I don't want an Experimental anyway...

This whole government-selected word "Experimental" - remember that doesn't mean my airplane is an experiment, it means it is marked per a government-established requirement. Since when do we believe the government does everything right, much less something so subtle as accurately labeling my custom-built exact replica of a proven, flight-tested design? I prefer the label "custom-built exact replica of a proven, flight-tested design", but those aren't the words I'm allowed to use. I'm no experimenter. I want to KNOW it will work before I go up. That's for darned sure.

Then there are "the experimenters", who want to design-their-own, extensively modify a design, try a "new type" of engine - whatever. Those are experiments. Great work. Carry on. Discover new things. That I can then either purchase or duplicate...

Ok, so where does that leave this category that I believe most of us custom-builders of exact replicas are building? Is there a snappy, 1-2 word, ~15 character max "label" that we would prefer our airplanes be required to carry?

I'm feeling the need for a distinction after reading too many posts that contain the phrase "that's why they call it experimental". No, mine's not. My wife and family won't stand for me doing experiments at thousands of feet above the ground at 100+ mph. I actually had that conversation - they don't want me building any design that isn't already proven.

I think you're looking for "Amateur Built" as the description.

The E-LSA's where one can't deviate on anything - up to where stuff goes on the panel - definately fall into what you're describing.

There is a pretty big area between the extreme of completely new design and the other of E-LSA, though. For example, my plane is from a tested, proven design - and in the vast majority of cases I'm following the letter of the plans. But in some important ways I'm deviating, such as putting in a rudder bar instead of pedals. The panel layout isn't in the plans at all; it's left up to me. Ditto the seat and harness. There are no brakes on the plane as designed, but I'm putting them on, since I'll be operating on pavement and not just grass.

One could argue that I am experimenting with the design....

I am trying to get caught up on my Uncontrolled Airspace podcast's, and while I was out to lunch today listening to an episode from late August, this is exactly what they were talking about. Funny coincidence...

Eric, it is pretty simple. The govt, via FAA licenses airplanes. If the manufacturer goes through all the steps that FAA has for design and flight testing successfully , then it is normal airplane category.
If not, then is is experimental.
Now, you or your family may think your plane that you build is superior, even safer, ( maybe not safer in fact) but if the designer/builder did not do all the FAA tests then it is basically not proven as a factory produced plane is.
Doesn't have to be a one off or strange new Rutan design. There were something like 30,000 Yak and 25,000 Me fighters built, certainly proven designs. But not proven to FAA standards, for instance won't meet the 61 knot stall speed requirment.
A Cessna 172 may be a bit on the boring side, but it has a pretty good safety record. Cessna did the testing and proved it before sale.
The FAA allows a few exceptions, like Cirrus which could not meet the stall/spin recovery test specs, but was allowed to get by with the parachute system.

And if you are going to do any testing(experimenting) much better to do it at "thousands of feet above the ground", than down low. Hard to recover from a stall/spin at 50 feet, you have a chance if you have altitude in your favor. And test pilots usually wear parachutes, but need altutude for them to be much help.

Like Bill said, the exact copy you've created is a copy of an experimental aircraft, so how could it ever be considered anything else?... save a homebuilt or amateur-built copy of an experimental aircraft.

You guys are no fun. I'm not asking the government to change their word. I'm not arguing that I don't have to do Phase I or something because it's such a great replica of a homebuilt someone else tested that I should be able to just jump in and go.

Think of it more along the lines of doing a Young Eagles event. Members of the general public don't want to submit their children to flights in "Experiments". If we had a more appealing word, the whole thing might be more attractive to people.

Think "Personal Watercraft", "Side-by-side", "Quad", "Ski Boat", "Bass Boat", "Cruiser", "Crotch Rocket", "Hot Rod", "Street Rod", "Custom", "Muscle Car", "Lowrider". Doesn't all of that sound better than "Experimental Airplane" or "Homebuilt"??? You ask people what they spend their leisure dollars on, and they say "Sand Rail", "Toy Hauler", "Monster Truck", and "Double-Cab Dually". They don't say "Experiments". Brings up connotations of Frankenstein's monster and basements full of torture equipment. Not fun and enjoyment.

Now, does anyone have any imagination? Or are we all so literal we'll just watch this whole homebuilt thing be sucked up by the attractions of all of the things in the above paragraph. I'm about ready sell my Experimental Amateur-Built to buy my Double-Cab Dually to pull my Toy Hauler full of some Quads and a Side-by-Side.

Eric, I have flown a number of Young Eagle flights in both experimental and standard category planes, and other pilots have also at the same events
I have done the same thing for my Son's school class, as well as my other Son's Cub Scout troop.
I have never heard a parent or a child, or a pilot ever ask or even comment on a plane being experimental.
They were all anxious to go and grateful to ride/fly.
I never once met a parent who would not let their child go. The class and scout ones were flown in a J-3 Cub. I did have one boy, about 9 years old who was afraid himself.
When we had time and room, we also took many of the parents flying also.
I don't even know how a parent would know it is experimental, there is usually only a small notice on the dash.

Of course, when you are flying a child, you use the utmost care and safety.

If amateur aircraft didn't look so good we could get away with euphamisms that get used on terrestrial vehicles. When some guy puts a Dodge Dart body on a Bronco frame that's lifted three feet everyone knows it's not standard.

But amateur built aircraft usually don't look any different from spam cans to the uneducated eye.

Would I let my kid ride in an amateur built aircraft at an EAA sponsored event? Yep, without a concern. Do I think that somebody else should know that they're about to put their kid in an airplane built in a garage? Sure.

When cars or boats break down they usually just roll to a stop. Not so airplanes.

plan on the gov to screw it up if they are involved.

How about "non-certified" not very catchy but does not imply something dangerous to the uneducated. I tell people it is a category of aircraft that the FAA needs to define. Like the originator of this thread I don't wish to experiment with my aircraft. I prefer "proven" when it comes to my flying but I do enjoy the superior performance and the satisfaction from building my own aircraft. However, there are those aircraft which should have a warning to would be passengers. Some of the engine choices come to my mind. I believe everyone should have the right to fly behind what ever engine they want, but a passenger should probably have some understanding of the failure rate with some auto engine conversions. Passengers often blindly trust their pilot to make all the decisions regarding the safety of flight and if they understood the statistics they might not want to fly with some pilots. How else does the FAA warn these would be passengers?Todd

Ok, my examples still haven't got where I thought I might get. Here's an example from just this week. I have a friend at work who is into racing cars. Another example that sounds different from "non-street legal derivatives of passenger automobiles". Notice they don't call 'em "non-street legals" (hmm... maybe they do - World of Outlaws: woosprint.com woolms.com). I was asking him about the Indy Cars race in Vegas that he was at last weekend, but being a turning-gas-into-noise fan, I brought up Copperstate and why he (or anyone into power and speed) might be interested in spending a good part of the day on Saturday to drive up to see those kinds of gas-into-noise machines. Does that create another Sport Pilot? Does that generate more sales for the E-AB industry? Probably not. But he tells his friends, they tell their friends, and maybe Copperstate sells a few more tickets next year... And maybe some of those guys decide they want to try a flight or something...

Any vernacular you prefer to use in casual conversation other than "Experimental" that's not along the lines of "bug smasher"? Or must we all use the legally-prescribed terminology in casual conversation?

FWIW, the BD-5 derivative little jet was AWESOME. The couple of passes by the Warbirds (big, round-engine types) were likewise, AWESOME.

Custom Built, Sport Plane, Light Sport...
Bill

Non-commercial

I like the term used by Bob Nuckolls of the Aeroelectric Connection: Owner-Built-And-Maintained (OBAM) aircraft.

I for one am proud of the term EXPERIMENTAL. I think by using it, we stand above those mere mortals who operate something made at a factory. You should be PROUD that you built your plane yourself and that you have the FREEDOM to built it as you see fit and to modify it at will, and that you've either used the newest and best materials and methods of construction, and are free to update it at will or whim.

Unlike certified aircraft that are frozen in time, using materials, methods and engines that have been locked in since the 1960s, yours is a clean, modern, efficient and FUN aircraft that can't be had any other way than to be built by your hands, or the hands of someone who is as free as you are to build an aircraft at home.

So wear those 2" high letters with pride, not embarrassment. For those who would be concerned by that term, educate them- you have that duty as an ambassador of our freedom.

Attachment 782

Pat

Hi Eric,

Experimental does make it sound a bit too unproven.

I like "Amatuer Built, Un-Certified" since the distinction between certified and experimental is WHO built the aircraft and whether the
design and build process was documented and CERTIFIED through the FAA, with all the associated testing etc that they would want
to ensure the quality and manufacturing processes will result in the desired safety margins and standards.

Ray

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pat_Panzera

I for one am proud of the term EXPERIMENTAL. I think by using it, we stand above those mere mortals who operate something made at a factory. You should be PROUD that you built your plane yourself and that you have the FREEDOM to built it as you see fit and to modify it at will, and that you've either used the newest and best materials and methods of construction, and are free to update it at will or whim.

Unlike certified aircraft that are frozen in time, using materials, methods and engines that have been locked in since the 1960s, yours is a clean, modern, efficient and FUN aircraft that can't be had any other way than to be built by your hands, or the hands of someone who is as free as you are to build an aircraft at home.

So wear those 2" high letters with pride, not embarrassment. For those who would be concerned by that term, educate them- you have that duty as an ambassador of our freedom.

Pat

---

I fly one of those "certified" aircraft frozen in time back in the 1960's, but I agree with Pat. Experimental has a long heritage behind it. Experimental Amateur Built says it all.

I haven't done an exhaustive search, but it looks to me like the FAA does not even use the term "certified" aircraft. They issue certificates to aircraft, including special airworthiness certificates for the Experimental category. I've seen the FAA use the term "certificated" lots of times, so it seems to me that if they go to such great lengths to use such a cumbersome word, they have a good reason to avoid referring to "certified" aircraft.

So if I owned a flying Experimental, I wouldn't accept from anybody that my aircraft was "uncertified." It just earned a certificate in the Experimental category. I'd wear that certificate with pride.

Mike E

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood

The FAA allows a few exceptions, like Cirrus which could not meet the stall/spin recovery test specs, but was allowed to get by with the parachute system.

---

Bill, you might want to check your facts on this. When Cirrus announced the SR20 at OSH '94 it was planned to include the BRS chute from the get go. I know that the brothers Klapmeier were really keen on incorporating a lot of "new tech" safety in the aircraft. The blurb is on page 24 of Sport Aviation, October 1994. Here is the link, sort of, you have to scroll to the end: http://www.oshkosh365.org/saarchive/eaa_articles/1994_10_01.pdf

Jim

This has been entertaining. Experiment - meaning try new things. But heaven help we even consider, just for fun, a different word. I'm certainly proud of the accomplishment of building and flying an airplane. Heck, repeat offender here, working on #3.

Pat, don't write me off yet. I saw something at Copperstate that makes me think - auto engine. 36 lbs heavier than the "airplane" engine, but $10k less. Is it worth $278/lb? Might be worth experimenting...;)

I think what really bothers me are the offhand comments that minimize the thoroughness and safety we all work for. "That's why they call it experimental" as though that justifies a less-than-well-thought-out mod, or something that is generally considered not a good idea...

If you're building a replica of an old airplane, think Cub, Stinson, Champ, etc., you can put NX on the aircraft instead of just N before the numbers. Then you don't have to have the word "experimental" on it.

EVERY new model of airplane starts life as an "Experimental" ... even those built by OEMs. The second classification adds "Amateur Built", "Factory Built" or etc. In other words, the Cessna Citation X prototype (N750CX) is an "experimental" airplane (and still is). What people refer to as being "certified" is really short for "Type Certified", which means that every single part, nut, bolt, tube, cable, wire, etc. is conformed (built to a drawing and its tolerances) and meets very stringent FAA regulations. Airplanes with a TC are truly "thoroughly tested" with typically 1000+ hours of flight time and several hundred stalls (and spins if 14CFR23).

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Paul Poberezny once proposed the name "sport" or "custom" in lieu of "experimental" and it's negative connotations. Never gained traction. I don't think markings and placards are going to make/break someone's decsision to build a plane.

In conversation you can use whatever term you like. I refer to my RV as a kitplane and that seems to be well received. I think it conjures up images of building a Shelby Cobra replica in the garage - different, sporty, better than Detroit and way cool. There are perception issues with "old" airplanes as well. I refer to my 1950 Navion as a Classic so folks can relate it to restored and well maintained classic cars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Blum

EVERY new model of airplane starts life as an "Experimental" ... even those built by OEMs. The second classification adds "Amateur Built", "Factory Built" or etc. In other words, the Cessna Citation X prototype (N750CX) is an "experimental" airplane (and still is). What people refer to as being "certified" is really short for "Type Certified", which means that every single part, nut, bolt, tube, cable, wire, etc. is conformed (built to a drawing and its tolerances) and meets very stringent FAA regulations. Airplanes with a TC are truly "thoroughly tested" with typically 1000+ hours of flight time and several hundred stalls (and spins if 14CFR23).

---

So if a club or builder had the right numerically-controlled equipment, and previously proven and approved plans, and documented properly each and every nut bold, wire, screw, assembly, etc. then it should be possible to obtain an amateur-built, type-certified aircraft?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spungey

then it should be possible to obtain an amateur-built, type-certified aircraft?

---

You mean for example, is it possible for a person to build a C-172 outside Cessna's factory? No, it's a little more complicated than that. You can certainly build an exact clone of a C-172 but it would be 100% experimental amateur-built.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spungey

So if a club or builder had the right numerically-controlled equipment, and previously proven and approved plans, and documented properly each and every nut bold, wire, screw, assembly, etc. then it should be possible to obtain an amateur-built, type-certified aircraft?

---

IIRC, there is actually a kit-built route to standard type certification. Piper sold Super Cub kits in the '80s, and I think Schweitzer used to sell glider kits as well. The kit buyer would assemble the aircraft, and a technician from the factory would inspect it to ensure it was properly built.

But it's not likely to get approved for a scratch-built aircraft.

Ron Wanttaja

Everyone has given really good and accurate advice on this topic. It's awesome! Also, Ron W., you do recall correctly; a lot of sailplanes/gliders were manufactured both as TCd products and kits that would get approved after being completed, including the Piper "Cub".

So, to clarify an earlier statement about can you build a C172? The answer is definitely, "Yes!" (but you must prove that every part is the same and assembled in the same configuration). Cessna could sell kits. Hummmm, maybe you're on to something to revive the industry? ;o)

The only problem (okay, there's more than one) is that the first (experimental, prototype, ...) must meet the regulations. ... and there within we have the beautiful difference between homebuilts and production airplanes. Here's a quick example. Although a great airplane, an RV-X could not be certified without a lot of changes, and a C-172 (also a great airplane) will never cruise at 180 mph. Both use the same (or similar) engines. The market for both airplanes is totally different.

I like where Spungy is going with this, though. Keep thinking and challenging!

Restoration has done this for some time - rebuilding from a data plate. With an existing serial number you have some options like owner-produced parts, STC's and Field Approvals. In the end you still need to have a conformity inspection that everything meets the Type Certificated design or approved alterations. Trying to get a brand new serial number and data plate is a bigger hurdle. The kits at least get you started with all type conforming parts.

I think some new "amateur" fighter builds (either Me262 or FW190) were approved for new serial numbers in sequence with the factory numbers. But then those aren't U.S. Type Certificates either.

How about Developmental, or simply Recreational? In this case, the recreation is in the building, not the flying. Non-certified as suggested above has a nice neutral ring to it as well.