Experimental airplanes. Would You??????

E

evapilotaz

En-Route
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
2,623
Location
Gilbert AZ. VFR All Year Baby
Display Name
Display name:
Drone airspace abuser
If I was given the opportunity to fly in a Experimental Owner built airplane, I'm may decline the opportunity. I'm not sure why I feel this way. Maybe because I do not know the owner building skills. Sure I know it has to be inspected for airworthiness and registered.

Anyone else feel this way?
 
Would be comfortable if I knew the owner/ builder. It's an airplane .
 
Depends. I'd fly Ben's plane any day, and I flew in a Bill Harrelson's Lancair 320. I also flew the first (and I think only) piston Lancair Evolution. Don't forget a Zodiac.

I have been offered rides in certain experimentals that I have declined, but more than anything because of the pilot, and I wouldn't have wanted to fly with said pilot in a certified plane.
 
I have nothing against experimental in general. I applaud those that has the time, money and skills to build one. A lot of those airplanes are works of art.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Depends. I'd fly Ben's plane any day, and I flew in a Bill Harrelson's Lancair 320. I also flew the first (and I think only) piston Lancair Evolution. Don't forget a Zodiac.

I have been offered rides in certain experimentals that I have declined, but more than anything because of the pilot, and I wouldn't have wanted to fly with said pilot in a certified plane.
Click to expand...
^^This. I haven't been offered a flight in any EXP that I would decline simply because it was experimental, or even based on condition although there may be a handful of types I would not choose to fly in based on their design.

Pilot attitude and approach to flying is more important to me.

I have time in about a dozen and a half Experimental-Amateur Built aircraft types, as well as several Experimental-Exhibition warbird types, most EXP planes I have flown are truly fun to fly and usually offer significantly better performance (or higher 'fun' factor) compared to their certified cousins.

If you have a good vibe about the pilot and the plane is not held together with duct tape and chewing gum go fly and have fun.

'Gimp
 
Now, one caveat. I'd love to fly in a Lancair IV-P. There are very, very few pilots I'd fly with one in. Not because it's an experimental, but because of its requirements of the pilot. Simply put, there are few pilots who I'd trust as good enough to fly one, even if I get a "good vibe."
 
If its been signed off as airworthy I'll fly it if it's within my skill level. I worry more about flight characteristics than building errors. They're still a minority in the accident database, and I trust people working on their own pet project way more than some factory worker slogging through the day.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Depends. I'd fly Ben's plane any day, and I flew in a Bill Harrelson's Lancair 320. I also flew the first (and I think only) piston Lancair Evolution. Don't forget a Zodiac.

I have been offered rides in certain experimentals that I have declined, but more than anything because of the pilot, and I wouldn't have wanted to fly with said pilot in a certified plane.
Click to expand...
+1

I've flown in many of the experimentals in my EAA chapter. Only one I won't fly in again due to the pilot scaring the )();&/$ out of me without warning. He needed to do a go around (too fast) at 300 ft agl. Had he warned me, no problem. Even admitted he should have once we got on the ground.

Of course there are factory airplanes around here I won't fly in because of the pilot.
 
steingar said:
If its been signed off as airworthy I'll fly it if it's within my skill level. I worry more about flight characteristics than building errors. They're still a minority in the accident database, and I trust people working on their own pet project way more than some factory worker slogging through the day.
Click to expand...

Within reason.

I have flown experimentals for about 15 years now and I'm about to finish building my own, and one thing I discovered early on is that the quality and safety of the aircraft are entirely dependent on the builders skill and attention to detail. Like any other segment of humanity, aircraft builders (and pilots) have the top, middle, and bottom of the gene pool. I've seen garage-built airplanes that are true works of art, and I've seen some screaming abortions that should never have been issued as Airworthiness Certificate but somehow had one (I'm assuming the inspector was also Shallow-End-Of-Genepool material).

So the answer is - it depends. I'm going to give the airplane a good once-over myself looking for things that don't look right before I'll fly it, but I do that with certificated birds that I don't know also. It's not anything to do with "experimental" but more so with "unfamiliar".
 
Just look the plane over good. Talk with the owner/builder and see what kind of guy he is. Is he shady? Is the plane shady? If no to both, fly the hell out of it if you get the chance. Never pass up an opportunity to fly any airplane if it's airworthy and is in descent condition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I have almost 900 hours in an home built experimental sailplane built in 1974. True I did know the builder and the other two owners that owned it before me.
Generally if the plane as been flying for more than a couple hundred hours or is a well proven design I don't have much trouble flying it if the workmanship and systems seem airworthy.

Brian
 
evapilotaz said:
If I was given the opportunity to fly in a Experimental Owner built airplane, I'm may decline the opportunity. I'm not sure why I feel this way. Maybe because I do not know the owner building skills. Sure I know it has to be inspected for airworthiness and registered.

Anyone else feel this way?
Click to expand...
I've flown in E-AB aircraft where I knew (or was one of) the builder(s).

I have also flown and now own an E-AB where I never met the builder.

I have flown type certificated aircraft where I knew who was doing the maintenance.

I have flown type certificated aircraft where I didn't know the person doing the maintenance.

I have been around and flying airplanes since the 1970s, and one thing I discovered early on is that the quality and safety of the aircraft are entirely dependent on the skill and attention to detail of whoever is doing the maintenance. Like any other segment of humanity, homebuilders, A&Ps (and pilots) have the top, middle, and bottom of the gene pool. I've seen factory-built airplanes that are true works of art, and I've seen some screaming abortions that should have their Airworthiness Certificate permanently revoked.

Overall, I would say that I have seen more factory built aircraft that fall into the POS category than homebuilts. One example that comes to mind was a factory built, A&P maintained, flight school aircraft - during each pre-flight I tried to find something wrong (missing fastener, crack, worn/ damaged part, etc.) that I hadn't noticed before. It wasn't hard. Can't say that I really trusted that airplane, but it never let me down.

Oh, the "inspection and registration" process for a homebuilt is all about paperwork - not actual aircraft construction.
 
As an owner of 2 experimental aircraft, I guess the answer is yes, I would.

That said, I believe the 2 factors most relevant to the probability of safe operation of a homebuilt are aircraft time and pilot time in type. I say that as I have found that the first few hundred hours of a homebuilt may expose weaknesses in the build and/or pilot. Also in that time, a pilots experience in said type will be honed.
 
I've flown in a number of experimentals and never give it much thought. They've been inspected and deemed airworthy by the Feds, and flown for at least 40 hours to test everything. That's good enough for me.
 
LDJones said:
I've flown in a number of experimentals and never give it much thought. They've been inspected and deemed airworthy by the Feds, and flown for at least 40 hours to test everything. That's good enough for me.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind, the "inspection" by the feds is primarily a paperwork exercise and should not be confused for anything even remotely similar to a certification program.

It would be sort of like doing a pre-flight on a plane, rather than an annual.
 
I'm watching an RV-8 be built right now the guy wants me to go up with him and fly the hours off of it when it's ready.

I regard his RV-8 to be BETTER built than a certified aircraft.

Ken is a master craftsman and he cuts no corners.
 
txflyer said:
I'm watching an RV-8 be built right now the guy wants me to go up with him and fly the hours off of it when it's ready.

I regard his RV-8 to be BETTER built than a certified aircraft.

Ken is a master craftsman and he cuts no corners.
Click to expand...

Caution is advised - it's not legal to carry passengers during Phase I. You can fly the hours off for Phase I, but you (or he) have to do it solo. Keep in mind that Phase I hours are for flight testing - you are a test pilot exploring the flight envelope - if you're not up for that then don't do it.
 
I'd have to know who built it, and look it over pretty good, but I've done it before and no doubt will do it again.
 
airguy said:
Caution is advised - it's not legal to carry passengers during Phase I. You can fly the hours off for Phase I, but you (or he) have to do it solo. Keep in mind that Phase I hours are for flight testing - you are a test pilot exploring the flight envelope - if you're not up for that then don't do it.
Click to expand...


Thanks. I'll keep that in mind.

I doubt if Ken will want me to fly any phase I solo time.
 
Beware! This might be the most expensive plane ride you ever take!

I have a thousand hours in factory airplanes (spamcans and rag&tube) and have helped friends build several Vans RVs. I liked the RVs so much I had to sell my trusty old, economical to own and fly Cherokee 140 and go off the deep end and buy an RV for myself and I try to fly it at least every weekend and now have around 300 hours of RV time, including 4 Airventure trips and twice across the Rockies to Idaho and back to Texas. My wallet, credit cards and bank account have never been the same since. :redface:

Seriously though, it would depend a lot on the particular airplane. The Vans models are generally pretty safe aircraft, other experimentals may or may not be, and some of the very "hot" ones can be quite a handful of an airplane, and need a pilot with a lot of skill and experience in-type to be flown safe. I would get in and fly just about any Vans RV model, but even with the experience I have, I won't get in a Lancair. They frighten me. I won't get in a KR-2 either. One of those killed a good friend of mine. I won't ever get in a 325hp Glasair-III again... once was enough for me :yikes:.
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
Keep in mind, the "inspection" by the feds is primarily a paperwork exercise and should not be confused for anything even remotely similar to a certification program.

It would be sort of like doing a pre-flight on a plane, rather than an annual.
Click to expand...

I've had several close friends build RVs and Glasairs and the documentation they create of the build process is pretty extensive. Most inspectors are pretty savvy in knowing what to look for in particular makes/models and can tell in pretty short order if someone has done a credible job or not.

There aren't many scratch-built, own-design experiementals being built these days. The majority are kit-builts with well-known characteristics. A one-off scratch-built may give me pause, but most kits are pretty well known and the inspectors know what to look for.
 
airguy said:
Caution is advised - it's not legal to carry passengers during Phase I. You can fly the hours off for Phase I, but you (or he) have to do it solo. Keep in mind that Phase I hours are for flight testing - you are a test pilot exploring the flight envelope - if you're not up for that then don't do it.
Click to expand...

My FAA inspector said that I could back in 2011.

We have known for years that many EAB accidents happen during the first 65 hrs and a majority under 8 hrs. Mostly loss of power or loss of control.

That is all about to change with the FAA, NTSB and EAA working on a phase 1 TWO pilot program.
 
As some others have said, as long as I know the airplane is well maintained and I trust the pilot...no problem. I was a member of the local EAA chapter and have several friends with Experimentals. I have enjoyed flying with them. I especially enjoyed the Thorpe T18 and RV's that I've flown in. They are like little sports cars compared to my plane. I have yet to get a ride in a canard plane like a Cozy or LongEz but would love to see what they are like.
 
steingar said:
If its been signed off as airworthy I'll fly it if it's within my skill level. I worry more about flight characteristics than building errors. They're still a minority in the accident database, and I trust people working on their own pet project way more than some factory worker slogging through the day.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the question..:nono:
 
As with everything, the answer is "It depends".

I flew certificated planes for 19 years. In the first five years, I was a renter, and saw more horrible POS rental planes than you can shake a stick at. Strangely, none of them killed me, although more than one tried.

I've flown an experimental RV-8A for 15 months, and over 220 hours. I hired an RV expert to help me find it, because I knew the limits of my knowledge and the variability of build quality. He found me a true work of art, an aircraft built to a level of perfection that my beloved old Piper Pathfinder could not approach.

I've flown in only one experimental that scared me: A Swearingen SX-300. That was a combination of many things, not the least being the knowledge that not only was the plane an experimental aircraft, but that it was a highly modified race plane. Boy, it was fast, but it sure wasn't the kind of flying I would want to do every day, nor would I want to fly with that pilot again.

I urge you not to discard experimentals as a group. Thanks to the FAA, this class of aircraft is where ALL of the innovation now happens, from avionics to aerodynamics. If you want a truly modern AND AFFORDABLE aircraft, EAB is your only choice.
 
EX-AB or not is not part of the consideration set for me.

I will only fly with pilots I believe are competent.

I will only fly in airplanes that I believe are properly designed, assembled, and maintained. Doesn't matter to me if the manufacturer is Cessna or Larry.
 
Depends on the color... no way I'm getting in a red RV ;)
 
LDJones said:
I've had several close friends build RVs and Glasairs and the documentation they create of the build process is pretty extensive. Most inspectors are pretty savvy in knowing what to look for in particular makes/models and can tell in pretty short order if someone has done a credible job or not.

There aren't many scratch-built, own-design experiementals being built these days. The majority are kit-builts with well-known characteristics. A one-off scratch-built may give me pause, but most kits are pretty well known and the inspectors know what to look for.
Click to expand...

Understood, but I hear a number of people touting up the fact that the FAA inspector looked at it as a plus. The point is that they are NOT doing a thorough build/engineering review or the like. Let's take the engine - you could have some crazy variant in there like a 10:1 angle valve 360 and run it on 93 unleaded mixed with diesel (this won't work favorably, by the way), but they don't even start the engine.

Point is, the FAA look-see is probably the least impressive credential any E-AB plane has. I wish E-AB fans would stop touting it as significant.
 
It depends, follow your gut on it. I have flown in several homebuilts, I have declined several others, normally I let my inspection decide.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Understood, but I hear a number of people touting up the fact that the FAA inspector looked at it as a plus. The point is that they are NOT doing a thorough build/engineering review or the like. Let's take the engine - you could have some crazy variant in there like a 10:1 angle valve 360 and run it on 93 unleaded mixed with diesel (this won't work favorably, by the way), but they don't even start the engine.

Point is, the FAA look-see is probably the least impressive credential any E-AB plane has. I wish E-AB fans would stop touting it as significant.
Click to expand...

Yep.....
 
RV10flyer said:
My FAA inspector said that I could back in 2011.

We have known for years that many EAB accidents happen during the first 65 hrs and a majority under 8 hrs. Mostly loss of power or loss of control.

That is all about to change with the FAA, NTSB and EAA working on a phase 1 TWO pilot program.
Click to expand...

What the inspector SAID is irrelevant - what he WROTE in the oplims for the aircraft is what matters.

I wouldn't hold my breath on the two pilot program - that ones gonna be DOA.
 
airguy said:
Caution is advised - it's not legal to carry passengers during Phase I. You can fly the hours off for Phase I, but you (or he) have to do it solo. Keep in mind that Phase I hours are for flight testing - you are a test pilot exploring the flight envelope - if you're not up for that then don't do it.
Click to expand...

While generally true there are exceptions. Phase one can carry crew members "essential to the operation of the aircraft". EAA is trying to get those rules loostened up to include an experience pilot as another set of eyes and skill set for Phase 1. It is clear the majority of issues on a new build are seen in Phase 1.

Good answers from knowledgeable people. Can't add anything more that hasn't been said. :eek:
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Good answers from knowledgeable people. Can't add anything more that hasn't been said. :eek:
Click to expand...

Who are you and what have you done with Geico? :eek: ;) :D
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Understood, but I hear a number of people touting up the fact that the FAA inspector looked at it as a plus. The point is that they are NOT doing a thorough build/engineering review or the like. Let's take the engine - you could have some crazy variant in there like a 10:1 angle valve 360 and run it on 93 unleaded mixed with diesel (this won't work favorably, by the way), but they don't even start the engine.

Point is, the FAA look-see is probably the least impressive credential any E-AB plane has. I wish E-AB fans would stop touting it as significant.
Click to expand...

I agree.

It also depends on the inspector. There is a DAR in TX that has a rep for being extrodinarily thorough and detailed. The DAR that inspected my plane spent 5 mins, but he knows my build skill level. :rolleyes: :lol:

When I fly a new (or new to me) EAB I inspect very closely and hug the pattern. :lol:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top