Nice. That’s possible because you have a GTN650 – a certified GPS 
back course approach on a/p
An Aerobat should have it (i think). Yes, the normal gyros will get damaged after a while.
Alexis wrote:
Aerobatic airplanes have aerobatic gyros that can be caged.
Some do, some don’t… The flying school where I did most of my training for example had a C150 aerobat. With standard gyros, not aerobatic ones, therefore the flying school owner prohibited aerobatics on this aircraft for fear of instrument damage.
Aerobatic airplanes have aerobatic gyros that can be caged. More modern a/c have solid state gyros that don’t care.
alioth wrote:
Solid state instruments aren’t sensitive to aerobatics.
The sensors of course not. But the indicators will lose alignment after an aerobatic maneuvre and require some time for re-alignment. So before doing that loop or barrel roll in your tourer make sure that you won’t have to rely on your attitude and direction indicators for some time afterwards. Like that unfortunate crew of the Slovak (or Czech?) Citation who tried a barrel roll at night and lost control after their screens displayed nothing but large red "X"s.
what_next wrote:
gyroscopic instruments (mechanical or solid state) which usually don’t like aerobatics much
Solid state instruments aren’t sensitive to aerobatics.
Note how none of your EFIS solid state gyros have big warnings “HANDLE LIKE EGGS” all over them.
what_next wrote:
On the other hand, if you build an aeroplane in your garage under supervision and submit the required paperwork and perform the test flying program it will be put on the register just like every other aircraft. Some restrictions (e.g. no IFR) may apply, but apart from that it will be indistinguishable from a factory built aircraft with a C of A. In fact, it will be issued a C of A.
Sounds almost exactly like Norway, only there are no restrictions on IFR or anything, and the maintenance is more humane.
LeSving wrote:
Anyway, homebuilts, experimental, amateur built and so on are just words.
Around here that’s quite a difference. Fit an external camera mount to a C172 for aerial photography and you will get an experimental. For which you will require a permit to fly which sevely limits it’s operation (e.g. daylight VFR only, no cross-border flying, no flying over populated areas, only to be flown by specially trained pilots, …).
On the other hand, if you build an aeroplane in your garage under supervision and submit the required paperwork and perform the test flying program it will be put on the register just like every other aircraft. Some restrictions (e.g. no IFR) may apply, but apart from that it will be indistinguishable from a factory built aircraft with a C of A. In fact, it will be issued a C of A.
Alexis wrote:
I do know some RV owners who did build theirs specifically for that capability. When (20 years ago) I thought about building an RV-8 that’s what was on my mind. But even pilots who are not much into aerobatics enjoy an ocasional barrel roll. It’s really a pity that almost none of the regular planes are, at least, approved for that.It’s the mixture of all these features that makes the RV line attractive.
Yes, the combination of capabilities is important and has made the RV line a ‘regular’ mainstream aircraft for private owners in the US. The RV-9 is the non-aerobatic option, its an RV-7 with a higher aspect ratio wing and different airfoil. As a result the RV-9 has has slightly better aerodynamic efficiency. I know a guy who has one, but he also has an RV-7. All the RV owners I know personally do some form of aerobatics, although often its just the occasional roll or loop.
