Utility and Aerobatic Categories IRT RVs

[wawrzynskivp]

Rather than splintering another post I am asking this rather pedantic question here.

Some of our discussions and performance numbers for our RVs follow definitions of 'Utility' and 'Aerobatic.' I remember when those were defined terms but in a recent review of our regulations, I believe I found those terms are now replaced by other definitions.

Older Airworthiness certificates using those terms still obviously have meaning.

But more precisely to that point: did those terms ever apply to our experimental certificates? Or for example when looking at CG position and weight were we using the terms informally?

I am ready to discover I am out to lunch on this question.

[RV8JD]

This what Van's uses:

Ref: "Flying an RV" - https://www.vansaircraft.com/flying-an-rv/

"The RV-3B, RV-4, RV-7/7A, RV-8/8A and RV-14/14A have been designed for the operational stress limits of the aerobatic category (+6.0/-3.0 G) at and below their aerobatic gross weights. The operational stress limits for these aircraft between their aerobatic gross weights and their maximum design gross weights are utility category (+4.4/-1.75 G). The RV-9/9A, RV-10 and RV-12 are not designed for aerobatic flight.

The design operational stress limit for the RV-9/9A is utility category (+4.4/-1.75 G) at less than 1600 pound gross weight and is standard category (+3.8/-1.5 G) between 1600 pounds and the aircraft’s design gross weight. The design operational stress limit for the RV-10 is standard category (+3.8/-1.5 G).

No RV should ever be operated above its design gross weight limit."

[spatsch]

Simple answer is no. Formally experimental amateur build airplanes have no such distinction. Only thing that matters are your operating limitations.

Now RV8JD posted Van’s informal statement.

Oliver

[Ironflight]

I agree with Oliver - legally, the categories don’t apply, but it is an easy shorthand for engineers and pilots to use the categories because most pilots understand what they mean, and you don’t have to throw the actual numbers around.

Paul

[Snowflake]

I find it an odd way of phrasing it that "the categories don't apply". The categories are but shorthand for talking about designed limits of the airframe. You can ignore them on a certified aircraft, too.

But you can't change the laws of physics. The limits apply whether the FAR's say they do or not.

[Ironflight]

Originally Posted by Snowflake

I find it an odd way of phrasing it that "the categories don't apply". The categories are but shorthand for talking about designed limits of the airframe. You can ignore them on a certified aircraft, too.

But you can't change the laws of physics. The limits apply whether the FAR's say they do or not.

Of course the physics apply - but nowhere in the E-AB certification paperwork will you find the “categories” that you will in a certified airplane’s paperwork. In the certified world, the categories are not “shorthand” - they are legal definitions and requirements. Not so in our experimental world.

Of course, its all semantics.

[jneves]

Agreed and confirmed this with a few folks, local FSDO as well. I'm working on adjusting my gross weight (Please dont flame me I've read all the threads and know how people view this topic). I reached out to my contact at the FSDO and he stated that the categories (Utility, Standard and Acro) mean nothing in EAB and they should be references because most pilots know what they mean, but the G limits should be spelled out in the plane's manual (POH, also not applicable to EAB)

[wawrzynskivp]

Totally agree with providing guidelines and using familiar terms. Maybe if the term 'utility category' in our EAB discussion was phrased 'utility range' or something like that it wouldn't raise flags for the nit-pickers....like me.

Did you know our classic FAR 23.3 on 'Airplane Categories' is gone?