from their web page......

"The aircraft can be shipped to your country under the name "RV", or under our brand name "Cetus."

If there are any difficulties with registration in your country, the aircraft can be shipped to you with Russian registration, if that helps.

Once you register you aircraft as experimental, please check your local legislation for the amount of professional help allowed for amateur build aircrafts in your area. Cetus Aero Ltd. will not be liable for any problems with registration of your aircraft caused by the excess of amount of professional help allowed in your country."
 
Not much to stir

At a price of over $130,000 USD, I doubt that many people in the USA will do it.
 
pierre smith said:
...with another turn key RV building outfit in Russia. I saw the ad on Barnstormers.
http://www.eng.cetus.aero/
Mel, how 'bout chime in with your thoughts please,
Regards,
Click to expand...
Not quite sure how you would register it in the US. It certainly would not meet the "experimental amateur-built" rule.
It could possibly be done under "experimental exhibition", but it would not meet the "intent" of the rule.
 
Great Guys!

I met up with these folks back in 2005 in Moscow, and was impressed with their passion for aviation, and making their dreams happen despite what can best be described as a "roll your own" form of regulation and government of general Aviation. imagine you were investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in an enterprise that could be shut down that afternoon at the whim of a government employee that was in a political snit with some other government employee....and you're caught in the middle!

I agree with Mel - you'd have a tough time licensing this in the US, but the CETUS guys already know this, and that's not their market. They are finding work for Russian aircraft artisans who no longer had steady jobs - a nice thing in their "wild west" economy.

(They are also AMAZING with paint!)

Paul
 
Stir the borscht

...but you gotta love guys that have a program with an acronym like this... I think many of us have used the term once during building/maintaining our RV's!

You have started you RV kit project and understand that you will likely finish it in the next century?

- Then your last chance is our FCK (Finishing Customer?s Kit) concept.
 
<snip>
imagine you were investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in an enterprise that could be shut down that afternoon at the whim of a government employee that was in a political snit with some other government employee....
<end snip>

Sounds a bit like where we are heading here in the good 'ole USA...
 
CERTIFICATION

I think these could be certified Experimental Exhibition, just as the foreign warbirds, many of the aerobatic aircraft and gliders and motorgliders. Different and more restrictive ops limits than EAB.
 
There is already a company in America doing this same thing. They make the Epic LT aircraft, a homebuilt pressurized turbine powered kit airplane. They will build you the airplane for the right amount of money. I have worked on an Epic that a customer says he "built" the airplane. Even had a huge binder of pictures showing him "building" portions of the airplane. The interesting thing was, when he would bring it into the shop for us to work on it, he couldn't tell us where anything was routed (be it electrical, hydraulic, or air lines), didn't know how any of the systems work (I **** near collapsed the gear on it by accident listening to him tell me how to test something on the gear), and when he was asked about the build, he refused to talk about it.

So even in the US, there are companies out there that are bending the rules. I do believe this was one of the companies that brought the feds attention to revamping the 51% rule in the beginning.
 
?

I would like to see the following.
1. RV's built here in America by Americans and sold as ready to fly to us and other countries. I'm sure that would provide some jobs.
2. RV's able to be used in commercial operations pending a higher level inspection specifically for that purpose if the owner desires.
3. The term Experimental changed to "custom" for RV's as I think it is a misnomer.
4. I hope the guys in Russia are very successful and build safe economical aircraft to introduce the rest of Russia to GA and how great it is.
5. I hope other people in other countries do the same.
6. I hope we import some of those RV's to America and inspect their work.
7. I hope we show that the RV design is as good or better than some of the certified designs out there.
8. More honesty in the 51% market as far as assisted build centers.
9. The right to be able to build RV's here in the states and sell them as new without worrying about if it's legal or not... because I know there are people out there with the money to get it done and not the skill to do so safely.
10. I still want the rule of the repairman's certificate to apply as far as 51% of work goes if the buyer/builder wants the repairmans cert.
11. Some way to set a legal precedent about not suing aviation parts manufacturers or the pilots in an accident if there was not deliberate negligence on their part... this is why airplanes are soooooo expensive!

As Adam Smith said, the invisible hand of competition is always there....
Best
Brian Wallis
 
Last edited:
I can see it now. Van's opens it's certified division.

The planes are commercially built and not called RV's. RV will be reserved for the experimental division that is sold as kit planes.

The certified versions will be known as Vangrun 7, Vangrun 8, Vangrun 9, etc....

The experimental kit now cost twice as much, and the certified version becomes.........about 300K for a 7,8,or 9, and a 10 @ 450K due to insurance reasons.
 
Last edited:
Just my thoughts. If I would import an aircraft and could choose between one made in the US by an amateur who has never built anything in his entire life, and with no requirements for QA during the build, or one made in Russia built by a team of proffesionals at a slightly higher price? I think the answer to that is a no brainer.

The rules and regulations are different througout the world. In Norway the main idea is that experimentals shall be 51% "self built" and that they shall be airworthy. During the building process, a certified mechanics will do the QA and sign off all the steps (as well as give lots of advice). Another thing is that I don't HAVE to build it myself, I only have to be the "project leader" so to speak. This doesn't mean that I can purchase a 100% finished kit from a manufactorer, because of the 51% rule, but I can hire some folks to do the actual building as long as I am in charge. The rules about importing a finished or partly finished kit say that I can do so, if I can document that some very basic technical requirements regarding airworthiness are fulfilled (no problems regarding RVs or any other well known kits).

So what would happen if I import one of those planes from Russia? I don't know. Obviously the 51% "self built" rule is not fulfilled in any stretch of the imagination anytime during the build. The Russian company is a manufactorer of fully finished aircrafts, no matter where they get their parts or plans from. On the other hand, if it was already registered in Russia that would probably make a difference (do Russia have an experimental class by the way?). I could also probably show, at least on paper, that I am the project leader.

I personally think the 51% rule is an outdated concept with no base in airworthiness or reality at all. Experimentals are sold and purchased, imported and exported in any state of completeness all the time. There should be only one rule, experimental classed aircrafts should not be used commercially.
 
Not quite, Bjornar...

...I agree with most of your opinions but not the "Cannot be used commercially". The EAA fought long and hard to allow commercial use only for transition training and it has worked extremely well, saving lives and preventing wrecked airplanes.

Regards,
 
pierre smith said:
...I agree with most of your opinions but not the "Cannot be used commercially". The EAA fought long and hard to allow commercial use only for transition training and it has worked extremely well, saving lives and preventing wrecked airplanes.

Regards,
Click to expand...
Being fresh off my first flight I feel somewhat qualified to comment on this. I only had 125 hours when I made my first flight yesterday. The most important hours were the last five of transition training with Pierre. I have no doubts in my mind that without Pierre's instruction I would, more than likely, have balled my plane up in the row of trees that bordered the left side of our grass strip. If you have only flown Cessnas you will never believe how much right rudder is needed to keep a gnarley 180 hp RV hotrod headed straight on takeoff roll. Because of the transition training we have available to us, yesterday was a great and memorable day for all of the right reasons.

Thanks to all that worked to get the transition training waiver and thanks Pierre for making yesterday a great day.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.