Which non-certified aircraft would you buy if there were no restrictions on European flight and parking?

Peter wrote:

However, learning by yourself is not the best way.

The level of pilot skill obviously varies considerably among US Lancair builders and I think each needs to figure out what works for him… especially since its an experimental plane and he is by his own choosing the experimenter.

Peter wrote:

find a way to get some training, and preferably with a proper instructor who knows how to train, not with somebody who has just built one and thus far avoided crashing it.

The assumption that somewhere there is a ‘competent instructor’ who’s going to show you what to do is interesting to me. It may be possible but often that’s just not the case, and what’s actually required is somebody competent to fly a high performance aircraft that he’s never before flown. My Lancair IV owning friend falls into that category, and has flown a lot of new planes for others as well as several of his own design and construction. He also has an aeronautical engineering degree and 25 years of experience running a company in the field. That vastly limits his risk compared to (for instance) mine in doing the same thing… risk management is an individual thing. OTOH I don’t think there’s many people who have designed a wing for 22 G (not for the Lancair) and then tested it themselves to about 11 G, so he must have some appetite for risk regardless of experience or ability. To each his own.

RobertL18C wrote:

…which can match the SM SF260D…

I grew up and lived for almost 20 years no more than 10NM away from the place where they built (pr build? who knows…) them. Some of our neighbors worked in the factory and design bureau. I really like that thing. However, the Darwinist inside me keeps nagging: “Why are there so many Pipers and Cessnas everywhere and so few SIAIs, if this is such a superior aircraft…”

what_next wrote:

“Why are there so many Pipers and Cessnas everywhere and so few SIAIs, if this is such a superior aircraft…”

One reason is because obtaining spare parts is difficult and they are outrageously expensive.

I really like SF260s too, even if Experimentals make more practical sense for most people. I once talked myself into a tour of Latina Air Base, where the Italian Air Force does its basic training in SF260s, hosted by the surprisingly friendly Comandante. My practical purpose was to obtain this for a friend and his plane that came from Latina (pictured)… Mission accomplished

Peter wrote:

1 in 10 chance of crashing your new plane

The NTSB has investigated this, and written a lengthy report (I have posted it here before, don’t have time to find it again right now). I have never heard about the 1 on 10, but the majority of those accidents for a “new” pilot during the first flying hours are the second or third owner (not the builder). In any case, both the NTSB and the EAA has been focusing on transition training ever since, both for the builders and the following owners.

In general it depends on the experience vs the plane at hand. With experience only from a C-172, even a microlight can be more than a handful (mostly due to very low wing loading, low weight and high power to weight ratio).

Peter wrote:

You need quite a significant appetite for adventure, or have a near-nonexistent attitude to risk

Of course, you cannot be a complete chicken when flying. That is true about any sort of aircraft. But, I think it has very little to do with attitude to risk, and very much to do with preparing, planning and getting the right experience. Ignorance is the main killer, non-builders are generally more ignorant about the actual risks involved, and therefore less prepared. They tend to downplay the difficulties, as well as being ignorant of the risks, and exaggerate their own skills. (not to say that builders also don’t do this, but to a much lesser degree).

Do you have anything to substantiate that claim that builders have a different attitude to risk than non-builders, and that they are more prone to having accidents? Or is this pure conjecture?

I would think the opposite to be true (if there even was a measurable difference), just because a builder has sunk so much effort into his pride and joy that this might make him blind to some risks.

One obvious difference to explain higher accident rates of second hand owners is that the builder might know better about snags in his airplane than an unsuspecting buyer that was never briefed about some weird behavior or setup of his plane.

Rwy20 wrote:

Do you have anything to substantiate that claim that builders have a different attitude to risk than non-builders, and that they are more prone to having accidents? Or is this pure conjecture?

He doesn’t want it to be true. There is an Investigation that shows a considerable higher accident and fatality rate of experimental aircraft over certified aircraft, and as LeSving doesn’t want to acknowledge that there are partially technical reasons (that could have been mitigated by proper testing and proper certification), the only thing left to explain these numbers would be the pilot – or god, but I guess we should not need that hypothesis to explain accidents.

As I have said: It is perfectly possible to build a very good performing, good looking, safe aircraft from a kit, the Van’s are a very good example. But this is not necessarily true for all homebuilt aircraft and for flight testing you need to be exceptionally careful, even with a proven design. Nota bene: All good and successful test pilots I know are very “chicken” about flying. They don’t take any unnecessary risk, because the job includes enough uncontrollable risks. I think even the notion at you should not be chicken about test-flying an experimental aircraft says a lot about risk evaluation.

Very true as well. I couldn’t relate to that statement either, since I consider myself very chicken when it comes to flying, but I accept the residual risk. I think you can do both.

Isn’t Le Sving suggesting that a thoughtful experimental builder will have a more comprehensive understanding of the construction and aerodynamic risks than your simple pilot?

Am not sure you can test for a priori risk appetite but presumably an experimental builder of a BD5-J might agree his risk appetite is an order of magnitude higher than the innocent consumer of a CE-172.

RobertL18C wrote:

Isn’t Le Sving suggesting that a thoughtful experimental builder will have a more comprehensive understanding of the construction and aerodynamic risks than your simple pilot?

And a simple homebuilder would have no clue compared to a thoughtful pilot of certified aircraft, then?

Building a kit-aircraft doesn’t necessitate to know anything about structural loads, aerodynamic forces, flight mechanics, system integration or system failure influences. Otherwise any Cessna Factory worker would be an expert on these topics, wouldn’t he? To build an aircraft you just need to be able to read a plan and perform simple tasks with some handtools. Endurance is much more important than skill.

Of course, the combination of skill, knowledge and endurance can produce some exceptional beautiful and superb quality aircraft.

And if the BD-5 builder does this for the risk involved, he will die in his aircraft. That should not be the motivation in anything aviation-related. Especially something like the BD-5 is not for wannabe-mavericks.