bret

bret

Well Known Member
Say one installs a used certified engine and prop out of say.....a Mooney or similar with the original engine data tag, will you be granted a 20 Hr test period?
 
bret said:
Say one installs a used certified engine and prop out of say.....a Mooney or similar with the original engine data tag, will you be granted a 20 Hr test period?
Click to expand...

IIRC, the regulations call for a 25 hour fly-off with a certified engine/prop.
 
I do know of one plane that is flying with an engine & prop out of one of the SnF tornado damaged airplanes that was given the lower Phase 1 time by the local FSDO because the engine-prop combination came out of a "certified" airplane. Granted, that airplane was certified as an E-AB.
 
I can't be the only one with Vans YIO-360-M1B and Hartzell to get a 25 hr phase 1 from the FSDO.
 
My Rocket, my Hiperbipe and the -8 I fly were all given a 25 hour phase 1.
 
Last edited:
Any code words?

Any chapter, verse, or precise answers to get this (25hrs) ? I have the same engine, Bill, and a Hartzell, approved, prop.
 
BillL said:
Any chapter, verse, or precise answers to get this (25hrs) ? I have the same engine, Bill, and a Hartzell, approved, prop.
Click to expand...

At the present time, FAA Order 8130.2H has what you are looking for.

Go to 461. Flight Test Areas.
c. Assigned Flight Test Area.
(1)

Page 4-70 says:
"(1) Amateur-built aircraft issued original airworthiness certificates should be limited to operation within an assigned flight test area for a minimum of 25 hours when a type-certificated engine/propeller combination is installed. A minimum of 40 hours is required when a non-type-certificated engine, propeller, or engine/propeller combination is installed. Furthermore, if the type-certificated engine, propeller, or engine/propeller combination installed have been altered in a way that differs from an approved type design in a TCDS, a minimum of 40 hours will be required. "
 
RV6_flyer said:
At the present time, FAA Order 8130.2H has what you are looking for.

Go to 461. Flight Test Areas.
c. Assigned Flight Test Area.
(1)

Page 4-70 says:
"(1) Amateur-built aircraft issued original airworthiness certificates should be limited to operation within an assigned flight test area for a minimum of 25 hours when a type-certificated engine/propeller combination is installed. A minimum of 40 hours is required when a non-type-certificated engine, propeller, or engine/propeller combination is installed. Furthermore, if the type-certificated engine, propeller, or engine/propeller combination installed have been altered in a way that differs from an approved type design in a TCDS, a minimum of 40 hours will be required. "
Click to expand...

Thanks Gary, but the paperwork on the YIO-360M1B is "experimental" and not "type certified" right?
 
So to further and complicate my original question, if I flew the plane 25, then installed EFII, would I need to go back into testing, and or file paperwork?
 
BobTurner said:
You may well be the only one. The 'Y' is not certified. The FAA or DAR made a mistake.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get that, plus Gary's post. I had a big grin after the handshake. FSDO was not new to the party. Maybe he was giving a gift respecting more Vans being built than spam cans. Defacto if not legal cert. I dont know. Could simply be one error out of 7000. The FAA is really good at this right? :rolleyes:
 
It appears to be up to the discretion of the inspector what "type certificated" means. I know of a few engines with the 25 hour restriction that were TC'd at the core, but were running aftermarket accessories like ignition, alternators, starters, etc.
 
Toobuilder said:
It appears to be up to the discretion of the inspector what "type certificated" means. I know of a few engines with the 25 hour restriction that were TC'd at the core, but were running aftermarket accessories like ignition, alternators, starters, etc.
Click to expand...

It's not up to the inspector. If aftermarket parts are installed, it doesn't meet it's type certificate.
Just because some people get it wrong, doesn't make it right.
 
Toobuilder said:
Fair enough, but it's a mistake in the users favor (for once), so good for us.
Click to expand...

Well Yes & No!

Neither the FAA inspector nor the DAR has the authority to deviate from the rules. Even if a FSDO Inspector makes a mistake, it still doesn't make it OK.
 
Mel said:
Well Yes & No!

Neither the FAA inspector nor the DAR has the authority to deviate from the rules. Even if a FSDO Inspector makes a mistake, it still doesn't make it OK.
Click to expand...

In the unlikely event that there was an investigation following an accident and the pilot followed the opperating instructions to the letter, I'd say the guy who issued the incorrect letter would be held culpable.

Kind of a moot point anyway, because I've done a flight test series and I don't see how anyone can accomplish a proper and complete data set in 25 hours. I think even 40 hours is a stretch.

I suspect that a lot of E-AB "flight test" is just hour after hour of flying in circles.


...but that is a topic for another thread.
 
How can you complete a flight test in less than 40 hours?

Toobuilder said:
Kind of a moot point anyway, because I've done a flight test series and I don't see how anyone can accomplish a proper and complete data set in 25 hours. I think even 40 hours is a stretch.

I suspect that a lot of E-AB "flight test" is just hour after hour of flying in circles.
Click to expand...

This. I don't see how it is possible to do a full flight test program in 25 hours. I'm nearly done with my plane and wrote up a full flight test protocol with test cards, etc. That protocol itself is over 100 pages long, and consists of no less than 33 test flights. I don't see how it is even possible to finish that in less than 25 hours. I will be hard pressed to finish it in less than 40.
 
Does anyone know how the definition applies to combinations that are certificated under LSA rules (i.e. non-ICAO CofA)?

For instance the Carbon Cub has an approved O-340 and Catto prop with dual electronic ignition. I presume they have a TCDS or equivalent for the factory built LSA versions. Similar considerations could apply to an RV-12 that was built as E-AB.
 
You guys are right on!
It would really be a stretch to perform a complete flight test program in 25 hours.
And I also agree that a great many people do NOT perform a complete flight test program.
 
Mark Albery said:
Does anyone know how the definition applies to combinations that are certificated under LSA rules (i.e. non-ICAO CofA)?

For instance the Carbon Cub has an approved O-340 and Catto prop with dual electronic ignition. I presume they have a TCDS or equivalent for the factory built LSA versions. Similar considerations could apply to an RV-12 that was built as E-AB.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a TCDS for Special Light Sport.
Each item (engine, prop., etc.) is approved under under individual ASTM requirements.
Not sure whether the FAA considers that meeting the requirement. Mel might be able to comment whether any guidance has been given to DAR's regarding that.
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
There is no such thing as a TCDS for Special Light Sport.
Each item (engine, prop., etc.) is approved under under individual ASTM requirements.
Not sure whether the FAA considers that meeting the requirement. Mel might be able to comment whether any guidance has been given to DAR's regarding that.
Click to expand...

ASTM approval does not quality as a type certificate data sheet.

The engine/propeller combination must meet a TCDS to qualify for the 25 hr. phase I requirement.

And BTW, as an aside, American Legend Aircraft is now offering the same engine/prop combination as CubCrafters.
 
Last edited:
Toobuilder said:
Kind of a moot point anyway, because I've done a flight test series and I don't see how anyone can accomplish a proper and complete data set in 25 hours.
Click to expand...

I found this to be true from two different aspects. It was hard to get everything I wanted done in 25 hrs. Flights had to be multipurpose and planned before takeoff. Plus I found I was retesting and "futzing" with stuff well afterwards.
 
krwalsh said:
This. I don't see how it is possible to do a full flight test program in 25 hours. I'm nearly done with my plane and wrote up a full flight test protocol with test cards, etc. That protocol itself is over 100 pages long, and consists of no less than 33 test flights. I don't see how it is even possible to finish that in less than 25 hours. I will be hard pressed to finish it in less than 40.
Click to expand...

I'm with Kevin, I just finished my flight testing this summer and 25 hrs isn't even close to enough time! I thought I could have it done in a couple of weeks but it took and about two months and 44hrs.:eek:
 
MikeyDale said:
I'm with Kevin, I just finished my flight testing this summer and 25 hrs isn't even close to enough time! I thought I could have it done in a couple of weeks but it took and about two months and 44hrs.:eek:
Click to expand...

I agree 100%

I got very lucky with my 40 in that I had perfect weekends and no issues with the plane that couldn't be addressed in an hour or two.

I finished in four weekends but was flying a LOT. 10 Hours of flight testing in a day is too much and something that I will NEVER do again!
 
Testing

A certain RV completed the testing in just a few days, flew to OSH and won a major award.
Most of the problems I have had with EAB aircraft over 50 plus years occurred well after the initial test period.
 
jrs14855 said:
Most of the problems I have had with EAB aircraft over 50 plus years occurred well after the initial test period.
Click to expand...

I agree. The common mistake that many make is assuming that now that they have 50 hrs on the airplane, the 3500 mile trip they have planned should be a piece of cake. It is often at 75-100 hrs that problems start to show up or things start to break.

But, the phase 1 flight test period actually has a two fold purpose.

One is to prove the viability and dependability of the entire build and gather performance data specific to their airplanes gross weight, engine / prop, validate the published CG limits (for their airplane), etc.

The other is for the (typically) new to RV's pilot to gain familiarity with a very different airplane.
I still find it unbelievable when after simply boring holes in the sky for 25 or 40 hrs, I hear people say how crazy there first landing with a buddy in the back seat was. :rolleyes:
 
Flight testing really should be task based, and fortunately, that is the direction that the EAA and FAA are working towards now - take away the arbitrary time limit, and instead, build a list of tests that have to be completed to sign an airplane out of Phase 1. I expect that, similar to the Additional Pilot program, the task-based program will be an optional alternative to time-based, so folks can do either one. I still expect that most people will find that it takes close to 40 hours to honestly complete a task based test program, unless they are experienced at test flying, taking data, and reducing data. Or, of course, they cheat - which many, many people do now. From comments I hear all over the country from many differnt pilots in many different types of experimentals, I expect that less than half actually complete a full-range flight test program, and a huge number fly the same "test" hour forty times. For those of you who are doign it honestly - good for you!

When will the task-based program be available? I don't know - the wheels of change turn slowly....
 
Task

One of the most important tests is to test to Vne or even slightly above. I suspect this is done well under half the time.
 
jrs14855 said:
One of the most important tests is to test to Vne or even slightly above. I suspect this is done well under half the time.
Click to expand...

Test for what, exactly? (Although I did take it Vne, but not above, during my Phase I...not sure what that proved, other than the wings didn't fall off and the plane could actually get going that fast pretty easily going downhill...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.