What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Who moved from Certified to Experimental

Foam-the-runway

Active Member
All of my flying has been on the certified side of aviation. Being able to work on your own aircraft and cheaper parts has motivated me to make the move.

Curious to see if any owners of certified aircraft gave up and moved strictly to experimental. Has it been a wise decision?
 
Assuming you're referring to the ownership experience as opposed to the flying one, (because I would imagine that the vast majority of us learned to fly in certified aircraft at the very least)...

I owned certified before moving to my current RV. At the moment, I cannot imagine moving back into certified aircraft, but EAB aircraft are certainly not for everyone. Owning, maintaining, and operating experimentals takes another level of involvement, and in many cases, a more refined philosophy when it comes to making choices about equipment and maintenance.

Who was it that said, "With great feedom comes great responsibility?"
 
Last edited:
Assuming you're referring to the ownership experience as opposed to the flying one, (because I would imagine that the vast majority of us learned to fly in certified aircraft at the very least)...

I owned certified before moving to my current RV. At the moment, I cannot imagine moving back into certified aircraft, but EAB aircraft are certainly not for everyone. Owning, maintaining, and operating experimentals takes another level of involvement, and in many cases, a more refined philosophy whe it comes to making choices about equipment and maintenance.

Who was it that said, "With great feedom comes great responsibility?"

Is the involvement being your own maintenance person or/and something else?
 
Is the involvement being your own maintenance person or/and something else?

Maintenance, parts and lack of as-built documentation are a big part of it, of course. My take is that half of homebuilts need to be re-wired.

Another big part is lack of a formal POH and very often a lack of full envelope flight testing for that individual airplane. Many planes will have quirks lurking in corners of their flight envelopes. I can think of a half dozen homebuilts that I will neither fly nor ride in.

A big temptation is to fly the plane under gross weight with a mid-c.g., and then go on a long trip with a full load, an aft c.g., and great expectations.

When I got my AirCam, a full checkout was not available. After three times around the pattern, I knew that I could fly the AirCame well and safely in the middle of the envelope. I spent any number of hours expanding my envelope, and was careful to stay within what I knew I could do.

The same thing can happen in spam cans. Nominal checkout, light, mid c.g., and great expectations.

As Dirty Harry said, "Man's got to know his limitations."
 
Cert---->Experimental +1

My switch wasn't necessarily a conscious one. I had flown certified since becoming a private pilot in the late 70s. I owned a Cessna 152 for 10 years. Through my line of work one evening I met a couple of guys that had built RV Aircraft. Their excitement and enthusiasm for experimental aircraft and in particular vans aircraft was contagious. It took me a while to realize but the seed had been planted! It wasn't long before I was looking at the Vans website and those beautiful airplanes. What reeled me in once and for all were the performance numbers. This thought kept running through my mind.... Comparing certified performance specs with vans Aircraft specs I came to a simple conclusion. In keeping with comparing apples to apples, one would have to spend north of a half million dollars to end up with a zero time airframe, zero time engine to match the specs of a vans aircraft. I was sold.

That was back 2005. I bought the kit, (the entire kit at once), and started building end of 2006. My 7A had it's first flight April 1st of 2012. It flew perfectly. The performance numbers were just as advertised.

A final thought. There is only one word to describe how a vans aircraft flies... CRISP! I recall flying my 152 again once after the 7A was flying and having the feeling that something was terribly wrong. After a few seconds it dawned on me that I had become accustomed to the 7A. I liked my little Cessna but nothing compares to a Vans. It's the best compromise of all things good in airplanes!
 
Depends...?

I knew nothing but Cessna's before the RVs. But I got into this because over here even maintaining a simple aircraft like a Cessna cost us 6,5k in the first annual and nothing was actually wrong with the plane! I mean it was very basic stuff like brake pads. Prop / engine had been overhauled before 200h before we got the plane so it was a solid performer. Next year we thought has to be less this year. I worked on all of the things they said had to be done sometimes soon.... and guess what they found more BS for about the same price... The worst part of it? I made an appointment for an annual about 4 month in advance. I dropped of the plane on said day and they didn't touch it for 7 weeks. I know because I checked the airport camera daily. Then they spend a few hours opening inspection panels and told us they needed another month or so to finish up....REALLY?

So Certified ownership sucked for me and I realized that I actually enjoyed working on the plane a lot. So building came natural and I really enjoy it. I also believe it makes me a better pilot because I know the systems inside out. Specially the wiring. LOVE WIRING!

Any way if you enjoy building then EAB is for you. It is so much fun and I would never go back!

On a side note. A few things I have seen on certified plane after the Pros worked on it makes me think that they may be professionals but they make mistakes just like everyone else and they for sure do not care as much about my bird as I do. So trust but verify. Get a second set of eyes to double check the work you do if you are unsure or have been distracted. We are all human and make mistakes. It is a huge responsibility but non of it is really hard.
 
People sometimes have bad experiences regardless of the kind of airplane that they buy. RV7ForMe's experience with annuals is a good example. While these may be essentially independent of the specific airplane, they nonetheless hurt. With certified planes you do have somewhat fewer options than with experimental. But at the end of the day, we're all looking for a safe airplane that was checked over by someone competent who did it rapidly and inexpensively.

Still, the saying is, "good, fast, cheap - pick any two."

My own experience with owning a certified plane for more than a third of a century has been positive. It can be done.

Dave
 
On a side note. A few things I have seen on certified plane after the Pros worked on it makes me think that they may be professionals but they make mistakes just like everyone else and they for sure do not care as much about my bird as I do.

LOL…I can definitely attest to that. On my last annual I got my plane back and the rigging was off. Luckily they corrected it without a hassle but it bothered me that they would hand the plane back obviously out of alignment.
 
Is the involvement being your own maintenance person or/and something else?

I would answer your question, but I had one of Ed Wischmeyer's posts in mind when you asked, and by the time I found the one I recalled, he had already answered far more succinctly than I could have.

One more thought...

As I recall, you are planning to build rather than acquire a flying airplane. If so, you'll apply for and receive a Repairman's Certificate that allows you to do virtually all the maintenance on your specific airplane. I bought mine, so I cannot do quite as much. (How much, and under what circumstances, is a subject of debate which doesn't need reiteration here.) However, just because you can doesn't mean you should. As someone pointed out to me recently, the notion of builder/maintainer certificates was conceived of in a time when EAB aircraft were generally simpler machines. Now that the complexities of 180 horsepower, constant speed propellers, advanced avionics, and generally higher performance which have become commonplace, experience, (flying and maintaining), have become ever more critical. You might be an expert and very qualified, so I am speaking to everyone here. My thoughts are not directed to you in particular.

No matter who works on your airplane, there are important competencies to be maintained. I don't happen to subscribe to the theory that someone who managed to construct an airplane and obtain a Special Airworthiness Certificate is necessarily qualified to maintain it. As was mentioned, there are flying EABs of questionable build quality. It follows then that the folks who built them are only marginally qualified to maintain them.

If someone is actually qualified and has the requisite experience to maintain his or her aircraft without an A&P, that's wonderful, but it's important to have the self-awareness to know what you don't know, too.

I happen to have an aircraft partner who is tremendously mechanically inclined and went to A&P school, as well as a very close friend who is also an extraordinarily qualified and experienced builder. We'll do most things together, but there are some things I trust only a particular RV savvy A&P/IA to do, none of which include his sign-off authority.
 
Last edited:
do it!

I did it 12 years ago and Im sick I didn't jump into the experimental world sooner! I have saved lots of money and become a much more knowledgeable airplane owner because of it.

All of my flying has been on the certified side of aviation. Being able to work on your own aircraft and cheaper parts has motivated me to make the move.

Curious to see if any owners of certified aircraft gave up and moved strictly to experimental. Has it been a wise decision?
 
I would answer your question, but I had one of Ed Wischmeyer's posts in mind when you asked, and by the time I found the one I recalled, he had already answered far more succinctly than I could have.
One more thought...
As I recall, you are planning to build rather than acquire a flying airplane. If so, you'll apply for and receive a Repairman's Certificate that allows you to do virtually all the maintenance on your specific airplane. I bought mine, so I cannot do quite as much. (How much, and under what circumstances, is a subject of debate which doesn't need reiteration here.) However, just because you can doesn't mean you should. As someone pointed out to me recently, the notion of builder/maintainer certificates was conceived of in a time when EAB aircraft were generally simpler machines. Now that the complexities of 180 horsepower, constant speed propellers, advanced avionics, and generally higher performance which have become commonplace, experience, (flying and maintaining), have become ever more critical. You might be an expert and very qualified, so I am speaking to everyone here. My thoughts are not directed to you in particular.
No matter who works on your airplane, there are important competencies to be maintained. I don't happen to subscribe to the theory that someone who managed to construct an airplane and obtain a Special Airworthiness Certificate is necessarily qualified to maintain it. As was mentioned, there are flying EABs of questionable build quality. It follows then that the folks who built them are only marginally qualified to maintain them.
If someone is actually qualified and has the requisite experience to maintain his or her aircraft without an A&P, that's wonderful, but it's important to have the self-awareness to know what you don't know, too.
I happen to have an aircraft partner who is tremendously mechanically inclined and went to A&P school, as well as a very close friend who is also an extraordinarily qualified and experienced builder. We'll do most things together, but there are some things I trust only a particular RV savvy A&P/IA to do, none of which include his sign-off authority.

Minor error; the EAB repairman certificate has nothing to do with maintenance. ANYONE can legally maintain, and even modify an EAB aircraft.
The repairman certificate only allows the holder to perform and sign off the condition inspection for that particular aircraft.
 
Went from a Cessna turbo 182rg to my RV10 and have never regretted the move. There are a few things the Cessna does better (high wing shade,built like a tank) but the performance and cost of maintenance of an RV wins hands down. Also being way newer everything.
 
I did it 12 years ago and Im sick I didn't jump into the experimental world sooner! I have saved lots of money and become a much more knowledgeable airplane owner because of it.

You know, I'm feeling that way now. I should have jumped on board long ago.
To be honest for decades I didn't have any respect for experimental aircraft (lol...please don't flame me). In the early 80's I literally witnessed a guy die in a EZ crash. That turned me off up until 3-4 years ago. I actually considered them on par with ultralight. That incident was traumatizing because he cut us off on base before the crash.
 
Experimental All The Way

I flew certified aircraft for 20 years (AA5B, AG5B Grumman Tigers). I had the same A/P the entire time who allowed me to do owner assisted annuals. Everything I could do on a certified plane, I did. Avionics installations as well but everything was left open for A/P inspection and sign off or changes if I did something that he didn't like. Great experience!

I wouldn't/couldn't go back to certified aircraft. I really wish I would have not purchased the second tiger but went to experimental then.

Good Luck!
 
I flew certified aircraft for 20 years (AA5B, AG5B Grumman Tigers). I had the same A/P the entire time who allowed me to do owner assisted annuals. Everything I could do on a certified plane, I did. Avionics installations as well but everything was left open for A/P inspection and sign off or changes if I did something that he didn't like. Great experience!

I wouldn't/couldn't go back to certified aircraft. I really wish I would have not purchased the second tiger but went to experimental then.

Good Luck!

I see a lot of physical similarities in certain VAN's with the Tiger. Are the flight characteristics similar?
 
easy answer

Had a c-206 for 20+ years and moved to RV-6 and RV-6A 5 years ago. Like my daughter says, WOW you get there fast.
Ain't goin back either.
I have had my fair share of "professional" mechanics screw up my stuff than I can count. And that includes major screw ups on heavy equipment.
I fix it. I fly it. Plane and simple Art
 
Who was it that said, "With great feedom comes great responsibility?"

This sentence can not be emphasized enough in the EAB world. After I went to EAB there is no way back for me…. . I love that freedom and won’t give it up.

However, there are many little things that can kill you in an airplane and with EAB you (not the kit manufacturer or vansairforce or …) is ultimately responsible to catch all of them.

Oliver
 
Tiger Characteristics

The Grumman Tigers are very similar being a low wing, O-360 engine, 35 foot wing span and slider canopy. The back seat folded down to carry bikes, full sets of golf clubs or anything else you needed. Great airplane just bigger, heavier and slower.

With 5 children the Tiger was the perfect plane. With just myself and the wife the RV-7A is the perfect plane.
 
Similarities Between RVs and Grummans

I see a lot of physical similarities in certain VAN's with the Tiger. Are the flight characteristics similar?

I got my pilot's license back in 1996 in a Grumman AA-1B, and until last year had most of my PIC time in the Grumman aircraft. In fact, I owned a Traveler AA-5 for 5 years before completing my RV-10. But I definitely needed the 10 hours of transition training in the RV-10 before I was ready to solo in it. While there are a lot of similarities with the Grumman AA-5x aircraft, the RV is a much faster machine, and so I found myself behind the curve for the first few hours in the RV-10. This wasn't due to the constant speed prop, as I have some hours in the Piper Arrow and the transition there was easy. But everything was happening more quickly in the RV. I'm now very comfortable in the RV-10 and glad I switched.

I also have some hours in a C-172, and found flying it to be like a truck compared to the sports car like response of the Grumman AA-5B. So perhaps the RV-10 is like a transition from an average sports car to a super sports car like a Ferrari or Lamborghini? I can't say for sure, as I have never been fortunate enough to drive one of them. <grin>

Cheers,
 
Experimental

Simply put, I should have done it years ago. My wife and I are both CFIIs Multi rated, owned a Beech twin, ran a flight school for 15 years, owned a Bonanza, Arrow, C152, C172, Cessna 150-150 Aerobat (and taught aerobatics) 3 Cherokee 140s, Cherokee 180, Piper Tri-Pacer, Champ, and got bored...I built a Sonex after my neighbor build a Onex and I flew all the hours off, because he was afraid of it. SInce I helped build it and enjoyed doing so, I decided to build a Sonex. The horse was out of the barn then. I never had so much fun flying in all those years. We flew it 400 hours in just over three years and went to Oshkosh camping three times. Finally I loved the experimental side so much I wanted an RV-9 but at 78 I decided that taking a big chunk out of the few flying years I might have left, I made a buy decision. Bought it in Yakima and flew it 2800 miles home to SC, the long way. What a machine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sold the Sonex and flew it 950 miles to Dallas to the new owner. He loves it. I would never have a certified airplane again.

If I had only seen the light when I was still a young man....
Ed
 
One thing that's worth doing is have another person do an inspection of your airplane. Different people tend to look at different things and it's a good way to catch things that might otherwise be overlooked.

This doesn't need to be associated with a condition inspection, but that's a convenient time because everything's open.

Dave
 
Spent a decade owning and flying a Cessna 182. Great first airplane, was a tried-and-true part of our family and traveling.

But every little thing that would go wrong cost $$$$.

The pin that held the seat in place was warped, and I needed to replace it. That was $500 for a certified pin. Oh, turns out someone flipped the seats years ago and you ordered it for the wrong seat. You need the OTHER pin. It's $750. And you can't return that $500 one, it's a non stackable item.

I installed a Garmin 430 early on at a cost of $12k or so. ADSB upgrade a few years ago for $7k. I would love to put in a newer autopilot in or dual G5s, but I'll never recoup the cost.

Decided to bite the bullet a few years ago and build the 10 (after having built an 8 previously). Now I can get there faster, fly at higher altitudes (I have 4 place oxygen), with overall lower maintenance costs, and feel good about an airframe I built vs. one that is starting to hit 50+ years old.

I concur there are certainly "experimentals" out there I would not want to set foot in, but I feel pretty confident about the planes I've built.
 
Minor error; the EAB repairman certificate has nothing to do with maintenance. ANYONE can legally maintain, and even modify an EAB aircraft.
The repairman certificate only allows the holder to perform and sign off the condition inspection for that particular aircraft.

Thanks Mel. While I interpret things just as you do, there is a contingent who disagree as to the definition of maintenance. Since it's been debated passionately elsewhere on these forums I decided not to be the one who spawns that debate again. Thank you though. I always enjoy your valuable input.
 
You know, I'm feeling that way now. I should have jumped on board long ago.
To be honest for decades I didn't have any respect for experimental aircraft (lol...please don't flame me). In the early 80's I literally witnessed a guy die in a EZ crash. That turned me off up until 3-4 years ago. I actually considered them on par with ultralight. That incident was traumatizing because he cut us off on base before the crash.

Interesting. One of my closest friends is a very capable engineer, builder, and pilot. He is known as "the guy" for a lot of owners of canard airplanes in my part of the world. He built and flew a very nice LongEZ for many years, and finished up a Berkut 540 recently. I've enjoyed flying with him, and I find the design to be quite safe, and of course very fast and efficient. I hope the accident you witnessed didn't sour you to the type. They are remarkably safe. Like any airplane they are not to be flown carelessly and there are a few specifics that must be kept it mind.

I chose Van's for the community and the breadth and depth of experience and knowledge available. They are plentiful and well supported. Innovation is a few questions away and the design ethos is certainly well proven.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Mel. While I interpret things just as you do, there is a contingent who disagree as to the definition of maintenance. Since it's been debated passionately elsewhere on these forums I decided not to be the one who spawns that debate again. Thank you though. I always enjoy your valuable input.

Well there may be some other interpretation, but this is the one from FAA in Washington!

Maintenance falls under Part 43 which doesn't apply to Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft.
 
Owned J-3 CUB for 23 years and some 1100 hours. Traded the Cub for a flying RV-12 five years ago and never looked back. I took 16 hour course for LSRM-A Certificate and now do my own Annual Condition Inspection. I fly as Light Sport Pilot so no medical required. Can't sign for my Flight Review or Transponder Certification... otherwise, self sufficient.
 
If you build your plane I cant imagine any regrets vs. certified ownership as long as the plane fits your mission. Through the process of building you will have intimate knowledge of that plane, be able to obtain the repairman’s certificate for that plane; thus the ability to sign off the annual condition inspection and likely be able to obtain the knowledge and skill to do so.

What I miss the most about my RV-9A is that everything was brand new, new technology and cost relatively nothing to maintain during the first 400 hrs. or so that I owned and maintained it.

What I regret is in the end there are a few things I would have done differently, (for me) such as, build an RV-10 instead, or add fuel injection, or constant speed propeller, or Pmags from the get-go… things that were seemingly too expensive or time consuming at the time that would be negligible now, looking back.

Don’t get me wrong, I built a great example of an RV-9A, but it took me building one, to know for sure what I will do on the second. In the meantime I’ve enjoyed learning certified planes. Specifically my Super Viking; every single time I land and push back in the hangar I think Man, what a great airplane. (Although, I had to remind myself of that when I paid the insurance bill and will again next week when I pick it up from annual!). When you think of it like that you know it’s good.

I plan to finish my RV-8 with that feeling in mind.
 
I guess I'm in the process of moving from certified to EAB. I owned a Mooney for 600 hours, but having a certified plane invites a level of mechanic drama into your life that I just couldn't deal with anymore so I started building.

I just feel like if anyone is going to make a mistake that's going to ruin my day I want that person to be me.

It is a lot to learn though.
 
Owned certified for thirty years, a Mooney for almost that long. Three Mooney bankruptcies over that time. Long wait for parts which were ridiculously expensive, etc. I did the vast majority of the maintenance and upgrades under the supervision of a Charles Taylor award winner. Learned a lot and owe him even more.

It's been a while but I was skeptical of EAB. The "local" experimental enthusiast were always telling their cowboy stories, talking about sticking it to the FAA, doing very sketchy work. Those planes were apart more than in the air. Many of the (mostly gone now) kit offerings appeared quite spartan.

I'm aware that it's blasphemous here (and beauty is in the eye of the beholder), but the sexiest lines on anything I'd run across at the time was the Lancair (now Legacy). The idea building something kept increasing in my brain. Researching the design aspects or some models did some convincing.

I miss the Mooney but none of the associated heartaches. Hoping to live long finish this build. Unlike most folks here, I have zero time in anything EAB. Looking forward to it, some day.
 

Attachments

  • temp4.jpg
    temp4.jpg
    436.8 KB · Views: 57
Last edited:
Reading through all these posts, I am compelled to make a couple statements that I feel very strongly about.

1> All the airplanes we are discussing are "certified". Just as the OP had original misconceptions of the faults of the "EZ", it really does not help perceptions of our aircraft to be referred to as (by inference) non-certified. RVs and EZs are "certified" in their own right. I prefer to use the terms "factory" vs "amateur" built.

2> I exceedingly concur with all the positive things said about switching to amateur built. I owned a C172 for many years and did as much maintenance on it as the FBO of the year would allow me to do. Although quite different from the wonderful RVs and EZs, I would still be owning and loving it if it wasn't for the ridiculous expenses and restrictions due to imposed legal and traditional structures.

3> I just don't see any real time way I would ever go back to owning and operating a traditional, factory type-certified aircraft.
 
I got my pilots license over 50 years ago. "Homebuilt" aircraft was a completely different prospect then compared to now. I had ZERO interest in building an airplane in my garage (still do) and even less interest in buying an airplane that some other guy had built in his garage. Thanks to companies like Van's, the E-AB airplanes are much more standardized now. They are much safer, more interesting, and much more fun than their certified counterparts. Not to mention that you can get a much more sophisticated airplane that is better equipped, and much cheaper to fly and maintain.

The RV-9A that I bought less than a year ago was a revelation and I'll never go back. I do many of my own simpler maintenance tasks and I do harder stuff like avionics with friend/friends who are more expert than me. Firewall-forward...I don't touch it, I hire my A&P. Bottom line, I can own a very safe, sophisticated, and well-designed airplane that is infinitely more affordable than any certified airplane that I'd ever want to buy. I can maintain it, or parts of it, if I want to, but I don't have to. I can just call my A&P if the task is beyond me, or if I don't feel like doing it.
 
Last edited:
1> All the airplanes we are discussing are "certified". Just as the OP had original misconceptions of the faults of the "EZ", it really does not help perceptions of our aircraft to be referred to as (by inference) non-certified. RVs and EZs are "certified" in their own right. I prefer to use the terms "factory" vs "amateur" built.

Actually, this isn’t true. All flying E-AB airplanes are “certificated” - they have been given Airworthiness Certificates. But they have not been proven to meet any sort of certification standards - many do, many do not. The difference between certified and non-certified is meeting certification standards, which E-AB do not - as evidenced by the required Passenger Warning placard.

Paul
 
Last edited:
Actually, this isn’t true. All flying E-AB airplanes are “certificated” - they have been given Airworthiness Certificates. But they have not been proven to meet any sort of certification standards - many do, many do not. The difference between certified and non-certified is meeting certification standards, which E-AB do not - as evidenced by the required Passenger Warning placard.

Paul

Exactly...Certification is extremely expensive. Way out of the reach of the vast majority of experimental builders. Since VAN's is handing us parts we're the builder. The millions of dollars to get it certified would fall on the individual. That's how I understand how that would work.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting. One of my closest friends is a very capable engineer, builder, and pilot. He is known as "the guy" for a lot of owners of canard airplanes in my part of the world. He built and flew a very nice LongEZ for many years, and finished up a Berkut 540 recently. I've enjoyed flying with him, and I find the design to be quite safe, and of course very fast and efficient. I hope the accident you witnessed didn't sour you to the type. They are remarkably safe. Like any airplane they are not to be flown carelessly and there are a few specifics that must be kept it mind.

I chose Van's for the community and the breadth and depth of experience and knowledge available. They are plentiful and well supported. Innovation is a few questions away and the design ethos is certainly well proven.

Never had an interest in EZ's. Still don't. Not sure where you're at in CA but southern CA is where that happened. I was stationed at March AFB during that time. Have no clue about now but in the early 80's that area was peppered with airfields.
 
I enjoyed my certified airplane immensely.
Had an A&P/IA at my home airport who treated my airplane as his own. Encouraged owner-assisted annuals. I still consider him a friend.

The airport changed the lease agreement for his big hangar, made it impossible for him to stay.
Once he was gone, getting any maintenance became a real chore.
There is another great mechanic on the field, but that FBO's fleet of rentals always has priority.

My solution was to sell and build an RV. Couldn't be happier.
 
I enjoyed my certified airplane immensely.
Had an A&P/IA at my home airport who treated my airplane as his own. Encouraged owner-assisted annuals. I still consider him a friend.

The airport changed the lease agreement for his big hangar, made it impossible for him to stay.
Once he was gone, getting any maintenance became a real chore.
There is another great mechanic on the field, but that FBO's fleet of rentals always has priority.

My solution was to sell and build an RV. Couldn't be happier.

You touched on an issue that was so much similar to mine. My legacy panel was crapping out one item after another over 4month span. One guy on the field was doing avionics. Took him 2 months to install a transponder. His priority was schools. I actually had to threaten him to return the money I prepaid for equipment. He finally installed transponder and I flew to another airport using portables, Garmin pilot and sectionals to get a more reliable install. That situation was the last straw in deciding to go experimental. I sympathize with you.
 
All of my flying has been on the certified side of aviation. Being able to work on your own aircraft and cheaper parts has motivated me to make the move.

Curious to see if any owners of certified aircraft gave up and moved strictly to experimental. Has it been a wise decision?

Gave up? Ha ha. Look if you are an experienced aircraft owner, and don't mind flying an airplane that is much much faster, has better lighter controls, takes off and lands in shorter distances, with better visibility, then yes "experimental" are fine. You have to understand if you did not build it, the quality of the RV is dependent on the original manufacture (builder of the kit), It is a variable. Most GA spam cans came from the same Wichita KS factory. Some RV's are works of aviation art and others rough. Most RV's are nice. With a Cessna or Piper spam can with similar condition you know what you get. The RV is a "custom" plane and will vary from builder to builder. However Van's kits are so good they yield constant results if built per plans with good workmanship. The type of prop, engine, panel, paint, upholstery vary.

I owned a twin when building my first RV. I loved my old PA23-160 and it served me well. I did owner assist annuals on the Piper, but the nice part of kit planes (experimental planes) is they don't get annuals but condition inspections. If you build the RV, you do not need an A&P or AI and can doo all inspections. You can do all maintenance and condition inspections without A&P. If you buy a built RV you will need an A&P to do the condition inspection (which is less money than an AI). If you are totally helpless and can not do basic maintenance and RV might be as expensive as a certified plane. Even a certified plane you can do brakes, oil, filters, plugs and basic maintenance. However a certified plane needs an ANNUAL and an A&I which takes more cash. Parts? Well if it is airframe it will be way cheaper. Van sells parts for a bargain price. If it is engine or avionics they cost is the same. However again if you are handy you can do the work. You still need to do Pitot Static certification by a FAA tech

In general a good RV with all the bells and whistles and a 180-200 HP engine, CS prop will be very desirable and will hold value; you will pay a chunk of change but will love it and likely be able to sell it for as much as you paid. You can get an old Cessna or Piper for far less... A good RV is not cheap, it is Mooney or Bonanza prices. Airplane, insurance, fuel hanger still cost money regardless of make model. You can not rent an experimental by definition and law. So if you want one you have to build or buy one. To say they fly better than a basic SE GA plane is an understatement.
 
Last edited:
All of my flying has been on the certified side of aviation. Being able to work on your own aircraft and cheaper parts has motivated me to make the move.

Curious to see if any owners of certified aircraft gave up and moved strictly to experimental. Has it been a wise decision?

Gave up? Ha ha. Look if you are an experienced aircraft owner, and don't mind flying an airplane that is much much faster, has better lighter controls, takes off and lands in shorter distances, with better visibility, then yes "experimental" are fine. You have to understand if you did not build it, the quality of the RV is dependent on the original manufacture (builder of the kit), It is a variable. Most GA spam cans came from the same Wichita KS factory. Some RV's are works of aviation art and others rough. Most RV's are nice. With a Cessna or Piper spam can with similar condition you know what you get. The RV is a "custom" plane and will vary from builder to builder. However Van's kits are so good they yield constant results if built per plans with good workmanship. The type of prop, engine, panel, paint, upholstery vary.

I owned a twin when building my first RV. I loved my old PA23-160 and it served me well. I did owner assist annuals on the Piper, but the nice part of kit planes (experimental planes) is they don't get annuals but condition inspections. If you build the RV, you do not need an A&P or AI and can doo all inspections. You can do all maintenance and condition inspections without A&P. If you buy a built RV you will need an A&P to do the condition inspection (which is less money than an AI). If you are totally helpless and can not do basic maintenance an RV might be as expensive as a certified plane. Even a certified plane you can do brakes, oil, filters, plugs and basic maintenance. However a certified plane needs an ANNUAL and an A&I which takes more cash. Parts? Well if it is airframe it will be way cheaper. Van sells parts for a bargain price. If it is engine or avionics they cost is the same. However again if you are handy you can work on the plane it will cost less. You still need to do Pitot Static certification by a FAA avionics technician. Also keep in mind the prop and engine are the same as certified planes and thus require the same TLC as if they were on a Mooney or RV. Oil and fuel same. However efficiency of an RV is far better.

In general a good RV with all the bells and whistles and a 180-200 HP engine, CS prop will be very desirable and will hold value; you will pay a chunk of change but will love it and likely be able to sell it for as much as you paid or more. You can get an old Cessna or Piper for far less... A good RV is not cheap, it is Mooney or Bonanza prices. Airplane, insurance, fuel hanger still cost money regardless of make model. You can not rent an experimental by definition and law. So if you want one you have to build or buy one. To say they fly better than a basic SE GA plane is an understatement.
 
Last edited:
The fact that "certification" (in the conventional sense) of aircraft is expensive is besides the point. Certification implies standards and safety and I'm trying to make the case that our amateur built planes retain some of that.

Ironflight...Your distinction between "certified" and "certificated" is clever and interesting. You're probably technically correct, but please humor me for a bit more.

When a plane is "certified" as opposed to merely "certificated", you say there is a standard that applies. I suppose that standard is the myriad of formulas in the rules that mandate an aircraft to fly within certain strengths, speeds, and behavior boundaries. That aircraft is then "certificated" (no,?) with a standard airworthiness certificate. Now, when an amateur plane is awarded the special airworthiness certificate, doesn't that imply (or "certify") that it has met a certain standard of construction (e.g., 43-13b) and is in condition "for safe flight"?

Of course, factory type-certified planes are extensively tested during development and standardized for repeatable construction and performance to a much greater degree than amateur built planes. Amateur built planes, as one offs, do not need to go to that extent, but their certificates do imply a standard. That standard, minimal as it may be, should be reassuring to its pilot and passengers. I still think it is a de-service to our amateur built planes to continue referring to them as non-certified...legal terms of art notwithstanding. The public, not knowing the technicalities, is mostly mis-led by saying that a plane is "non-certified". Out of curiosity, is an S-LSA "certified" or "non-certified"?

The passenger warning placard has always amused me. No such placard in commercial airliners, yet I often see worried passengers in them and rarely any worries in the amateur built planes! Kidding aside, those certified planes have flight properties bound by the FAA formulas whereas the amateur planes are free to break those rules. Therefore, I do see the difference, but its not fair to casually say our planes are not "non-certified". They are certified to different standards.
 
This VS That

I grew up with my dentist father having a Piper Arrow and a Mooney, and obtained my PPL at a very early age thinking a Cherokee was "The stuff". At 19 I got into ultralights in 1980 and had "New fun Stuff" and never flew a Cherokee again..then late 80's started looking at buying a Cessna. Working at the local airport as an airline mechanic, I spotted this magical,sweet, hotrod looking "Stuff I must have" plane take-off. It was without a doubt what I envisioned a plane should be. I found out (no internet, so I had to ask), it was an RV4. I met the owner (Pat Hatch), took a ride and immediately made plans to start building. That day, I never looked back at certified aircraft, although I did own a 46 BC12 for tailwheel time. I have made a life's living as an APIA for 42 years now, and inspect as many experimentals as certified aircraft. In the world of experimental Cub clones, sailplanes from Europe, and RV's I get more requests than certifieds these days, and many of them are factory built. They aren't for everyone as there is often a compromise of size and configuration, but seemingly always have a performance edge. Also, the "qualified" CFI options for transition training is growing making it safer and easier to get the proper introduction into these wonderfull machines. After all the Wright Flyer was experimental as was every certified aircraft's test bed.
 
The fact that "certification" (in the conventional sense) of aircraft is expensive is besides the point. Certification implies standards and safety and I'm trying to make the case that our amateur built planes retain some of that...

Homebuilts aren't "certified" to any standard. AC 43.13 only defines "Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices" (it's right there in the title). There's nothing that requires a homebuilt to even meet that--it's a good idea, certainly, and I would think that most DARs and A&Ps won't sign off a homebuilt that doesn't meet it without a good alternative method--but you could easily make an airplane that meets every aspect of 43.13 and yet is a deathtrap--barely stable, unable to take flight loads without breaking a spar, prone to fatigue cracks after 100 hours, and an engine fire waiting to happen (and unable to withstand the heat when it does).

Certification (e.g. to Part 23/25 standards) is a whole lot more beyond the basics of standard good practices and workmanship. And it goes beyond designing something. It involves extensive evaluation of every aspect of the design from an engineering and construction aspect, a lot of testing at the sample, component, system, and aircraft level, and approval by FAA representatives that the specific design complies with those requirements.

Approval of a homebuilt certifies nothing--plenty of aircraft have been approved by a DAR and issued an airworthiness certificate (coughRaptorcough) despite glaring design deficiencies. I wouldn't try to represent to anyone that a homebuilt has been somehow "certified" to a safety standard.

------

From another perspective, I did my initial training in a rented certified aircraft (C150), like most pilots who start their flying in the civilian world. As it was rented, I never really got involved in anything beyond filling it with gas.

However, at that point we were most of the way through building my dad's RV-6; he flew shortly after I took my checkride. So from an ownership and maintenance perspective my first exposure was homebuilts, and it nothing seemed unusual about that--after all, I grew up helping Dad fix the cars, work on projects around the house, fixing my bike, building my computer, and so on. DIY was just the natural order of things, and there wasn't even a question when it came time to my own airplane--I was going to build it.

I never truly realized how strict the certified world was until I moved from the R&D labs at work, to the in-service support side. Granted, I'm in the world of Part 25 jets, repair stations, and the like, but it was mind-blowing how restrictive that was--especially once I realized that most of it was the same even for light aircraft. I understand where it comes from when you're talking about aircraft carrying the general public, but it sure seems like a lot of overkill when it comes to privately-owned personal aircraft. For sure, it's not a headache I want to deal with; quite honestly, you couldn't give me a certified airplane.

Unfortunately the FAA seems to operate under a one-size-fits-all standard; they crammed everything into one category years ago and even though the entire world has changed around them, they don't seem to want to acknowledge that.
 
frankly, I don't think "Foam-the-runway" has what it takes to build an aircraft. I could be wrong. what about purchasing one that has been built?

Building and flying airplanes are two separate hobbies. I enjoy puttering on cars and motorcycles, but I’m not interested in the day-in/day-out problem-solving over several years that many here find to be an enjoyable hobby. I have plenty of that at work and don’t need it to be part of my leisure time. Ain’t my thing, but more power to you. I’m thrilled and grateful that there are skilled, committed amateur airplane builders. Without them building and then selling, I wouldn’t be able to own and fly an E-AB airplane. So, it’s true that I don’t “have what it takes to build an aircraft”. Specifically, I don’t have the interest or the desire (or the time). I don’t know if I have the ability, but don’t have near enough interest to find out. OTOH, I certainly do appreciate that I can “putter” around on this airplane, buy and install parts, components, and avionics without having to pay the STC-markup and be obligated to a sign-off from an A&P. E-AB is a wonderful thing, and let me express my sincere appreciation to you builders for providing the rest of us with these airplanes.
 
A fella could make a good argument that certified and EAB are converging. I see a future with much relaxed rules for lighter certified (the definition of "lighter" to be debated). I also see a few additional rules for EAB, combined with more allowance for professional work.

Consider the introduction of EAB avionics into certified airframes by STC, or a world in which a classic C-150 is officially an antique. Think about the maintenance rules for Light Sport, more recently written and more restrictive than EAB. Note the RV community already buys a lot of new certified components, sometimes at a discount and sometimes not. Builder support centers have become commonplace, as well as a whole new breed of service centers specializing in EAB inspection and repair. The wild card? Electric VTOL. It's coming.

Break.

Returning to what I perceive as the OP's concern...build the airplane, do it really well, and if you don't like it when you're finished, it will sell easily. If you don't think you can build it well, please stay away. Half the fleet is below average, and there's no virtue to being part of the problem.
 
Over the last 50 some years I've owned dozens of certified aircraft and nothing you could have said or done would have changed my mind, certainly zero interest in homebuilts. My favorite cross country aircraft were Bonanza's, Cessna 210's, Bellenca Vikings and Mooney's...poor Mooneys..I owned 5 of them so must have been something I really liked about them, lol.

I actually was buying Mooney #6 when the prebuy went sideways. A friend suggested I look at an RV. To be truthful I really knew very little about them but I started doing some due diligence and was quite surprised with my findings.

Long story short we ended up buying a beautiful RV6 with a nice AFS panel, an IO-320 with constant speed prop and after 3 years I can say we have been delighted with it. We have flown coast to coast twice in the last couple of years and it's been a wonderful cross country machine for us...faster than many Mooneys and similar to the large engine retractables in climb and speed all the while sipping fuel..great!

I taught aerobatics many years ago and it was fun to get back at it but at a more sedate pace and the RV does a great job.

So yes, I'm a convert and I'm happy that we ended up where we are, probably keep it until my flying days are over....Robert
 
A fella could make a good argument that certified and EAB are converging. I see a future with much relaxed rules for lighter certified (the definition of "lighter" to be debated). I also see a few additional rules for EAB, combined with more allowance for professional work.

Consider the introduction of EAB avionics into certified airframes by STC, or a world in which a classic C-150 is officially an antique. Think about the maintenance rules for Light Sport, more recently written and more restrictive than EAB. Note the RV community already buys a lot of new certified components, sometimes at a discount and sometimes not. Builder support centers have become commonplace, as well as a whole new breed of service centers specializing in EAB inspection and repair. The wild card? Electric VTOL. It's coming.

Break.

Returning to what I perceive as the OP's concern...build the airplane, do it really well, and if you don't like it when you're finished, it will sell easily. If you don't think you can build it well, please stay away. Half the fleet is below average, and there's no virtue to being part of the problem.

Is there any area in particular where a reoccurring building mistake is made?
 
Another interesting thought...

For seven years, I owned a Liberty XL-2. It is a certificated type, (and incidentally designed by Ivan Shaw who also designed the Europa series of EAB aircraft upon which the XL-2 is based.)

It's a great little light trainer/traveler that is a joy to fly. Controls are light, and nicely balanced. It's no speed machine, but I enjoyed flying it. Apparently the FAA mandated a few things in the certification process that substantially changed it, and made it expensive to maintain, largely as a function of the Continental IOF-240 (FADEC equipped) engine for which support is lackluster.

More importantly, after building about 120 of these aircraft, Liberty Aerospace and then Discovery Aviation have largely ceased to exist. The type certificate is, at this point, unsupported but not yet abandoned. While I chose to move on before any of this happened, I am aware that current owners have been largely abandoned, and their aircraft are effectively grounded when airframe specific parts are unavailable. TCM parts seem to remain available but only at princely sums with extended wait times. (I have pointed of where applicable that owners can manufacture parts equivalents to the certificated specifications without PMA, but there are some operational limitations that come with that. Among other things each owner has to make his or her own parts, and only to the extent that certificated parts can be duplicated to the identical specification. Aircraft equipped with other than PMA parts can not be offered for compensated ops, rent, or lease.)

Anyway, in the EAB world, (and RVs in particular), we'll likely never have to worry about being abandoned, or facing significant parts availability issues. It's wonderful not to be enslaved by type certificates, STC holders, or PMA, but you must remain aware that you are literally taking your life and those of your passengers in hand when you deviate from established design.
 
Last edited:
Maintenance, parts and lack of as-built documentation are a big part of it, of course. My take is that half of homebuilts need to be re-wired.

Another big part is lack of a formal POH and very often a lack of full envelope flight testing for that individual airplane. Many planes will have quirks lurking in corners of their flight envelopes. I can think of a half dozen homebuilts that I will neither fly nor ride in.

A big temptation is to fly the plane under gross weight with a mid-c.g., and then go on a long trip with a full load, an aft c.g., and great expectations.

When I got my AirCam, a full checkout was not available. After three times around the pattern, I knew that I could fly the AirCame well and safely in the middle of the envelope. I spent any number of hours expanding my envelope, and was careful to stay within what I knew I could do.

The same thing can happen in spam cans. Nominal checkout, light, mid c.g., and great expectations.

As Dirty Harry said, "Man's got to know his limitations."

What is the issue you see with wiring? The electrical system and avionics install is the one area I feel extremely confident about. Having never wired up an RV is there something that might pose a problem or is it a housekeeping issue(forming/fanning, labeling, etc)?
 
Back
Top