Is experimental the future?

[jesse]

I've had a mixed bag. My next door neighbor would come running with his car seat in tow if he saw me come out the back door with my flight bag. 2 of the 3 loved it. The 3rd just wanted to tag along so he could play with my iPhone.

The last 2 kids I took up were brats. The most shocking thing about it was that the parents seemed oblivous to just how awful their kids were. If my kids acted like that, I certianly wouldn't allow them to be around other people to witness their nonsense. For instance, their grandfather told them to thank me for taking them to which one replied "no, I hated it". My grandfather, mother, father, uncle, 3rd cousin twice removed all would have knocked me back into last week if I said something like that.

I've seen a mother perfectly OK with the fact that her five year old stood on his chair at the restaurant and informed the waiter that it's the stupidest restaurant he's ever been to and the food is gross.

 

[Art VanDelay]

Is there a saying that could be explained as 'those who find faults with other people tend to be blind to their own faults?' As with people who are picky; their criticism of others often applies to themselves.

No, we just think your observation that experimentals are killing GA is WRONG.

 

[Art VanDelay]

What a load of romantic BS! A very large percentage of these "hard core aviators" don't even fly, don't buy gas and so don't contribute to the upkeep of airport as much as us lazy people do. What about those grass strips? Why doesn't the EAA go on a grass strip building spree across the nation? I'm sure it would be easy to raise the funds and get the work done with so many hard working, hard core aviators on hand! Think of it! You could do zoom climbs, snap rolls 100' off the deck, overhead breaks, you name it! And no annoying, lazy, spam can driving boobs in the way, or to complain. Paradise I tell you!

So you think EAA members are lazy ? Do I have that right ?

 

[brien23]

No, we just think your observation that experimentals are killing GA is WRONG.

No, I just do not think that the future of GA is going to be experimental aircraft. I had a Breezy experimental in Ca. only sold it because I moved north, that was a fun plane wish I had it back now that I am in Las vegas.

 

[rbridges]

What a load of romantic BS! A very large percentage of these "hard core aviators" don't even fly, don't buy gas and so don't contribute to the upkeep of airport as much as us lazy people do. What about those grass strips? Why doesn't the EAA go on a grass strip building spree across the nation? I'm sure it would be easy to raise the funds and get the work done with so many hard working, hard core aviators on hand! Think of it! You could do zoom climbs, snap rolls 100' off the deck, overhead breaks, you name it! And no annoying, lazy, spam can driving boobs in the way, or to complain. Paradise I tell you!

a little sarcasm, dave?

 

[Cruiser]

So we have the free market to thank for the vastly increased safety of new automobiles, all of which were forced onto a kicking and screaming auto industry?

"The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute studied the issue back in 1990, taking into account the fact that flying safety goes down with every stopover. They concluded, “Our calculations indicate that for average or high-risk drivers, it is always safer to fly than to drive. Furthermore, even for a low-risk driver, nonstop flying is safer than driving on rural interstates for a trip distance of more than 310 miles.” The relative risk? Driving the same route as your flight was seen as 65 times riskier."

So there you have it, even with the government forcing all those kicking and screaming auto mfg. to improve safety, the airplane is still better transportation.

 

[N801BH]

With costs continuing to rise in aviation, is experimental the future for GA?

YUP........

 

[Jimmy cooper]

A beech bonanza cost around 7500.00 when they first came out. A taylorcraft cost around 800 to 1500.00 . What does a bonanza cost today. What does say a rans courier cost today if the factory builds it? Many many small airports sold either piper or Cessna. They made a decent buck. That's over with. Jobs were plentiful and lots of people flew compared to today. The G.I. Bill was very important to G.A. Many many small airports depended on this government income to survive. In fact the airlines began with govt. Mail contracts. The government has been instrumental in the progress of aviation since it began, including govt. Specs. Which produced the giant leap forward in fuel, aircraft design , hydraulic landing gear, on and on, during WW 2. The good paying jobs, middle class, the jobs that bought airplanes, are gone!

 

[RV10flyer]

There is an RV-10 at my airport. The guy built it himself. I think it's a nice plane, but it still had that "home built" look to the doors and some interior panels. I'm sure they can be done nicer, but it didn't sit well with me. Probably more my ignorance than anything else.

Mine has a gray painted interior, cloth seats and no plastic trim or carpet. I built it to save weight so we could haul the family under GW. We don't live in it or show it at air shows. Many feel the need to make them look like luxury cars or a Cirrus. Van's recommended GW is 2700 lbs, which puts my full flap stall speed at 54 kias and a 100F Oshkosh climb rate at 1200 fpm. Just because you see a simple interior does not mean the guy ran out of money, it may be just what he wanted.

 

[Geico266]

You know, the cost savings benefits of experimentals is a little over hyped. I have often thought about going to experimental to save on flying expenses, but when I do the math, it's really not that huge of a savings.

• The storage costs the same.
• The fuel costs the same.
• The insurance is the same, or even higher depending.
• If you didn't build it yourself, the annual costs the same.
• The airplanes themselves on the used market costs the same.

It's the repairs and upgrades that are cheaper. You can do the work yourself and save money on the labor. Otherwise paying for a repair, will cost the same in labor. The parts enjoy anywhere from a 10-40% discount over certified, depending on what it is. So, there are savings to be had.

But... how often do you actually have to do a repair, or plan upgrades?

Certified plane owners can find an IA to sign off on their own work. so if you really want to save on labor costs, this is an option. It still costs more than the experimental because you still have to hire an IA to sign off, but it probably does result in a 70-80% reduction in labor costs.

In the big scheme of aircraft ownership, going experimental is only going to save you maybe 10-15% over the life of ownership, if even that. No, the big allure to experimental is the shedding of much of the government oversight and red tape. In addition, E/AB brings many more choices of aircraft to the market. Not so much just to save money.

Oh and if you absolutely must have a brand new airplane, custom tailored to your specs, then there are huge savings to had in experimentals.

Many assumptions there that are not true. Fuel being the most obvious. Experimentals seem to burn less fuel, and I run car gas exclusively. Saving $ 25 - 40 per hour.

 

[Goofy]

Many assumptions there that are not true. Fuel being the most obvious. Experimentals seem to burn less fuel, and I run car gas exclusively. Saving $ 25 - 40 per hour.

You were kind....!

I've never spent more than $350 on an annual Condition Inspection, several were $150. I know several 150, 172 owners that have spent thousands at each. I went through my engine at 500 hours and replaced all the hoses, rubber, plugs, had the mag done etc. etc. Cost me maybe $1000 after 6 years of use.

A friend is rebuilding a 150 and tried to find a part for the defroster ducting - cost a couple hundred dollars. Made one for 50 cents. Another 152 owner on this forum that I met up with for lunch recently told me his story of a part he had to buy at Annual that was several hundred dollars - was a fabrication worth about $20 if that.

I'm flying at 200 mph on 8 gph and spend less yearly than the three 150/152 owners I know. So that post that the cost difference is overrated is just plain wrong.

I think it's instructive that most the digs at us are form those who have never walked in our shoes....maybe that green thing ....

PS: just installed a really sweet (used) roll control and GPS track/intercept autopilot for....$800..

 

[DaleB]

For me, experimentals have some characteristics that make them very attractive. Speed, fuel burn, ability to fly something newer than the 1970s with modern avionics - including GPS, autopilot, etc. Yes, you can do all that with a factory produced airplane, just not for anywhere near what I want to spend. What is a lot more difficult to do with a factory produced airplane, is to build and fly something tailored to your needs and preferences. When you're working within a budget like mine, if you're buying a Piper/Cessna/Beech/Mooney/whatever, you're pretty much stuck with what you buy. No AP? 40 year old radios? Tough. Can't afford the retrofit. When you build, you can afford to include the things that are important to you. If you buy one already built, you probably still can. Go ahead -- see if you can add a GPS-coupled AP to a 70s vintage Piper for, say, $3K or less. Or switch your carbed '68 Cherokee to fuel injection and electronic ignition.

The experimental I've been building (until an unfortunate, forced change in direction) would, when complete, cruise somewhere in the neighborhood of 160-170 kt while burning less fuel than my club's pokey 172. The one I'm working on buying now? Only 120kt, but still burning only 5-6 GPH, and that's pump mogas. Yeah, it'll cost me more than a '78 Cessna. I'll feel a lot better about flying it, too. Would you rather own and drive a '78 Buick, or a new Focus?

Trade-offs? Sure. Usually in the form of seats. I'll give up a couple of seats for all the rest.

 

[Tom-D]

Trade-offs? Sure. Usually in the form of seats. I'll give up a couple of seats for all the rest.

And for those of us that will not, we restore.

 

[RotorAndWing]

You were kind....!

I've never spent more than $350 on an annual Condition Inspection, several were $150. I know several 150, 172 owners that have spent thousands at each. I went through my engine at 500 hours and replaced all the hoses, rubber, plugs, had the mag done etc. etc. Cost me maybe $1000 after 6 years of use.

A friend is rebuilding a 150 and tried to find a part for the defroster ducting - cost a couple hundred dollars. Made one for 50 cents. Another 152 owner on this forum that I met up with for lunch recently told me his story of a part he had to buy at Annual that was several hundred dollars - was a fabrication worth about $20 if that.

I'm flying at 200 mph on 8 gph and spend less yearly than the three 150/152 owners I know. So that post that the cost difference is overrated is just plain wrong.

I think it's instructive that most the digs at us are form those who have never walked in our shoes....maybe that green thing ....

PS: just installed a really sweet (used) roll control and GPS track/intercept autopilot for....$800..

All of my annual inspections as well as routine repairs and preventative maintenance only cost me the price of parts (wholesale).

 

[Dav8or]

You were kind....!

I've never spent more than $350 on an annual Condition Inspection, several were $150.

Oh, we have guys like that in the certified world too. Pay the guy a couple hundred bucks, he kicks the tires, looks the other way and signs the book. If you mean an owner assisted annual, then we have that too. You do all the work, but the IA signs off and just charges his time to inspect everything you did. I really don't know what kind of annual $150 buys you, but I'm guessing it involves a certain percentage of a wink and a handshake.

A friend is rebuilding a 150 and tried to find a part for the defroster ducting - cost a couple hundred dollars. Made one for 50 cents. Another 152 owner on this forum that I met up with for lunch recently told me his story of a part he had to buy at Annual that was several hundred dollars - was a fabrication worth about $20 if that.

Read my post again. I did point out that there were saving to be found in repairs and that most of the savings were from the cost of parts and potentially labor. How many repairs do you do on your plane in a year? Me, not all that many, so the savings when balanced against the big picture, small percentage.

I'm flying at 200 mph on 8 gph and spend less yearly than the three 150/152 owners I know. So that post that the cost difference is overrated is just plain wrong.

How many people did you have in the back seat? Ooooo... big aviation break through! Lop two seats off a four seater, shorten the wings and increase the wing loading and she goes faster!! Engineering trade offs. How fast and how many gallons per hour do experimental four seaters go? It's all engineering trade offs. No magic. Apples to apples please.

Read my post again. I did point out the experimental category does bring different types of aircraft to market.

I think it's instructive that most the digs at us are form those who have never walked in our shoes....maybe that green thing ....

No digs. Just a little perspective. If I bought an RV-X I wouldn't really save all that much money. I already do owner repairs with an IA sign off. I do owner assist annuals too. I don't have all that many problems with my plane. Do you?

When I do though, I wish I had the freedoms that experimental folks do. Getting rid of government oversight and red tape that is pretty cool.

Read my post again.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Oh, we have guys like that in the certified world too. Pay the guy a couple hundred bucks, he kicks the tires, looks the other way and signs the book. .

We have one of those on here as well.......

 

[lionclaw]

Is it the future? That's hard to say. We may not even be able to imagine the future. If one were to have asked Roman soldiers what the future of warfare would look like, it is unlikely they would have mentioned guided missiles and space-based ISR capabilities.

I would love to live in a future where advanced aircraft (or space ships!) are created by massive 3d printers or Star Trek style replicators for cheap or free. For now, airplanes are expensive. Most of us cannot afford the up-front cost or the maintenance on the latest and greatest certified aircraft. Experimentals offer the ability to get the most modern tech in an aircraft that's within reach financially, so long as we're willing and able to put in the time and effort required to learn and employ the skills required to build and maintain the aircraft. Those who desire a newer aircraft, but are unwilling or unable to go the experimental route, and do not have the resources to buy a new aircraft, must settle for an older certified aircraft.

That said, I am frustrated by the idea that there is some sort of competition between certified and experimental aircraft. Both excellent and crummy designs come in certified and experimental flavors. There are some lovely certified designs in price ranges that are reasonably achievable for most of us.

 

[Goofy]

I really don't know what kind of annual $150 buys you, but I'm guessing it involves a certain percentage of a wink and a handshake.

Wrong again, but if it helps you make your argument.....

 

[poadeleted21]

Many assumptions there that are not true. Fuel being the most obvious. Experimentals seem to burn less fuel, and I run car gas exclusively. Saving $ 25 - 40 per hour.

Plenty of Certifieds run it too, legally.

 

[MickYoumans]

As I stated in an earlier post, I really like experimentals but most are not big enough for my needs. The biggest gripe for me and my 'certified' aircraft is the FAA/Govt red tape that prevents me from installing more modern parts, avionics and instrumentation in my plane for the sake of a pedigree paper. I look at systems like the Garmin G3X and would love to install a dual screen setup with autopilot in my plane but I'm not legally allowed to do so. So what's the big difference that it is okay in an RV but not a Piper? If it is not 'safe' in a Piper, looks like it would also be unsafe in an RV and vice versa. If I looked at a TSO'ed equal of the G3X system, it would cost and be worth way more than the value of my airplane and totally unjustifyable. It would seem to me that i would actually have a safer more modern cockpit to update it with a G3X system than having to live with my old steam guages.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Currently we operate with aircraft like Cuba operates with cars. Old old models rehashed. Nothing new. Experimentals, some of them are excellent designs and have really helped aviations progress. I'm all for them.

 

[N801BH]

As I stated in an earlier post, I really like experimentals but most are not big enough for my needs. The biggest gripe for me and my 'certified' aircraft is the FAA/Govt red tape that prevents me from installing more modern parts, avionics and instrumentation in my plane for the sake of a pedigree paper. I look at systems like the Garmin G3X and would love to install a dual screen setup with autopilot in my plane but I'm not legally allowed to do so. So what's the big difference that it is okay in an RV but not a Piper? If it is not 'safe' in a Piper, looks like it would also be unsafe in an RV and vice versa. If I looked at a TSO'ed equal of the G3X system, it would cost and be worth way more than the value of my airplane and totally unjustifyable. It would seem to me that i would actually have a safer more modern cockpit to update it with a G3X system than having to live with my old steam guages.

Yup.. That is one of many reasons I switched from certified planes to experimentals

 

[hindsight2020]

As I stated in an earlier post, I really like experimentals but most are not big enough for my needs. The biggest gripe for me and my 'certified' aircraft is the FAA/Govt red tape that prevents me from installing more modern parts, avionics and instrumentation in my plane for the sake of a pedigree paper. I look at systems like the Garmin G3X and would love to install a dual screen setup with autopilot in my plane but I'm not legally allowed to do so. So what's the big difference that it is okay in an RV but not a Piper. If it is not 'safe' in a Piper, looks like it would also be unsafe in an RV and vice versa. If I looked at a TSO'ed equal of the G3X system, it would cost worth way more than the value of my airplane and totally unjustifyable. It would seem to me that i would actually have a safer more modern cockpit to update it with a G3X system than having to live with my old steam guages.

We've been through this argument before in the board. The reason is that they're holding your certified spam can to a certification standard that would appease the litigation risk when applied to a for-hire/commercial/instructing operation. The problem is that when the operation of your personal airplane is placed on the backdrop of the private leisure use you actually utilize it for, then such burden of certification and maintenance formality becomes cumbersome and a disincentive to entertain its ownership. Which is the issue you raise correctly. Some old men embrace such disconnect because it keeps things expensive and thus keeps younger players out of their crotchety niche hangar-hobby. Most people though would share your frustration.

The Part 23 re-write, specifically the "primary non-commercial" category, is intended to finally address that disconnect and allow you to operate/maintain your factory-built spam can in the same manner or behavior as you are legally allowed to do with an RV-x.

Will it happen? I hope so. As the owner of a pa-28R, I would benefit from what you're highlighting as well. For me, it would be more about being allowed to exercise further discretion in what ADs I consider reasonable and which are founded in BS logic that I could economically side step (example, prop hub AD) without being labeled a scofflaw.

 

[RV10flyer]

That said, I am frustrated by the idea that there is some sort of competition between certified and experimental aircraft. Both excellent and crummy designs come in certified and experimental flavors. There are some lovely certified designs in price ranges that are reasonably achievable for most of us.

Yes, I don't understand that either. We are a very small group of people with special skills and one would think we would play nice together, not beat each other up over zoom climbs or accidentally getting into some ice. I like anything that flies and wish I could have one of everything. I wish we could all share flights, but seems like most enjoy going solo. I am the only EAB at my airport and one of four guys that fly regularly.

 

[poadeleted21]

As I stated in an earlier post, I really like experimentals but most are not big enough for my needs. The biggest gripe for me and my 'certified' aircraft is the FAA/Govt red tape that prevents me from installing more modern parts, avionics and instrumentation in my plane for the sake of a pedigree paper. I look at systems like the Garmin G3X and would love to install a dual screen setup with autopilot in my plane but I'm not legally allowed to do so. So what's the big difference that it is okay in an RV but not a Piper? If it is not 'safe' in a Piper, looks like it would also be unsafe in an RV and vice versa. If I looked at a TSO'ed equal of the G3X system, it would cost and be worth way more than the value of my airplane and totally unjustifyable. It would seem to me that i would actually have a safer more modern cockpit to update it with a G3X system than having to live with my old steam guages.

You can hold out to the public with a certified machine and with that comes the certified stuff. Because you and I think that a G3X makes the plane safer, doesn't mean the government necessarily agrees, not enough to allow you to use the machine to haul people or stuff around. You can get one in via field approval if you can convince them you're right.

 

[N801BH]

..... I am the only EAB at my airport and one of four guys that fly regularly.

I know the feeling.... Jackson Hole has alot of based planes and only two experimentals......

 

[Dav8or]

I know the feeling.... Jackson Hole has alot of based planes and only two experimentals......

Oh jeez... they are mean. They shoved you guys off in some hangar together. Some kind of apartheid airport I guess.

 

[poadeleted21]

Oh jeez... they are mean. They shoved you guys off in some hangar together. Some kind of apartheid airport I guess.

Apartheid would be a step towards equality in Jackson Hole. Mere mortals fly into Driggs.

 

[zaitcev]

I would not claim that Aspen is any better than G3X, but it works, it's affordable, and you can install it in just about any common certified spam can.

 

[MickYoumans]

I would not claim that Aspen is any better than G3X, but it works, it's affordable, and you can install it in just about any common certified spam can.

The TSO'ed Aspen system looks almost identical to the Non-TSO'ed Garmin G3X, but the problem is that the Aspen cost more than double the G3X so I don't think it is affordable comparatively speaking. It is painfully expensive having to pay for that pedigree paper when there is no real justification for having to do so for a privately owned plane.

 

[Goofy]

I know the feeling.... Jackson Hole has alot of based planes and only two experimentals......

GREAT looking planes. Good combination too.
Would really like to have that red beast on floats to go with my cruiser.....

 

[zaitcev]

The TSO'ed Aspen system looks almost identical to the Non-TSO'ed Garmin G3X, but the problem is that the Aspen cost more than double the G3X so I don't think it is affordable comparatively speaking.

You're right, I take it back. I just didn't realize how cheap G3X was. I flew Cherokees with dual Aspen, which was between $5k and $8k + installation. After reading your post I checked prices for G3X and Spruce has them for $3k.

 

[RV10flyer]

Maybe prices are down because so many experimentals are being garminized. I purposely used as little as I could, as I had heard of Garmin's high minimum repair charges.

 

[tecprotb]

I like flying anything with wings certified or experimental. I didn't build I am on my second purchased experimental. I have not found a negative side to owning a experimental.
I do know I enjoy flying my 10 and I know for a fact I couldn't afford the advanced level of avionics I have in my 10, in a certified aircraft.

 

[MickYoumans]

That is a really nice, clean looking panel. I like it.

 

[Art VanDelay]

You're right, I take it back. I just didn't realize how cheap G3X was. I flew Cherokees with dual Aspen, which was between $5k and $8k + installation. After reading your post I checked prices for G3X and Spruce has them for $3k.

If you want to further your education go check out all the capability of the Dynon products.

 

[zaitcev]

If you want to further your education go check out all the capability of the Dynon products.

Oh I love them (although I only flew with D180 and not Skyview), but I thought he meant something that can be installed into legacy light airplanes today. That's why I brought up Aspen.

 

[yakdriver]

And for the guys like Dave who just don't like experimentals. There the hell do you think the Cirrus and Columbia came from? Two of the cutting edge certified airplanes started life as kitplanes. Don

 

[Goofy]

And for the guys like Dave who just don't like experimentals. Where the hell do you think the Cirrus and Columbia came from? Two of the cutting edge certified airplanes started life as kitplanes. Don

 

[AcroGimp]

To the OP, Experimentals have been the future, and the present, since about 1980. Van's has had more completions (not outright kit sales, but completions) over the last 10 years than basically all piston GA manufacturers in the Western world, combined.

Add in Glasair, Kitfox, Sonex, Lancair, RANS, etc., and it is no contest.

In terms of technology you get way more per dollar on the EXP side than certified, although that imbalance has probably peaked and will slowly move towards more equal footing if the Part 23 changes take effect.

Performance per dollar or gph or lb MTOW, or frankly any measure you choose is simply no contest. I flew an Epic LT from WY to OR a few years ago consulting for a client, we had 5 adults, bags, full fuel, broke ground in a little over 1000 feet, and climbed straight to FL230 then hauled ass at almost 350 KTS. No comparison.

Safety continues to improve, there are literally only a handful of EXP designs I wouldn't touch. Experimentals today are not your grandaddy's Stits Playboys.

'Gimp