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

[Daleandee]

I don't walk around dodging falling Cessnas either. Kinda a low bar, dontcha think? E/AB safety record was so bad for awhile that the FAA started making noises.

True!

I live in the experimental aircraft world. I've seen some really scary stuff. The accident reports seem to indicate that the problem isn't so much about structural failures but rather LOC and, in many cases, that happens shortly after the engine quits. We reiterate pilot training for what to do when the engine quits and that is very necessary but there should be more focus on making sure the prop keeps turning.

One of the scariest engine rebuilds I've ever seen was by a guy that bought his own jugs and replaced all four of them on his Cessna 150 under a shade hangar with a dirt floor. I know that's an exception to the rule but my point is that just because it's certified don't mean it's safe.

 

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

Certified GA piston aircraft are not worth it. Find a well built experimental that meets your needs. I wanted 4 seats so choices limited. I put my C172 in EXP with a V8 engine.... my cost went from $64/hr to $20 to fly, had way better performance and could use non-cert/EXP stuff like avionics (got a real cool IPAD EFIS with WX, traffic, moving maps, ect). Last year had a leaking brake caliber and new one was over $300 for a cheap aluminum casted part that would have been $30 if it were for a motorcycle..... had a CNC shop knock it off for $50! Yea, it's legal, its EXP!

Also consider finding an old 4 seat certified plane and find a way to put it into EXP. My buddy just did his commercial pilot training and check ride in my EXP C172....the 20 hours of flight time cost less than the FAA Examiner fee. I may buy a near by Bonanza with bad engine and put the V8 on it, it would make a great plane. EXP is not for everybody, so do some research before buying anything. We put some info about this on our website, and EAA has some info somewhere as well.
www.corsairpower.com

 

[Pugs]

I don't walk around dodging falling Cessnas either. Kinda a low bar, dontcha think? E/AB safety record was so bad for awhile that the FAA started making noises.

I really have no idea. I belong to the EAA and I enjoy the magazine and process but doubt I would ever take on building a plane. Just too many other things I'd rather do. But, there must be some process in place that keeps them reasonably safe for all these "trash" mods you see.

 

[donjohnston]

I put my C172 in EXP with a V8 engine.... my cost went from $64/hr to $20 to fly, had way better performance and could use non-cert/EXP stuff like avionics (got a real cool IPAD EFIS with WX, traffic, moving maps, ect).

I've never done this so all I know is what I've read and heard. But I thought the ONLY way to move a certificated aircraft into the experimental category is to put it in either the R&D or Exhibition sub-category.

Each of which has significant limitations. i.e. No IFR, no night flying, limited flight area unless written approval is obtained, no passengers, etc.

If this has changed (or is wrong), can you elaborate as to the process of moving a Cessna into experimental certification?

 

[Daleandee]

... can you elaborate as to the process of moving a Cessna into experimental certification?

Information on the web site here:

https://corsairpower.com/converting-standard-aircraft-to-experimental/

 

[kyleb]

The accident reports seem to indicate that the problem isn't so much about structural failures but rather LOC...

Tailwheels and lighter aircraft are much more susceptible to the kind of stuff that happens in the runway environment. That's the big differentiator. All those folks flying 50 year old Cessnas, Pipers, Beechcraft, and Mooneys have the third wheel up front and are (at least on average) flying aircraft that are less susceptible to the errant gust at the wrong moment.

 

[donjohnston]

I'd like to see the Operating Limitations for one of these conversions.

The OL's I've seen for exhibition category aircraft have things like:
This aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only
No person may be carried during flight unless that person is essential to the purpose of the flight.

That may fine for some people, but a 4 place, IFR capable airplane that has to be flown solo during the day in VFR conditions doesn't sound good to me.

And you'll either need to be an A&P or find one willing to sign off on it every year.

 

[Bell206]

Certified GA piston aircraft are not worth it. Find a well built experimental that meets your needs. I wanted 4 seats so choices limited.

But your "experimental" is Experimental Exhibition and not Experimental Amateur Built which was what the conversation was about. Night and day difference. While I understand you continue to try to drum up business from your conversion you do a dis-service to those you do not really under the difference. You'd be best served to either get the STC or be more straight forward up front.

 

[Daleandee]

Tailwheels and lighter aircraft are much more susceptible to the kind of stuff that happens in the runway environment. That's the big differentiator. All those folks flying 50 year old Cessnas, Pipers, Beechcraft, and Mooneys have the third wheel up front and are (at least on average) flying aircraft that are less susceptible to the errant gust at the wrong moment.

Well as Paul B. says, "you gotta learn to land the airplane." I still find loss of control in flight at the top of the list although there are a number of certified plane drivers that buy a light sport plane and are not used to the light controls and overall handling and end up getting themselves in trouble.

 

[Dan Thomas]

No disrespect but the average builder would not just whip up a new set of tanks. They never learn about bend radius/allowance, rivet spacing/edge distance etc.

Ive seen some of the 'mods' on the rv forum and they are complete trash.

Tell me now: Do you know the different bend radii for the different alloys? Tanks are not made of 2024-T3. More normally something like 5052, an alloy that can be bent at much tighter radii because it is so much softer. Tanks are not structural unless they're integral, and using hard alloys for them is a big waste of time and money and patience. Their rivets aren't carrying nearly the loads that structural rivets do, either.

 

[Dan Thomas]

I'm curious - what aircraft manufacturer installs the prop with nylocs?

A lot of constant-speed props. This is from the McCauley prop manual. Studs in the prop hub go through the crank flange bolt holes and nylocs are installed on them. You can't run bolts all the way though the hub, with all the mechanism and blade roots in there.

 

[Dana]

I'm curious - what aircraft manufacturer installs the prop with nylocs?

In just my own experience, three ultralights and one larger homebuilt. All were wood props, never had a problem with any of them.

One of the scariest engine rebuilds I've ever seen was by a guy that bought his own jugs and replaced all four of them on his Cessna 150 under a shade hangar with a dirt floor. I know that's an exception to the rule but my point is that just because it's certified don't mean it's safe.

But how did it run afterwards?

 

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

Bell 206
Your critical post of my post, and your groundless and insulting claims that I’m merely trying to drum up business and I am promoting some form of trickery to sell something that is not even for sale, is groundless. Let me set you straight on this.

RE ops limits … as stated in earlier post, EXP-Exhibition op limits are national FAA policy and clearly listed in FAA order 8130.2. I stated class 1 aircraft op limits for EE is similar to amateur built with addition of mostly the yearly program letter. Detailed conversion info is also clearly posted on our site and has been from the start…. A website, BTW, that we did in-house to answer numerous questions about the project and curtail flow of emails and stoppers-by we just are not capable of keeping up with … never was there a hint of accepting orders or any money…… if you believe otherwise, you are ignorant of the fact and ask you send me of anything contrary to this. There is absolutely no campaign of mis information as you recklessly allege or allude to…… Aviation is wrought with con companies taking deposits for the next big thing, and your overt insinuation that I am attempting same is unacceptable and frankly ****es me off.

as far as, “get the STC or be more up front”. First off, although we get several sales inquires every week from all over the globe, we will not even considering selling even an EXP version until there are a lot more flight hours and analysis. Never, here in this forum or anywhere have we offered it for sale, through trickery or means of deceit as you allude, or otherwise, it’s simply not ready. We are self funding this and have finite resources, and the FAA has been far less than helpful RE STC that takes a cert to EXP until we are ready to spend far more money than the product could ever reasonably recover given state of GA in this country. So, as to be perfectly clear RE STC, we are a hand full of engineers and aviation nuts that are trying to make GA affordable again, a mission which is diametrically opposed to FAA’s. So, to answer your indignant criticism directly, we are trying and seeking foreign cert options. If the current FAA existed when Orvil and Wilber attempted flight, we’d still be taking trains.

fact of the matter is, any solution to GA’s woes won’t come from the big established players… they enjoy a gauntlet from small disrupters/entities that all other industries lost long ago…. Most of which disrupters changed their respective industries for the better and catalyzed even more improvement and lower cost that were earlier unheard of. One only needs to compare that a new 2022 C172 has the same engine, the same wings, rivets, and looks exactly the same as the 1968 model…..that’s because it is. Just 50 years after the Wright brother’s first flight we were flying 4 engine jet liners over the ocean, more efficient, cheaper and safely…..tell me what’s changed for GA engines in the last 50 years? There’s a reason for this, and maybe instead of posting unfounded pontifications and unfounded criticisms with colorful emojis, take a few minutes to make sure you know what you are reasonably talking about.

 

[Daleandee]

But how did it run afterwards?

Like it was "repaired" by a shade tree mechanic in a shade hangar.

It ran but made a "squeaky" noise. Owner has since passed on and plane was hauled away by the new owner.

 

[Bell206]

Your critical post of my post, and your groundless and insulting claims that I’m merely trying to drum up business and I am promoting some form of trickery to sell something that is not even for sale, is groundless

I do. The fact that you end your posts with your website and your endless pitch on the advantages of your "experimental" aircraft speak nothing else. As to the "trickery" ( your word not mine) just need to look at your previous post. This is a thread comparing TC vs E/AB aircraft. Not E/E aircraft. As brought to your attention in previous threads and venues, did you clarify in your post above the difference in your E/E 172 and say a E/AB RV10? No. The only thing you do is build up your 172 EXP how great it is, then suggest the readers find an "old certified plane" and put it EXP. Oh... and here is a website that can help you. Groundless? No. Given a majority of weekend private flyers only know one type of experimental, i.e., E/AB, any time they read posts talking about flying TC aircraft as EXP they only think E/AB category. And I think you know that as well.

Why not tell the truth: this is not E/AB but E/E; a majority of private GA aircraft are not eligible; the FAA must approve your flight itinerary every year; and so on. Then I wouldnt have to explain that when they ask me. But I'm not the only one who sees this. I just bring it to your attention.

never was there a hint of accepting orders or any money…… if you believe otherwise, you are ignorant of the fact and ask you send me of anything contrary to this.

From your website below. Last I checked "pricing," "kit availability," "establishing dealers," and "seeking investors" revolve around money. Your continued sales pitch and website is all about the money/business than purely an informational outlet as you imply.
Our C172 firewall forward kit and options, along with pricing and additional information, will be available by Q4 2021; the C182 kit is expected to be available by Q4 2022.

Corsair is also seeking established dealers to sell, install, and support our products. Click here for info

We are seeking investment from qualified investors to assure Corsair’s climb to success. Click here for info

So, as to be perfectly clear RE STC, we are a hand full of engineers and aviation nuts that are trying to make GA affordable again, a mission which is diametrically opposed to FAA’s. So, to answer your indignant criticism directly, we are trying and seeking foreign cert options.

So why did the FAA rewrite the entire Part 23? It was definitely not because they made it harder. But no takers to include you. Or is the real problem no tort limits on product liability as you mention on your website? Or is it people prefer to fly drones vs aircraft?
FYI: As to obtaining foreign certification if its a country with a bilateral with the US quite a few of foreign venders get their products certified under the FAA STC process as it is much easier than their local process and especially in the EU.

tell me what’s changed for GA engines in the last 50 years? There’s a reason for this,

Yes there is. It called no market for the same reasons you mention about your project: no ROI and excessive product liability costs. So why would the major providers do any different?

take a few minutes to make sure you know what you are reasonably talking about.

Unfortunately I do know what I'm talking about especially in these type of maintenance topics. Hence my replies to your posts. But for the reading public what is your aviation experience? Are you one of the engineers? Aviation nuts? DER? DAR? Pilot? APIA?

 

[unsafervguy]

I do. The fact that you end your posts with your website and your endless pitch on the advantages of your "experimental" aircraft speak nothing else. As to the "trickery" ( your word not mine) just need to look at your previous post. This is a thread comparing TC vs E/AB aircraft. Not E/E aircraft. As brought to your attention in previous threads and venues, did you clarify in your post above the difference in your E/E 172 and say a E/AB RV10? No. The only thing you do is build up your 172 EXP how great it is, then suggest the readers find an "old certified plane" and put it EXP. Oh... and here is a website that can help you. Groundless? No. Given a majority of weekend private flyers only know one type of experimental, i.e., E/AB, any time they read posts talking about flying TC aircraft as EXP they only think E/AB category. And I think you know that as well.

Why not tell the truth: this is not E/AB but E/E; a majority of private GA aircraft are not eligible; the FAA must approve your flight itinerary every year; and so on. Then I wouldnt have to explain that when they ask me. But I'm not the only one who sees this. I just bring it to your attention.

From your website below. Last I checked "pricing," "kit availability," "establishing dealers," and "seeking investors" revolve around money. Your continued sales pitch and website is all about the money/business than purely an informational outlet as you imply.
Our C172 firewall forward kit and options, along with pricing and additional information, will be available by Q4 2021; the C182 kit is expected to be available by Q4 2022.

Corsair is also seeking established dealers to sell, install, and support our products. Click here for info

We are seeking investment from qualified investors to assure Corsair’s climb to success. Click here for info

So why did the FAA rewrite the entire Part 23? It was definitely not because they made it harder. But no takers to include you. Or is the real problem no tort limits on product liability as you mention on your website? Or is it people prefer to fly drones vs aircraft?
FYI: As to obtaining foreign certification if its a country with a bilateral with the US quite a few of foreign venders get their products certified under the FAA STC process as it is much easier than their local process and especially in the EU.


Yes there is. It called no market for the same reasons you mention about your project: no ROI and excessive product liability costs. So why would the major providers do any different?

Unfortunately I do know what I'm talking about especially in these type of maintenance topics. Hence my replies to your posts. But for the reading public what is your aviation experience? Are you one of the engineers? Aviation nuts? DER? DAR? Pilot? APIA?

bell, the fact that he talks about using "experimental" non certified avionics in his first post shows he knows nothing of the fars involved. as you and I have posted a lot about that subject and the falsehoods that are taken as fact in the aviation world. I agree with you 100 percent that this is just marketing hype for his business that either does not have the engineering ability or the dollars to get an STC for this conversion and is trying to convince people that putting their aircraft in E/E or E/RD is no big deal. you and I know better, the problem is a lot of people in aviation don't know better and may fall for this idea.

 

[Dan Thomas]

If the current FAA existed when Orvil and Wilber attempted flight, we’d still be taking trains.

And if the regulators responsible for those trains had existed back in 1903 there would have been far fewer fatal train wrecks.

One only needs to compare that a new 2022 C172 has the same engine, the same wings, rivets, and looks exactly the same as the 1968 model…..that’s because it is. Just 50 years after the Wright brother’s first flight we were flying 4 engine jet liners over the ocean, more efficient, cheaper and safely…..tell me what’s changed for GA engines in the last 50 years?

This is regularly posited as proof that the 172 is the same airplane. It is not. It might look the same, but there are vast differences. A a mechanic with a lot of 172 maintenance (and flying) experience, I can list a few:

It doesn't have the old O-320 with a carb. It has an O-360 with fuel injection, eliminating carb ice. It doesn't have a messy wet vac pump. Granted, that larger engine was needed to pull the heavier airplane around, a heavier airplane full of fancy electronics and other neat stuff. But that Lycoming is a better engine than it was in 1968; they had problems with heads cracking back then. The metallurgy has improved markedly. It has roller lifters, too.

It has integral fuel tanks, much less maintenance and lighter to boot.

It has seats built for crashworthiness. 26G in the front, 19G in the rear. Those seats weigh three times what the old ones did. Seats used to fail in crashes and cause worse injuries. The seat rails are WAY stronger and the latching mechanism is ten times better. At least.

It has the G1000 glass panel stuff. It has an autopilot. It has a flux gate and other fancy nav stuff. The buyer of 1968 wouldn't believe his eyes.

Numerous problem areas of the airframe were beefed up to resist cracking. Horizontal stab forward spar, aft doorposts, fuselage bulkheads are just a few.

The integral tanks have multiple drains, partly due to the design, but also to expedite the removal of contaminants.

Leather upholstery. Heavier interior panels to resist crumbling. The Amsafe harness airbags are available.

The electrical system has six buses, not one, for redundancy and safety. A backup battery keeps the G1000 alive if the alternator fails.

When I started flying in 1973 I asked the local Cessna dealer how much a new 172 was. "Oh, they're terrible now," he said. "$23,000." Well, $23,000 in that town in 1973 would buy you a five-year-old three-bedroom house. Of course that 172 price seemed terrible. Price of a house. That same house in that same town, now 54 years old, will bring over $500K. The 172SP is less than that, and it has all the goodies not dreamed of in '68 to boot. And nearly all other commodities are ten to twenty times more now, as well.

I'm not against innovation, and a successful converted V8 would be welcome. But one has to use the truth to defend it, not a pile of misleading slurs.

 

[donjohnston]

Yeah, I’d have to agree. This just sounds like an enthusiastic guy trying to sell widgets.

I would not be surprised if at some point a person who got their 172 into the EE category got a response to their annual application that it’s refused because it doesn’t meet the requirements. So the aircraft is effectively not airworthy until it meets the original certificate. That would pretty much wipe out any savings from this exercise.

 

[kyleb]

Bell 206
Your critical post of my post, and your groundless and insulting claims that I’m merely trying to drum up business and I am promoting some form of trickery to sell something that is not even for sale, is groundless.

Please post a .PDF of your C-172's operating limits. Post 'em on your website and share a link in this space.

 

[bbchien]

I continue to be disturbed at the number of E-AB types that fail the fuel system crashworthiness test and toast their owners. Certified aircraft for me (No Malibus, and no Cirri).

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Please post a .PDF of your C-172's operating limits. Post 'em on your website and share a link in this space.

I would love to see them as well. I can’t believe it allows instruction.

 

[Bell206]

the problem is a lot of people in aviation don't know better and may fall for this idea.

Key words. I have zero tolerance for people who set up others to potentially fail because they think they have a brilliant idea but dont address all the facts at play.

 

[SoCalPilot88]

I continue to be disturbed at the number of E-AB types that fail the fuel system crashworthiness test and toast their owners. Certified aircraft for me (No Malibus, and no Cirri).

I don’t think crashworthiness is a big factor in many experimental designs. I’d love to build one due to the awesome performance and cost savings, but I see things like fuel tanks in front of, or behind the occupants, bubble canopies that leave little options if you land inverted, frail structures designed around the ridiculous constraint of 1320 lbs max. I now see plastic fuel tanks and wonder if rupture strength was even a consideration. The steel cage designs look pretty good, but those may have been designed based on flight load criteria rather than occupant protection.

A good reference is the Crashworthiness Design Guide, a report for NASA Langley Research Center:

https://agate.niar.wichita.edu/Crashworthiness/WP3.4-034043-036.pdf

 

[Dana]

Is the fire record of homebuilts really that different from standard aircraft? (paging Ron @wanttaja...) From an article Ron wrote for Kitplanes magazine, there's post crash fire in about 10% of homebuilt crashes, but there's fire related injury in only in half of those.

Many thousands of standard airplanes (Cub, etc.) have fuel tanks in front of the occupants.

 

[wanttaja]

Is the fire record of homebuilts really that different from standard aircraft? (paging Ron @wanttaja...) From an article Ron wrote for Kitplanes magazine, there's post crash fire in about 10% of homebuilt crashes, but there's fire related injury in only in half of those.

Many thousands of standard airplanes (Cub, etc.) have fuel tanks in front of the occupants.

The article should be able to be accessed at:

https://www.kitplanes.com/homebuilt-accidents-fire/

Here's what I got when searching the NTSB's "Fire" flag against common production-aircraft types:

Basically, for the homebuilts, there didn't seem to be any discernible effect of fuel tank locations. And if you consider the J-3 above, we're not seeing any major effect in the production-plane world, either.

Just throwing it out there, it may be that the fuselage-mounted tank is LESS vulnerable. If the impact actually is so strong that the engine is shoved into the fuel tank, the accident may not be survivable to start with (especially since the pilot's legs are crushed as well).

Wing tanks? Thin metal fuel lines running through the cabin, and both they and the tanks themselves can be punctured by pointed sticks. Trees strip the wings off and carry the fuel tanks well behind the aircraft? Yay! Trees dislodge wings but don't carry them away? Fuel draining into the crash site.

In any event, as the above graph shows, the tendency of the aircraft to catch fire in a crash is more dependent on the performance level of the aircraft than the fuel tank position.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[SoCalPilot88]

The article should be able to be accessed at:

https://www.kitplanes.com/homebuilt-accidents-fire/

Here's what I got when searching the NTSB's "Fire" flag against common production-aircraft types:
View attachment 103582
Basically, for the homebuilts, there didn't seem to be any discernible effect of fuel tank locations. And if you consider the J-3 above, we're not seeing any major effect in the production-plane world, either.

Thanks, Ron. Great article. If I recall correctly, you had another article which shows a correlation between wing position and fatal accident rate. One conclusion to draw from this is the structure above the pilot may be beneficial in a crash. I wonder if slow impact speed may have been more of a factor than the roll cage factor. I did a small sampling of RV accidents and found most of them crash in the upright position. I'm curious what a broader sampling shows. I don't know how much credence to give the Crashworthiness Guide I mentioned above, but that guide actually asserts low wings perform better due to the structure below the pilot, and suggests the high wing structure could collapse upon the occupant. This is probably less a factor with strutted high wings which transmit vertical loads to the lower fuselage structure. I wonder if there is even a statistically significant number of accidents to fully indict one design over another.

 

[wanttaja]

Thanks, Ron. Great article. If I recall correctly, you had another article which shows a correlation between wing position and fatal accident rate. One conclusion to draw from this is the structure above the pilot may be beneficial in a crash. I wonder if slow impact speed may have been more of a factor than the roll cage factor.

There are certainly a number of factors at work, speed as well as wing position, and of course fuel tank location as well. Here's the plot you were remembering.

The gray line is a visual approximation, but I think it does tend to show how the fatality rate is driven by speed. The higher speed categories are predominated by low-wing aircraft, so a solid conclusion is hard.

I did a small sampling of RV accidents and found most of them crash in the upright position. I'm curious what a broader sampling shows. I don't know how much credence to give the Crashworthiness Guide I mentioned above, but that guide actually asserts low wings perform better due to the structure below the pilot, and suggests the high wing structure could collapse upon the occupant. This is probably less a factor with strutted high wings which transmit vertical loads to the lower fuselage structure.

I've performed no formal studies beyond what went into the diagram above. The majority of high-wing aircraft (especially homebuilt high-wing aircraft) have struts, though, so I anticipate they'd have an advantage.

A plane may crash in the upright position, but in many cases, it doesn't STAY upright. Maybe there's more danger because of structure near the pilot's head, but it seems to me that having stout structure around one's noggin would be better.

I'm kind of impressed by this Great Lakes accident. Buzzing, flew into the trees, pilot came out of it with minor injuries. Wings are well and truly hashed, but the pilot was protected.

I wonder if there is even a statistically significant number of accidents to fully indict one design over another.

To quote a better writer than me, "Aye, that's the rub." I got into this accident-statistical hobby thinking that "bad" homebuilts would be obvious. They certainly aren't; truly BAD homebuilts don't end up getting a lot of examples built and thus aren't statistically significant. I've found engine type (certified vs. other) is far more of a driver.

Otherwise, the more I learn, the less I know.

Ron Wanttaja