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

LDJones said:
Or the one that says "The Ark was built by an amateur, the Titanic by professionals."
Click to expand...
Contrary to what any revisionist historians would like to believe, I am afraid that TITANIC sank due to the actions of her bridge watch.....NOT because of flaws in her construction.
 
bartmc said:
Funny, never had any issues with guys in Cherokees playing "Iceman" in their PA28's adorned with Naval insignia and visiting sites called "Cherokee Air Force" :mad2: :lol: :rofl:
Click to expand...
Performing an OB in a PA28 is a bit anti-climactic
 
Geico266 said:
It costs more for certified parts because they are greedy bastards. Don't buy into the BS that somehow certified parts are safer BS! It is all about paperwork, traceability and obscene profits.
Click to expand...
Greedy?? Obscene profits?

Not sure I know of too many general aviation parts manufacturers that are making money hand over fist.

I suspect that the lawyers and insurance companies have most definitely profited from the cost of certificated aircraft parts but that is just my gut feeling vice any case study of the liability costs compared to the insurance payouts for accidents due to use of faulty parts.

In short, I fully agree with your first two points regarding the associated cost of paperwork and traceability, but I certainly haven't seen the obscene profits.

Another thing to keep in mind is that many of our certificated airplanes are models that are no longer manufactured, but their OEMs still attempt to provide some parts support for those airplanes while they roll out newer models. Problem there is the volume of parts that need to be produced for the older airplanes often goes down which naturally drives up the per unit cost of manufacturing, not to mention when you order a part that is special order or made to order due to low demand. The cost to produce that infrequent part is going to be significantly/ridiculously higher than when it was being mass produced.
 
bartmc said:
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.
Click to expand...

Once again, this is the pilot's action not the plane. :mad2:

What it boils down to is you made a decision and bought an albatross and now you are defending your decisions. No matter how much you try and blame stupid pilot tricks it won't stick to experimentals.
 
Last edited:
NineThreeKilo said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't think truer words have been spoken.

Sadly, there is not much credibility left in science today. People skew whatever data they can get their hands on to prove or illustrate whatever point they want to make. If the data doesn't agree with the hypothesis...just throw it out and get some new stuff that agrees. Not the scientific method I was taught as a kid, but the one that seems prevalent today. Just throw some numbers up on powerpoint slide - it must be true!
 
docmirror said:
Yeah, statistics suck don't they. :lol: 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... :rofl:
Click to expand...

The stats are very slightly different, not "bad" comparatively speaking. Sure experimentals are on the cutting edge, some take it too far. Most don't.

If you can't run with the big dogs stay on the porch. ;)
 
Geico266 said:
Once again, this is the pilot's action not the plane. :mad2:

What it boils down to is you made a decision and bought an albatross and now you are defending your decisions. No matter how much you try and blame stupid pilot tricks it won't stick to experimentals.
Click to expand...

OP asked

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

I told him why I did.

You're the one who showed up at the water tower with your paint bucket to defend your plane's honor.

You can keep saying "the pilots actions" but that pilot must be showing up at airports all around america everyday in his RV. You can deny it if you want, the FAA has taken notice though.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
The stats are very slightly different, not "bad" comparatively speaking. Sure experimentals are on the cutting edge, some take it too far. Most don't.

If you can't run with the big dogs stay on the porch. ;)
Click to expand...

And that right there fella's is the 'tude I'm I'm talking about. :rofl:
 
LandSickness said:
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?

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?

3. Are experimentals more to insure and maintain? Does it even out over the life of ownership?

4. Is it difficult to inspect experimentals for manufacturing defects and therefore they're less desireable?

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.
Click to expand...

The only compelling reason to seek a certified plane is that you need to make money with it.
 
bartmc said:
And that right there fella's is the 'tude I'm I'm talking about. :rofl:
Click to expand...
You've got that right.

It's the nut holding the stick that is the problem.
"Dagger Flight 6" or some such was out at my airport last week. Morons. It's a Public airport and we TRAIN STUDENTS here.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Contrary to what any revisionist historians would like to believe, I am afraid that TITANIC sank due to the actions of her bridge watch.....NOT because of flaws in her construction.
Click to expand...

Contrary to the concept that one item causes a catastrophe, the ship sank due to a culmination of errors in design, manufacture and operation of the Titanic. It started with the formulation of the metal high in sulfur, was added to by the Open Hearth method of producing steel which causes hydrogen inclusion defects. The design failed to seal the compartments to the weather deck so they couldn't cross over to the other compartments. The operational negligence of the captain set the stage for catastrophe, but the straw that broke the camel's back and sank the ship was when the Officer of the Watch ordered her engines astern which spoiled the water flow across the rudder preventing the ship from turning and avoiding the collision.
 
My perspective on the EAB vs Certificated business is this:

I own a certifcated airplane (1948 Cessna 170) and I am in the process of buying an EAB (Pietenpol Air Camper).

I like my 170. It has a long track record. Still decent parts support and an outstanding type club with decades of experience and documentation. Downside is that some parts are becoming increasingly difficult to locate and when you need something the cost is ridiculous and documentation is a pain (like when you need a gascolator part that is identical to something currently made by John Deere - because the original was a 1930 era tractor part, but there is no paperwork associated and the overly cautious A&P won't sign off on it).

I like the Piet because it too is a long standing design. Very simple. I can do most of the work. Because of its simplicity, I have confidence that when a competent A&P IA tells me the construction is good, I feel comfortable with that. And it has a Continental engine installed with a known track record. I looked at a few EABs with Rotax and VW engines and decided I was personally not comfortable operating with those type engines in an airplane.

There are crappy, pencil-whipped horribly maintained certificated airplanes and there are shoddy-built EABs, but with both, as long as you do your due diligence in researching the aircraft before buying it, you will have a safe aircraft.....as long as the guy or gal flying it is a safe pilot.

That said, it is hard to argue with the bang for the buck of the EAB.
 
Gecko, your ridiculous statements about certified aircraft are just as uneducated as the statements many folks on here make about E-AB. It doesn't help your credibility, and is why I ignore pretty much everything you have to say. If what you say about certified aircraft (the realm I know) is so grossly wrong, why should I believe anything else you say is correct?

Pilots are allowed to work on their certified aircraft. Some under preventative maintenance, and the rest under supervision. We're even allowed to source our own parts in certain cases. Why just last week I repaired a relay. Parker wanted $3,000 for the unit. I found the actual relay (a Zettler part) for $2.80, nd repaired the assembly. Legal.
 
bartmc said:
OP asked

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

I told him why I did.

You're the one who showed up at the water tower with your paint bucket to defend your plane's honor.

You can keep saying "the pilots actions" but that pilot must be showing up at airports all around america everyday in his RV. You can deny it if you want, the FAA has taken notice though.
Click to expand...

So in your mind the best reason for owning a certified plane is because there are some pilots of experimentals that push the edge. Got it. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
For a several-hundred mile X/C, which one do you plan to use?

Fearless Tower said:
My perspective on the EAB vs Certificated business is this:

I own a certifcated airplane (1948 Cessna 170) and I am in the process of buying an EAB (Pietenpol Air Camper).

I like my 170. It has a long track record. Still decent parts support and an outstanding type club with decades of experience and documentation. Downside is that some parts are becoming increasingly difficult to locate and when you need something the cost is ridiculous and documentation is a pain (like when you need a gascolator part that is identical to something currently made by John Deere - because the original was a 1930 era tractor part, but there is no paperwork associated and the overly cautious A&P won't sign off on it).

I like the Piet because it too is a long standing design. Very simple. I can do most of the work. Because of its simplicity, I have confidence that when a competent A&P IA tells me the construction is good, I feel comfortable with that. And it has a Continental engine installed with a known track record. I looked at a few EABs with Rotax and VW engines and decided I was personally not comfortable operating with those type engines in an airplane.

There are crappy, pencil-whipped horribly maintained certificated airplanes and there are shoddy-built EABs, but with both, as long as you do your due diligence in researching the aircraft before buying it, you will have a safe aircraft.....as long as the guy or gal flying it is a safe pilot.

That said, it is hard to argue with the bang for the buck of the EAB.
Click to expand...
 
Henning said:
Contrary to the concept that one item causes a catastrophe, the ship sank due to a culmination of errors in design, manufacture and operation of the Titanic. It started with the formulation of the metal high in sulfur, was added to by the Open Hearth method of producing steel which causes hydrogen inclusion defects. The design failed to seal the compartments to the weather deck so they couldn't cross over to the other compartments. The operational negligence of the captain set the stage for catastrophe, but the straw that broke the camel's back and sank the ship was when the Officer of the Watch ordered her engines astern which spoiled the water flow across the rudder preventing the ship from turning and avoiding the collision.
Click to expand...
OLYMPIC had how many collsions duirng her lifetime??? I seem to recall at least 4! Old Reliable (built in the same yard with the same steel) steamed all the way to the scrapper in the 30's.

Point being, any other ship built back then would have sunk had they steamed full bore into a berg. Like most EAB accidents, the construction of the aircraft doesn't make up for the actions of the pilot at the controls.
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
Gecko, your ridiculous statements about certified aircraft are just as uneducated as the statements many folks on here make about E-AB. It doesn't help your credibility, and is why I ignore pretty much everything you have to say. If what you say about certified aircraft (the realm I know) is so grossly wrong, why should I believe anything else you say is correct?

Pilots are allowed to work on their certified aircraft. Some under preventative maintenance, and the rest under supervision. We're even allowed to source our own parts in certain cases. Why just last week I repaired a relay. Parker wanted $3,000 for the unit. I found the actual relay (a Zettler part) for $2.80, nd repaired the assembly. Legal.
Click to expand...

Would you care to take this information to the local FSDO and ask them?

Personal attacks will not change the facts. Adding a cylinder monitor by yourself to a certified plane was illegal and is not covered under "maintenance". Only an A&P can do the work, then signed off by an IA. Your using a non-certified part is illegal also. Period. There are lots of ways and parts to use to save money, but they are NOT legal. Did you enter this information in your log books? :nono:

Nice that you guys fault a very few pilots of experimentals for breaking the rules, yet you look the other way and cheat the system when it comes to your own situation. :dunno:
 
Last edited:
Geico is a builder, dealer and card-carrying zealot for his cult. As to your chances of an objective discussion, Slim lift town.
Ted DuPuis said:
Gecko, your ridiculous statements about certified aircraft are just as uneducated as the statements many folks on here make about E-AB. It doesn't help your credibility, and is why I ignore pretty much everything you have to say. If what you say about certified aircraft (the realm I know) is so grossly wrong, why should I believe anything else you say is correct?

Pilots are allowed to work on their certified aircraft. Some under preventative maintenance, and the rest under supervision. We're even allowed to source our own parts in certain cases. Why just last week I repaired a relay. Parker wanted $3,000 for the unit. I found the actual relay (a Zettler part) for $2.80, nd repaired the assembly. Legal.
Click to expand...
 
murphey said:
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".
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the Nissan Sentra and whatever Ford you have are equipped with I4 engines.... and there is a lot more to engines and their power/efficiency than merely how many cylinders they have.
 
wabower said:
Geico is a builder, dealer and card-carrying zealot for his cult. As to your chances of an objective discussion, Slim lift town.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and None is passed out at the bar.

Those of us who've owned certified aircraft know that it is legal to do work under the supervision of an A&P, owner-sourced parts are legal providing the proper conditions are met. It's all spelled out in the FARs.

The sad thing is, Gecko might actually get more interest if he stayed honest, and do his beloved RVs a better service. But for the time being, I'll buy my planes and my car insurance elsewhere.
 
wabower said:
Geico is a builder, dealer and card-carrying zealot for his cult. As to your chances of an objective discussion, Slim lift town.
Click to expand...

Calling me names, distorting the truth, and personal attacks is a good place to start a discussion.

Cult? Really? :rofl:
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Yeah, and None is passed out at the bar.

Those of us who've owned certified aircraft know that it is legal to do work under the supervision of an A&P, owner-sourced parts are legal providing the proper conditions are met. It's all spelled out in the FARs.

The sad thing is, Gecko might actually get more interest if he stayed honest, and do his beloved RVs a better service. But for the time being, I'll buy my planes and my car insurance elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Let's take your examples to your local FSDO. If you are so sure, you have nothing to hide right? :dunno:

My point is experimentals are a lot less to maintain and operate. There is no getting around that. There are nut jobs flying Bonanzas, Cessnas, and RV's. The one's flying RV's are better looking. ;)
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Let's take your examples to your local FSDO. If you are so sure, you have nothing to hide right? :dunno:
Click to expand...

I have been doing my own maintenance and repairs with no A&P ticket for over 2 decades, all completely legal for FAA review. You don't need an A&P to do the work, you only need one to sign the logs, and even that wasn't true 20 years ago as I could sign off repairs and annuals under the CRS# in those days.
 
Henning said:
I have been doing my own maintenance and repairs with no A&P ticket for over 2 decades, all completely legal for FAA review. You don't need an A&P to do the work, you only need one to sign the logs, and even that wasn't true 20 years ago as I could sign off repairs and annuals under the CRS# in those days.
Click to expand...

We are not talking about maintenance. We are talking about using non certified parts in certified airplanes, and adding equipment that was not in the plane to begin with. That is not maintenance. :nono:
 
Geico266 said:
We are not talking about maintenance. We are talking about using non certified parts in certified airplanes, and adding equipment that was not in the plane to begin with. That is not maintenance. :nono:
Click to expand...

Owner produced parts I have used many, even showed off a few things I machined or fabricated to the FSDO guys next door who liked the workmanship. The rules are tighter than with experimentals, but not so to make it impossible to make my own parts or repair my own assemblies.
 
Henning said:
Owner produced parts I have used many, even showed off a few things I machined or fabricated to the FSDO guys next door who liked the workmanship. The rules are tighter than with experimentals, but not so to make it impossible to make my own parts or repair my own assemblies.
Click to expand...

It is my understanding you can only make parts if certified parts are no longer available. Are you breaking the rules also? :rofl:

Look guys, I could care less if you do your own work, put your non certified parts on by yourself. But, don't do it and think you are not breaking the rules for certified planes.

The point of this thread is to look at the differences between certified and experimental, not name calling, personal attacks, or guilt by association.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Crickets.


:popcorn:
Click to expand...

I don't ask them if it's legal for me to do anything else that's clearly legal as written in the FARs, why would I waste their time with this? And I've also taken an oath not to have non-productive conversations without a Gin & Tonic, and it's early yet.

Henning has the ball now. I'll let him handle this. :thumbsup:
 
Geico266 said:
It is my understanding you can only make parts if certified parts are no longer available. Are you breaking the rules also?
Click to expand...

Please find a reference in the FARs and/or a statement from Chief Counsel that backs your understanding. What the 'no longer supported' rule is about is being able to modify using non identical replacement parts.
 
I read the first page or two, so cut me some slack if I repeat something.

I bought a vintage mooney. It cost me close to $60K. I got a well documented plane with a garmin 430, AP, strikefinder, dual radios, dual VOR w/GS and engine monitor. It is also certified for instrument flight, seats 4 and cruises 150 knots.

It's all about my personal mission. I couldn't find an experimental that checked all MY boxes. Since I didn't have a checking account that could back up my 6 figure wants, I had to go certified vintage. So far, no regrets.
 
rbridges said:
I read the first page or two, so cut me some slack if I repeat something.

I bought a vintage mooney. It cost me close to $60K. I got a well documented plane with a garmin 430, AP, strikefinder, dual radios, dual VOR w/GS and engine monitor. It is also certified for instrument flight, seats 4 and cruises 150 knots.

It's all about my personal mission. I couldn't find an experimental that checked all MY boxes. Since I didn't have a checking account that could back up my 6 figure wants, I had to go certified vintage. So far, no regrets.
Click to expand...


There you go you get the plane that best fits your mission.
 
The EX/AB fanatics will disagree with this, but I don't care, since it is the truth. When I started flying you had to be nuts not to buy an experimental. Just nuts. The acquisition costs were far less than certificated aircraft, and there was the bonus of being able to modify them, though I think only a moron modifies an aircraft who doesn't understand a LOT about how they work.

Fast forward a decade and things are a bit different. The price of certificated aircraft has been in free fall, they are now no more expensive to acquire than experimentals. It has always been the case that someone of mechanical ability could work on either, though the certificated aircraft are certainly more restrictive. But if you're more like your truly, with little mechanical ability and a full time non-aviation job, the certificated is the obvious choice. Mechanics have seen it before and know what to do, versus setups in experimental aircraft with which they may be completely unfamiliar.
 
steingar said:
The price of certificated aircraft has been in free fall, they are now no more expensive to acquire than experimentals.
Click to expand...
While that is true, the cost of parts and consequently maintainance cost between the two is radically different.
 
Fearless Tower said:
While that is true, the cost of parts and consequently maintainance cost between the two is radically different.
Click to expand...

The great thing about certified planes is MIL-SPEC parts. This makes it so you can find the manufacturer of that MIL-SPEC part and purchase it directly from them, typically at a fraction of the price, and it is completely legal to install as a direct replacement.
 
wabower said:
Which specific parts are you talking about?
Click to expand...
Anything from OEM (Cessna, Beech, Piper....etc) where there is no other source. Anything with a PMA.

You can't just go pick out any old item from the Spruce catalog and slap it in a certified airplane. Take my 170 for example. I can buy a part from Univair for 3 times what I would pay to order it from Spruce, but he Univair part comes with paperwork that the Spruce one does not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top