O

ops_geek

Member
Hi all-

Newb here...

When you finish your RV, how is it classified by FAA? Is it experimental forever or is it experimental during flyoff and then something else?

I seem to remember something about not being able to fly an experimental aircraft over "congested" areas...is that still in effect? If so, how do you deal with it?

Thanks!
 
Hi Rob!

Experimental forever and you can fly where you want, pretty much.

Best,
Doug
 
Last edited:
Experimental forever. No pax during flyoff. But, you can fly them anywhere else that any other airplane is allowed to fly. VFR or IFR if properly equipped.
 
cjensen said:
Experimental forever. No pax during flyoff. But, you can fly them anywhere else that any other airplane is allowed to fly. VFR or IFR if properly equipped.
Click to expand...

All true, but there can be a catch, be sure that the "operations limitations" document says exactly that under phase two. This is also where the day/night and VFR/IFR determination comes in.

John Clark
RV8 N18U 200+ hrs
KSBA
 
A little off topic from the original question but I've wondered why they never got a type certificate for thier designs. I know it's expensive, but you'd think with the popularity of what they have they'd go that extra step. Also, what's keeping anyone else from taking thier designs or something similar and putting them into production?
Hmmmm...
 
Joe, I think the answer to both questions is the same. Cost vs. reward. It would cost Van's a fortune to certify their designs, and that cost would be passed on to the consumer. How many factory built turn-key RV7s 8s or 9s do you think they would sell for $150-200K? I'd bet not more than a dozen or two. The same would apply to anyone else looking to sell RV-clones as certified airplanes.

Van's is doing a land-office business selling kits. What's the incentive for them to sell whole airplanes?
 
Certifying an airplane is a HIGHLY expensive proposition. Somewhere on the order of $70 mil for one design. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it's VERY expensive to do. I think Van's is doing just fine selling kits, and they have zero liability after the kit is sold.
 
cjensen said:
Certifying an airplane is a HIGHLY expensive proposition. Somewhere on the order of $70 mil for one design. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it's VERY expensive to do. I think Van's is doing just fine selling kits, and they have zero liability after the kit is sold.
Click to expand...
When building an airplane such as Cessna does, they have to certify the aircraft AND the manufacturing process/facility.

After a company goes through the expense of certifying the design then they have to describe exactly how they are going to build it, source the parts, etc. If they find a better way to build the same aircraft, they have to recertify the construction process.

Not to mention what happens if they change even the smallest part in the aircraft.

Add to that the liability insurance they would have to have; it just isn't worth it.
 
BTW, I can think of only a few kit built planes that were certified.

One being the Gruman AA-1. (It started life as a Jim Bede kit/plans)

The other being the Zenair 601, which now looks more like a PA-28 than a 601.

I'm sure there are others and we will probably see more that become certified as LSA's
 
Back to the original post; An experimental amateur-built may NOT be flown over congested area during the flight test period. As one has already pointed out, your "operating limitations" is the controlling document. If you have an old set of operating limitations, you may not be able to fly over congested areas ever. If you have these old op lims, you need to get your FSDO to issue the latest and greatest, or get a recurrent airworthiness certificate which will include the current op lims. Remember, and amateur-built IS an experimental. An experimental is not necessarily an amateur-built. Experimental covers Research & development, Show Compliance, Crew Training, Exhibition, Air Racing, Primary aircraft, Amateur-Built Aircraft and Light-Sport Aircraft.
BTW Bill,
I'm pretty sure the 601 has not been certificated. It is offered as a S-LSA, but that is still not a certificated aircraft. Each and every S-LSA must be inspected by FAA or a DAR and issued a Special Airworthiness Certificate (8130-7)
 
Last edited:
Mel said:
BTW Bill,
I'm pretty sure the 601 has not been certificated. It is offered as a S-LSA, but that is still not a certificated aircraft. Each and every S-LSA must be inspected by FAA or a DAR and issued a Special Airworthiness Certificate (8130-7)
Click to expand...

He might be refering to the CH2000, the certified sibling to the 601.
 
N941WR said:
BTW, I can think of only a few kit built planes that were certified.

One being the Gruman AA-1. (It started life as a Jim Bede kit/plans)

The other being the Zenair 601, which now looks more like a PA-28 than a 601.

I'm sure there are others and we will probably see more that become certified as LSA's
Click to expand...
Isn't the Columbia 400 basically a certificated Lancair? I thought I remembered reading that somewhere...
 
Not only would it be very expensive to obtain type certification for an RV design, I strongly suspect that the short wing RVs would not meet all the FAR 23 flight characteristics requirements at aft CG (I say suspect, because I won't know for sure until I get my RV-8 flying). For example, FAR 23.155(a)(2) requires that the stick force to reach limit g be at least 15 lb at aft CG. I suspect that this may be a problem with an RV-4 or -8 at aft CG.

The changes that Van would have to make to meet the FAR 23 requirements would probably lead to higher stick forces, which would make them less enjoyable to fly.

FAR 23.473 would apparently require the landing gear structure to be designed for landings at about 9 ft/s (540 ft/mn). I'm not convinced the nose gear RVs could handle this without beefing up the nose gear, which adds weight, and reduces performance. Note: I am not a structures engineer, so it is possible that I have misinterpreted FAR 23.473.

Selling a type certificated aircraft also makes it a lot easier for a successful law suit following an accident. Right now, Van is not the manufacturer, nor has he claimed that the aircraft meets any design standard.
 
Options??

Hi Guys/gals,
This question for all you DARs. My buddy bought a factory produced Fascination D-4 a couple of years ago. He went to the factory in Germany and did the paint design and so on. Later, the airplane was re-assembled by the dealer in Jacksonville, Florida and he flew it up here and delivered it. BTW, it has "Experimental" certification.

My buddy used it for aerial photography for the big Paper companies and was grounded by the FAA shortly after he bought the airplane, since it didn't meet the amateur-built 51% rule. He resorted back to flying his 172 and sued the dealer to get his money back and return the airplane since it was of no use to him. The judge found in favor of the dealer and my buddy is on one helluva rampage agianst lawyers and judges now.

An EAA chapter president told me last year that there are other categories that the airplane could be registered under and then be used for paid aerial photography. If so, what category or regulation would apply?

Thanks in advance,
 
The only other classification that I know of would be Experiment Exhibition. However, NONE of the experimental classifications can be used for compensation or hire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.