I've had it with Type Certificated aircraft...

[Tom-D]

To be fair, the wings are removable... but it's not something you want to do (twice) every time you want to fly. If you own an RV-12, you'll want a hangar, or a tiedown spot and a really good cover for it.

That said... it will outperform an old 172 in nearly every respect. Shorter takeoff, better climb, faster cruise, slower stall, shorter landing, way lower fuel consumption, omnivorous (MOGAS, Swift, or AVGAS), new avionics, autopilot in most cases, the list goes on. It won't beat it for seats or useful load, naturally. And nice examples can be had down into the $50K-$60K range. There's one on Barnstormers right now listed for $59.9K.

Over the long term? It's a crapshoot whether that $20K airplane is going to cost $20K, or $40K, or a bunch more. I'd be willing to bet it's going to need some upgrades to fly in Class C or B airspace, and that's not going to be cheap. The prospective buyer can do the math regarding fuel cost over a few years, but it sure is nice flying wherever you please without thinking about how much the gas is costing you. If cheap flying is your only goal, an old Chief or Ercoupe is going to be tough to beat... but this exercise is like comparing apples and bowling balls already.

There is a lot of room for tweaking costs of building/restoring old aircraft.

Cessna didn't build 27,000 172s because of they were a bad design

 

[Grum.Man]

Nothing, if a '58 172 is something you'd like to fly. I've never met a 172 I liked much less would want to own. And I'll concur with the other comments, while $20k isn't outrageous for a 60+ year old plane with a motor that's 300 past TBO, it ain't exactly a bargain either.

Are't we forgetting the 20 for a re-built 0-300- that would still be 40 with new av-gear, and engine.
removal of old radios doesn't cost anything except time.
Val-Com 2000 =. valacionicsCom2000.php

Transponder = https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/garmin_gtx335promo.php

used engine = https://www.texasairsalvage.com/main_view.php?editid1=227970

it can be done.

Ah yes, take the running engine off and replace it with a prop strike engine with a runout propeller flange for the low low cost of $4,500.00.

 

[Tom-D]

Why? Lots of people buy used experimental and then still have an A&P do all the work just like a certified plane, but with cheaper parts and more options.

also, new parts are the came costs.
Paint is $65.00 for a pint, less harder and thiner. average cost a new paint job $15,000. new 0-360-? over $40,000.
anyone know the completed cost of a RV-6?

 

[Caramon13]

Why? Lots of people buy used experimental and then still have an A&P do all the work just like a certified plane, but with cheaper parts and more options.

I guess that is true, still I think most people who buy experimental's end up being the ones maintaining them, no? Isn't that part of the appeal? I know a lot of folks love getting their hands dirty on annuals or just upgrading the plane and having it signed off on, I am not that person heh.

 

[hindsight2020]

LSA is the way to go for now until the Fed comes out with something that parrots the Canadian “Owner Maintenance) category for vintage birds. This category permanently brands the aircraft as “Owner Maintenance” and it cannot be converted back to Certified.
IIRC, a US S-LSA converted to E-LSA can be converted back to S-LSA.

"Until"? This was proposed already in 2013, signed into law by potus 44, and the Fed killed it during a 2-year feet-dragging so-called implementation. You have a better chance of making bronze in female gymnastics during a Coronavirus-laden Olympics than ever seeing owner-maintenance (what the canadians call it as you point out, in the US it was to be called primary non-commercial) in the US. That ship was sunk.

BTW, our rapacious regulatory-captured govt meddled in the Canadian implementation too, by forbidding Canuck owner-maintenance airplanes from flying in the US NAS. Talk about a poison pill. Then apologists in the US turn around and use that resultant low take rate in Canada as supporting evidence for why primary non-commercial was somehow not gonna be a game changer in the US, never mentioning the context of what we did to the canadian equivalent category all the way from down here. Talk about the mother of all gaslighting. With friends like these..., is all I got to say.

The provision to do your own conditional on E-LSA without having to have gone through the 51% rule legal kabuki barrier to entry (a big one for us non-builders) does give me a chubster . Problem with LSA is the weight and speed. I'd want to cruise at 150knots true and have the ability to carry bags for 2. Basically RV-6 180hp or glasair/lancair equivalent. Only way you're gonna do that in an LSA is with a turbo. I know there was a rumor the LSA category was gonna get a big bump in weight in order to accomodate these limitations, but it sounds like that was vaporware. If they bump up the weight and speed just a little bit, I'm in man.

 

[Grum.Man]

I guess that is true, still I think most people who buy experimental's end up being the ones maintaining them, no? Isn't that part of the appeal? I know a lot of folks love getting their hands dirty on annuals or just upgrading the plane and having it signed off on, I am not that person heh.

Majority yes, but I know lots who don't with the exception of oil changes and routine maintenance. In fact a friends business pretty much specializes in RV maintenance, repair, and upgrades.

 

[hindsight2020]

I guess that is true, still I think most people who buy experimental's end up being the ones maintaining them, no? Isn't that part of the appeal? I know a lot of folks love getting their hands dirty on annuals or just upgrading the plane and having it signed off on, I am not that person heh.

I'm not a wrench head either, but there's more to it than being able to do the work. Documentation of parts and sourcing is a big one, especially the older you go on the certified side as the control group you're trying to escape from. The flexibility of parts and cost savings that comes with it is huge on the pocket book, to include the ability to pivot substitute parts in a way a fac built is an outright no go. Then there's the hangar door slidin' hangar fairy grinching that's no longer necessary, but I'm starting speaking the quiet parts out loud again, so I digress.

 

[Caramon13]

Problem with LSA is the weight and speed. I'd want to cruise at 150knots true and have the ability to carry bags for 2. Basically RV-6 180hp or glasair/lancair equivalent. Only way you're gonna do that in an LSA is with a turbo. I know there was a rumor the LSA category was gonna get a big bump in weight in order to accomodate these limitations, but it sounds like that was vaporware. If they bump up the weight and speed just a little bit, I'm in man.

That's another reason I don't look at experimentals or LSA. I don't want a 2 seater that I have to squeeze into. I want something roomier that can GO places OR just tool around locally, but a lightweight aircraft in FL with all the heat can beat you up. I learned in a 162 and that was heavier than some of these..

It seems you either get a tail-dragging two-seater crotch rocket like this, or you settle for something more traditional like this. The only other options appear to be niche-aircraft with weird names like "Jabiru" or you spend 75K or more for a Lancair. Or, you build it yourself. @FastEddieB has a cool looking aircraft, Sky Arrow with some crazy good visibility, just too light and a little too slow for me I guess. I'd want something that cruises at least 150-160 knots.

I'm not a wrench head either, but there's more to it than being able to do the work. Documentation of parts and sourcing is a big one, especially the older you go on the certified side as the control group you're trying to escape from. The flexibility of parts and cost savings that comes with it is huge on the pocket book, to include the ability to pivot substitute parts in a way a fac built is an outright no go. Then there's the hangar door slidin' hangar fairy grinching that's no longer necessary, but I'm starting speaking the quiet parts out loud again, so I digress.

Yes, no doubt on that point. I do think the flexibility you have for parts is fantastic on experimental's, if sourced properly and installed by an expert. Can save big time. Also the RV I previously mentioned costs a FRACTION of what a certificated aircraft would cost to maintain and fly.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

Are't we forgetting the 20 for a re-built 0-300- that would still be 40 with new av-gear, and engine.
removal of old radios doesn't cost anything except time.
Val-Com 2000 =. valacionicsCom2000.php

Transponder = https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/garmin_gtx335promo.php

used engine = https://www.texasairsalvage.com/main_view.php?editid1=227970

it can be done.

So you want to take the runout engine off and put on an engine that 2/3 of the way to being runout and had a prop strike. Yep it can be done. But just because it can be done doesn't mean it should.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

I'm not a grease monkey and I have zero mechanical aptitude (and no desire to learn tbh) so experimental's are right out.

Why so? Doing your own work on an experimental is a privilege that's available but its not a requirement. Its perfectly legal to have an A&P do all the work for you if you so choose. And if you do, that A&P will be able to do all the work including the annual (no IA required) and no requirement to use only certified parts. No AD's and no need for STC's if modifications are made.

 

[tsts4]

I do think the flexibility you have for parts is fantastic on experimental's, if sourced properly and installed by an expert. Can save big time.

Maybe. If you are using aircraft grade parts and have aircraft components, in my experience maintaining my RV-10 the cost is the same minus any certification paperwork costs which I don't require. You can save on the labor (but even then that can be a wash). Some parts can be cheaper, particularly airframe part, because E-AB tend to simpler in construction. The bottom line is the higher performance the E-AB aircraft the more likely the ownership costs will be on par with their standard certificated counterparts of similar performance and age.

Aviation is expensive and E-AB can lower costs but it's not a guaranteed slam dunk panacea for your checking account.

 

[DaleB]

There is a lot of room for tweaking costs of building/restoring old aircraft.

Cessna didn't build 27,000 172s because of they were a bad design

Never said it was a bad design. Never even hinted at it. If you HAVE TO HAVE four seats, even though two of them are of marginal use, then the 172 starts to make more sense.

also, new parts are the came costs.
Paint is $65.00 for a pint, less harder and thiner. average cost a new paint job $15,000. new 0-360-? over $40,000.
anyone know the completed cost of a RV-6?

Not to be argumentative, but some of that is more than a little bit off base. You can buy perfectly good single stage urethane paint for a fraction of that amount, and if you have an E/AB or E-LSA you can paint it (and disassemble, and reassemble, and weight it) yourself. Or have someone else do it. And you can, if you're an RV builder, buy a brand spanking new Lycoming YO-360-A1A for $28K. An injected YIO-360-M1B will cost you a couple AMUs more. If you're not a builder you'll pay more, but since you're buying non-certified... way less than $40K.

 

[Bell206]

No AD's...

FYI: ADs can apply to any aircraft to include E/ABs. It all depends on how the AD applicability statement is written.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Why? Lots of people buy used experimental and then still have an A&P do all the work just like a certified plane, but with cheaper parts and more options.

The biggest part of the maintenance budget is usually the man-hours. Major parts can cost a lot, but they aren't normally needed every year.

If GA heads more into E-AB territory, there will likely be lots of work for mechanics yet. Wrenching skills are fast disappearing. Kids learn how to fool with computers now, not minibikes and go-karts and jalopies. The average city dude can barely replace a light bulb. Opening and inspecting and replacing the points in a magneto will be way beyond him. Changing the oil and filter would be a day-long shop course.

 

[Caramon13]

Why so? Doing your own work on an experimental is a privilege that's available but its not a requirement. Its perfectly legal to have an A&P do all the work for you if you so choose. And if you do, that A&P will be able to do all the work including the annual (no IA required) and no requirement to use only certified parts. No AD's and no need for STC's if modifications are made.

Yeah, @Dana mentioned the same thing earlier. I was under the impression that experimental's were primarily maintained by owners for the exact reason you said, being part of the appeal. That's just not appealing to me and if that is part of the cost-savings then I'm not really saving any costs there having someone else do it. I guess I'm not a "custom" builder. Would I rather have a glass panel for thousands cheaper than a certificated aircraft, of course! ADS-B at a fraction of the cost? Sure! However, what I don't want is something so customized that I've backed myself into a corner of the market that only me and one other guy in the world is in.

Another thing about experimental aircraft is the IFR certification. I see a lot of them are VFR only, it's not a big deal to get it IFR certified, correct? Would you even WANT to go busting clouds in a E or S LSA experimental?

 

[Caramon13]

This was in the joke thread, but yes, this is sorta what I'm looking for:

From facebook:

Student pilot here, I am looking for what types of aircraft will best fit my mission.

at least 4 seats
1200lbs+ useful load
3 hrs of fuel with 1 hr reserve
fixed gear (tricycle config preferred)
fixed prop preferred

budged around 50k

Oh and cruises 150 knots +, low airframe time, low engine time. Yeah I know I'm unreasonable...

 

[tsts4]

Another thing about experimental aircraft is the IFR certification. I see a lot of them are VFR only, it's not a big deal to get it IFR certified, correct? Would you even WANT to go busting clouds in a E or S LSA experimental?

I believe that's because the ASTM for S-LSAs is currently written to prohibit IFR operations. However, my understanding is if you go E-SLA, once certified, you can do what you want because after certification you are no longer bound by the ATSM but rather FARs like 91.205. As far as IFR operations in an LSA, why not?

 

[Bell206]

LSA is the way to go for now until the Fed comes out with something that parrots the Canadian “Owner Maintenance) category

FWIW: any FAA owner maintained category won't save you any money except the costs of an A&P's time. These aircraft would still maintain their TC which requires following all the same rules your mechanic follows today except you as owner can now sign it off per Part 43.

 

[Dana]

I guess that is true, still I think most people who buy experimental's end up being the ones maintaining them, no? Isn't that part of the appeal? I know a lot of folks love getting their hands dirty on annuals or just upgrading the plane and having it signed off on, I am not that person heh.

Most, probably, but by no means all. I do all my own work, otherwise I couldn't afford to fly, but I bought my Hatz from a guy who took it to an A&P for everything.

I'm not into avionics, I have steam gauges and a basic com radio (which I bought used and installed myself), but there is a large selection of non-certified avionics available nowadays, not weird experimental custom stuff, just stuff that isn't certified... yet. All at a much lower cost than certified. A lot of the stuff is put out on the experimental market while waiting on the certification process to go through. Ditto for other things like engine accessories, etc.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

Yeah, @Dana mentioned the same thing earlier. I was under the impression that experimental's were primarily maintained by owners for the exact reason you said, being part of the appeal. That's just not appealing to me and if that is part of the cost-savings then I'm not really saving any costs there having someone else do it.

You would save over the cost of certified even if you pay someone else to do the work. No need to buy a $300 certified alternator when a $100 Mopar version from NAPA will do the same job. You don't have that option with a Cessna. Want to redo the interior and know someone who does great work on boat seats cheap? Use them. Also you only need an A&P to do the condition inspection. Want to pay a non-mechanic buddy to do your oil changes and what not for you? Go right ahead, perfectly legal.

Another thing about experimental aircraft is the IFR certification. I see a lot of them are VFR only, it's not a big deal to get it IFR certified, correct?

No bigger of a deal than it is converting a certified plane from VFR to IFR.

Would you even WANT to go busting clouds in a E or S LSA experimental?

Its done in experimental all the time. Its done in LSA exactly never because the regs do not allow it.

 

[YooperMooney]

Problem with LSA is the weight and speed. I'd want to cruise at 150knots true and have the ability to carry bags for 2. Basically RV-6 180hp or glasair/lancair equivalent. Only way you're gonna do that in an LSA is with a turbo. I know there was a rumor the LSA category was gonna get a big bump in weight in order to accomodate these limitations, but it sounds like that was vaporware. If they bump up the weight and speed just a little bit, I'm in man.

How does a max speed of 139 KTAS at 8500ft sound (160MPH)? The MTOW of 1320 is definitely a bummer...

For a while I was perplexed why someone would buy a “LSA” but now I see why. Great $100 hamburger modern flying machines. The E-LSA I just bought is just for puttsing around the local area. I’m going to fab up some skis for it too. It’s just pure fun. Not sure if I’m going to hang onto the Mooney after picking up the LSA.
Tecnam P2002 Sierra UL: 514 lbs
Dova Skylark UL: 667 lbs. There is one on TAP asking $39k 1000hrs SNEW

 

[Kenny Phillips]

You would save over the cost of certified even if you pay someone else to do the work. No need to buy a $300 certified alternator when a $100 Mopar version from NAPA will do the same job. You don't have that option with a Cessna. Want to redo the interior and know someone who does great work on boat seats cheap? Use them. Also you only need an A&P to do the condition inspection. Want to pay a non-mechanic buddy to do your oil changes and what not for you? Go right ahead, perfectly legal.



No bigger of a deal than it is converting a certified plane from VFR to IFR.

Its done in experimental all the time. Its done in LSA exactly never because the regs do not allow it.

LSA's are allowed to fly in IMC under IFR; it's the sport pilot who is restricted from doing so.

 

[Salty]

LSA's are allowed to fly in IMC under IFR; it's the sport pilot who is restricted from doing so.

I’m not sure any LSA has the required equipment to fly IFR. But I don’t disagree with your post. I fly an LSA at night all the time, but not exercising sport pilot privledges.

 

[Bell206]

I’m not sure any LSA has the required equipment to fly IFR.

Have seen several E-LSA IFR equipped and one S-LSA equipped. But none had operating limitations allowing IFR/IMC ops. I would imagine if the ops limits stated IFR/IMC a IFR rated PPL could fly them as such.

 

[DaleB]

I’m not sure any LSA has the required equipment to fly IFR.

http://www.flyrv12.com/slsa-ifr-operation-and-training/

The RV-12iST does, from the factory. IFR, but apparently IMC is prohibited by ATSM standard. I gather that restriction doesn't apply to ELSA... but I haven't dug into it, really, since it in no way affects me or my plane, and never will.

 

[RyanB]

if you're an RV builder, buy a brand spanking new Lycoming YO-360-A1A for $28K. An injected YIO-360-M1B will cost you a couple AMUs more. If you're not a builder you'll pay more, but since you're buying non-certified... way less than $40K.

Yeah and a Superior XP360 can be had for ~$25k.

I think it’s important to realize that many people don’t require a glass panel and 200kts+ cruise speed to be happy. Lots of people are thrilled just to get in the air, even if that means flying a 90kt airplane with old steam gauges.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

LSA's are allowed to fly in IMC under IFR; it's the sport pilot who is restricted from doing so.

The FARs say to qualify as LSA an aircraft must adhere to ATSM specs. ATSM specs say no IMC. Seems pretty cut and dry to me but I know there are those who dispute it. And I know a few manufacturers allow flight in IMC in their published ops limits. But those are rare.

 

[hindsight2020]

FWIW: any FAA owner maintained category won't save you any money except the costs of an A&P's time. These aircraft would still maintain their TC which requires following all the same rules your mechanic follows today except you as owner can now sign it off per Part 43.

We may be talking semantics, but fwiw, that was not the way primary non-commercial was pitched in the ARC 2013's proposal to Congress. Primary non-commercial specifically allowed the taking of a fac-built airplane OFF its TCDS and operated outside of it, to include such a manner that mimicked E-AB maintenance rules. The big one being, one no longer had to source parts from the FAA stamped gatekeeper dealer networks, I can just go to NAPA or roll my own. That's huge for these orphaned spam cans. One example would be re-skinning Bonanza ruddervators in aluminum or carbon-fiber, since you no longer need to eat the certification costs of of dive testing et al, and could procure the material on your own. Literally the difference between AOG and insurance totaling, or keep flying. Plenty other examples of modifications and parts sourcing that could be attained readily in at-risk fleets (210s, 182RGs, Comanches, et al) when done outside the scope of overbearing anachronistic rules meant for revenue operations and the hobby-quitting perennial two-circle fight over documentation who-gives-a-f*****-etry.

As to requiring the TCDS to be restored back to original before the airplane could be used for revenue or flight training again, who cares? Nobody was intending on operating for revenue down here, so the retrofit is a moot issue. Furthermore, the resale value fearmongering canard could never proven because the only example in existence is the canadian category, and that one got poison pilled by the US. Remove the restriction of canuck owner mx being forbidden to fly in the US NAS, and watch the thing take off like a Saturn V rocket.

Then of course is the one you already highlighted, being the owner could do all the mx work and modifications himself if he chose to, merely requiring a conditional inspection signature from an AP (if not the builder) once a year.

So I think the savings could be of consequence if I were allowed to treat my Arrow like it was an RV-6. But I'm not gonna re-litigate history; this is water under the bridge because the FAA will never let it happen for reasons they'll never be upfront about. I'm certainly over that FAA obfuscation. Thence the current discussion in thread about moving forward in EAB or E-LSA. Just wanted to clarify what primary non-commercial, the American proposal, was and how it differed from the canadian owner-mx as it exists.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

http://www.flyrv12.com/slsa-ifr-operation-and-training/

The RV-12iST does, from the factory. IFR, but apparently IMC is prohibited by ATSM standard. I gather that restriction doesn't apply to ELSA... but I haven't dug into it, really, since it in no way affects me or my plane, and never will.

I believe it does (or at least can) apply to ELSA as well. But if you certify it E-AB you're no longer bound by any LSA limitations.

 

[Tom-D]

I believe it does (or at least can) apply to ELSA as well. But if you certify it E-AB you're no longer bound by any LSA limitations.

best read about type certificates. If it was certificated, it still is.

 

[Tantalum]

what is wrong with a flying a good old 172 as a fun flyer

Nothing at all. But it's got a very limited mission. That might be fine for some, but others no. And if that engine has issues it's still going cost potentially as much as what you paid for the plane. But maybe that's just part of life with GA

Even though I personally find them "small" I do believe Mooney, up through the Mooney J, is by far the best value for dollar. You get a rock solid frame, good construction, fast speeds, good fuel burn. The only down sides are limited UL and what many find to be a "small" cockpit.. but for $100K, hell, half that, you can get a serious plane

Cessna didn't build 27,000 172s because of they were a bad design

Doesn't really make it a good design either.. Toyota builds that many Camry in a month.. doesn't make it a good car. It's just a very good, but very basic design. I liken the 172 thing very similarly to the Camry thing. For many pilots it's the only plane they'll ever know, which is sad, because it's like only ever having driven a Camry, and just about every car is a little "funner" to drive than a Camry. No hate to Toyota, I've always loved them, and currently own one. But most of their lineup doesn't really turn most people on. Aviation is a passionate hobby, so I understand why someone might want something else than your PA28 / C172 options

It seems you either get a tail-dragging two-seater crotch rocket like this, or you settle for something more traditional like this. The only other options appear to be niche-aircraft with weird names like "Jabiru" or you spend 75K or more for a Lancair. Or, you build it yourself. @FastEddieB has a cool looking aircraft, Sky Arrow with some crazy good visibility, just too light and a little too slow for me I guess. I'd want something that cruises at least 150-160 knots.

The Lancair Mako is basically an SR22 but half the price, or less. It's *expensive*, but goes to show how much cheaper EA can be. Maybe in 10-15 years there will be Mako's for sale out there in the sub $100K range

 

[DaleB]

best read about type certificates. If it was certificated, it still is.

You can build an RV-12 as E-LSA or E-AB. You can buy an S-LSA RV-12, and convert it to E-LSA. You can't convert either to E-AB after they are issued an airworthiness certificate.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I believe it does (or at least can) apply to ELSA as well. But if you certify it E-AB you're no longer bound by any LSA limitations.

Yes. But you do need to meet the so called 51% rule to fit under the E-AB category.

And, to be PICed by a light and sporty pilot, you still need to meet the FAR 1.1 requirements in the definition of "LSA" (speed, weight, etc.) but not the ASTM spec.

 

[hindsight2020]

How does one go about converting an S-LSA into E-LSA? I ask from the perspective of gaining conditional inspection authority as a non-builder.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

best read about type certificates. If it was certificated, it still is.

Huh??? When you build a RV12, you get to choose whether its going to be a ELSA or E-AB. I'm not sure what you think it was that I was saying, but I'm pretty sure I didn't say it.

 

[Bell206]

specifically allowed the taking of a fac-built airplane OFF its TCDS

Don't know what ARC or work group reports you read, but that's not correct. So without getting into your normal diatribe on TC vs non-TC aircraft here are a few points. The PNC category was 1st discussed during the Part 23 rewrite. It was this origination that caused it's downfall as it was outside the realm of Part 23. The PNC category actually was designed to be a new category under Part 21, i.e., airworthiness certification, and had zero to do with airworthiness standards, i.e., Part 23. Period. While you're correct it allowed certain E/AB exemptions when it came to mx like use of non-PMA/TSO parts, it did follow some of the LSA mx route with repairman certificate requirements for owners along with a yearly A&P conditional check. It also required documenting all mx, non-approved modifications, and non-approved part use in order to maintain a path back to a Standard Airworthiness Certificate if the owner so chose. It was this path back to the Standard category AWC that was supposed to provide incentive for owner to maintain their PNC aircraft to TC levels. This American version of the owner-maintained aircraft was distinctly different than the program north of the border. So for clarity, once Part 21 begins its official rewrite process don't be surprised if a PNC category gets resurrected again provided manned GA aircraft are still a viable entity.

 

[YooperMooney]

How does one go about converting an S-LSA into E-LSA? I ask from the perspective of gaining conditional inspection authority as a non-builder.

You need to seek a specialist that handles these matters. Google it and you’ll find A&P/IA’s that specialize in these conversions.

Also, my 2007 vintage E-LSA is able to do night IFR if so equipped per the Operating Limitations for this specific aircraft:

 

[hindsight2020]

Don't know what ARC or work group reports you read, but that's not correct. So without getting into your normal diatribe on TC vs non-TC aircraft here are a few points. The PNC category was 1st discussed during the Part 23 rewrite. It was this origination that caused it's downfall as it was outside the realm of Part 23. The PNC category actually was designed to be a new category under Part 21, i.e., airworthiness certification, and had zero to do with airworthiness standards, i.e., Part 23. Period. While you're correct it allowed certain E/AB exemptions when it came to mx like use of non-PMA/TSO parts, it did follow some of the LSA mx route with repairman certificate requirements for owners along with a yearly A&P conditional check. It also required documenting all mx, non-approved modifications, and non-approved part use in order to maintain a path back to a Standard Airworthiness Certificate if the owner so chose. It was this path back to the Standard category AWC that was supposed to provide incentive for owner to maintain their PNC aircraft to TC levels. This American version of the owner-maintained aircraft was distinctly different than the program north of the border. So for clarity, once Part 21 begins its official rewrite process don't be surprised if a PNC category gets resurrected again provided manned GA aircraft are still a viable entity.

On the bolded (my emphasis): we're saying the same thing. We're 100% in agreement. And yes, we're quoting the same part 23 re-write report to the Aviation Rulemaking comittee. Your clarification between part 21 and part 23 is noted and appreciated. Let's hope indeed a part 21 re-write yields a PNC. I'm not holding my breath on it, but let's hope your prediction rings true. Cheers!

 

[TCABM]

... perennial two-circle fight over documentation who-gives-a-f*****-ery...

My new quote of the day, although there’s a small group that understands, it’s perfectly apt.

 

[Bell206]

We're 100% in agreement.

Ha. If agreeing on 1 item out of 10 equals 100% in your mind then so be it. But as you continue to expound your personal theories on "FAA stamped gatekeeper dealer networks" or those "overbearing anachronistic rules meant for revenue operations," perhaps you should expand your personal horizons a bit. There already exists a regulatory path around those nasty stamped-part-gatekeepers where you "can just go to NAPA or roll my own" on your current TC aircraft. As to those "overbearing anachronistic rules" you might want to read up on the Chicago Convention, ICAO, and the various aviation bilateral agreements the US is signatory to. It's these agreements ("poison pills" ?) that are the reason a TCCA Owner Maintained aircraft can't operate or be exported to the US, not what the FAA thinks should be. Regardless, in my experience, there's two ways to maintain an aircraft: be proactive and use existing rules and methods to your advantage which can dramatically reduce your costs, or be reactive and simply whine how the big bad guberment prevents you from saving a nickel on your airplane. It's solely your choice as owner. Skoal!