Grimace
Well-Known Member
A side discussion on another thread got me thinking about the difference between the planes that are listed as experimental by the FAA, and those that are seriously EXPERIMENTAL.
That word... experimental... has twelve letters. Maybe we could create a standard. 12 degrees of demarcation which differentiate "experimental" airplanes frome EXPERIMENTAL airplanes. Please forgive me... I've been drinking. But I was thinking you should maybe get one capital letter for each risk-factor that you have in a design.
For example, if you're experimenting with a relatively unproven airfoil, you get a capital E. If you also have an experimental engine, you get a capital X. You're just a shadetree eyeball designer? You get a capital P...
Now... I'm not sure if each letter would be attributable to a single characteristic. I would think it simpler if the number of capital letters were the deciding factor.
Maybe even include a thirteenth factor that could be an exclamation point...
EXPERIMENTAL!
If nothing else, I think it may be an interesting and enlightening discussion.
I'm just spit-balling here, but some factors that make an experimental airplane EXPERIMENTAL! in my mind include... unproven engine, swept wing, unknown/untrained designer, unusual mission requirements, unusual building techniques, unusual tail configuration, unusual materials...
What else could be added to the list? What sends up red flags when looking at a new design, telling you that maybe it needs a little more scrutiny than other similar designs?
That word... experimental... has twelve letters. Maybe we could create a standard. 12 degrees of demarcation which differentiate "experimental" airplanes frome EXPERIMENTAL airplanes. Please forgive me... I've been drinking. But I was thinking you should maybe get one capital letter for each risk-factor that you have in a design.
For example, if you're experimenting with a relatively unproven airfoil, you get a capital E. If you also have an experimental engine, you get a capital X. You're just a shadetree eyeball designer? You get a capital P...
Now... I'm not sure if each letter would be attributable to a single characteristic. I would think it simpler if the number of capital letters were the deciding factor.
Maybe even include a thirteenth factor that could be an exclamation point...
EXPERIMENTAL!
If nothing else, I think it may be an interesting and enlightening discussion.
I'm just spit-balling here, but some factors that make an experimental airplane EXPERIMENTAL! in my mind include... unproven engine, swept wing, unknown/untrained designer, unusual mission requirements, unusual building techniques, unusual tail configuration, unusual materials...
What else could be added to the list? What sends up red flags when looking at a new design, telling you that maybe it needs a little more scrutiny than other similar designs?
