RV-10 vs SR 22 accident history

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

saini flyer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
487
Location
Dallas, TX
Come to think about it...your are exactly right about both "certification" and "single seater market. The best comparison that I know of for comparable single and two seater is a Sonex & a Onex. I had looked at the Onex very hard and besides the easy folding wing mechanism, the cost of the kit is very close and the build is easier than Sonex (but not by 50%) and after the first wave of single seaters is filled up (80+ or whatever number kits of Onex they have sold) they will come to a very sharp decline.

The second case is that of Cx4 and Cx5. The CX5 is now in existence as more want a two seater and even though a lot of plans of CX4 have been sold over a decade, the total number of people who will buy the two seater plans is already approaching that number while the plane is just coming out of the 40hrs initial test phase.

I really think that by the time you have build a single seater at home, you can as well build a two seater at maybe 10% extra cost and time....again comparing apples to apples.... (not a Quicksilver to the Sonex). I think the biggest issue with a two seater costing more is the Rotax 912......

Why "certify in the US" if it's already certified and can legally be flown in the US without trouble?

The truth is much simpler, there is just no market for single-seat aircraft, save a few exceptions. Absolutely nothing to do with certification.
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
15,237
Location
Port Townsend WA
Why "certify in the US" if it's already certified and can legally be flown in the US without trouble?

there is just no market for single-seat aircraft, save a few exceptions.
Geez, why do I even bother with this ASTM nonsense? Just move to another country...
I can't believe the resistance to relaxing certification stated here.
I guess Ron Paul was correct when he said freedom is a tough sell.
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,765
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
Geez, why do I even bother with this ASTM nonsense? Just move to another country...
I can't believe the resistance to relaxing certification stated here.
I guess Ron Paul was correct when he said freedom is a tough sell.
I can only speak for myself, but I'm not against relaxed certification. But the big issue isn't those regulations. They simply aren't the problem. FAR23/CS23 (and 22, VLA, LSA) are already about the minimum you'd need to comply with to have a safe aircraft.

The big elephant in the room is compliance and sustained quality control. That's the big burden, not the CS itself.
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
15,237
Location
Port Townsend WA
I can only speak for myself, but I'm not against relaxed certification. But the big issue isn't those regulations. They simply aren't the problem. FAR23/CS23 (and 22, VLA, LSA) are already about the minimum you'd need to comply with to have a safe aircraft.

The big elephant in the room is compliance and sustained quality control. That's the big burden, not the CS itself.
I agree, the regulations are not really the problem, so just rewording the current regulations won't help. But that is what they are doing now.
That is why I am pushing for self-certification. It just isn't possible to transfer liability without paying an unlimited cost.
Not even the the government can afford to take over the liability and guarantee certified safety.
The only solution for any dangerous activity (such as aviation) is self-certification (as much as possible) and a few rules to protect the general public.
 

harrisonaero

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
582
Location
Coeur d'Alene, ID
My evaluation working in this industry as a designee... don't fix what isn't broken and use the tools that are already in place:

* Keep Experimental as-is, it's actually not very restrictive and has considerable history.
* Fast-track the newly proposed Non-Commercial Category to allow certified planes to temporarily/permanently be operated as "experimentals"
* Adjust the interpretation and implementation of the Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) program to allow small companies to comply. It's a program that's already in place and works for big companies to "self regulate" but just isn't practical for small companies since the FAA treats the little guys just like the big guys which isn't practical
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,948
Location
Rocky Mountains
My evaluation working in this industry as a designee... don't fix what isn't broken and use the tools that are already in place:

* Fast-track the newly proposed Non-Commercial Category to allow certified planes to temporarily/permanently be operated as "experimentals"
And here I though you were going to reduce our work load. Now we have to fix everything that is broken?! ;)

The non-commercial could be a very good option for some but it still needs some tweaking. I understand the logic behind requiring all AD's to be complied with before conversion, but there are quite a few planes out there that have very expensive AD's that really can't be justified based on a cost/benefit basis - especially when the part causing the AD will likely be one of the first things replaced with a non certified part without the defect.
 

harrisonaero

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
582
Location
Coeur d'Alene, ID
That's one of the proposed benefits of the Non-Commercial Category- it leaves AD compliance up to the discretion of the mechanic that is converting the plane into the category. No DAR needed.
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,948
Location
Rocky Mountains
That's one of the proposed benefits of the Non-Commercial Category- it leaves AD compliance up to the discretion of the mechanic that is converting the plane into the category. No DAR needed.
We may be looking at different generations of the proposal. The last one I read said that all AD's had to be up to date at the time of conversion. There was no discretion given. After conversion anything goes, but the owner still had to keep up with all AD's issued and note them in the log book. The logic attached was that this at least kept the owner aware of potential problems, but left it up to them to decide if compliance was warranted. It also said that if the log book was not up to date on noting the AD's the airworthiness certificate would be revoked. Again, no discretion given.

But this is all just supposition at this point. What we get may be very different.
 
Top