I don't want an Experimental anyway...

[Chad Jensen]

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...

[Bill Greenwood]

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.

[Jim Hann]

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

[Eric Witherspoon]

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...

[Richard Warner]

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.

[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).

[martymayes]

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.

[spungey]

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?