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

Maybe if you flew one of those inexpensive certified aircraft you could afford the hobby without being a used plane salesman. ;)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Maybe if you flew one of those inexpensive certified aircraft you could afford the hobby without being a used plane salesman. ;)
Click to expand...

Hard to fly with a bag over my head. :nono:


:rofl::rofl::rofl:


I have a RV-12, RV-10, and I am dealing on an RV-3.

The RV-12 is for sale, not the -10.
 
Last edited:
Just to give the OP my (not the) answer to his question... since I just went through this process myself...

Pros of certified aircraft:

  • It's already built and inspected, by a factory that made a whole lot just like it.
  • You can buy a 4-seater pretty cheaply (C-172, Cherokee, some Grummans, Sundowner, etc) these days.
  • For a bit (or a bunch) more you can buy a big 4-seater or maybe a six... 182, 210, Lance, etc.
  • You can buy a twin, if you're really set on it. Dirt cheap.
  • Everyone knows the plane you're flying, there are hundreds or thousands more or less just like it.
Cons:


  • For airplanes in my price range, I'd be flying something older than dirt. Think 1960s, 70s vintage. Old interiors, very old avionics, decades of use. EFIS? Dream on.
  • Operating cost is high. Fuel burn on most certified planes I could afford to pay cash for is atrocious for the speed achieved.
  • Maintenance and repairs are both too frequent and too expensive to suit me.
  • Anything that will achieve the cruising speeds I would like to see would be severely stretching my budget to buy, own and fly.
  • Ditto for aircraft equipped the way I would like for X/C flying. GPS, autopilot, etc.
Pros of experimentals:

  • Improved options for self-maintenance and self-determination; ability to upgrade instruments and avionics at will, and without paying a shop several AMU to do what I can do in a weekend.
  • Ability to build to suit the mission as you see it. Engine, prop, instruments, avionics, interior, etc.
  • You can fly an airplane of new or very recent manufacture. If you build it, you have some financial options you simply don't otherwise have.
  • Performance. 170kt cruise at under 10 GPH? Yes, please, thanks very much. May I please have some more?
  • Operating cost in terms of avgas burned per mile (see above). And when it comes time for a major overhaul I have more options there, too.
  • If you build, you will have very intimate, detailed knowledge of every inch and every system on the plane.
Cons:

  • Build it yourself (also a pro, I suppose, if you like that sort of thing) or pay for the builder's labor.
  • In my price range... two seats. But, good useful load and luggage capacity compared to, say, a 152 or Traumahawk. If you're willing to spend more than I am, 4 seats is not a big step up.
  • If you're a commercial pilot, you won't be using it for charter work.
In the end, I figured an RV-10 would be perfect for us. Sadly, it's a little out of the budget range. a -9A or -7a would do the job, but only two seats... we can deal with that. It will carry my wife and I and our bags anywhere we want to go a 3 miles a minute. I can pay for it in chunks and still keep flying the club planes in the mean time, possibly even having my instrument rating by the time the RV is ready to fly (he says, wistfully looking out at the 700' overcast that's been here for two days). I was on the fence between those two until a deal on a -7a came along that I simply could not let pass, so here we are.


There was a time I would not have considered riding in an experimental, let alone building one. Then I found out about RVs (and Glasair Sportsmen, and a couple of others). There are still E/AB planes I would never consider flying in, but they're the exception rather than the rule. But some people will just not be comfortable in anything other than a factory-produced, certified airplane. If that's you, then look for the right one for you. If it's not, then you just have a lot more options available to you.
 
bartmc said:
Hmm.. RV expert, used to be a partner in one and now owns a Bo and a 210?
Click to expand...

Don't make assumptions. This particular pilot highly favors RVs. They're a favorite of his, for performance & fun. The Bo & 210 are for business. Make no attempts to downplay these aircraft. In fact, I think this thread has gotten to the point of being senseless when it comes to kitbuilt aircraft from Van's.

So--- who flies Van's airplanes? Just a bunch of wanna-be fighter pilots? Not hardly, considering there is around 8000 or so, that's been completed & flown. I personally know quite a few commercial pilots & military pilots who fly these. These pilots are in my own neighborhood. We have skilled aviation engineers, test pilots for large aviation corporations, and many more highly skilled professionals, as well as whose who just want to fly "performance" airplanes.

To pretend, that it doesn't go much farther than a flight school halting ops whenever a few RVs are in flight................just indicates a lack of any attempt to see what's really happening. Perhaps, you should spend a bit more time with Google, and you'll learn something new.

Should you attempt to belittle this reply, with some snide remark, then do so. I won't bother wasting anymore time replying.

L.Adamson
 
If anybody is keeping a list of airplane owners who:

1. Fly exactly what they want to fly because they want to and not because it's all they can afford
2. Hope everybody else is doing the same, and
3. Don't give a fat-ratsass what it is as long as they don't feel compelled to tout it during every post

then please add my name to it.
 
wabower said:
1. Fly exactly what they want to fly because they want to and not because it's all they can afford
2. Hope everybody else is doing the same, and
3. Don't give a fat-ratsass what it is as long as they don't feel compelled to tout it during every post
Click to expand...
Two outta three ain't bad. I just can't afford a Spitfire and (or) a Pilatus. :)
 
wabower said:
If anybody is keeping a list of airplane owners who:

1. Fly exactly what they want to fly because they want to and not because it's all they can afford
2. Hope everybody else is doing the same, and
3. Don't give a fat-ratsass what it is as long as they don't feel compelled to tout it during every post

then please add my name to it.
Click to expand...

I'd say I'm 3 out of 3. Maybe 2.5 given the specifics behind the acquisition of the 310.
 
DavidWhite said:
They don't make an experimental Mooney.
Click to expand...

Maybe they don't, but you certainly can.

You can make your own Mooney into an experimental just by contacting your friendly FSDO and doing some paperwork. The result won't be Experimental Amateur-Built, but rather another variant like Experimental-Exhibition or Experimental-Research-and-Development.

I saw an ad not long ago for a late-model certificated four-seater. A quick search of the tail number revealed that it was built certificated, then it was converted to experimental by an avionics company who was testing new gear, and after a couple of years it was converted back to certificated and ultimately put up for sale. The ad didn't mention its experimental history.
 
And sometimes they can't be restored to original status and end up on the block. The people at BK-Olathe (Honeywell) can tell you all about that. Oh, and if you really think that ploy works, please bear in mind that the FAA guys have been to more than one rodeo.

NoHeat said:
Maybe they don't, but you certainly can.

You can make your own Mooney into an experimental just by contacting your friendly FSDO and doing some paperwork. The result won't be Experimental Amateur-Built, but rather another variant like Experimental-Exhibition or Experimental-Research-and-Development.

I saw an ad not long ago for a late-model certificated four-seater. A quick search of the tail number revealed that it was built certificated, then it was converted to experimental by an avionics company who was testing new gear, and after a couple of years it was converted back to certificated and ultimately put up for sale. The ad didn't mention its experimental history.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
They found that it rolls better if extended while on the ground. Less taxi power required and prob tips last longer.
Click to expand...

Good thing, it's not an experimental Bo, they probably wouldn't have bothered to expose the gear while on the ground, no sense in it, those guys start up at 1600 RPM and taxi using the same setting. :rofl:
 
Bonanza owners at KADS are now plssed because the Cirri drivers have learned to taxi faster than they do.

bartmc said:
Good thing, it's not an experimental Bo, they probably wouldn't have bothered to expose the gear while on the ground, no sense in it, those guys start up at 1600 RPM and taxi using the same setting. :rofl:
Click to expand...
 
NoHeat said:
Maybe they don't, but you certainly can.

You can make your own Mooney into an experimental just by contacting your friendly FSDO and doing some paperwork. The result won't be Experimental Amateur-Built, but rather another variant like Experimental-Exhibition or Experimental-Research-and-Development.

I saw an ad not long ago for a late-model certificated four-seater. A quick search of the tail number revealed that it was built certificated, then it was converted to experimental by an avionics company who was testing new gear, and after a couple of years it was converted back to certificated and ultimately put up for sale. The ad didn't mention its experimental history.
Click to expand...


You have to be doing a real project seeking certification though. With engines you get a good long time to keep flying it because they have no issues with you collecting a lot of flight data and like to see engines run a long time. The Twin Commander with Orendas (Mk IV Chevy based) that is flying on an Ex-R&D certificate has been doing so for a long time. However, there will come the day when they will require certification of your program or the return of the aircraft to certified condition (this inspection I'm pretty sure will require a DAR or FAA inspector to perform), and if that's impossible, you own a lawn ornament or pile of scrap or whatever, because it'll never be a legal airplane again.* (*There are countries you can "wash" the certificate through, sorta like Arkansas and car titles.)
 
NoHeat said:
I saw an ad not long ago for a late-model certificated four-seater. A quick search of the tail number revealed that it was built certificated, then it was converted to experimental by an avionics company who was testing new gear, and after a couple of years it was converted back to certificated and ultimately put up for sale. The ad didn't mention its experimental history.
Click to expand...
my travel air was the same way. It was beech's engineering plane to evaluate 6-cyl engines to develop the baron. Later it was put back to 95 configuration and sold. Other than the remnants of the mount for the drogue chute there's no difference to any other travel air. As for disclosure, it's right there in the logbooks if you think it's worth knowing.
 
JHW said:
my travel air was the same way. It was beech's engineering plane to evaluate 6-cyl engines to develop the baron. Later it was put back to 95 configuration and sold. Other than the remnants of the mount for the drogue chute there's no difference to any other travel air. As for disclosure, it's right there in the logbooks if you think it's worth knowing.
Click to expand...

Last time I was looking for a Travelair for someone I came across IIRC an IO 540 powered one with a three blade prop, I thought that was interesting.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Maybe if you flew one of those inexpensive certified aircraft you could afford the hobby without being a used plane salesman. ;)
Click to expand...

Maybe I should have put it another way. I own a business buying and selling RV's. Unless it is profitable I lose money flying. My goal is to have a hobby that makes money. All of my businesses must make money. It's an outdated concept I know. ;)
 
wabower said:
But the same tired, biased crap in every post is OK?
Click to expand...

I was hoping you would admit your bias towards experimentals. :lol:

BTW, biased, tired posts are acceptable, personal attacks are not according to the TOS of POA. ;)
 
Geico266 said:
I was hoping you would admit your bias towards experimentals. :lol:

BTW, biased, tired posts are acceptable, personal attacks are not according to the TOS of POA. ;)
Click to expand...

Wayne, you can't say things "Geico is a zealot" you have to put a thin veil on it and say things like "Typically, Nebraska based RV filers who post on the Internet with an eagle avatar are zealots"
 
Geico266 said:
I was hoping you would admit your bias towards experimentals. :lol:

BTW, biased, tired posts are acceptable, personal attacks are not according to the TOS of POA. ;)
Click to expand...

Toughen up, buddy. Those ain't been personal attacks. But you know that. ;)
 
Henning said:
Last time I was looking for a Travelair for someone I came across IIRC an IO 540 powered one with a three blade prop, I thought that was interesting.
Click to expand...
there are at least two of them, one has been mentioned on the beechlist, another I flew post-maintenance when it passed through the local shop several years ago.
 
JHW said:
there are at least two of them, one has been mentioned on the beechlist, another I flew post-maintenance when it passed through the local shop several years ago.
Click to expand...

Personally I never understood the point, better off putting turbos on the 4 bangers like I had, I'd be out pacing 55s by 12,500' and would cruise 150kts IAS on 16gph. If you want the extra ponies down low, better to just go to a 55 or 56 if you really wanna get jiggy.
 
This thread reminds me of a few others I have read here......

'What's better.... iPad or Android tablets....'

Replace 'Certified' with iPad and 'Experimental' with Android and the argument would be almost the same.... ;)
 
steingar said:
My goal is to have hobbies that are enjoyable. I have a job to make money.
Click to expand...

One of my hobbies turned into a nice little sideline business that now supports my other hobbies -- as well as the odd vacation here and there. Works out rather nicely.
 
cirrusmx said:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::


it cracks me up when people taxi as if they were driving jet.
Click to expand...

I don't ride the brakes and taxi near or at idle, if the plane makes it to 30 before I have to start slowing for the run up pad, what's it hurt?
 
MSPAviator said:
What would be the land plane equivalent of a step taxi? Getting off the nosewheel? :)
Click to expand...

Actually faster than that, you have to drive the plane up ontop of its bow wave and that takes a good bit of power as well.
 
Henning said:
I don't ride the brakes and taxi near or at idle, if the plane makes it to 30 before I have to start slowing for the run up pad, what's it hurt?
Click to expand...

Depends on surface. We have large drying cracks in the asphalt of most taxi surfaces at FTG. They've been repaired (mostly) but they are still rough. It's just a little disconcerting to watch one guy taxi his SR22 since he's one of those fast taxi guys and the nose wheel really jumps around. The guy is totally oblivious to the damage he may be doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top