Peter wrote:
I think the “wife acceptance” of SETs is heavily influenced by the luxury interior you get on a $4M+ cabin class plane I mean, it just isn’t possible for the engine to fail, is it? And if the pilot has just the right amount of grey hair, and a reassuring voice… This is real feedback I hear; I am not making it up. The more luxurious the interior looks, the safer the plane must be.
The same applies when you talking about “BRS acceptance”, try convincing the Mrs to jump in a Jabiru microlight with a retro fitted chute 
Peter wrote:
reckon that if this is successful under the US Exp regime, they could make enough $$$ there without having to certify it. Low hanging fruit, etc…
It is not possible to sell significant numbers of factory built aircraft to end users for practical operation within Experimental category.
I tried looking up the N-number to see in which sub-category of Experimental this plane has been registered, but was unsuccessful. The most useful would be Exhibition and if the owner has achieved that it would be on the basis of it being an unusual type. Other applicable sub-categories are typically restricted within a calendar time period and/or within a limited range of operations.
Silvaire wrote:
It is not possible to sell significant numbers of factory built aircraft to end users for practical operation within Experimental category.
Yes, I forgot. So, they won’t be able to sell any of these factory-built aircraft as long as it isn’t certified. The only thing they can do is show this one around and try to get some publicity (via that video, other social media, word-of-mouth, etc.) and “wet the appetite” within their target group for this aircraft, to some degree.
They can also debug it, which is priceless.
“Homebuilt” planes tend to suffer from a hilarious catalogue of poor engineering, which the owners continually struggle with, piling one bodge on top of another bodge, supporting each other via type specific forums where those builders who have enormous amounts of time document their latest bodge, where they exchange notes on different versions of the latest bodge, etc, when they really should be flying the thing, going places, and enjoying it. And not just flying to the annual type specific meet-up where they can show each other the latest bodge Don’t get me wrong; I have nothing against homebuilts. I would now be flying a Lancair if it was of any use in Europe. The RVs have probably got the least bodges, which is one of the main reasons they are so popular.
But lots of new certified planes, from the last 20 years, have suffered from fairly major problems, too.
Same comment (about debugging) for the Evolution and the Epic. The Evo is probably dead now; the Epic appears to have achieved certification after many years.
So… they can do this only by setting up some sort of “51% owner built” scheme?
Without falling prey to the “Eclipse” syndrome, numbers is what our dying industry needs. Numbers will never be high for homebuilts (or else it would be death of our species by divorce), but they can be high for certified aircraft (ask Cirrus).
That is why I think we should encourage this type of certified aircraft.
As to the “massive range issue” let’s face it: not all of us fly six hour trips happily like @Peter likes to do (yes I do too).
As part of the ‘numbers’ problem I strongly advocate flying with people ( my hourly-weighed average POB is probably >3.5) to spread the bug, the cost and increase the utility and the fun. When you fly with people, 3 hrs seems to be a reasonable if arguable max endurance. So it is a matter of how far you can go in three hours.
The Panthera makes 540NM, covering close to one million sq miles in potential destinations, whereas a more typical 140-160 kt cruiser makes it 450NM or 600k sq nm. The differential utility of that seemingly nimble 20-40kt speed increase is tremendous by increasing the number of places that can be reached by 60-80%, again making it so much more attractive for those other people, and hence helping increase numbers. In my view that is the main utility of speed, and it is extremely relevant to going-places-with-people flying, nothing about bragging rights.
And for the Peters and Antonios who want to do 1000NM or more, surely it can’t be difficult to (retro- or not) fit long range tanks and fly alone or with one pilot-friend who does not mind using pee bottles or drinking discipline.
boscomantico wrote:
Yes, I forgot. So, they won’t be able to sell any of these factory-built aircraft as long as it isn’t certified. The only thing they can do is show this one around and try to get some publicity (via that video, other social media, word-of-mouth, etc.) and “wet the appetite” within their target group for this aircraft, to some degree.
Assuming the owner of the N-registered plane bought it unregistered and he was able to register it himself in Experimental Exhibition, he can do anything with it that he would do with a Normal Category aircraft, and more. However, this is not an option for the manufacturer for engineering purposes (that is Experimental R&D, a more restrictive subcategory) or to bypass certification for factory aircraft offered by them for commercial sale.
Pipistrel could sell kits and support owner construction with a distributor run ‘51% or more’ facility within the US. The aircraft would then be Experimental Amateur Built.
Peter’s observation of homebuilt aircraft engineering does not resemble most of what I see in my US area, homebuilts here are typically well engineered and well
constructed by their owners, and also flown a lot. This is no marginal fringe activity, it is the mainstream.
Obviously RV homebuilts are built and flown in very large numbers, greater than e.g. Cirrus.
Silvaire wrote:
Obviously RV homebuilts are built and flown in very large numbers, greater than e.g. Cirrus.
So what’s different in Europe so it does not happen that way?
Antonio wrote:
So what’s different in Europe so it does not happen that way?
Aircraft like homebuilts which have a Permit to Fly (as opposed to a Certificate of Airworthiness) do not automatically have a right to fly outside the state of registry. This matters much less in the US, since all of the US is a single state (in the international sense of the word).
Exactly! ICAO rights are only automatic for a standard CofA. This is also the case for ultralight aircraft. Notwitstanding the fact that some homebuilt/UL flyers do not care so much about the legal requirements of cross-border flights until they have to deal with their insurance, this is another good reason why us Europeans should applaud Pipistrel’s initiative to certify the Panthera.
