What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

What do certified airplanes have...

iaw4

Well Known Member
...that Vans airplanes do not have, aside from (a) expensive FAA certification and paperwork; and (b) builder liability?

(what would the FAA object to?)
 
They are more robust. I feel I have to be very careful getting in and out of my RV and treat it with kid gloves. I'll take it for the performance improvement - but you asked...
 
The most substantial thing that certificated aircraft have that our Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft don't have is conformance with a known, repeatable, and FAA sanctioned Type Certificate. This means that every Cessna 172 is built to the same standard using the same construction which results in very predictable flight characteristics and maintenance requirements.

Our RVs are not built to a similar standard, every experimental aircraft is more or less a one-off custom-built aircraft constructed under uncontrolled circumstances by folks that have often never built an aircraft before that may result in unpredictable flight characteristics and maintenance requirements.

And that is the appeal of experimental aviation. :)
 
Last edited:
At a high level - certificated aircraft (those with an FAA TC or equivalent) -theoretically have FAA oversight of - the mechanics (A&P / IA / Part 145 R-S) and their experience requirements, use of approved aircraft tech data, alterations from TCDS configuration, use of approved parts, mandatory Airworthiness Directives, built to FAA approved certification requirements (CAR 3 / Part 23, etc), maintenance entries / limited life items (in some cases) and other minutia.

In theory, most everything that gets done to an FAA TC aircraft has traceability back to an FAA regulation / requirement for initial cert / continued airworthiness.

EAB - Not so much.

Does all the above buy an added level of safety / airworthiness?

Wait one while I order pizza and get a case of beer....
 
A few things that EAB builders could or may do that up the risk factor, and are not allowed on normally certified airplanes:
Choose a higher than recommended gross weight.
Fly IFR with minimum equipment (e.g., no back up to an electrical failure).
Modify the airframe so Vso is greater than 61 kias.

I?m sure there are other things.
 
...that Vans airplanes do not have, aside from (a) expensive FAA certification and paperwork; and (b) builder liability?

(what would the FAA object to?)

Lots of stuff. Here's a sampling.
- Documented performance data. This varies from RV to RV, if the builder even bothered to do it at all (most don't).
- Spin recovery. The side by sides don't meet the spin recovery characteristics laid out in FAR Part 23.
- Occupant Protection. Again referencing FAR Part 23, many (most?) RVs would not meet the required level of occupant protection. Think about the glareshield on many RVs, for example, and compare that to a modern certified aircraft.

There are others areas as well. While I appreciate the performance and manuverability of my RV, I recognize that there are absolutely areas where a type certificated aircraft holds a distinct advantage.
 
Just curious - why are you asking about the differences between a certified aircraft and an EAB aircraft?

(what would the FAA object to?)
Do you mean, if the FAA were to evaluate an average RV, what would they say does not meet FAR Part 23?

Theoretically, you could take a sea container, claim it's an aircraft, and get slip of paper that says you could fly it. The fact that it won't fly is not the FAA's problem, so the range of things in experimental aviation that don't meet Part 23 is almost infinite.
 
Gear

In my humble opinion, certified planes have a lot more robust landing gear setup over Van's RV-3 thru RV-12 designs. Not sure how the -14 would measure up.

...that Vans airplanes do not have, aside from (a) expensive FAA certification and paperwork; and (b) builder liability?

(what would the FAA object to?)
 
In my humble opinion, certified planes have a lot more robust landing gear setup over Van's RV-3 thru RV-12 designs. Not sure how the -14 would measure up.

The gear sure seems up to the task but not sure if it would absorb hard landing damage or just transmit it up to the airframe ... Van's has some drop testing videos, looks robust!!!

Best way to tell .. put one in rotation at a flight school :D :eek:
 
One of the big differences between Certificated and Experimental is the level of engineering of a lot of the systems, and the experience of the person installing them.

The #1 cause of experimental accidents is loss of control during flight.
The #2 cause is engine stoppage.

It is rare that modifications or deviations from the original basic airframe design can be attributed to loss of control (though it does happen occasionally).

Engine stoppage is another story.....

Engine stoppage can caused by a lot of different things where it is irrelevant whether the airplane is Certificated or Experimental (Running out of fuel, fuel mismanagement, etc.)

But a lot of engine stoppage accidents happen with experimental's that are the result of system design or installation errors (or both).

The FAA is fully aware of this and that is why an E-LSA RV-12 only requires a 5 hr flight test period. To be E-LSA it must be manufactured and assembled to match an S-LSA which has some level of Certification (when compared to E-AB anyway).
That means that each E-LSA RV-12 was built (at least initially) pretty much the same. That removes a lot of operational and reliability unknowns.

So the easiest way to assure you are on the least likely to experience any problems end of the graph is to make sure that all systems are installed to match what has a proven track record in hundreds (or thousands even) of other airplanes.

Accidents have happened as a result of just one little wire breaking because it wasn't properly/sufficiently protected from vibration, and that failure then cascaded into a full blown serious issue. Once again.... lack of experience and/or standardization in the airplanes system.

I am not advocating against experimenting.... just pointing out that regardless of how good any of us think we are, the risk level rises to some degree (and that degree varies depending on the knowledge and experience of the particular person) with every little thing we do that drifts us away from a well proven standard.
 
Last edited:
thank you, everyone.

Mickey, yes I meant part 23. if I were to rephrase my original post, I would probably write now "what in the template Van's demonstrator for each model would not pass part 23 certification?"

Craig, I think the landing gear is more fragile than older airplanes like Pipers, but it seems just about as fragile as other modern designs, like Diamonds and Flight Designs. But it may indeed require just a little more.

Spin recovery---hard to imagine that spin recovery is easier and faster in a Piper Cherokee than in a Vans quasi-aerobatic airplane. reading this forum, it seems to happen in less than 1 spin, which meets the standard.

I think I am hearing that the Vans airframe, put together well by an experienced builder, should be as good and qualify to the same level as any certified airplane. But the biggest "FAA issue" of the Vans fleet would be their variability in build qualities. Wires wiggling off the Lycoming are probably as common in certified as in uncertified airplanes, as long as the engine is the same certified Lycoming. A Vans may have non-certified avionics, but if it is the same avionics as the certified airplane, it would be no difference again. In any case, use of non-certified parts (or design choices) is not really a Vans airplane design shortcoming.

in sum, the template Vans demonstrator does not seem to have obvious known shortcomings relative to certified airplanes.
 
thank you, everyone.

Mickey, yes I meant part 23. if I were to rephrase my original post, I would probably write now "what in the template Van's demonstrator for each model would not pass part 23 certification?"

Craig, I think the landing gear is more fragile than older airplanes like Pipers, but it seems just about as fragile as other modern designs, like Diamonds and Flight Designs. But it may indeed require just a little more.

Spin recovery---hard to imagine that spin recovery is easier and faster in a Piper Cherokee than in a Vans quasi-aerobatic airplane. reading this forum, it seems to happen in less than 1 spin, which meets the standard.

I think I am hearing that the Vans airframe, put together well by an experienced builder, should be as good and qualify to the same level as any certified airplane. But the biggest "FAA issue" of the Vans fleet would be their variability in build qualities. Wires wiggling off the Lycoming are probably as common in certified as in uncertified airplanes, as long as the engine is the same certified Lycoming. A Vans may have non-certified avionics, but if it is the same avionics as the certified airplane, it would be no difference again. In any case, use of non-certified parts (or design choices) is not really a Vans airplane design shortcoming.

in sum, the template Vans demonstrator does not seem to have obvious known shortcomings relative to certified airplanes.

I can assure you the landing gear on Diamond aircraft is pretty robust. I have a 20 year old DA20 and the landing gear is very similar to the design on the RV-14. A DA20 weighs about 1650 pounds vs. 2050 for the -14A. I don't have a lot of confidence in the gear on my RV-7A. The DA40 landing gear (and especially the higher gross weight gear) is equally robust.

To answer the OP's question and alluded to in one post - the DA40 has a 26G "cocoon" for occupant protection plus welded aluminum fuel tanks placed between two very large spars - which provide a fail-safe wing structure. Certainly don't have that on any Van's design that I'm aware of. This link from Diamond is pretty informative as to the safety features of some of their models.
 
Last edited:
Interesting when people say they have no confidence in the gear on their 7A and haven't even flown it yet. I flew my 7A off of grass for years and had zero problems. The 3 folded nose gear landings I witnessed were all PIO with it failing on the third bounce with all of us yelling to go around (to no avail of course, but you can't help it when you are watching). Most likely, any nose gear on any certified aircraft would have failed in the scenarios I witnessed.

Vic
 
A few of the Mooney type certified models are non spin recoverable.

The Tecnam P2006T is NON spin recoverable and it is a type certified
USD $435,000 that is often used for flight training.

There are several non spin recoverable type certified aircraft so what is your point? Anybody can load any aircraft with it's C of G beyond aft limits to where they are all non spin recoverable.


The #1 cause of loss of power loss /engine stoppage is fuel starvation from empty fuel tanks, in all aircraft.
 
Last edited:
A few of the Mooney type certified models are non spin recoverable.

The Tecnam P2006T is NON spin recoverable and it is a type certified
USD $435,000 that is often used for flight training.

There are several non spin recoverable type certified aircraft so what is your point? Anybody can load any aircraft with it's C of G beyond aft limits to where they are all non spin recoverable.

Those aircraft have alternate methods of compliance and are "spin resistant". An RV cannot be categorized as spin resistant.

In any event, the point was simply that RVs would not meet all the criteria specified by FAR Part 23. You can argue whether or not those criteria are valid or even meaningful at your lesiure.
 
- Spin recovery. The side by sides don't meet the spin recovery characteristics laid out in FAR Part 23.

From where do you know this? Is it written somewhere? I am curious because I am looking for something to prove my local authorities that a RV-8 can be recovered within the limits of FAR part 23. In my country we need a special training with a exam for aerobatics and I would have loved to do this training in my RV-8. But I heard from other builders that they were not allowed to do so in a RV-7..
 
Remember How You Got Here

Certified vs EAB research should have been one of the main inputs when determining what kind of airplane YOU were going to have. After deciding to go EAB, one of the key early disclaimers was the often stated fact that each airplane would be to varying degrees unique depending upon builder decisions/building skills.

To me, that was the main purpose of Phase 1 - to explore all areas of the recommended flight envelope to determine how YOUR creation handled, and to build a database of YOUR plane's operational characteristics.

Certification doesn't imply increased safety in all areas. One of our local pilots crash landed his Piper in the Sierra after a prop failure. Did a magnificent job but was seriously injured due to absence of a 5-point harness. Old Piper only required a lap belt.

Any RV nose dragger operator must surely be aware of the attention that must be paid to the nose gear. No secret handshakes required.

I built the plane from the start with a "What if..." mindset. Fuel management and electrical system operations are straight forward and simple. Used Electric Bob's Z13/8 architecture with backup SD-8 and backup batteries in the 496 and AFS 4500. Throw 2 easily accessed, clearly marked switches to go to backup - don't think any certified system could be simpler. Didn't modify Vans recommended fuel system at all.

I have no issues with my -8A's stall/spin characteristics. Can't imagine any spam can being more forgiving. However, I know the stall/spin numbers, approach to stall "feeling", and procedures and regularly practice recoveries.

The main safety difference between my -8A and a spam can is the fact that I designed into and took the time to thoroughly understand both the strengths and limitations of MY final design. In the EAB world, you are not going to be spoon-fed optimal procedures and limitations - you'll have to figure it out yourself - and accept the fact that in any comparison of aircraft models, there will be strengths and weaknesses for every candidate. You then have to be honest and decide what's best for you.
 
From where do you know this? Is it written somewhere? I am curious because I am looking for something to prove my local authorities that a RV-8 can be recovered within the limits of FAR part 23. In my country we need a special training with a exam for aerobatics and I would have loved to do this training in my RV-8. But I heard from other builders that they were not allowed to do so in a RV-7..

Anecdotal evidence from other builders here, and empirical evidence gathered during phase 1 and 2 testing in my RV-6A. A fully developed spin requires about 1 3/4 revolutions to recover following application of spin recovery inputs. FAR 23.2150(c) states that recovery needs to happen in 1 1/2 additional turns after initation of recovery.
 
Grumman Yankee

I owned a Grumman AA1-A for twenty three years. It had the following words clearly displayed on the instrument panel. SPINS PROHIBITED. It was certified in the Normal and Utility category.

NASA chose the AA-1 for extensive spin testing well above the testing done by the manufacturer. NASA determined that the AA1 in a fully developed spin would not recover without using the anti spin chute.

Given a choice, I'd rather spin a RV-7 than a Grumman Yankee. The uncertified one will recover. Recovery may take more turns than required, but it will recover.
 
I owned a Grumman AA1-A for twenty three years. It had the following words clearly displayed on the instrument panel. SPINS PROHIBITED. It was certified in the Normal and Utility category.

NASA chose the AA-1 for extensive spin testing well above the testing done by the manufacturer. NASA determined that the AA1 in a fully developed spin would not recover without using the anti spin chute.

Given a choice, I'd rather spin a RV-7 than a Grumman Yankee. The uncertified one will recover. Recovery may take more turns than required, but it will recover.

The AA-1 was not, as you point out, certified in the aerobatic category. The spin recovery criteria I referenced are for aerobatic category aircraft. I've done 14 turns in my -6A and it recovers fine, albeit after 1 3/4-2 revolutions. Interestingly, recovery takes longer from a developed spin at higher altitudes. It's obvious why when you think about it.

That test is an excellent example of the effects of polar moments of inertia. Fuel migrating outboard doesn't change the W&B, but it sure changes the polar moment of inertia and therefore spin characteristics...
 
NO, and Yes.

thank you, everyone.

Mickey, yes I meant part 23. if I were to rephrase my original post, I would probably write now "what in the template Van's demonstrator for each model would not pass part 23 certification?"

Craig, I think the landing gear is more fragile than older airplanes like Pipers, but it seems just about as fragile as other modern designs, like Diamonds and Flight Designs. But it may indeed require just a little more.

Spin recovery---hard to imagine that spin recovery is easier and faster in a Piper Cherokee than in a Vans quasi-aerobatic airplane. reading this forum, it seems to happen in less than 1 spin, which meets the standard.

I think I am hearing that the Vans airframe, put together well by an experienced builder, should be as good and qualify to the same level as any certified airplane. But the biggest "FAA issue" of the Vans fleet would be their variability in build qualities. Wires wiggling off the Lycoming are probably as common in certified as in uncertified airplanes, as long as the engine is the same certified Lycoming. A Vans may have non-certified avionics, but if it is the same avionics as the certified airplane, it would be no difference again. In any case, use of non-certified parts (or design choices) is not really a Vans airplane design shortcoming.

in sum, the template Vans demonstrator does not seem to have obvious known shortcomings relative to certified airplanes.

I don't think that if an RV is put together per the standards that it would not pass Part 23. I have seen most of the testing and found it to be in line with what we have seen in that respect. I also think you are getting the idea with respect to the fact that if you used all "TSO" components and you put the aircraft together by the standards you would have an aircraft that is in most respects better and stronger than most of the Part 23 factory aircraft out there today. I have seen to many 150, 172, 182 and pipers, beach and so no with the nose gear jammed or bent back and as far as I know the drop test for the RV meats the same standard. I would agree with Vic on that one. On the spin testing as for as I know the reason that Van's replace the first rudder on the 7 with the bigger rudder was so it would meat the standard. We have an 8A and I am fine with it being put together with most every thing being TSOed other than the G3X and a prop that is not, knowing it is stronger more balanced and will be around giving good service for a long time.. Just my two pennies, Yours, R.E.A. III # 80888
 
Most popular kitplanes could likely be the basis for a certified plane. Sure, you'd have to use TSO'd parts everywhere, and probably do some engineering and development here and there (for things like spin resistance), but that's all stuff every other OEM has gone through when bringing a new model to market. That's why you see things like stall strips and dorsal fins (had they known for sure how much vertical stab they would have needed, they would have designed it that big in the first place.)

The biggest difference between a good modern kitplane and it's TC'd brethren is just the sheer amount of documentation and testing. A company like Vans does a lot of testing, and puts out a safe aircraft, but the amount of testing a TC'd plane goes through is mind blowing. That battery bracket you bent up out some heavier than necessary aluminum cuz you had it and didn't want to worry about it and is obviously overkill....yeah, they have to test it. And it's not well the battery weighs 26 lbs, times 9 g's, equals about...he Bubba, you weigh about 240, right? Come sit on this quick. Nooooo. First you design the part, do a detailed drawing, and a company test. Next the engineer has to write a test report, which then has to be signed off by a DER, and after the FAA points out 3 esoteric AC's you didn't know existed (and the idea that AC's are "Advisory" is a joke, they might as well be FARs because the FAA is going to make you follow them) and you've redone the entire process starting from the beginning twice, they may sign off on it. Then you build new parts, which have to be conformed by a DAR. (Conformity is an in depth quality inspection to ensure it meets the proposed design with a lot of research and paperwork associated.) Next comes the test setup, which is conformed as well. Then the actual test, which has to be witness by a DER. Then the data is recorded. Now a test engineer reduces it and writes a report, which is checked and approved, and finally sent to the FAA. If they are okay with it, and if it isn't a federal holiday, and if the planets have aligned and you have sacrificed the required number of goats, they will sign off on the report. Congratulations, you have a TC'd battery bracket. Only 3241 parts to go.

More than one aspiring aircraft manufacturing has successfully run the above gauntlet and TC'd an airplane, certificate in hand, only to find out that they are now 1/4 of the way there. Getting a Production Certificate to actually build the darn thing makes getting a TC look like child's play. Every part needs planning, every tool documentation and a procedure for checking it. Putting in rivets? In the glory days craftsmen just pounded them home. Not anymore! Now you need documented procedures and acceptable parameters. Spraying primer? The procedure needs to lay out material type, number of coats, thickness of coats, how you are going to check the thickness, how to calibrate the thickness tool (yes, there are tools for this, they are ridiculously expensive, and you'll have to buy one), etc.... And then there is the paperwork. PAPERWORK. P-A-P-E-R-W-O-R-K! Reams upon reams of it. Work orders, inspection records, certs, MRR's, and on and on and on. When the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the plane it's ready to fly. (Your laughing, those of who work at OEM's aren't.) And all of needs to be kept....forever! Why, because the MIDO comes in quarterly and inspects the place and looks for it.

I could go on, but you get the point. If you get a chance, take a tour of a small airplane factory. It will open your eyes. Whether or not all this is really necessary is a debate for another day. But it is the difference between a lot of good kitplanes and their store bought counterparts.

DEM
 
We should have some empirical data in the near future. Since Glasair is planning to certify the Sportsman, all we have to do is look at what is difference between the kit built Sportsman and the certified version an there is a definitive answer.
 
We should have some empirical data in the near future. Since Glasair is planning to certify the Sportsman, all we have to do is look at what is difference between the kit built Sportsman and the certified version an there is a definitive answer.

This has already been done. The E-AB Lancair ES was the basis for the type certificated Columbia 300.
 
The biggest difference between a good modern kitplane and it's TC'd brethren is just the sheer amount of documentation and testing. A company like Vans does a lot of testing, and puts out a safe aircraft, but the amount of testing a TC'd plane goes through is mind blowing.

QFT.

I've often said, only somewhat in jest, that my employer's primary product is paperwork. The airplanes just happen to be a convenient byproduct.

The issue isn't so much with the cert standards (Part 25 for us, Part 23 for little airplanes) because those are fairly clear and well-vetted... but rather all of the stuff that goes along with proving and documenting that you meet them. I had a very simple bushing that took ages to approve and get into use, not because of any technical issue with the bushing, but rather because the FAA approval form didn't have a way to approve something for both new production and repair usage at the same time. We spent ten times the engineering labor hours just figuring out how to get around that paperwork issue than we did on the research, design, and signoff.
 
QFT.

I've often said, only somewhat in jest, that my employer's primary product is paperwork. The airplanes just happen to be a convenient byproduct.

Old industry saying:
"when the paperwork weighs as much as the plane itself, the plane will be allowed to fly"

I'll let you decide whether that is BEW or MTOW
 
Back
Top