What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Why do so many dislike Experimentals?

I was a little supprised the other day when talking to an Uncle of mine about me getting my PPL license and my desire to someday build an RV... He is a pilot of over 40 years and was without sugar coating it telling me that building an experimental airplane is about the dumbest, yet easiest way to get yourself killed in an aircraft. He was telling me to go out and buy a 40 year old GA plane and just have fun cruising around. I guess I am actually not really surprised because I have talked to many pilots with alot of hours that say experimental's are not safe...
Seems to me that a plane is a plane whether it is built in the cessna factory or homebuilt. It's not like you are starting with scratch and designing a plane from the ground up... I think the Van's planes have been a proven design... Also to me, at least what I have learned from this site is that the builders here take alot of pride in there work and are sure to make sure stuff is done exactly right... So why do pilots feel like they need to talk down the experimental planes? Are they really that much more dangerous?
Getting closer to being able to build. Just sold our Motorhome yesterday so that has freed up another $600 per month. Hoping to be a builder soon...
 
Just tell him that 747, 767, F-18, F-16, Airbus 380 drivers, as well as big wigs at NASA, and a whole slew of other pilots fly Van's RV's. That should shut him up for a while! :)

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
Reputations

As a pilot "of over 40 years" myself, let me take a shot at this. Thirty to forty years ago things were very different. Homebuilts truly were homebuilt and very experimental. This hobby has matured considerably in the past 20 years, thanks to people like Van, to name one. Your uncle is not aware of the advances made from the days of seeing something interesting on the cover of Mechanics Illustrated and buying a set of plans. We are way ahead of the game with Van's engineering and the support of groups like this one.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
As well as a half dozen "croissant cruiser" guys (airbus A-300F) ;-)
Of course that might not help the argument from a sanity point of view...:D

Just tell him that 747, 767, F-18, F-16, Airbus 380 drivers, as well as big wigs at NASA, and a whole slew of other pilots fly Van's RV's. That should shut him up for a while! :)

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
John,

I think that is a very accurate statement.. I agree that there have been some major milestones in the aircraft industry.. Just look at the kit's that Van started with... Went from drill your own holes to prepunched and now there are quickbuild kits that take alot of the guesswork out of some of the most difficult parts to build... For me personally I know that when I build it will take me along time even though I will build a Quickbuild kit... Nothing scares me about building except for all the firewall forward stuff especially the electrical... I am not an electrical guru like most of the guys here on the board and that scares me the most... That is probably one of the most important parts of the entire build also.. I don't really have an occupation to where I can take a night college class or something like that to learn either. When I get to that point hopefully I can work my way through it... Oops got OT there..
Anyways I think education is the key just like everyone is saying...
 
John,
I don't really have an occupation to where I can take a night college class or something like that to learn either. When I get to that point hopefully I can work my way through it... Oops got OT there..
Anyways I think education is the key just like everyone is saying...

That is the great thing about this "community". You can usually find a person with the knowledge you need and who is willing to help. You even have a well known EAA Chapter right in your location, attend a meeting and get to know some people.
http://www.eaa49.av.org/

As to your Uncle. I am an ex Air Force and Delta Air Line mechanic. I have seen many homebuilts that would put a Boeing to shame in detail and build quality. I have also seen a very few (2 or 3) that I would not get near. It is all about the individual builders commitment to doing a good job.

Welcome aboard and good luck.
 
Last edited:
RE:Build for a twofer

Hi Dave

How are you doing and it is great to see that you still have an interest.

My plane was flown last July by a retired Navy fighter pilot/retired Delta 737 driver who happens to own an RV7A. My plane is hangered in a Delta retired 767 driver (Hurricane..1L8...) that flys an F1 Rocket. These two guys have flown about every style of GA aircraft out there and still they own and fly ....EXPERIMENTAL...:D

Now for me. I came to aviation late in this lifes game and thus don't have the real world experience of your uncle. But, as the others have said the Experimental world is very mature. From safety/design/panel options/engine options these planes when built methodically and with craftsmen like skills they are as safe as this type of travel will allow. By the way the skill set can be easily learned even by this old retired school teacher. Just think how easy it will be for a fireman.

It took me 4 years 10 months and 10 days to get the job done. I learned a ton, enjoyed the build, and have really enjoyed flying my creation. For me it was a twofer. Build and Fly.......I am still to this day finishing cosmetic details and adding APRS....

You had a chance to see my plane during the build so I know that you have no illusions as to the level of commitment it takes in time, $$$$, effort, frustration, highs, lows, (or LOWES aero) it takes to get the job done. But what joy during the build and at the end of the build line. FLYING a fast/new/sophisticated aircraft similar to or less $$$$$$ than an old GA aircraft.

The electrical and FWF stuff in my early thinking was problematic but in the end was the most enjoyable. There is a ton of info/EAA gurus/books/VAF search/ that will be your guide.

Dave if you really want to do this and include your family for a fun journey don't let the committee of "THEY" (even the ones you love) steal your dream and wonderful family experience.

I will look forward to your post that says,"Emp ordered and on it's way".:D

Good luck!!!!!!!

Frank @ 1L8 ...RV7A.. Flying snd APRS Tracken!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
I had the same concerns...

as your uncle. I had been flying for almost twenty years, professionally for seven years, when I ordered my tail kit. It took a lot of looking at homebuilts and going to my two friends' hangars to see the two homebuilts in the area before I was convinced, first, that they were safe, and second, that I could learn the skillsets needed.

I am still learning the skillsets, but I am convinced that we, the builders, make a proven design, like the RV, safe. I farmed out the majority of the electrical stuff by buying a panel made by Aerotronics. SteinAir does excellent work, also.

Depending upon where you live, get involved with the local EAA Chapter and meet some builders, Tech Counselors, and Flight Advisors. Take your uncle with you, especially if you can visit a project!:)

Good luck!

PS. Don't forget about the 737's!!
 
Due to the lack of education in general aviation, the problem we (the RV community) have (has) is that the term "Experimental" is much too broad. By definition the term "Experimental" currently includes everything from a plywood winged, Briggs & Straton powered flying casket to the latest and greatest thing Rutan currently has in the air (and everything in between).

How do you compare an RV to a CDX/Briggs & Stration prototype casket ?????????

Tommy Walker
N 350 TW, RV-6A
505 Hrs & "Climbing!"
 
Dave if you really want to do this and include your family for a fun journey don't let the committee of "THEY" (even the ones you love) steal your dream and wonderful family experience.

I will look forward to your post that says,"Emp ordered and on it's way".:D

Good luck!!!!!!!

Frank @ 1L8 ...RV7A.. Flying snd APRS Tracken!!!!!!!!!!!!


Frank,

Good to hear from you.. I knew you were flying cause I keep up on this website often.. It's both an inspiration and a depression site for me.. Inspiration seeing all these builders and then watching them fly and depressing because it' not me yet... I appreciate you inviting me to your home to see your project as it was in different stages... What a beautiful 7A you built.. Lucky for me my wife is on board with me for letting me build and my 12 year old son cannot wait for the day. Only thing keeping back right now is finances. My wife and I made an agreement that I can jump in feet first once all of our bills are paid off. Everything but the house... We have about 18months to go until I can buy the Empanage kit... That will be right around my 40th birthday... I figure 5 years to build a quick build 7A. I do need to get involved in the Local EAA chapter here. Wish we had one in Tehachapi... Lancaster here is only 50 miles though.. I think after being given the opportunity to ride in Paul Rosales's RV6 I have been hooked ever since... Thanks again Paul for that....
I have talked to my Uncle many times about the Van's Aircraft program but I think he is alot like some of the older guys I work with in the Fire Service... Set in there ways and no matter what you tell them they just won't budge... Oh well. He won't be flying it, I will...
 
Due to the lack of education in general aviation, the problem we (the RV community) have (has) is that the term "Experimental" is much too broad. By definition the term "Experimental" currently includes everything from a plywood winged, Briggs & Straton powered flying casket to the latest and greatest thing Rutan currently has in the air (and everything in between).

How do you compare an RV to a CDX/Briggs & Stration prototype casket ?????????

Tommy Walker
N 350 TW, RV-6A
505 Hrs & "Climbing!"

What is wrong with plywood? You can build a lighter and stronger wing out of plywood than you can do with aluminum for small sizes.
 
I too, have seen junk...

...that I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole and more than likely, your uncle has as well and remembers them. Then again, a Citation pilot stuck his head in my -10's door, saw the 430W and said, "Man, you have better equipment than I do!"

As was pointed out, it takes a quick education,

Best,
 
As a pilot "of over 40 years" myself, let me take a shot at this. Thirty to forty years ago things were very different. Homebuilts truly were homebuilt and very experimental. This hobby has matured considerably in the past 20 years, thanks to people like Van, to name one. Your uncle is not aware of the advances made from the days of seeing something interesting on the cover of Mechanics Illustrated and buying a set of plans. We are way ahead of the game with Van's engineering and the support of groups like this one.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

As usual, you hit the nail on the head John.
 
No question, with thousands of RVs now in the air, the word experimental hardly seems fitting. In fact, this past year saw a milestone in General Aviation in that more new experimentals were registered worldwide than were new factory singles. Throw in the proliferation of advanced electronics in the experimental arena, and we're moving quickly ahead of most of the hardware sitting out on the flightline, sometimes in terms of quality as well as technology.
Unfortunately, the uninformed can easily point to the accident and fatality stats and the evidence is clearly not in our favor. This subject has been beat around pretty good in a number of threads already. In the end, we're probably our own worst enemies in the PR arena as the preponderance of accidents are pilot/judgement related. Don't know if that's because we believe we're strapping into a fighter when we climb into our RVs, or that we don't realize this is really a high performance airplane by every definition except the FAA's. Maybe it's a sense of entitlement that causes us to think that the AIM gives recommendations, the FARs only apply if I get caught, or that building an airplane somehow gives me new "rights" that I didn't have with my Cessna. Dunno. If I had to debate your Uncle, I'd probably go with proven designs, reliable, structurally stronger, superior performance and technology. I'd also tell him to look closely at the stats - they probably suggest that experimentals really are no different than the factory stuff when it comes to safety and reliability. Not sure how I'd address the pilot/judgement issue. Maybe we all need to take a look at that.
Terry, CFI
RV-9A N323TP
 
In fact, this past year saw a milestone in General Aviation in that more new experimentals were registered worldwide than were new factory singles.

This can not be correct unless we also take into account the different microlight categories around the world (similar to the US light sport category, for instance Dynaero, MCR, Atec, Zenair and so on). In Europe there are very few "experimentals" registered each year, but tons and tons of microlights. Microlights may be amateur built from plans or from any stage of preproduction or purchased ready to fly, it doesn't matter, they all end up in the same category. In the 80s they were mostly cheap aluminum rods covered with cloth, but now they are advanced carbon fiber designs with retractable gears, laminar flow wings and glass cockpits outperforming Cessnas at a fraction of the cost (not entirely true, some of them cost almost as much as a Cessna when purchased ready to fly :) , but when purchased as kits this is still true).
 
My uncle had a stipulation...

My own "uncle", who was a long time US Air Force pilot since WWII, and finished up with the KC-135 tankers..............was all for my building an RV.
His only stipulation, was that I use a "nose wheel". According to him, the US Army Air Corp, had long "experimented" with tail wheels, and finally got smart and put "nose wheels" on all newer aircraft.... :D

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
It takes time to get people used to new ideas. Who would have thunk it that in 2010 Larry Geiger would be flying in a water cooled snow mobile engine powered plane with a PSRU? When I mentioned 5 years ago that I was putting a car engine on my plane I was told I was going to die. 145 hours of flying later I'm still here and so is the plane. I really don't get much **** any more! It just takes time, proof of concept and commitment to change things and people's minds.
 
Advice from a senior citizen

The real question is, WHY DO SOME PEOPLE FEEL THEY NEED TO RUN DOWN OTHERS? In every field of endeavor, people with limited self esteem seem to have a necessity to diminish the accomplishments of others. Rather than face their insufficiency, it’s easier to claim that (IE) exp builders "are taking extreme risks". That we’re crazy (according to them), it’s better to fly some relic that’s been “fixed” by many people over 40 years with questionable skills.

Sadly, it’s really no different than ineffective parents telling their impressionable kids, “DON’T BOTHER, YOU’LL NEVER BE ANY GOOD AT IT”. Folks who cannot fathom the undertaking satisfy their insecurity by bashing those who persevere. They take comfort in the setbacks of others. It's truly sad, but if you understand the problem, whether it’s your uncle or some stranger you meet at a fly-in, the need to respond simply disappears. Smile politely, walk away, and take pity on the poor fellow who hasn't a clue.

I’ve raced & built cars, motorcycles, anything and everything that burns gas. Nothing comes close to the satisfaction and sense of accomplishment of climbing into a two year project and ascending at 1800 fpm, knowing that you either built or oversaw every aspect of that bird. If there is a section of the project you don’t feel comfortable with, start to read & study it now, way in advance. Develop the resources (EAA, technical counselors, Stein, friends on this website) who can take you thru your discomfort zone. It’s a smart person who asks questions, who learns from the mistakes of others.

After looking at a bunch of used airplanes, my wife of 41 years paid me the ultimate compliment. “If you build it” she said, “I’ll feel comfortable flying in it”.
 
Last edited:
You'd think..

I don't get it myself. Here at work we have an e-mail distribution list (DL) for the folks that are pilots, at latest count there are about 321 on the DL. There are very few of us involved with experimentals, about 6 RVs that I know of, and at least one canard type. We hear the usual complaining about their normal certified spam cans around lack of rental availability, slow speeds, problems with finding mechanics, field approvals for changes, and of course, the cost of the annual inspection. There's still a lot of misconceptions out there around AB aircraft from comments we see on the DL. It's somewhat surprising in that most are involved in software, and I figured these folks would be pulled to the creative and independent aspects of ABs. Oh well...
 
Building and flying an experimental can be safe if you take the right approach to building- don't be in a hurry and cut corners. Get transition training before your first flight. Once you are flying, since you are the mechanic, maintain your aircraft in a professional manner. A RV is a fast aircraft that can get you into IMC faster than the plane you learned to fly in, so stay VFR, and if you do enter IMC, have the ability and instruments to get out. Your Uncle is right, flying an experimental is dangerous: 1.29 deaths per 100k hours of flight overall in general aviation, 6.88 deaths per 100k hours of flight in experimentals. That's five times more dangerous. Those statistics are for all pilots- if you are smart and think ahead, then you become part of the accident rate for smart experimental pilots who think ahead, a much more favorable statistic.
 
People some times overstate their real knowledge

Sometimes a respected older relative will overstate their knowledge in an effort to protect one they care about from making a big mistake. You are obviously influenced by your uncle's input. Stopping to think about such a big decision is not a bad thing. If it is sufficient to cause you to abandon the idea then the idea was probably not that strong to begin with. Consider the impact on your uncle's status if you build you own airplane maintain it in perfect condition and it out performs anything he flies or if you fail. If you do this it is a life altering act and that may not be a bad thing. It took me 8 years to build our RV-6A and I have been flying it for 6 years in travel and in races (I have no interest in local/pattern flying) and it is something I look on with great pride. Even while I was still working, which I did right up to the end of phase I testing, I was constantly learning. Once during the buildup of the canister for containing the erection mast for the Shuttle RADAR Topography Mission (SRTM STS-99) in the cargo bay I looked at the riveting work with a whole different perspective than I would have as a non-builder. The process will test you metal and make you better or give you some serious "life lumps". Good luck with your decision.

Bob Axsom
 
Last edited:
I long, long time ago I had an uncle who thought ANYONE who flew an airplane was plane crazy. He once asked if airplanes were chain or gear driven when moving about an airport. :)

I paid him a visit when home on leave from the military and he was dead serious in offering me a full time, real job, driving one of his mail trucks. He had a contract with the post office to haul mail at night - by truck, not airplane. I thanked him but had a military commitment.

Experimental flying came later - also considered a bit weird by senior relatives. Some would not fly in an airplane for anything, experimental or not.

No disrespect to any of them but we are a special group of aviators. I like being around guys who build and fly their own.

Go for it, your uncle may catch up to you someday.
 
It's, IMHO, all wrapped up around ego. Most people don't want to recognize an accomplishment well done, they want others to recognize them, and most don't feel like they have anything worth recognizing, so they resort to critisizing other's accomplishments. It is really that simple

My wife and I were the general contractors on our own house. We were told we were crazy, but it turned out great. I built my own car. Same story. I plan to get my PPL and build my own plane. Guess what? When I do build it, I will be very proud of the Experimental category and labeling, and if anyone is intimidated or nervous about the classification, no problem, just don't get in it.

Tim
 
Welcome Tim, to VAF....

......we need more 'can-do' guys like you.

Young Eagles flights are invaluable in that regard. When a young man/lady is positively introduced to flight by a generous pilot who flies them around their town or property, it's remembered for a long, long time.

Their eyes will forever look at that airplane overhead with a smile and a fond remembrance....it's the education and it starts at an early age and we should all be a part of it,

Best,
 
EXPERIMENTAL

First a little history with help from Mr. Google. The Air Commerce Act of 1926 was the very beginning of regulation of aviation in the US. This led to the formation of the CAA in 1938 and the FAA in 1958. Up until at least the early thirties most US built aircraft were essentially homebuilts, even if they were built in a rudimentary factory.
Bernie Pietenpol started building airplanes in the late 20's/early 30's. In the early days he simply built airplanes and flew them off his private airstrip, very sucessfully. Although there were many sucessful copys of the Pietenpols Corbens, Heaths and others, there were also a lot of accidents, too many of them due to structural failure.
At some point in the 30's all homebuilt airplanes were grounded, except in the state of Oregon. The exceptions were the Experimental/research and development and Experimental/racing category aircraft. Two examples of the Experimental/research aircraft were Steve Wittmans 1938 two place Buttercup and 1945 four place Big X.
EAA was created in 1953. Around this time the CAA created the Experimental Amateur Built Category. Most of the early amateur built aircraft were single seaters.
In 1953 Steve Wittman test flew the first Tailwind. In Dec 1953 the Tailwind became the first EAB aircraft to be certified to carry a non revenue passenger.
The early EAB aircraft could be divided into two categories: the real airplanes like the Baby Ace, Pietenpol and Tailwind, and the "contraptions", sometimes the wreck of a Cub, chopped up and put back together with a low wing. Some of the contraptions were quite sucessful, most were not.
I think the "perceptions" about homebuilt aircraft go all the way back to the 20's. Leighton Collins, who published Air Facts from 1938 to the 70's, hated homebuilt airplanes in the early days. I think he warmed up to them somewhat in later years.
Todays issues with EAB can be divided into three categorys:
What I call the fringe category, ranging from ultralights with an n number to overweight ultralights posing as ultralights and flying with no certification and no N number. Depending on exactly how this category is defined, I believe they account for somewhere between 50 and 75% of the fatal accidents.
2. The real homebuilts. Starting with the Pietenpol, Baby Ace, Tailwind and extending into the modern era of RV's etc. The uper end of this category is WHERE THE WING LOADING AND STALLING SPEEDS GET OUT OF CONTROL. This is where category three starts.
3. The high wing loading airplanes. The worst of these is the Lancair 4. The most expensive in this category are $1.5 mil airplanes. Unfortunately too many of the people that can afford category 3 and not even remotely qualified to fly them.
So in my opinion, the vast majority of fatal EAB accidents are in cat 1 and 3. The accidents in cat 2 happen for the exact same reasons as accidents in comparable performance certified airplanes. The rare structural failure in cat 2 results from exceeding the structural limits of the airplane, just like in a Bonanza, Cessna 210 or Commanche.
(to be continued)
 
I always put comments like the one described in the first post down to jealousy. After all, I'm having more fun, more pride in my accomplishments, more capability than the average ground-pounder, and am even, if I say so myself, more humble. What's not to be jealous of? :D
 
My neighbors were incredulous when I rolled my RV-8 out of the garage, chained the tail to a tree and started it up.
The husband understood eventually, he's a wood craftsman. The wife, she can't understand why anyone would fly for any reason.
So many people don't even know General Aviation exists. Home built planes just don't register with them unless one is thrust into their lives. Negative thoughts come quick when that happens, but we can be ambassadors of aviation good will...
So I try to run my engine mid-day, to keep complaints to a minimum. I'm moving it to the airport soon.
There I'll have a different group of 'art critics' to contend with. Funny thing happened on the way to the 'show'; The Curmudgeon "I'll never fly behind an auto engine!" is a prolific aircraft builder and car racer. As I've stuck to my project over the years, he's become much more friendly.
I think I'm slowly earning my 'homebuilder's wings'.
 
Look at what some folks drive

Take a look when you drive down the street and look at the junk people will drive and this show how some people think. How about a "Smart Car". Dumb in my way of thinking. Hope I don't have to see one in a wreck.
 
Passions...

How about a "Smart Car". Dumb in my way of thinking.

Gary, how would you feel if the person with the Smart car told you that you were a twit for building an airplane? This thread is really about being understanding of other people's passions. There are people that are passionate about all sorts of things. Some that we understand, some that we don't. Because someone's interest doesn't agree with yours does not make it wrong. I'm sure that the person with the Smart car has as much rationale for buying it as you have for building airplanes. I find it much more positive to appreciate someone's interest in a hobby than questioning the activity itself.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
Firefighter Dave,

First, my in-laws live nearby in Santa Clarita, so thanks for watching over them in your day job! :)

John, Larry and others have made some great comments here. My thought is that your Uncle, who I'm sure knows a huge amount about aviation (probably one of those guys we respect and describe as "he's forgotten more than I'll ever know") perhaps just doesn't know what he doesn't know (about Experimental Aviation). That's not a face shot at all, because, though I've never held Experimental Aviation in low regard or contempt, or thought it especially hazardous, I lived in the certified world for the first nearly 30 years of my flying career, and perhaps like your Uncle, I was just never introduced to what was going on in the Experimental world.

Then a college bud took me for a ride in his F1 Rocket...and man, I was hooked...stick a fork in me, I was done. I had no idea of the extent of the revolution that had been taking place while I wasn't looking. "OMG, are you kidding me, I've been missing all of this? Let me in! Let me in!"

Then the same buddy found the Super Six I later bought from him, and its like being the college kid I was again, when I ate, slept and drank flying, and dreamed about owning a Stearman, like the one in the garage of the gent that gave me my first airplane ride. A Stearman still sounds good, but it could never replace my RV, which does so many things so well, and is a hoot beyond words. I'd never lost my love of flying...it never became "just a job"...but the RV and Experimental Aviation has re-lit a fire for GA flying that, well, my wife just shakes her head, since she now has 3 kids in the house! :rolleyes:

I'm just saying this because perhaps its just a matter of introducing your Uncle to what's out there. I'm sure he could teach you (and all of us) a lot about flying. Just might be that you (and us) could return the favor in a way that will bring a pretty big grin to his face. Bring him to Oshkosh, to Sun 'n Fun, to LOE or the R3 BBQ at the Reno Air Races...or any fly-in. Let him look at the planes, in the cockpits, in the EFIS mfgr's booths, at Stein's booth, at the engine mfgr's booths...you know what I mean. Just watch him scratch his head, look at you with that "really, this is Experimental?" look, then watch the eyeballs start to pop open and the grin start to grow. Who knows, you may be doing one of the nicest things you could ever do for your Uncle.

I'll never be able to thank my buddy enough for getting me back into this. Your Uncle may feel the same way about you down the road. Who knows, maybe someday he'll be bucking a rivet for you and will say, "you know Dave, this shop head doesn't look quite good enough", and you can just smile.

Heck, I guess we can all be ambassadors for, as John put it, our passion.

Cheers,
Bob
 
It takes time to get people used to new ideas. Who would have thunk it that in 2010 Larry Geiger would be flying in a water cooled snow mobile engine powered plane with a PSRU? When I mentioned 5 years ago that I was putting a car engine on my plane I was told I was going to die. 145 hours of flying later I'm still here and so is the plane. I really don't get much **** any more! It just takes time, proof of concept and commitment to change things and people's minds.

:D I see your point TSwezey, but I think you have me confused with someone else. I've been flying Rotax 2 & 4 strokers for 9 years, and 700+ hours. BTW, the Rotax 4 stroke 912 series is a purpose built aircraft engine, not used in snowmobiles that I know of. It's too heavy and expensive. When I heard Van's was going with the Rotax 912s in the -12 I was "all in." ;)

In any event, I am glad to hear of anyone's success in experimental aviation.
 
Last edited:
:D I see your point TSwezey, but I think you have me confused with someone else. I've been flying Rotax 2 & 4 strokers for 9 years, and 700+ hours. BTW, the Rotax 4 stroke 912 series is a purpose built aircraft engine, not used in snowmobiles that I know of. It's too heavy and expensive. When I heard Van's was going with the Rotax 912s in the -12 I was "all in." ;)

In any event, I am glad to hear of anyone's success in experimental aviation.

I don't know anybody else who has a flying -12! Sorry to use you to make my point. Just having a little fun.
 
I say who cares. I don't. I get a big laugh every time I pass a certified airplane and the tower says an experimental is passing on your right side. I hear a sarcastic, I know. I just smile and keep on flying. I also get a big smile when I do my inspections every year.:D
 
Just tell him that 747, 767, F-18, F-16, Airbus 380 drivers, as well as big wigs at NASA, and a whole slew of other pilots fly Van's RV's. That should shut him up for a while! :)

L.Adamson --- RV6A

Not only that, all of the above aircraft at one time had the EXPERIMENTAL decal on the side of them.

I have a photo of a brand new Delta MD-11 Experimental before MD had received the Standard Airworthiness Certificate.
 
I don't know anybody else who has a flying -12! Sorry to use you to make my point. Just having a little fun.

No offense taken at all! I love it! And you made a good point. We all need to keep an open mind when it comes to new things in experimental aviation. I know of a RV-9A with a Subbie that is a great plane. Roger A. did a great job building and modifying the power plant, and I look at alt engines in a different light now.

If I ever get set in my ways I hope someone "reminds" me with a 2x4 that we are experimental. ;)

I hope to see your set up soon. I've been following the TSwezey thread for a long time! Your's is certainly a success story and you should be commended for seeing it through.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top