Quite happy with the Beech Bonanza right now. Perhaps when flying IR a bit I‘ll miss a Turbo or more speed or pressure cabin or de-icing or, or, or…. but I guess the limits right now and for some time are being defined by myself, and not the plane…. ;)
Sorry if this sounds boring ^^
The builder of an LAA Permit Aircraft needs authorisation from the LAA to test-fly it. They may insist on somone else doing the first flights.
Building an RV, then getting an LAPL on a C152 or Pa38 would not be a great idea for the test flights.
Workmanship 11/10.
Silvaire – always liked the look of the SX300. Crazy fast little Ed Swearingen design (with his tell-tale sharkfin vertical). A plane you have to fly by the numbers as it has high stall speed, but supposedly a great handling aircraft. There’s a Swiss guy who’s taken his around the world a few times.
The only thing better than a Falco!
A Lancair Evo was recently lost due to in-flight engine failure – cause not yet determined but likely fuel contamination.
break – break
It seems that there were only 2 Insurance underwriters that would take on the Evo, but recently one has ceased. Some are speculating that it will soon be next to impossible to insure the Evo.
And so is the reality of Experimental aircraft risk.
LeSving wrote:
There aren’t more accidents due to structural failures in non certified aircraft than in certified aircraft. There are more accidents due to systems failure (engine and fuel related mostly) and due to lack of transition training. Both these two factors can relatively easily be fixed, they are both due to lack of experience/competence by the owner/pilot.
This is of no surprise whatsoever.
Sure, images of wings falling off and such are what most people conger up when thinking about “experimental” aircraft, but that’s not at all were the problem lies .
It’s the myriad of seemingly very simple systems that need to be made fail safe. It’s all these small items that on the surface appear to be inconsequential, that will bite you .
This reminds me of an engine failure on a Lancair ES. The builder made a very slight deviation from the plans and used a different remote oil filter set-up. After just a few dozen hours, it suffered an in-flight engine failure that resulted in the brans new engine getting trashed and an off airport landing. Luckily, no one was injured. Turns out that the load on the oil line to the remote filter adapter was too much and the oil hose broke away from the adapter with 100% of the engine oil getting pumped overboard in a matter of seconds.
That’s why they call it EXPERIMENTAL 
Silvaire wrote:
Maybe from the FAA perspective the studies are intended to defend US aviation against law maker action, in which I guess you could view it as a necessary evil
The NTSB did the studies, and with recommendations to the FAA and to the EAA. I think all normal pilots like the aircraft to be “safe”. The study shown that experimental aircraft are indeed safe. There aren’t more accidents due to structural failures in non certified aircraft than in certified aircraft. There are more accidents due to systems failure (engine and fuel related mostly) and due to lack of transition training. Both these two factors can relatively easily be fixed, they are both due to lack of experience/competence by the owner/pilot. The first important step is to be aware that this is the case, this is the status, and to stop speculating and make quasi theoretical nonsense about the “dangers” of experimental (non-certified) aircraft, and the “virtues” of certification. There also exist a European study, initiated by EASA, about microlights that comes to the same conclusion, more or less.
