The days where Cirrus or any other certified GA maker sold any significant numbers are over, just check the GAMA stats. Today it’s the experimentals that make the numbers.
I have seen RVs of better build quality than Piper, Socata, Cessna.
But there is nothing experimental or amateur built about a Lancair Evolution.
So what? I don’t know why europeans always need to argue in terms of “moral superiority” or “theoretical fairness” grounds.
The US EAB rules work in practice. The experimental aircraft do have a slightly higher accident rate, but not materially so that significant measures are warranted, IMO. And the rules aren’t discriminatory, too, because there’s nothing that stops Textron or Piper from founding an experimental aircraft company if they want to.
it’s an incredibly niche market
I’m surprised how many experimentals are based at my homebase. Or not based but driven there on a trailer for a flight.
I am sure the vast majority of (even) Americans would not touch an Exp, ever.
Maybe, given that the average fleet age is north of 40 years and the biggest market is the used plane market. But even the head of the FAA small aircraft directorate said in his 2013 Aero Friedrichshafen presentation that experimentals have taken over the piston single new plane market.
The homebuilt market in the US is not a niche market, for new aircraft in the US it’s the main market. It’s that plus Cirrus, and of course the used market.
As I write this at the airport a friend of mine is doing touch and goes in his just completed RV7, familiarization to get ’solo’d off’. It’s at least equivalent in visual and structural build quality to something like a new Tecnam, but obviously has much higher performance.
If I was in the USA, I would probably be flying an Exp aircraft.
In Europe, probably the same if they could go IFR and without national permissions.
I would replace my earlier “incredible” with a “defined size with a limited growth scope”. Sure they are outselling the certified models (yes I know Cirrus are heading downhill now) but I still think the European appeal is finite. It’s a great option but it is not IMHO the solution which some believe. Until the movement restrictions are lifted, but if they are they will be either of severely limited use (e.g. need a bit more than a VOR receiver to fly useful IFR) or they will drive a bus through the certification regime (which will be nice but I suspect will not happen because it’s a big chunk for the various interested parties to swallow).
It will be interesting to see how this scene develops. Even VFR flight across borders with no national permissions will be good, because VFR in IMC enroute is undetectable. But you do need de-ice for that because often you can’t get a climb to VMC…
So the 51% figure will always be a bit of a charade, otherwise the whole scene would never work.
We should be grateful that this is possible!
It’s not really a charade if you look closer. An aircraft made of carbon shell structure is complicated because it requires very specialized tools and processes, and the only way to learn it without spending millions on tools and jigs and trial and error, is to be there at the factory where all the necessary tools already exists . All the kit manufacturers have some sort of “work shop” offering, this is nothing special. Some of the engine suppliers also let you mount your own engine at the factory/shop.
The “charade” and the “problem” is those people who let other people do the work for them and somehow manages to fool the FAA. Lots of people drive too fast everyday, this doesn’t automatically mean the speed limits are a charade.
However, this is only a charade when looking at the US rules. The 51% rule works very different in other countries. Experimental/homebuilt is not a US “invention”. People were building aircraft in their homes all over the world from the “beginning of time”. The first book about this was French and came out in the 30s. Originally experimental/homebuilts aircraft were build from plans or completely new designs. There were no rules or regulations, and inspection for airworthiness were a ad hoc thing, if done at all. Exactly how, when and where a 51% rule came into play, I don’t know, but today it is implemented very different most places than it is in US, depending on how the rules have developed through times. In most countries the rules specify that the AA have to inspect the build at some minimum of times during the build, or else they cannot issue a C of A. The kit, drawings or design notes also has to be scrutinized by the AA. The 51% rule is there to assure the AA can inspect enough of the build, so they can issue a C of A. The purpose of 51% rule as “education and recreation” as defined by the FAA, is only relevant in the US. And here is the difference: The authorities, except the FAA, don’t care who has actually built the aircraft. Their only interest is to be sure the design and build quality is good enough so they can issue a C of A.
The rules in Norway state that to build an aircraft the 51% rule has to be followed. Then there has to be a build leader and a controller. The build leader is in most cases also the builder (as I am), but I can get all the help I want, and I can pay for it if I want. The controller is some approved person by the AA. It is typically a certified aircraft technician or a person who already has finished an aircraft. The approval of kits or drawings or design notes is delegated to EAA Norway. The regulations in Canada is more or less identical in principle as far as I know, and also elsewhere. In addition I can restore an old aircraft. Then there is no 51% rule, but the aircraft will forever be registered as an experimental with a special C of A.
With this Lancair I would believe it would be much better to simply haul the glued parts over the border to Canada, and hand it all out to professionals. All legally and properly. Then just fly it on Canadian register, or export it to the US when it is finished.
Thermal or pneumatic.
Interesting – I wonder if the thermal one is similar to the Thermawing on Cessna’ C350/400.
Although an experimental will never qualify as FIKI though, right?
I don’t think “FIKI” has any legal meaning for private flight in Europe.
In the USA it has meant various things over the years (I think this one from 2009 is the most recent) but it always mapped in some way onto US weather services – which don’t cover Europe.
But for sure any efficient wing will want de-ice.
So what? I don’t know why europeans always need to argue in terms of “moral superiority” or “theoretical fairness” grounds.
It is neither “moral superiority” nor “theoretical fairness” but “equal opportunities” – one of the pillars of the European Union. But this has been an ongoing dispute between Boeing and Airbus on a big scale, so why should the smaller aeroplanes be spared from it.
Even VFR flight across borders with no national permissions will be good, because VFR in IMC enroute is undetectable.
I am somewhat confused by this post of yours, Peter.
After narrowly missing (twice) unannounced (with no record of IFR flight-plans ever being filled) and, presumably, undetected (at low level we were flying at) aircraft appearing (from a solid overcast underneath) in front of me, I do hope you are not advocating conducting “VFR in IMC en-route”, are you, Peter?!
“equal opportunities” – one of the pillars of the European Union.
Yes and that is one of its problems. Germany tried hard to create an absolutely fair tax law, to the point where there’s anecdotal evidence that 60% of the world literature on tax law is in german Every german I know needs the services of a tax advisor to complete his tax declaration. Every time someone tries to make rules and regulations absolutely fair the only thing they are going to achieve is to make it very complex for everyone.
ongoing dispute between Boeing and Airbus on a big scale
A case in point. Europe tried to make this more fair by creating EASA, the effect was that it only got more complex and expensive for everyone. Whereas before EASA most NAA’s just rubberstamped FAA STCs, nowadays you need an EASA STC which is expensive and has limited market appeal.
And I still don’t see how the EAB rules are unfair to Textron (Cessna) or Piper – they could simply set up another company to build EAB kits if they wanted to.
