What's the best argument for owning a certificated aircraft?

L

LandSickness

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
1,023
Display Name
Display name:
fri tale
I was perusing the new posts and ran across the "Most ridiculously expensive....." thread and I found this post:

Geico266 said:
Any part for a certified plane.

A buddy extended the exhaust on his Cessna 206 12" to get the heat signature away from his camera equipment. Cost? $5,200. :eek: That is $430 an inch. :rolleyes2:

Really? :mad2:
Click to expand...




I gotta tell ya. I am genuinely discouraged by some of the cost associated with owning a certificated aircraft. This is not the first time that I've been astounded by some tale of exorbitant expense associated with owning one. I've seen parts that were identical to the ones you can get in a hardware store that cost ten times in an aviation supply store. It's fine if you have the money to spend, but how do you bring yourselves to pay $2000 for a part that you know you could buy at a hardware store for $200?

Please help me answer some questions:

1. Is it strictly about the safety standards in the manufacturing and therefore worth the extra expense?

2. Is it a broader range of performance that you get out of a certificated aircraft as opposed to choices of experimental aircraft, even those with comparable safety records?

3. Are experimentals more to insure and maintain? Does it even out over the life of ownership?

4. Is it difficult to inspect experimentals for manufacturing defects and therefore they're less desireable?

Please help me understand, because as much as I would like to own a Grumman Tiger or other certificated aircraft and can afford to, it would bug me to no end to overpay for things that I know I can get at a more reasonable price "outside of the system".

Please understand, I am not talking about cutting corners with safety or performance.
 
It costs more for certified parts because they are greedy bastards. Don't buy into the BS that somehow certified parts are safer BS! It is all about paperwork, traceability and obscene profits.
 
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.
 
If you're using your aircraft for Part 91 purposes, whether you go certified or experimental is a personal choice. Experimental isn't allowed for 135/121. The primary reasons for buying a certified aircraft are as follows:

1) The kind of plane you want isn't available in experimental form (my biggest reason since there aren't any 6-place experimental twins)
2) You don't trust some guy who built the plane in his garage
3) It would cost significantly more to purchase an experimental aircraft that does what you want than a certified aircraft
4) You don't have time to build what you want, and 2) also applies

For example, a Lancair Evolution new will run $750k. I can buy a nice used Malibu for about half that. Granted, the Evolution is faster, but the Malibu also is bigger. That cost difference buys a lot of maintenance. I can't buy an experimental equivalent to a 310 or a 421.

Keep in mind, a lot of stuff on certified aircraft doesn't have to cost as much as it does if you're willing to do repairs yourself. Owner-supplied parts are wonderful things.

If Lancair came out with a twin, it would probably be similar to an Aerostar, but a bit smaller and a bit faster. It'd probably also be deadly on one engine. I'd want one anyway. But, it'd also likely cost as much as a new Baron (~$1 mil), and I don't have that cash, nor the time to build it.
 
The main reason is SAFETY. Type Certificated aircraft have half as many accidents than experimental. Check out the nail report.

It is not easy with regulations, customizing type certificated planes. if you want to do a bunch of modifications build a experimental.

I disagree that a prebuy is the same in that experiments are more likely to have car parts, bulbs, screws/nuts rather than 100% aviation quality or milspec.

So the prebuy would have to be ridiculously thorough as nothing is taken for granted or chance overlooking something.
 
Last edited:
bartmc said:
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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
It costs more for certified parts because they are greedy bastards. Don't buy into the BS that somehow certified parts are safer BS! It is all about paperwork, traceability and obscene profits.
Click to expand...

Like this wing spar

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20121126X24312&key=1

or this electric prop setup?

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20071120X01821&key=1

or how bout this fuel selector

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20001208X09045&key=1
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Great! I didn't realize buying an experimental instantly made a person an expert in aircraft. The couple i toyed with buying, it took about 5 minutes of talking to the owner to decide "Hell no" even if he were giving it to me.

I do my own work, to my knowledge I've never broken a rule.
 
Geico266 said:
And no certified planes have crashed? :rofl:

Those are the most ridiculous examples you could have used. :rofl::rofl::rofl:
Click to expand...

Just the first three that popped into my head. The fact that three popped into my head ought to tell you something :)

I don't recall a certified plan conforming to the type certificate ever crashing because of the fuel selector valve placement and issues with the vice grips.
 
1,Seen the 1st annual on a brand new Cessa 182 told the owner to contact the factory the caps spar rivits were swarfed by debris from drilling total junk.(new)
2, Experimentals ? Some are crotch rockets, Pressurized with long legs.(Fast & furious in comfort)
3. Not my specialty
4. Most good Experimentals have extensive build logs & photos, The builders are proud & carefull as they & their family will be the ones flying in it.
Think that some assembler with a GED & a hangover cares?
 
bartmc said:
Great! I didn't realize buying an experimental instantly made a person an expert in aircraft. The couple i toyed with buying, it took about 5 minutes of talking to the owner to decide "Hell no" even if he were giving it to me.

I do my own work, to my knowledge I've never broken a rule.
Click to expand...

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? :mad2:
 
Last edited:
I own a vintage cert aircraft. My reasons(justification) is that the plane was designed, and built by aircraft professionals. It is well old enough not to suffer from infant mortality, and still retain the strength built in from the factory.

For me, the cost/benefit curve is still weighted in favor of the cert plane. If I knew the builder of an EXP was an aircraft expert, and that he followed the plans of someone like Van or Monnet, I might be tempted. So far, the risk of EXP is greater than I am willing to accept for the increase in performance.

This is my criteria, your's is certainly different. BTW, in my history I have some hours in a VariEze, KR2(yikes), Bensen gyro, Pietenpol, WeedHopper, and Searey.
 
bartmc said:
Someone should tell about 95% of the people on this board that.
Click to expand...

I don't make the rules nor care if they work on their planes or not.

Let's get back to the topic.

Certified planes are ridiculously expensive to maintain. I can't figure out why anyone would look at buying a 40 year old plane and then cry when a $10,000 annual comes around. I've never had an annual cost more than $700. :dunno:

Plus experimentals are faster, can burn car gas, hold their value, and are a hell of a lot more fun to fly.
 
Last edited:
Rusty I got 8 others that died in normal catagory A/C , All good guys. The key is the builder/ owner opperator.
 
Geico266 said:
I don't make the rules nor care if they work on their planes or not.

Let's get back to the topic.

Certified planes are ridiculously expensive to maintain. I can't figure out why anyone would look at buying a 40 year old plane and then cry when a $10,000 annual comes around. I've never had an annual cost more than $700. :dunno:

Plus experimentals are faster, can burn car gas, hold their value, and are a hell of a lot more fun to fly.
Click to expand...

Certified planes are not ridiculously expensive to maintain... as long as you're not an idiot who drops it off at Signature and say "call me when it's done".

I have no idea why anyone would want an experimental other than a professionally built -10 with a CERTIFIED engine in it. Most are extremely cramped 2 seaters with unknown build quality and engineering, that'll beat the crap out of you if you mention turbulence.
 
So is it unreasonable to expect an A&P/IA to find flaws in an experimental build during a prebuy? I'd like to hear from any number of A&P/IAs on this subject. Do you steer clear of experimentals and if so, is it because there is no one standard or usually no inspection access panels and therefore too much potential for liability?
 
bartmc said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, in my 22 years of experimentals, I've at least seen a few hundred. Have rode in many, as well as flown them.

Since I live next door to an airport, and have had hangars at airports, and looked at so many certified airplanes at airports...........that have their cowls & engine covers removed.....

It always astonishes me, just how poor it looks "under the hood", on so many certifieds. As an "experimental" builder myself, I'd be embarrassed, if it looked like that.

For anyone that doesn't think an experimental can be a work of extreme craftmanship, then think again! There are many amazing examples out there.

L.Adamson
 
hillberg said:
4. Most good Experimentals have extensive build logs & photos, The builders are proud & carefull as they & their family will be the ones flying in it.
Click to expand...

I put my grandkids in the one I built. :dunno:

Know the builder, know the history of the plane. There are many experimental aircraft for sale now that are exceptional values, safe, and economical to fly and maintain.
 
Last edited:
It's not just the experimental aircraft integrety that affects safety stats.

Experimental pilots are often pushing the limits of the envelopes in different aeronautical areas and not surprisingly, they sometimes pay a high price of being test pilots. Take accident stats of initial test flights of CERTIFICATED aircraft by professional test pilots and compare them to those of EXPERIMENTALS and see what they look like....

Another common accident problem with experimental builders has little to do with quality of aircraft but, is the lack of proficiency due to perishability of piloting skills in aircraft model due to extentions of time due to demands of building tending to keep the pilot out of the sky.

This of course, is a type of pilot error and should be remedied by the test pilot obtaining time in model or the nearest thing to model before actual test flights in EXPERIMENTALS.


Tony_Scarpelli said:
The main reason is SAFETY. Type Certificated aircraft have half as many accidents than experimental. Check out the nail report.

It is not easy with regulations, customizing type certificated planes. if you want to do a bunch of modifications build a experimental.

I disagree that a prebuy is the same in that experiments are more likely to have car parts, bulbs, screws/nuts rather than 100% aviation quality or milspec.

So the prebuy would have to be ridiculously thorough as nothing is taken for granted or chance overlooking something.
Click to expand...
 
I am fortunate that I have a mechanic who is a Bonanza fanatic, and is as concerned about minimizing maitenance costs as am I.

The airplane is maintained to impecable standards. I do quite a bit of grunt labor for him under supervision, and he always seems to know the best place to aquire parts for less.

I would only be interested in an experimental that I assembled myself, yet I do not wish to put the time commitment necessary to build an entire airplane.

Also- I know of nothing available that could match the performance, comfort, and load-hauling capabilities of the Bonanza. Guess I'll keep flying my certified airplane.
 
bartmc said:
Most are extremely cramped 2 seaters with unknown build quality and engineering, that'll beat the crap out of you if you mention turbulence.
Click to expand...

Can I submit, that you don't have a clue. I know many pilots who own both certified and experimentals at the same time. They are very happy with their varied choices. In fact, I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone by even reading some of the stuff printed in this forum, let alone that disgusting red board of last year.

L.Adamson --- Van's RV6A 180 HP. C/S prop, 2 axis A/P, leather seats, and all that stuff...
 
hillberg said:
Rusty I got 8 others that died in normal catagory A/C , All good guys. The key is the builder/ owner opperator.
Click to expand...

Yep, but not too many certified installations of vice grips for fuel selector valves located in a place that the pilot can't reach it.

I 10000% agree the key is the builder/owner operator. At least with the certified's the builders have a reputation and a brand name to protect, no so with "Charlie Smith RV6" built with a vice grip fuel selector. And at least with a certified I have a modicum of re-assurance that the guy signing the logs every year is somewhat competent to do so.
 
Geico266 said:
If you do your own work you have broken the rules. ;)
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Owner/oper can do pretty much everything under supervision of an A&P IA. Today I was out at the airport and installed a 6pt EGT in my plane. The A&P was there, he supervised, advised, I followed the instructions to the letter, he filled out the 337, and made the log book endorsement.

Q.E.D.

OBTW, for those of you screaming about the cost of owning a cert plane, I guess it could be said that's the price of admission. My EGT gauge and wiring cost about $600, and I paid the mech $100 for his time and signature. Of course, I could have gotten the same kit for a car for $249, and installed it without any oversight. So, that makes the cert cost only a bit over double the price of an EXP install. I'll pay that.
 
L.Adamson said:
Can I submit, that you don't have a clue. I know many pilots who own both certified and experimentals at the same time. They are very happy with their varied choices. In fact, I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone by even reading some of the stuff printed in this forum, let alone that disgusting red board of last year.

L.Adamson --- Van's RV6A 180 HP. C/S prop, 2 axis A/P, leather seats, and all that stuff...
Click to expand...

Walk into my airport in Montana, mention "RV Pilots" see the response you get. Those threads had some truth to them, if you fail to realize it, I submit that you don't have a clue. The local flight school there forbid student pilot operations when the local RV pilot's hangar door opened.
 
You do not have a placard on the panel facing the passengers that says:

"This aircraft is amateur-built and does not comply with the federal safety regulations for standard aircraft"
 
bartmc said:
Walk into my airport in Montana, mention "RV Pilots" see the response you get. Those threads had some truth to them, if you fail to realize it, I submit that you don't have a clue. The local flight school there forbid student pilot operations when the local RV pilot's hangar door opened.
Click to expand...

This sounds like one bad pilot in a local environment that flys an RV? How about specific details?

If it is that bad for flight safety, some enforcement action is in order.
 
comanchepilot said:
You do not have a placard on the panel facing the passengers that says:

"This aircraft is amateur-built and does not comply with the federal safety regulations for standard aircraft"
Click to expand...

"This aircraft was built to, and is maintained to a much higher standard."

That is what is under mine. :yes:
 
I'm not talking about builders that modify approved plans. Could, say, an E-LSA be built to the exact same standards of the manufactured S-LSA and therefore be considered compliant with federal safety regulations or is that something different? Are S-LSAs for instance not considered certificated aircraft built to federal safety standards?
 
bartmc said:
Walk into my airport in Montana, mention "RV Pilots" see the response you get. Those threads had some truth to them, if you fail to realize it, I submit that you don't have a clue. The local flight school there forbid student pilot operations when the local RV pilot's hangar door opened.
Click to expand...

That is ridiculous. Like blaming the gun for a crime. It's the pilot, not the plane plane. Duh! :mad2::mad2::mad2:

Rusty, you are embarrassing yourself. :nono:
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
This sounds like one bad pilot in a local environment that flys an RV? How about specific details?

If it is that bad for flight safety, some enforcement action is in order.
Click to expand...

The most recent incident? There were two of them, taxing by a "no intersection take off" sign and taking off side by side at the mid field intersection, up a 3% grade on a hot day at an airport elevation of 3,610' leaving them approx 1600' of runway of which to perform the take off, into climbing terrain. The airport doesn't even have a taxiway to that runway, to dissuade people from trying. I figure they cleared the terrain by 10 maybe 20 foot.

Other anctics include accelerating in ground effect followed by a near vertical take off, overhead breaks, buzzing the bridge where people swim and fish at about 100' AGL, having the sheriff show up about once a month at the hangar "gathering information" etc... you know the routine.
 
Geico266 said:
"This aircraft was built to, and is maintained to a much higher standard."

That is what is under mine. :yes:
Click to expand...

Statistics of the fleet do not bear out your one data-point. If they did, EXP prices would exceed that of cert prices very quickly.
 
Geico266 said:
That is ridiculous. Like blaming the gun for a crime. It's the pilot, not the plane plane. Duh! :mad2::mad2::mad2:

Rusty, you are embarrassing yourself. :nono:
Click to expand...

Funny, never had any issues with guys in Cherokees playing "Iceman" in their PA28's adorned with Naval insignia and visiting sites called "Cherokee Air Force" :mad2: :lol: :rofl:
 
bartmc said:
Yep, but not too many certified installations of vice grips for fuel selector valves located in a place that the pilot can't reach it.

I 10000% agree the key is the builder/owner operator. At least with the certified's the builders have a reputation and a brand name to protect, no so with "Charlie Smith RV6" built with a vice grip fuel selector. And at least with a certified I have a modicum of re-assurance that the guy signing the logs every year is somewhat competent to do so.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous, baseless straw man argument.

The fuel selector issue was not on the RV-6. You have your planes, incidents, and circumstances confused.
 
Last edited:
Most all EXP aircraft are build from standard parts, engines, wheels, brakes, cables, pulleys, etc.

but the airframe parts are not, they are type specific, and when you bend one you must manufacturer the replacement your self or get lucky and find one in the junk yard.

I can order a flight control from almost any salvage yard in the country for a production aircraft. if not from the factory.
 
docmirror said:
I doubt it. Owner/oper can do pretty much everything under supervision of an A&P IA. Today I was out at the airport and installed a 6pt EGT in my plane. The A&P was there, he supervised, advised, I followed the instructions to the letter, he filled out the 337, and made the log book endorsement.

Q.E.D.

OBTW, for those of you screaming about the cost of owning a cert plane, I guess it could be said that's the price of admission. My EGT gauge and wiring cost about $600, and I paid the mech $100 for his time and signature. Of course, I could have gotten the same kit for a car for $249, and installed it without any oversight. So, that makes the cert cost only a bit over double the price of an EXP install. I'll pay that.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You can do anything you want, but what you did was NOT legal. :nono:
 
Tom-D said:
Most all EXP aircraft are build from standard parts, engines, wheels, brakes, cables, pulleys, etc.

but the airframe parts are not, they are type specific, and when you bend one you must manufacturer the replacement your self or get lucky and find one in the junk yard.

I can order a flight control from almost any salvage yard in the country for a production aircraft. if not from the factory.
Click to expand...

Any part of any RV made is available from Vans, except early plans built models.
 
bartmc said:
Walk into my airport in Montana, mention "RV Pilots" see the response you get. Those threads had some truth to them, if you fail to realize it, I submit that you don't have a clue. The local flight school there forbid student pilot operations when the local RV pilot's hangar door opened.
Click to expand...

When my RV was in Montana, people were more than thrilled to get a ride in it. And that they did. They were all smiles.
 
Geico266 said:
Ridiculous, baseless straw man argument.

The fuel selector issue was not on the RV-6. You have your planes, incidents, and circumstances confused.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring the accident, you can legally install a vice grip fuel selector on any experimental, an RV6 being one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top