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

Fearless Tower said:
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.
Click to expand...

Consider how many OEM unique parts that are really in the typical airframe, very few. Most all airframe parts that are unique to the manufacturer are folded up or flat sheet metal which can be reproduced at normal industrial prices. There are a few castings and forgings, but with few exceptions, there's enough of these parts in the junkyards that you will never need to go to the OEM to get them.

To me it's pretty much the same either way, certified or experimental. Why do I own a certified plane? There isn't a high performance experimental twin I can afford to purchase/build by a factor of over 10 fold what I have in my 310 even given the certified avionics cost when I'm all done with an AP and full glass.

For a different mission I would chose an Exp as I have before if it was best suited for the overall mission.
 
Last edited:
i finally bought a type certified glider because it had the performance i desired.
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
I disagree that a prebuy is the same in that experiments are more likely to have car parts, bulbs, screws/nuts rather than 100% aviation quality or milspec.

.
Click to expand...

Where do you thing those certified parts are built? They are built in the same line as the auto parts. The starter solenoid for a 60's model Cessna 172 is the same as a Ford Automobile. Same goes for many of the electrical components, just pop the tag off and see whats underneath it.
 
Henning said:
Consider how many parts that is really in the typical airframe, very few. Most all airframe parts that are unique to the manufacturer are folded up or flat sheet metal which can be reproduced at normal industrial prices. There are a few castings and forgings, but with few exceptions, there's enough of these parts in the junkyards that you will never need to go to the OEM to get them.
Click to expand...
There is some truth to that, but it is not always that simple. I had an aileron bracket that was cracked in such a place that it could not be acceptably repaired. The bracket was constructed in such a way that it was not a simple sheet metal fabrication that we could do ourselves.

Cessna wanted something like $3000 for the replacement part AND a minimum two month lead time (the part would have to be a one time specifically manufactured part by them....hence the high cost vs greed issue I mentioned earlier). Yes, scrap yards are a good place to look, but that can take a long lead time too. I did get a scrap one from a parted out airplane....turned out it was cracked in the exact same spot as my original one! I finally lucked out and found a NOS one on Tradeaplane for less than $300, but I had to wait about as long as if I had ordered the $3000 dollar part from Cessna. YMMV
 
Dean said:
Where do you thing those certified parts are built? They are built in the same line as the auto parts. The starter solenoid for a 60's model Cessna 172 is the same as a Ford Automobile. Same goes for many of the electrical components, just pop the tag off and see whats underneath it.
Click to expand...
moving up the cost scale, the piper arrow/lance hydraulic power pack looks remarkably like the one used to raise and lower the outdrive of a mercruiser powered boat. So similar in fact that you might find mercury marine part numbers on some of the bits.
 
In as civil a manner as I can...

I agree with Steingar's point about market forces weighting the decision. When I bought my plane last year you couldn't build the performance of a Skylane for twice what I paid. With the savings I can pay for a lot of higher fuel burn and A&P time. Find the RV-10 for $45K and an IFR panel...

Further, some folks just aren't builders. I am a pilot and an engineer, not an assembler. My signature is on a whole bunch of aircraft blueprints including the A-380 and F-35 but that doesn't make me a competent riveter or composite layup artist.

Should the market shift before I buy my next plane I am willing to purchase a reputable build job of an E/AB with a thorough prebuy inspection. Some designs, like the composite canards, are almost exclusively the province of E/AB so the choice is made for me. But whatever I buy I will get lots of instruction in make/model before I fly away solo. THAT is the right attitude to taken to any new airframe, whether it is a 182RG and its different fuel system from the straight leg 182 or a Berkut with enough performance to pass up lightning bolts.

I respect and admire the E/AB folks but until the acquisition cost of your used birds makes dollar-sense to me and my mission I won't buy one. Yes, my next bird is likely to be a twin. Yeah, that limits E/AB availability. But if I come across a Defiant or V-Twin I might make the leap.

Don't hate either way, be glad both exist. Approach your purchase with a well defined mission in mind and logically assess. Then thoroughly prebuy inspect. Duh.
 
Why buy a certified airplane? Simple.









Wait for it.......











They don't make an experimental Mooney.
 
Again, if you don't have the wherewithal to fix your own aircraft (which I think includes the majority of aircraft owners) it is a good thing that there is a standardized part to be put in. A savvy mechanic will procure you or at least point you to a used part to save money. If you are that mechanically inclined you can probably find a mechanic to inspect and sign off your maintenance.

If you are mechanically savvy an Experimental aircraft probably makes a lot of sense. You have far more flexibility for parts and repairs. However, if you aren't I don't think they make as good sense.

Again, another option rather than an end-all. At least for now. The safety statistics for the EX/AB community are nothing short of appalling, and Odin only knows what the FAA will do or when they will do it.

And I agree with David's comment vis-a-vis Mooney. Me want.
 
My alternator had a Cessna tag glued on top of a Ford tag. The guy at the alternator shop would fix it if I removed the Cessna tag while he worked on it.

Many trim cranks, gear motors and many other "airplane certified" parts bear a suspicious resemblance to car parts from the same era.

Dean said:
Where do you thing those certified parts are built? They are built in the same line as the auto parts. The starter solenoid for a 60's model Cessna 172 is the same as a Ford Automobile. Same goes for many of the electrical components, just pop the tag off and see whats underneath it.
Click to expand...
 
The problem with just saying "Experimental" is that "experimental" consists of a very large fleet of types that differ dramatically. Some are incredibly high-risk -- others are as safe as a 152.

Getting support for a RV or finding parts would be easier than many type certified designs.

Support for my Flybaby OTOH is much different. You'd be a fool to buy it without expecting to do a lot of wrenching over time yourself. Tom is right that most experimental are using normal aircraft parts for the engine, wheels, brakes, etc. So it's quite simple for me to fix stuff like that. Much of the airframe however I'd have to fabricate on my own if something needed replacing. Granted most of that fabricating can be done by an 8th grader (or so the plans say).

The advantage is that I can continue doing what I've always done. Everything I own I maintain. There also really isn't a cheaper way to just get up in the sky and go fly around in circles and clear the mind.
 
Fearless Tower said:
There is some truth to that, but it is not always that simple. I had an aileron bracket that was cracked in such a place that it could not be acceptably repaired. The bracket was constructed in such a way that it was not a simple sheet metal fabrication that we could do ourselves.

Cessna wanted something like $3000 for the replacement part AND a minimum two month lead time (the part would have to be a one time specifically manufactured part by them....hence the high cost vs greed issue I mentioned earlier). Yes, scrap yards are a good place to look, but that can take a long lead time too. I did get a scrap one from a parted out airplane....turned out it was cracked in the exact same spot as my original one! I finally lucked out and found a NOS one on Tradeaplane for less than $300, but I had to wait about as long as if I had ordered the $3000 dollar part from Cessna. YMMV
Click to expand...


But in the end you had the part for a reasonable price by exercising a bit of diligence. This is what I find with all parts pretty much. I never said anything about simple. If one is a simpleton, then yes, aviation will be very expensive in a certified plane, and deadly in an experimental. Aviation: Simpletons need not apply".
 
Morne said:
In as civil a manner as I can...

Don't hate either way, be glad both exist. Approach your purchase with a well defined mission in mind and logically assess. Then thoroughly prebuy inspect. Duh.
Click to expand...

I agree, name calling, personal attacks, and guilt by association have no place here. :nono:

:D
 
If you want a vintage aircraft you'll be hard pressed to find a EXP one.
 
jesse said:
The problem with just saying "Experimental" is that "experimental" consists of a very large fleet of types that differ dramatically. Some are incredibly high-risk -- others are as safe as a 152.

Getting support for a RV or finding parts would be easier than many type certified designs.

Support for my Flybaby OTOH is much different. You'd be a fool to buy it without expecting to do a lot of wrenching over time yourself. Tom is right that most experimental are using normal aircraft parts for the engine, wheels, brakes, etc. So it's quite simple for me to fix stuff like that. Much of the airframe however I'd have to fabricate on my own if something needed replacing. Granted most of that fabricating can be done by an 8th grader (or so the plans say).

The advantage is that I can continue doing what I've always done. Everything I own I maintain. There also really isn't a cheaper way to just get up in the sky and go fly around in circles and clear the mind.
Click to expand...

the nice thing about making repairs to the airframe on the flybaby is that the parts grow on trees.
 
Tony, don't you know better than to interject logic and common sense? This is the internet!
 
wabower said:
My alternator had a Cessna tag glued on top of a Ford tag. The guy at the alternator shop would fix it if I removed the Cessna tag while he worked on it.

Many trim cranks, gear motors and many other "airplane certified" parts bear a suspicious resemblance to car parts from the same era.
Click to expand...
Or tractor parts from the 1930s....
 
Fearless Tower said:
True, although that is one of the things I love about the Piet! Design has been around since the 30's.
Click to expand...


and some have auto conversion engine's :eek:

they are very fun airplanes, cant wait to get mine goin again!
 
A factor for we Geezers (and maybe others) is the potential for a loss of a medical and thus limitations to LSA. Cubs, Ercoupes, etc are fun airplanes but building my own Zodiac would result in a higher performing more modern aircraft. My annual physicals with my familty doctor are much more thorough than a Class III with an AME so I figure if my Doc says I am good to go, I can just drop the potential for something screwy happening with the FAA.

As an engineer, machinist and more than adequate mechanic, I feel building is a reasonable approach. That with transition training from the Spam Cans I fly now minimizes risk for me.

I also plan on the mechanic training offered by EAA and others for maintaining the bird.

Buying one built by someone else is a different situation and I doubt I would do that.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Yeah and they are in some museum, try buying one.
Click to expand...

Pricey without a doubt, but I've seen them for less than WWII warbirds, I remember one that was a basket case but purportedly complete that was cheaper than a T-6.
 
I've been told that the retract motor on my plane is the wiper motor on many Packards and Studebakers of the day. I know the little handle that holds my pilot window closed is the same one found on a 48 Chevy DeLuxe.

Cert planes are more costly than EXP. Cert planes are safer by any measure than EXP It's a complex calculus but that is the fact.
 
Fearless Tower said:
While that is true, the cost of parts and consequently maintainance cost between the two is radically different.
Click to expand...

Unless you over estimate your own abilities to maintain/modify your experimental and kill yourself. Then the costs are pretty significant.

I wouldn't fly in any plane I built. :) neither should you.

I see it like making videos: NBC, ABC and movie mogals do a pretty good job of making videos but just because I have a video camera doesn't mean that the videos I shoot in my back yard are the same quality, scope, composition. Granted I won't kill someone over estimating my producer/ director skills.

They may be plenty of guys who can and do do it safely but it is not an automatic than any guy who buys a kit, builds it in his garage, manages not to kill himself in the test flight can fly as safely as most Certificated ac.

There are possible issues with the designs of some kits; there are possible issues with the ultimate assembler; supervision; possible parts selection particularly if someone tries to finish a project on a tight budget.

So if you are a engineer/mechanic personality and feel you are pretty good and cannot afford a type cert. plane than go ahead and go for it. Just be aware of the pitfalls and you can manage risk appropriately.

The world is full of people who can do this, but it is also full of people who greatly over estimate their own abilities.

I prefer the safety of type certificate. I'm not saying that there are no safe exp models, its just more of the responsibility falls to you to know what you are doing and not get hoodwinked in a purchase, or by your own ego.
 
Henning said:
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.
Click to expand...

SAE is also a standard FAA accepts.
 
X3 Skier said:
A factor for we Geezers (and maybe others) is the potential for a loss of a medical and thus limitations to LSA. Cubs, Ercoupes, etc are fun airplanes but building my own Zodiac would result in a higher performing more modern aircraft. As an engineer, machinist and more than adequate mechanic, I feel building is a reasonable approach. That with transition training from the Spam Cans I fly now minimizes risk for me.

I also plan on the mechanic training offered by EAA and others for maintaining the bird.

Buying one built by someone else is a different situation and I doubt I would do that.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Definitely trickier and riskier, but nothing to run away from. The Midget Mustang I had was built by someone else. The good thing was I knew him and his workmanship, but even had I not, it did not take much inspection to the the quality of work and the care that went into the fabrication of every part.

The key to the inspection is knowing what to look for and where to look. For this you used to need a pretty good understanding of the plans and fabrication in order to find the tricky bits. The Internet has helped with that greatly as now there are forums that cover most every type and you can look there to see where the problems pop up. Van's makes it easy to tell the skills the person started the project with (or at least if they were willing to accept the shoddy work they did at the beginning) by inspecting the tail since that is the first thing most everybody builds.

Aluminum is pretty easy to inspect, layups on the other hand require an ultrasound, best you can do there without is look through the receipts for the correct materials and quantities and tap around with a nylon hammer.
 
Henning said:
I wonder how much the old Chevy window crank handle costs when you buy it as a trim crank from Piper...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I remember learning to fly in a Cherokee back in the day with that crank and thought it was for opening a window the first time I saw it.

Cheers
 
Henning said:
Aluminum is pretty easy to inspect, layups on the other hand require an ultrasound, best you can do there without is look through the receipts for the correct materials and quantities and tap around with a nylon hammer.
Click to expand...

The standard NDI when we first started with composites in USAF aircraft was tapping with a quarter. Things progressed pretty fast from there.;)

Cheers
 
JimNtexas said:
Nobody really knows what happened. The NTSB finding was:
Click to expand...

So that particular case really doesn't tell whether it was the plane or the pilot with a deficiency.

It's no mystery that Experimental pilots have higher accident rates since they're likely to push the aerodynamic envelope for all it's worth, and generally speaking, often get into Experimentals because of their distaste of cumbersome regulations, most of said regulations actually being good for safety, if not for cost effectiveness.

Combine the above and a significant increase in accidents is assured, when applied accross the whole Experimental pilot population. But the Experimenters in Aviation are still the ones who gave/give it to everyone, including all Certificated operators, showing them where they should stay out of, for a better margin of safety.

The Ex/HB realm is a fantastic and more demanding place to fly in, after basic training is accomplished in more predictable and highly proven aircraft that other Experimenters developed and eventually got certified....
 
X3 Skier said:
The standard NDI when we first started with composites in USAF aircraft was tapping with a quarter. Things progressed pretty fast from there.;)

Cheers
Click to expand...

I show up to survey a $30MM yacht carrying only a clip board and a hammer.:D
 
MSPAviator said:
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.
Click to expand...

Let us ignore my lack of correct notation and return to the orginal issue - same engine in two vehicles of substantially different weight will have substantially different performance. And the lower weight vehicle will have the advantage in performance.
 
murphey said:
Let us ignore my lack of correct notation and return to the orginal issue - same engine in two vehicles of substantially different weight will have substantially different performance. And the lower weight vehicle will have the advantage in performance.
Click to expand...


Almost, you have to define "performance". The lower weight vehicle will accelerate to a given speed faster so if acceleration is the object of performance you are correct. If it is the ability to move another large/heavy object though, you would likely be incorrect as the extra weight of the heavier vehicle will give it a traction advantage where the light vehicle will spin the tires.
 
Geico266 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Can't find one worth keeping? :rofl:
 
L.Adamson said:
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
Click to expand...

Hmm.. RV expert, used to be a partner in one and now owns a Bo and a 210?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top