design, in a cost effective and fuel-efficient package? You won't find it.
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:

I looked at a lot of options before deciding to build. I looked at factory produced airplanes up to and including the Comanche and 210 - both really nice airplanes, and with tons of room and more useful load than I'd ever need, but the operating cost was more than I was comfortable with. The Cherokee/Warrior/172 end of the scale was slower than I was willing to go if I was going to make the commitment to owning. Of the experimentals I looked at, there were other options that looked OK - but either I was not enthused about the construction methods, or the design itself, or the cost. The RV was the sweet spot. Faster cruise than most. Better climb than most. Ridiculously short takeoff and landing distances. Stall speed right down there with primary trainers, and designed for aerobatic loads. The kit is well produced, relatively easy to build and doesn't require more fiberglass work than I'm willing to do. The only drawback for me is limited space and, of course, the fact that I'm flying 30- and 40-year-old club planes for a couple of years while I build.

Once I got past the misconceptions about E/AB aircraft, it came down to cost and value. I could buy (for example) a fairly nice Comanche 250 or 260 for about what I'll have in the RV when it's done. There are some big differences, though. The RV will have moving map GPS, synthetic vision, certified WAAS nav coupled to a 2-axis autopilot, Mode S transponder, ADS-B, new radios, stereo intercom, oxygen, a modern, fuel injected engine with electronic ignition, 2000+ FPM climb, and 7-8 GPH cruise all packed into a brand new airframe. Bringing a 60s or 70s vintage airframe up to even the minimum standards I want would cost a small fortune, and I'd end up with an airplane not worth what I had in it. I'll give up two empty seats for that, and leave the really big suitcase at home.

Then there's the ongoing operating cost. Forgetting the extra few gallons per hour of avgas, I wasn't wild about worrying about what would turn up on the annual every year on a plane older than any of my kids (and my oldest is over 30). I find the idea of being able to install what I want, when I want to be appealing. I like the idea of being able to do my own maintenance if I choose, and know the airplane well enough to not only do my own annual, but to trust it.

I am neither impulsive, incautious nor stupid, and didn't arrive at this decision lightly. It's not for everyone, and a couple of years ago I'd have thought it wasn't for me, either... but you live and learn.
 
RoscoeT said:
What ARE you impressed by then, besides being an Airbus captain? ;) As an airbus pilot, I guess you prefer an airplane with "airbus" handling. Very fun.

It might not be the airplane for you, but that doesn't mean you cannot find an airplane impressive. What other airplane can cruise as fast, land as short, do aerobatics, have easy and nice handling, all in a straightforward design, in a cost effective and fuel-efficient package? You won't find it. But they ARE impressive. That being said, I am a former RV owner. There are other airplanes out there.
Click to expand...

A Glasair does all that and looks far better while doing it. :D
 
Velocity173 said:
A Glasair does all that and looks far better while doing it. :D
Click to expand...

Please post video of your Glasair landing in 500' and taking off in 300'. :) It ain't a short field airplane.
 
Last edited:
Jay Honeck said:
Perhaps it's my limited flying background at work here? 95% of my hours have been in certificated Spam cans -- Pipers, Cessnas, Mooneys, Ercoupes. I haven't really flown (for any length of time) any truly high performance aircraft.

Thus, by comparison, the RV-8As we're looking at feel like F-16s, and I am astounded by the crisp precision of their handling.

If (as an example) you came from flying Mustangs and A-4s, your perception might be quite different.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I went with EAB and can't understand why everyone else doesn't agree. While I loved the space my AA-5 had it didn't have much of a fun factor. Although it was more enjoyable than other similar spam cans with its crisp handling and good vis, it's no comparison to an RV or a Glasair. There is a huge difference in climbing out at 68 kts and 700 FPM compared to 110 kts and 1,400 FPM. You're not plowing through the air, you're cutting through it like a razor. Instead of cruising for a whopping 400 miles at 118 kts, I was doing 750 miles at 168 kts. A roll is a flick of the wrist away. A 3 G loop can be done from level flight. You feel like you're part of the aircraft like your own personal fighter. Why wouldn't every pilot want to experience flight like this?

The only draw back to this kind of performance is room. If you fly your 4 seat aircraft with the seats filled then going two seat won't be an option. However, I found that I flew maybe 1 % of my flights with a third passenger in the back. High performance two seaters with room for baggage was the most logical choice.

Accident record? Sure we have higher accident rates but if you eliminate the first flight stuff and the guys screwing around with low level acro, it's comparable to certified. Unfortunately that brings up one of the few other draw backs to EABs and that's higher insurance premiums. The increase though is easily made up for in reduced condition inspection costs.

Easier maintenance, strong airframes, advanced non certified panels, a blast to fly, range, speed, looks and a price you can't beat in certified aircraft. If you stick to the major Kitplane manufacturers like RV, Glasair, Lancair, Velocity and Tango, you can't go wrong.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
Easier maintenance, strong airframes, advanced non certified panels, a blast to fly, range, speed, looks and a price you can't beat in certified aircraft. If you stick to the major Kitplane manufacturers like RV, Glasair, Lancair, Velocity and Tango, you can't go wrong.
Click to expand...

I just moved my daughter's entire apartment 1100 nm in one trip. Bed, Dresser, Desk, Kitchen, stuff......once you look at an Van's RV you'll never view experimental aircraft the same way again!

Gimme a break. You couldn't do that trip in 10 trips with an RV.
Oh, and I did it at 170 knots climbing at 1,400 fpm. "Those dangerous underpowered RVs".
 
Last edited:
RoscoeT said:
What ARE you impressed by then, besides being an Airbus captain? ;) As an airbus pilot, I guess you prefer an airplane with "airbus" handling. Very fun.

I . What other airplane can cruise as fast, land as short, do aerobatics, have easy and nice handling, all in a straightforward design, in a cost effective and fuel-efficient package? You won't find it. But they ARE impressive. That being said, I am a former RV owner. There are other airplanes out there.
Click to expand...

Please show where I compared an RV to an Airbus?

I've owned 25 different GA aircraft ( fixed wing and rotor) and have been an active GA pilot and mechanic for 40 years. And as to date have flown 106 different models of aircraft.

Sorry, I don't share the feelings on the RV line of aircraft, like I said, to each his own. To make such an inane statement such as "it might not be the airplane for you, but that doesn't mean you cannot find an airplane impressive" is ridiculous in itself.
 
bbchien said:
I just moved my daughter's entire apartment 1100 nm in one trip. Bed, Dresser, Desk, Kitchen, stuff......once you look at an Van's RV you'll never view experimental aircraft the same way again!

Gimme a break. You couldn't do that trip in 10 trips with an RV.
Oh, and I did it at 170 knots climbing at 1,400 fpm. "Those dangerous underpowered RVs".
Click to expand...

Sure Bruce, and if I had a King Air I could have moved your daughter's apartment in one trip even faster at 270 kts. I thought it was obvious that the thread was talking about SE piston aircraft and not ME or turbine. If we had another thread titled experimental vs any type of aircraft imaginable, then yeah you'd win.
 
Velocity173 said:
The only draw back to this kind of performance is room. If you fly your 4 seat aircraft with the seats filled then going two seat won't be an option. However, I found that I flew maybe 1 % of my flights with a third passenger in the back. High performance two seaters with room for baggage was the most logical choice.
.
Click to expand...
RV-10 Baby!

(I know we're never suppose to say stuff like that but I missed the thread, so...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top