VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > RV General Discussion/News
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-04-2018, 12:03 PM
iaw4 iaw4 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Los Angeles, ca
Posts: 11
Default What do certified airplanes have...

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

(what would the FAA object to?)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-04-2018, 12:13 PM
pa38112 pa38112 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Clarksboro, NJ
Posts: 597
Default

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...
__________________
http://aprs.fi/N153MC
2004 RV6A Flying
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-04-2018, 12:16 PM
Sam Buchanan's Avatar
Sam Buchanan Sam Buchanan is online now
been here awhile
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 3,817
Default

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.
__________________
Sam Buchanan
1999 RV-6
1918 Fokker D.VII replica

Last edited by Sam Buchanan : 01-04-2018 at 12:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-04-2018, 12:19 PM
bret's Avatar
bret bret is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Gardnerville Nv.
Posts: 2,780
Default

A large A&P bill every year.
__________________
7A Slider, EFII Angle 360, CS, SJ.
2018 gladly supported
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-04-2018, 12:28 PM
WA85 WA85 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Madison, AL
Posts: 125
Default

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....
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-04-2018, 12:30 PM
BobTurner BobTurner is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 5,350
Default

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.

Iím sure there are other things.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-04-2018, 12:49 PM
ChiefPilot's Avatar
ChiefPilot ChiefPilot is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1,487
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iaw4 View Post
...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.
__________________
Brad Benson, Maplewood MN.
RV-6A N164BL, Flying since Nov 2012!
If you're not making mistakes, you're probably not making anything
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-04-2018, 12:59 PM
rv8ch rv8ch is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: LSGG
Posts: 2,366
Default

Just curious - why are you asking about the differences between a certified aircraft and an EAB aircraft?

Quote:
(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.
__________________
Mickey Coggins
http://rv8.ch
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-04-2018, 01:53 PM
grubbat's Avatar
grubbat grubbat is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Ga
Posts: 574
Default 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iaw4 View Post
...that Vans airplanes do not have, aside from (a) expensive FAA certification and paperwork; and (b) builder liability?

(what would the FAA object to?)
__________________
Craig

RV-3 Sold
RV-4 Sold
C-140 In a barn
Maule MXT-7 Sold
RV-6a Sold
Twin Comanche - Sold
RV-9 IO-360 CS, Built and Flying
J3-65 Cub - low and slow stuff
Comanche 260 - poor mans RV-10
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-04-2018, 03:25 PM
bkervaski's Avatar
bkervaski bkervaski is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 811
Default

Quote:
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
__________________
#140376 RV-14A QB IO-390 Thunderbolt
Registered: N196
Progress: Away for PAINT
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:53 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.