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

[L.Adamson]

Okay...........

I'm going to present a reasonable argument.

My airport is at 4600' msl. Many airports around here are higher. The majority of experimentals around here have much better weight to power advantages over "certifieds". I live under the airport pattern. Each time a Cessna or Piper takes off........I look up & say, I think I can, I think I can. It's just like that little cartoon railway engine. It seems like that prop is doing all it can, just to barely drag the aircraft behind it, as airspeed slowly builds.

I don't have this problem. My two seat RV6A experimental can easily achieve pattern height, at halfway down the runway. I've flown many, many certifieds, in which density altitude was always on my mind. I know quite a number of pilots who have died because density altitude out paced their airplane. My RV isn't an F-16, but it's performance is three times that of a Cessna 172 with the near same engine, both at 180 HP, for the takeoff run. I'll take this kind of performance any day.............not to mention the much higher cruising speeds, & much higher altitude capabilities.

L.Adamson

 

[Geico266]

When my RV was in Montana, people were more than thrilled to get a ride in it. And that they did. They were all smiles.

We call that the "RV Grin" .

 

[hillberg]

Read the FARs, Some preventitive maintenance is allowed, And as how some Planes are flown Russsssssty please It's the pilots, Seen some clueless types others that are top notch and a few are WTF who gave him his certificate?, For instlation of 337 "kits" Mechanic must install IA does conformity sign off, Using approved data & a Continued airworthyness program in manual form with POI instructions.
Vice grips? yes I've seen them on an old Viking. Along with drywall screws & anchors from home depot. Bondo? Yes on a Beech 35 40 lbs worth on the belly.
It's frightining what comes through those hangar doors.

 

[LDJones]

I wouldn't hesitate to purchase a well-built RV or Monnet kit plane with good builder logs and a thorough inspection by an RV expert. I think Vans engineers things as well as most certified airplanes.

Long-term I think experimentals will be the only option for hobbiest aviators.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Like I told a friend of mine who keeps looking at experimentals:

"The great thing is that you can work on it yourself, the bad thing is, somebody else already has.".

You are guaranteed that the work is done properly on a certificated aircraft.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20021230X05642&ntsbno=FTW03FA053&akey=1

 

[poadeleted21]

You are guaranteed that the work is done properly on a certificated aircraft.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20021230X05642&ntsbno=FTW03FA053&akey=1

nossir, but I'm guaranteed that the guy doing it has at least had some sort of competency training and should be able to do it properly, and usually his livelihood is on the line when he puts the ink in a logbook. If I had a pile of money and unlimited time, I'd have an RV10 in my hangar right now. One of the two experimentals I saw that I would purchase was an RV10 done by a master builder, he wanted purt near 200K for it. It's going to take a lot of A&P bills on my 50 year old Bonanza to catch up to that.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Sounds like some local boys with pretty hot experimental machines showing off. I bet if they flew certified models with similar capabilities the show would be similar because being a certain type of male is often high profile and hazardous.

The most recent incident? There were two of them, taxing by a "no intersection take off" sign and taking off side by side at the mid field intersection, up a 3% grade on a hot day at an airport elevation of 3,610' leaving them approx 1600' of runway of which to perform the take off, into climbing terrain. The airport doesn't even have a taxiway to that runway, to dissuade people from trying. I figure they cleared the terrain by 10 maybe 20 foot.

Other anctics include accelerating in ground effect followed by a near vertical take off, overhead breaks, buzzing the bridge where people swim and fish at about 100' AGL, having the sheriff show up about once a month at the hangar "gathering information" etc... you know the routine.

 

[RV10flyer]

I was perusing the new posts and ran across the "Most ridiculously expensive....." thread and I found this post:






I gotta tell ya. I am genuinely discouraged by some of the cost associated with owning a certificated aircraft. This is not the first time that I've been astounded by some tale of exorbitant expense associated with owning one. I've seen parts that were identical to the ones you can get in a hardware store that cost ten times in an aviation supply store. It's fine if you have the money to spend, but how do you bring yourselves to pay $2000 for a part that you know you could buy at a hardware store for $200?

Please help me answer some questions:

1. Is it strictly about the safety standards in the manufacturing and therefore worth the extra expense? Depends on who built the EAB

2. Is it a broader range of performance that you get out of a certificated aircraft as opposed to choices of experimental aircraft, even those with comparable safety records? [/B]You can get more performance with EAB for the same price. [/B]

3. Are experimentals more to insure and maintain? Does it even out over the life of ownership? Does $2400/yr for $160K sound bad? As far as maintenance and repairs, it depends on how much one is capable of doing himself.

4. Is it difficult to inspect experimentals for manufacturing defects and therefore they're less desireable? Some EAB's have very simple interiors like mine and are very easy to inspect. If you are trained what to look for, one is no different than the other.

Please help me understand, because as much as I would like to own a Grumman Tiger or other certificated aircraft and can afford to, it would bug me to no end to overpay for things that I know I can get at a more reasonable price "outside of the system".

Please understand, I am not talking about cutting corners with safety or performance.

If buying any type of aircraft, get a good pre-buy. My brand new engine came from Lycoming and prop from Hartzell. Where I saved big was avionics and labor. If buying an EAB, get the simplest/lowest time one available then upgrade to glass with synthetic vision.

Not all EAB pilots are unsafe, especially us non-aerobatic family hauling types. I love my RV-10, but really enjoyed the 172 also. It was the renting, schedules and break downs that were getting old. I am very careful who I fly with and the condition of their aircraft, whether EAB or certified. I have friends that fly both. Buy what best suits your needs and finances. Good luck.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

You are guaranteed that the work is done properly on a certificated aircraft.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20021230X05642&ntsbno=FTW03FA053&akey=1

That's not what I found when doing the pre-takeoff run-up prior to an IMC flight in a T182RG, to find the trim system working BACKWARDS after an annual inspection by an A&P....

 

[Geico266]

I wasn't referring the accident, you can legally install a vice grip fuel selector on any experimental, an RV6 being one.

It may be legal, but no one I know uses other than standard aircraft hardware, parts, and techniques. We replace defective parts with parts available from Vans.

I've flown certifieds for 40 hours to get m PPL. I now have 2,500 hours in RV's and UL's traveling to 46 of the 48 lower states. I have built 1 RV and have owned 10 others. All were fine aircraft still flying today in the hands of other owners.

 

[poadeleted21]

Sounds like some local boys with pretty hot experimental machines showing off. I bet if they flew certified models with similar capabilities the show would be similar because being a certain type of male is often high profile and hazardous.

Yup, there's a Maule pilot in the mix too but by and large the problems at the airport have been RVs maybe due to their popularity but still, i find in my experience the "problems" with RVs are more prominent than the "problems" with the Cessna 150s at the airport. I'm quite sure it's 100% of a pilot problem but those problem pilots seem to place their asses in the seats of RVs more than Cessna 150s. So much so that the local flight school prohibits solo student pilot ops when the RVs are out flying. Honestly, those guys are another reason that I was turned off by experimentals.

 

[poadeleted21]

It may be legal, but no one I know uses other than standard aircraft hardware, parts, and techniques. We replace defective parts with parts available from Vans.

I've flown certifieds for 40 hours to get m PPL. I now have 2,500 hours in RV's and UL's traveling to 46 of the 48 lower states. I have built 1 RV and have owned 10 others. All were fine aircraft still flying today in the hands of other owners.

If an RV10 built by a respected builder had popped up on the market for what my Bo did, I MIGHT have been a buyer. Most all the exp planes at my airport in MT were for lack of a better term dangerous pieces of sh-- and the local A&Ps would burn their pen before letting it get near their log books. There's one there right now that we have NO IDEA how it flew there but we know it flew there because it had been sitting behind a hangar at the next airport over it appears he flew the damn thing with a HUGE crack in the wooden propeller and that it sheared off on flight on the way over.

I like my Bonanza you like your RV. To each his own, OP asked what the argument is for owning a certified over an EXP, I told him why I do.

 

[N801BH]

.....Most all the exp planes at my airport in MT were for lack of a better term dangerous pieces of sh-- ......

Wow.... Just Wow..

 

[poadeleted21]

Wow.... Just Wow..

I assure you, when the owners weren't around, they were the butt of many jokes. I've been called on my cell phone before "Hey Bart, it's out here man, come take a look" and actually driven my car to the airport for no other reason than to witness for myself and shake my head in amazement what some folks will put their backside in and fly. Sorry if I'm a little skeptical of experimentals. Meeting the owners who maintained these gems didn't help any in restoring my faith in "non A&P owner maintained" planes. One of them told me "Before I got this plane, I couldn't build a bread box" i believed him.

 

[docmirror]

There are good, and sometimes very good EXP planes in the fleet. There are bad, and on rare occasions very bad cert planes in the fleet. So far, the bad EXP planes outnumber the bad cert planes in the fleet by a large margin. Part of this has to do with shoddy build quality, and part of it has to do with the required annual inspection of cert planes.

If I were shopping for an EXP, the PPI spec would be much, much tighter than the PPI spec for a cert plane. Basically, I'd want the EXP plane taken pretty much apart without removing rivets to inspect the quality, and the cert plane would be measured against the type cert data sheet + STCs.

 

[N801BH]

I assure you, when the owners weren't around, they were the butt of many jokes. I've been called on my cell phone before "Hey Bart, it's out here man, come take a look" and actually driven my car to the airport for no other reason than to witness for myself and shake my head in amazement what some folks will put their backside in and fly. Sorry if I'm a little skeptical of experimentals. Meeting the owners who maintained these gems didn't help any in restoring my faith in "non A&P owner maintained" planes. One of them told me "Before I got this plane, I couldn't build a bread box" i believed him.

Where were you in Montana?? Bozeman ?

 

[poadeleted21]

Where were you in Montana?? Bozeman ?

Nahh Hippy Town, but I kept my plane in the valley.

 

[comanchepilot]

"This aircraft was built to, and is maintained to a much higher standard."

That is what is under mine.

The problem is that the average person believes the government knows all and does what it can to protect me. . . Obama's re-election confirms that -

 

[Geico266]

I assure you, when the owners weren't around, they were the butt of many jokes. I've been called on my cell phone before "Hey Bart, it's out here man, come take a look" and actually driven my car to the airport for no other reason than to witness for myself and shake my head in amazement what some folks will put their backside in and fly. Sorry if I'm a little skeptical of experimentals. Meeting the owners who maintained these gems didn't help any in restoring my faith in "non A&P owner maintained" planes. One of them told me "Before I got this plane, I couldn't build a bread box" i believed him.

Funny, you should hear what we call the morons flying 50 year old spam cans.

Do you still use a rotory phone landline?

Take a walk on the flight line in the RV area, watch Team RV set a world record for formation flights, take in a seminar on aircraft building at OSH. Get back to me about experimentals.

 

[poadeleted21]

Funny, you should hear what we call the morons flying 50 year old spam cans.

Do you still use a rotory phone landline?

Take a walk on the flight line in the RV area, watch Team RV set a world record for formation flights, take in a seminar on aircraft building at OSH. Get back to me about experimentals.

OK, This moron in a 50 year old spam can "saved" about $145,000 buying his 50 year old spam can over what an RV of similar capabilities would cost. I have zero interest in formation flying or any other activities people use to compensate for their penis size. My mission is to fly 500 mile trips with me, my wife and my 2 dogs with some disassembled bicycles and camping gear as safe as possible. I also have zero interest in building an airplane for myself, I leave that to the pros, not some guy trying to save a buck by building a plane in his garage using vice grips.

Maintenance costs! maintenance costs! seem to be the mantra of the Exp crowd, but I just can't think of one thing that I've hired an A&P/IA to do to my plane that I wouldn't have had I had an experimental. I just can't see the costs savings other than some pricey paperwork I had to purchase for piper. Sure you can install ****ty instruments and vice grips in the plane legally, but who want's to?

I've taken a walk on the RV line, the owners are a group of people I have no desire to be associated with. Walter Mitty.

Fix this problem, then come talk to me about experimentals.

Experimental amateur-built (E-AB) aircraft represent nearly 10 percent of the U.S. general aviation fleet, but these aircraft accounted for approximately 15 percent of the total-and 21 percent of the fatal-U.S. general aviation (GA) accidents in 2011. Experimental amateur-built aircraft represent a growing segment of the United States' general aviation fleet-a segment that now numbers nearly 33,000 aircraft.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) undertook this study because of the popularity of E-AB aircraft, concerns over their safety record, and the absence of a contemporary and definitive analysis of E-AB aircraft safety. The study employed several different methods and data collection procedures to carefully examine this segment of U.S. civil aviation. This comprehensive approach resulted in a detailed characterization of the current E-AB aircraft fleet, pilot population, and associated accidents.

 

[L.Adamson]

I also have zero interest in building an airplane for myself, I leave that to the pros, not some guy trying to save a buck by building a plane in his garage using vice grips.

Just a few examples of garage built RVs. Surely, there must be some vice grips somewhere.

And BTW -- A very good friend of mine, owns a four seat Bonanza, a Cessna 210.............and has built several experimentals; has had a partnership in an RV, and does a lot of first flight testing, for many RV owners. Perhaps, he's a bit more open minded?

I'm about 62 years of age now. Perhaps I've just been around more than some.......who have particular conceptions, regarding certain aircraft.

L.Adamson

 

[poadeleted21]

Just a few examples of garage built RVs. Surely, there must be some vice grips somewhere.

And BTW -- A very good friend of mine, owns a four seat Bonanza, a Cessna 210.............and has built several experimentals; has had a partnership in an RV, and does a lot of first flight testing, for many RV owners. Perhaps, he's a bit more open minded?

I'm about 62 years of age now. Perhaps I've just been around more than some.......who have particular conceptions, regarding certain aircraft.

L.Adamson

conceptions?

Experimental amateur-built (E-A aircraft represent nearly 10 percent of the U.S. general aviation fleet, but these aircraft accounted for approximately 15 percent of the total-and 21 percent of the fatal-U.S. general aviation (GA) accidents in 2011.

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2012/EAB_Study/index.html

I'm not sayin' EAB can't be done right, I'm saying there's a sizeable amount and more so than the certified fleet who "don't do it right"

 

[LDJones]

You do not have a placard on the panel facing the passengers that says:

"This aircraft is amateur-built and does not comply with the federal safety regulations for standard aircraft"

Or the one that says "The Ark was built by an amateur, the Titanic by professionals."

 

[docmirror]

Or the one that says "The Ark was built by an amateur, the Titanic by professionals."

What was wrong with the design and construction of the Titanic? From all I've read on the ship it was the best, safest, fastest, and most comfortable ocean liner of it's day. Of course it wasn't designed to hit a massive iceberg at near flank speed. I think this one can safely go in the 'pilot error' column.

 

[docmirror]

BTW, I have some issues with using the RV as the 'typical' EXP plane. It's my guess that the RV is one of the best designed, and represent the top of the ladder in EXP planes.

However, and it's important to relate at this point, there are a lot of non-RV EXP planes out there. If we are to limit our discussion to only RVs, much of the horrible safety record the GA EXP community would be gone in a flash. Sadly, the RV only represents a small part of the EXP community, albeit it has a better than average safety rating. Still well below cert aircraft but darn good.

 

[MSPAviator]

I think I would love a Glasair Sportsman on floats and a Velocity XL RG for longer trips.

However, buying a kit and assembling it myself is just something I don't have the time, space, skills, or wherewithal to do right now.

So Mooney M20J it is!

 

[JimNtexas]

According to the NTSB

amateur-built aircraft account for a disproportionate number of accidents compared with certified airplanes

.

After 40 years around general aviation I've seen one to many home built accidents. The recent death of the AME I'd been using for 13 years in his home built was the last straw for me.

I personally will not ride in a homebuilt airplane. YMMV

 

[NineThreeKilo]

Best argument for a certified plane, easy
1) YOU CAN MAKE $$$ with it!
2) you like the design and it happens to be certified.


That's IT!

Experiential are JUST as good, JUST as safe, period.

I love the argument about anyone can just build one and that's why experimentals are un-safe.

DUDE any idea how many certified planes have been molested and pencil whipped into flying death traps!

And I'm not just talking about old planes,

I've seen 2000+ 172 G1000, with some shade tree crap and it was done by a AP...ready.... a AP IA


OMG you say, that's impossible, it's shinny and newish and certified and Bubba has a license that says IA on it!

Well it happens, because they are people just like you and me, and some are lazy, stupid and or greedy.

Certified, Experiential, Restricted, "airworthy" after working in the industry and seeing a bunch of aircraft, operators, pilots, wrenches, all the words of Certified, Exp, Annual, etc, are is merely ink on a piece of paper.

You want to know if a plane is safe, take a good look at it, have a LONG talk with the wrench, owner, pilot, judge for yourself.

 

[docmirror]

Or - you can look at the accident statistics that are easily found, and studied by actuarials that aren't in the employ of the federal govt. It doesn't matter how you schedule it, pound for pound, flight for flight, plane for plane, pilot for pilot, it always adds up the same. EXP = higher risk, gets higher performance, costs somewhat less. I'm not interested in the testing the equation so I own a cert plane.

 

[murphey]

Okay...........

I'm going to present a reasonable argument.

My airport is at 4600' msl. Many airports around here are higher. The majority of experimentals around here have much better weight to power advantages over "certifieds". I live under the airport pattern. Each time a Cessna or Piper takes off........I look up & say, I think I can, I think I can. It's just like that little cartoon railway engine. It seems like that prop is doing all it can, just to barely drag the aircraft behind it, as airspeed slowly builds.

I don't have this problem. My two seat RV6A experimental can easily achieve pattern height, at halfway down the runway. I've flown many, many certifieds, in which density altitude was always on my mind. I know quite a number of pilots who have died because density altitude out paced their airplane. My RV isn't an F-16, but it's performance is three times that of a Cessna 172 with the near same engine, both at 180 HP, for the takeoff run. I'll take this kind of performance any day.............not to mention the much higher cruising speeds, & much higher altitude capabilities.

L.Adamson

Apples and Oranges. An RV6 gross weight is around 1600 depending on model, mods, etc. A C172 gross is around 2450. Put the same engine in each, and the lower weight will always be faster - welcome to Physics 101. That's why the V4 in the little sentra I was driving for 4 weeks while my larger ford (also V4) got much better mileage and considerably more "get up and go".

One valid reason no one has brought up yet is the availability of parts when something goes wrong when you're on a long XC. Do you want to wait around for someone to ship parts from Van's or Spruce or ??? for something that's not off the shelf? And then discover the local shop will not touch your experimental even if you sign a release? They probably won't loan you tools, either. It's an insurance thing.

I'm based at an airport with a huge number of builders. Yet when it's time to plan for Oshkosh, they ask how much of their gear (and a wife or two) I can carry because too many of them are close to the weight limit with 2 guys and fuel.

BTW I really like the RV & EXP crowd out here (FTG). Nice bunch, and most are very knowledgeable about aircraft in general.

 

[LDJones]

I've taken a walk on the RV line, the owners are a group of people I have no desire to be associated with. Walter Mitty.

That's definitely not been my experience. I've met some pretty sharp engineer types building some pretty spectacular looking aircraft. While I'm sure there are some Walter Mitty's, it's certainly not the a significant portion, at least around here.

 

[McBuzz]

The most significant problem I've seen with (current owner not builder) experimental aircraft is finding someone to perform airframe repair. I have had two acquaintances (non builders) who had major problems finding someone to repair their RV'S that had sustained weather damage (separate incidents).

There were several IA's in the area with RV building experience that for various reasons were every reluctant to perform airframe repair on these experimentals. In both cases the repair required, aileron on one and entire horizontal elevator replacement on the other, would have been relatively straight forward on fairly common certificated models. In another case a tube and fabric aircraft required some airframe repair and again it was difficult for the current (non-builder) owner to find someone willing to perform and document the work.

Before I bought an experimental I would certainly explore repair options if required down the line.

 

[LDJones]

What was wrong with the design and construction of the Titanic? From all I've read on the ship it was the best, safest, fastest, and most comfortable ocean liner of it's day. Of course it wasn't designed to hit a massive iceberg at near flank speed. I think this one can safely go in the 'pilot error' column.

As I recall there were issues with the metal making it more brittle than it should have been, sub-standard rivets and the watertight compartments weren't designed as high as needed. It was then rushed out without thoroughly testing its systems and emergency procedures.

 

[LDJones]

The most significant problem I've seen with (current owner not builder) experimental aircraft is finding someone to perform airframe damage repair. Have had two acquaintances (non builders) who had major problems finding someone to repair their RV'S that had sustained weather damage (separate incidents).

There were several IA's in this area with RV building experience that for various reasons were every reluctant to perform airframe repair on these experimentals. In both cases the repair required, aileron on one and entire horizontal elevator on the other, would have been relatively straight forward had the aircraft been fairly common certificated models. In another case a tube and fabric aircraft required some airframe repair and again it was difficult for the current (non-builder) owner to find someone willing to perform and document the work.

Before I bought an experimental I would certainly explore repair options if required down the line.

That's hard to understand considering skins, detailed plans and volumes of construction advice is probably more readily available for an RV and most certified aircraft....and probably for a fraction of the cost.

 

[Clark1961]

If you do your own work you have broken the rules

That's not true and you know it. Why lie?

 

[McBuzz]

That's hard to understand considering skins, detailed plans and volumes of construction advice is probably more readily available for an RV and most certified aircraft....and probably for a fraction of the cost.

That's exactly my point. The repairs should have been and were pretty straight forward, however, the facility that ultimately built the replacement horizontal stabilizer would not install it because that would have made them responsible for the integrity of the structure it was attached to. I'm not saying that reasoning is valid or not, but it was the reason offered in more than this one instance.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

Or - you can look at the accident statistics that are easily found, and studied by actuarials that aren't in the employ of the federal govt. It doesn't matter how you schedule it, pound for pound, flight for flight, plane for plane, pilot for pilot, it always adds up the same. EXP = higher risk, gets higher performance, costs somewhat less. I'm not interested in the testing the equation so I own a cert plane.

Jumping jesus on a pogostick man!

You are not looking at the whole picture,

The plane is not dangerous, most of the guys that pile in are doing something stupid.

I hear SOOO many more RV pilots doing a "left break" or some other fighter pilot wannabe move, then ANY other aircraft.

It's like saying the SR22 is dangerous because people with bigger billfolds then logbooks lawn-dart them in all the time, aint the plane it's the nut behind the stick.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

What was determined to be the cause of this AME's fatal accident by the NTSB?

According to the NTSB .

After 40 years around general aviation I've seen one to many home built accidents. The recent death of the AME I'd been using for 13 years in his home built was the last straw for me.

I personally will not ride in a homebuilt airplane. YMMV

 

[docmirror]

Jumping jesus on a pogostick man!

You are not looking at the whole picture,

The plane is not dangerous, most of the guys that pile in are doing something stupid.

I hear SOOO many more RV pilots doing a "left break" or some other fighter pilot wannabe move, then ANY other aircraft.

It's like saying the SR22 is dangerous because people with bigger billfolds then logbooks lawn-dart them in all the time, aint the plane it's the nut behind the stick.

Yeah, statistics suck don't they. People keep taking about individual data points. 'Oh - I will never screw up, cause I drive an xyz and I am a better pilot than those ABC(cert) drivers'. Add it up however you like, the EXP world still looks pretty bad comparatively speaking.

Funny you talk about the 'whole picture' then give two discrete examples. Good one...

 

[NineThreeKilo]

You're right, stats cant be slanted at all, just ask the Tuskegee airmen back in the day.

Just plug it in to excel and ask the computer right. I remember when I did my first paint by numbers.