Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: I don't want an Experimental anyway...

  1. #11
    Eric Witherspoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    200
    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.
    Murphy's 13th: Every solution breeds new problems...

    http://www.spoonworld.com

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,181
    Custom Built, Sport Plane, Light Sport...
    Bill

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Hillsboro, Oregon / USA
    Posts
    64
    Non-commercial

  4. #14
    I like the term used by Bob Nuckolls of the Aeroelectric Connection: Owner-Built-And-Maintained (OBAM) aircraft.

  5. #15
    Pat_Panzera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Hanford CA
    Posts
    21
    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.

    Name:  14538.jpg
Views: 220
Size:  63.1 KB

    Pat

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    10
    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

  7. #17
    MEdwards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Las Cruces, NM
    Posts
    342
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat_Panzera View Post
    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

  8. #18
    Jim Hann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ballwin, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    423
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood View Post
    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

    J
    im
    Jim Hann
    EAA 276294 Lifetime
    Vintage 722607
    1957 Piper PA-22/20 "Super Pacer"
    Chapter 32 member www.eaa32.org
    www.mykitlog.com/LinerDrivr
    Fly Baby/Hevle Classic Tandem


  9. #19
    Eric Witherspoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    200
    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...
    Murphy's 13th: Every solution breeds new problems...

    http://www.spoonworld.com

  10. #20
    Richard Warner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Covington, LA
    Posts
    83
    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.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •