Certified 1953 Cessna 150 for sale: -9 previous owners -3 overhauls -basic 6 pack analog panel -140,000 hours -sat in a field for 20 years -student pilot crashed at one point FAA: "Good to go!" Experimental plane: -built with modern methods and equipment -professionally made by former Lockheed A&P's -all modern, top of the line avionics -fresh out of a clean workshop -has more safety features than most airliners FAA: *"GO FUCK YOURSELF"*
Perfect example for you mojo. I buy an expansion valve for the air conditioning on a airbus dauphin. It's $700 because it's a faa tso part. I can buy that same exact expansion valve in the same packaging at the auto parts store for $50. All you're paying for is that certificate of airworthyness. That 8130 that says it's an airworthy part. That's the part that I have to buy for a type certificated aircraft. The guy with the experimental can go get the $50 expansion valve from the parts store.
I'm currently learning to become an A&P, and it pisses me off so much how big airplane companies lobbied to get horrendous restrictions passed so they wouldn't have any competition. And the effects of it were: -plane prices are hyperinflated -no one wants to become a pilot because private plane ownership has massive costs because of this -innovation and experimentation have been torpedoed, and nothing is being developed outside of big-budget airliners -upstart business are non-existent because starting costs have been magnified -no one can make money off of their plane, so private ownership is almost 100% of the time a net-loss -designs and construction has been halted in the 1970's -newer more reliable engines that could save you in fuel costs are impossible, since the only certified engines are 60-70 years old (seriously, imagine filling up on 89 octane at the gas station instead of $6.50/gallon avgas) -government gets to sit on more of your freedom
I need to work for my money and I found even cheaper than building an airplane.....I bought an experimental from the builder half price of what it would cost me to build it. ( It had 110 hrs on the tac from a brand new engine ) and I get to fly it back home the same week I decide to buy it. However there is a lot of experimental out there that I would not get into it, but with research and homework there is some good deal out there.
Good video! I'm 100% on the Experimental side. Learned to fly in Sling-2 aircraft, now transitioning to Standard Category in a C-172. The old Skyhawks ought to be priced at like $30k each, but a bunch of old politicians made then well into the six digits... The FAA is quite frankly a disaster run by old politicians who are hopelessly behind understanding any kind of innovation in aviation or aerospacetech. Look up videos about FAA vs SpaceX... basically, under Trump the FAA was just turning a blind eye on SpaceX and not trying to apply any kind of rules to them, because they had trust that SpaceX knew what they were doing waaay better than FAA could ever hope to know, and that FAA had no business trying to apply any kind of rules to an organization like that. In January - the FAA for some reason suddenly decided to hit SpaceX with some compliance requirements which are so out-of-date that they don't even belong on this planet anymore. Elon's response was to reach out to Russia and probe the ground for transferring SpaceX there. I'm guessing his point was: "Hey old farts in FAA - if you ain't gonna let me do whatever the fuck I want - Putin will. I'm not even American-born, so SpaceX doesn't necessarily need to remain American. And driving SpaceX out of the USA by stupid regulations will do YOU more harm than it will do me or my company". Anyway. I'm also in favor of experimental aircraft. Learned to fly in a Sling-2 and it's so much nicer than a Cessna-172. And I trust any Joe who's built and flown his aircraft like 100 times more than I trust a piece of paper (flightworthyness certificate) which claims the aircraft or any given part of it (like a wheel nut or rubber hose) is "flightworthy", because some old politician who probably never even saw the thing - put his signature on it.
Indeed , started some decades ago when some producers in the USA got sued , I think it was the period a woman sued a microvae company because her pet dog died when she dried the dog in the microwave... the producer was found guilty because in the manual they didn't warned not to dry dogs in the microwave...
@@rafiqsaid4297 idk if this story is real, and I’m not much of a dog person, but holy Christ I could only imagine the pain and terror that poor dog went thru before it died. That would have to be one of the worst ways to die.
One thing that was not brought up was the issue of compensation, which the FAA does not let you do in experimentals. So if you thinking of getting a plane to do something like flight instruct than you are limited to going with certified.
Nice video! I trained in a Cirrus SR20 back in 2008. The flight school told me that it had a parachute because it was not a spin rated aircraft. Thus, it had to have the CAPS system to be certified.
Thanks Mike. Allways enjoy your videos. Some comments left about purchasing a previously owned experimental is a good idea as long as you are 100% confident that all the work done is top quality and verifiable through build inspection records, and a good going over from a good AP and test flight before purchase. Looking forward to seeing your airplane finished, and flown by you. HANG IN THERE. Great job 👍 Thanks again!🛩️
Mike If you are a pilot and want to fly and not wait while building, you have options. one join a flying club. This give you the flying time you need or want while building you Kit. Two purchase a low cost airplane say with a partner, Fly this airplane while your building your kit. This way you are not rushing the build. Once your are done with the kit sell your share. Both ways keep you flying while you are building. Good luck to you all. CFI, ME
You totally missed talking about ELSA Aircraft. Two points about them. One, you can’t just do anything to your E-LSA until after you it receives its Airworthiness Cert, and even then you can’t do any modifications that will take it out of the ELSA category. Point two the ELSA design is based on a certified SLSA design (just a note: SLSA Aircraft are not type certificated there is a difference between type certificated and certified) so when you build a E-LSA your building a exact copy of the SLSA design. because it’s a exact copy. There is only a 5 hour phase one fly off. (Test Flight).
What about insurance? Is it cheaper to insure a certified airplane? Or maybe the insurance for an experimental airplane is cheaper because the purchase cost is a quarter of the certified one? Great job Mike with your videos!
Hi Mike, what about buying a certified aircraft cheep and changing what you like. What’s involved with converting from certified to experimental. Best of both worlds if you don’t care about resale and it’s a keeper.
It seems like the certification process is outdated. Especially with today's precision fabrication processes, modeling software and standardization of many parts. I work as a DOD contractor, and a story a colleague told me was the old CRT monitors needed a $25k cert to fly on ISR planes. Of course when everything switched to LED these certification were still required even though LED monitors can't possibly explode at high altitudes. But someone was still there to collect the 25k fee.
What are the limitations of owning an experimental. Can we buy an experimental or we have to build it? Can we have our kids on board experimental and fly for travel?
I don't have the time, space, or interest in building an airplane. I also don't want to do maintenance. But I like the way experimentals look You also can't do everything in an experimental that you can in a certified
Fantastic explanation. It's a real shame how expensive certification can be because of how high the standards need to be. Your examples of engines are perfect. It's "easy" to make an experimental airframe or navigation app for an iPad, but an experimental engine that is actually better than a rotax from the 70's. Maybe they need to tier it. You can still buy a 100% constricted aircraft, but still limited to not being allowed for fly IFR? Maybe the FAA need to stop being babysitters and start respecting pilots decisions. Holding tiny startup companies that make 2 seat fun fliers to the same standard as Boeing is crazy when they are completely different use cases. Let's hope they don't start cracking down on experimental. Long live past 103 ultralights, and long live experimental! Ps, out of absolutely nowhere CZcams has started recommending your videos, and I am loving them!
I'm not sure Big Brother is fond of letting any Joe go ahead and build their own aircraft in their garage. The FAA is quite frankly a disaster run by old politicians who are hopelessly behind understanding any kind of innovation in aviation or aerospacetech. Look up videos about FAA vs SpaceX... basically, under Trump the FAA was just turning a blind eye on SpaceX and not trying to apply any kind of rules to them, because they had trust that SpaceX knew what they were doing waaay better than FAA could ever hope to know, and that FAA had no business trying to apply any kind of rules to an organization like that. In January - the FAA for some reason suddenly decided to hit SpaceX with some compliance requirements which are so out-of-date that they don't even belong on this planet anymore. Elon's response was to reach out to Russia and probe the ground for transferring SpaceX there. I'm guessing his point was: "Hey old farts in FAA - if you ain't gonna let me do whatever the fuck I want - Putin will. I'm not even American-born, so SpaceX doesn't necessarily need to remain American. And driving SpaceX out of the USA by stupid regulations will do YOU more harm than it will do me or my company". Anyway. I'm also in favor of experimental aircraft. Learned to fly in a Sling-2 and it's so much nicer than a Cessna-172. And I trust any Joe who's built and flown his aircraft like 100 times more than I trust a piece of paper (flightworthyness certificate) which claims the aircraft or any given part of it (like a wheel nut or rubber hose) is "flightworthy", because some old politician who probably never even saw the thing - put his signature on it.
I hope someone here can answer my question..i'm thinking of buying an experimental airplane but i am not sure if i can use it for time building.. i need hours for airlines..please if someone can answer this question
You can buy second-hand experimental aircraft as well certified one. Due to the fact that all ultralight and most LSA falls into the experimental category, you have significantly more none certified aircraft flown by inexperienced or even unlicensed pilots who are greatly contributing to the number of accidents and even that is way lower than accident rate in another way of transport. All certified aircraft are flown by licensed pilots or students with some training, most hang gliders, paragliders, part103 planes and many other are part of the experimental category and in most of the cases are flown without any experience, license or training.
The main reason certified craft are so expensive is the manufacturer is charging so much for the planes is people talked here about the hours and hours of test flights and things. There is also the need to build prototypes for destructive testing. So you are going to lose planes just to testing. I have seen estimates of between 25 and 50 million dollars just to get a small 4 seat GA plane certified and that doesn't include the production process certification. You have to sell a lot of planes to get that much money back. So not the manufactures fault. It also isn't the lawyers or our litigious society, it is in the name of safety. Good or Bad that is the reason the FAA is so strict about it. when a person (non pilot) gets into a certified plane they expect a certain level of safety. When they get into an experimental they see all the signage they know it is not the same proven aircraft as their doctor friend's bonanza, even though the experimental might actually be safer than the production planes and have better instrumentation, more power, and that parachute when all else fails along with a lot of other bells and whistles. My only problem with experimental aircraft for me personally is that although they are great for building time cheaply and perform great is that once you get your CFI you cannot give instruction in it nor rent it out to your students. It is ok if it is the students experimental plane but not yours. Also if you get your commercial ticket and want to just haul cargo say to a remote village in Alaska you are not allowed nor can you take paying passengers to their hunting or fishing lodges. Any business operations require a certified plane even when your experimental might be more well suited to the job than any certified plane on the market. This is something the AOPA and other aviation lobbyists need to get pushing on. If an experimental is the best plane for the job and there are no production planes that will do even close to that job as safely and efficiently, they should issue a waiver to the experimental plane so it is allowed to be used. As an example. STOL short take off and landing planes for bush pilots. Some experimentals can land and take off regularly in less than 150 feet. No certified production planes made today can do this. Also the 31" Bush Tires or Tundra Tires, with these you can land and take off in small boulder fields without damage to your aircraft. No certified planes that I know of are allowed these tires although some of the Cessnas can use up to a certain size but then again those cost a lot more for less performance. Didn't mean to get on my shoebox here or step on anyone's toes just my humble opinions.
@@OrlandoemCasa I really don't have much of an opinion or experience one way or another. I learned in a new piper warrior back in 1975 well it was a 1974 model i think. The LSA's seem to be about the same performance but I wonder about their stability in rough air compared to their heavier old piper and cessna counterparts. The ceiling restrictions of 2500 feet agl I think might present a problem for me for slow flight stall and spin recovery. I know my CFI took me to between 5k and 8K feet agl when we started that training and then eventually felt more confident in going lower for practice. I think a lot of the LSA's have much more advanced avionics then the older planes so that is a plus. I still like to see the old steam guages in there at least as a backup to a glass panel and all students should have some of that experience with the older avionics. All in All I don't se a huge problem and I wouldn't be against flight training in an LSA. I don't know if I ever went that route I would want to do it but somebody has to if just for the sport pilots to get their certification. Just my opinion .
Great video. However, I am quoting you when you said certified airplains are "several, many many hours tested" Just a friendly reminder, pay attention of what you say.
So, am I understanding correctly that if I bought a certified airplane, and modified it beyond a certain limit, that I would then fall into the experimental territory? Would this necessitate extra licensing for me or the plane? What third party could I hire to ensure my engineering is up to snuff? Thanks.
Dan Kennerson if there is no STC for the modifications you make and they are major then you lose the certification. At that point it will need to undergo flight testing (maybe about 20 hrs worth) and will require about the same looking over as a from scratch experimental. Sometimes you get restrictions on where you can fly it depending on how modified it is. You’d have to ask around for engineering support but those who modify will know someone (like Mike Patey).
Tiger's are great airplanes. I own a Grumman purchased 2000. very Quick and easy to fly, but make sure you get some instruction, not on the flying as they fly very nice. But on the landing. The Grumman's feel like your going down an elevator when landing, They in no way land like a Piper or Cessna. Landing just feel strange at first and they love to land with some small about of power. Keep the nose up as long as you can. Keep the elevator back as your roll slows down. Once you get a few landing out of the way you are good to go. And Good luck I am in Connecticut, any questions just ask. I do not think Mike has much time in a Tiger, Cheetah or Traveler . I may be wrong. Greg CFI ME
Greg Plaka Uhh... I think I spelled the name wrong, but the Stryker is an experimental airframe with dual tail-fins and canard wings, Its made by a company called “revelaero”
Cessna made numerous changes to their air frames in the last decades. You have to pay more attention.. Even in the experimental aircraft people pay thousands of dollars for a nice panel.
Here's the twist, I can turn that cirrus into an experimental buy getting ride of the air worthiness certificate. Then I can put any part I want on it.
@@sw3w537 Uhm, I'm just stating that you can take a type certificated aircraft and turn it into an experimental. For people that don't know that. Get it?
A&P here. You are incorrect about major changes automatically turning a certified aircraft to experimental. This is what STC’s are for. Examples being going from piston to a turboprop or adding winglets. Things like those can be done with an STC and the aircraft will stay certified. Now if we’re talking about shorting wings or something, well that’s when we dive into experimental territory.
Andre3K He is not incorrect, you just have a low bar to what his definition of 'major changes' meant. Your A&P badge didnt make you look any less stupid.
I would love a partial certification, something that you can buy pre-built from the factory but for 1/5th the cost. They would go through some testing, but not nearly as extensive as the full certification. And the biggest point, with partially-certified aircraft, if one crashes, then it serves as lawsuit protection for the aircraft producer. It would completely shut down any lawsuit towards the company because when the person bought the plane, they knew it wasn't guaranteed to be safe and reliable like a fully certified aircraft, and if it crashes, then it's their own fault. This would allow traditional aircraft producers like cessna and whatnot to be more innovative and way cheaper, not to mention preventing sue happy people from getting their way.
You need money to own a airplane, my observation is that pilot that work for there money go experimental, pilot that don't work for there money go certified, it's my observation that is true 90 % of the time. lolll no offense
Certified 1953 Cessna 150 for sale:
-9 previous owners
-3 overhauls
-basic 6 pack analog panel
-140,000 hours
-sat in a field for 20 years
-student pilot crashed at one point
FAA: "Good to go!"
Experimental plane:
-built with modern methods and equipment
-professionally made by former Lockheed A&P's
-all modern, top of the line avionics
-fresh out of a clean workshop
-has more safety features than most airliners
FAA: *"GO FUCK YOURSELF"*
Not a critique, just letting everyone know - this sounds great at 1.25x.
Lol so true just tried it
Your a hero
He got that Afro swag talk hence why he sounds kinda slow
2x raises his IQ significantly.
Perfect example for you mojo. I buy an expansion valve for the air conditioning on a airbus dauphin. It's $700 because it's a faa tso part. I can buy that same exact expansion valve in the same packaging at the auto parts store for $50. All you're paying for is that certificate of airworthyness. That 8130 that says it's an airworthy part. That's the part that I have to buy for a type certificated aircraft. The guy with the experimental can go get the $50 expansion valve from the parts store.
Especially when the dauphine is now out of production so parts availability may suffer.
I'm currently learning to become an A&P, and it pisses me off so much how big airplane companies lobbied to get horrendous restrictions passed so they wouldn't have any competition.
And the effects of it were:
-plane prices are hyperinflated
-no one wants to become a pilot because private plane ownership has massive costs because of this
-innovation and experimentation have been torpedoed, and nothing is being developed outside of big-budget airliners
-upstart business are non-existent because starting costs have been magnified
-no one can make money off of their plane, so private ownership is almost 100% of the time a net-loss
-designs and construction has been halted in the 1970's
-newer more reliable engines that could save you in fuel costs are impossible, since the only certified engines are 60-70 years old (seriously, imagine filling up on 89 octane at the gas station instead of $6.50/gallon avgas)
-government gets to sit on more of your freedom
I need to work for my money and I found even cheaper than building an airplane.....I bought an experimental from the builder half price of what it would cost me to build it. ( It had 110 hrs on the tac from a brand new engine ) and I get to fly it back home the same week I decide to buy it. However there is a lot of experimental out there that I would not get into it, but with research and homework there is some good deal out there.
Good video! I'm 100% on the Experimental side. Learned to fly in Sling-2 aircraft, now transitioning to Standard Category in a C-172. The old Skyhawks ought to be priced at like $30k each, but a bunch of old politicians made then well into the six digits...
The FAA is quite frankly a disaster run by old politicians who are hopelessly behind understanding any kind of innovation in aviation or aerospacetech.
Look up videos about FAA vs SpaceX... basically, under Trump the FAA was just turning a blind eye on SpaceX and not trying to apply any kind of rules to them, because they had trust that SpaceX knew what they were doing waaay better than FAA could ever hope to know, and that FAA had no business trying to apply any kind of rules to an organization like that.
In January - the FAA for some reason suddenly decided to hit SpaceX with some compliance requirements which are so out-of-date that they don't even belong on this planet anymore.
Elon's response was to reach out to Russia and probe the ground for transferring SpaceX there.
I'm guessing his point was:
"Hey old farts in FAA - if you ain't gonna let me do whatever the fuck I want - Putin will. I'm not even American-born, so SpaceX doesn't necessarily need to remain American. And driving SpaceX out of the USA by stupid regulations will do YOU more harm than it will do me or my company".
Anyway. I'm also in favor of experimental aircraft. Learned to fly in a Sling-2 and it's so much nicer than a Cessna-172. And I trust any Joe who's built and flown his aircraft like 100 times more than I trust a piece of paper (flightworthyness certificate) which claims the aircraft or any given part of it (like a wheel nut or rubber hose) is "flightworthy", because some old politician who probably never even saw the thing - put his signature on it.
the truth is lawyers drive up the costs up on cerrtified aircraft.
Indeed , started some decades ago when some producers in the USA got sued , I think it was the period a woman sued a microvae company because her pet dog died when she dried the dog in the microwave... the producer was found guilty because in the manual they didn't warned not to dry dogs in the microwave...
Without stupid government laws and regulations lawyers couldn't do anything.
@@rafiqsaid4297 idk if this story is real, and I’m not much of a dog person, but holy Christ I could only imagine the pain and terror that poor dog went thru before it died. That would have to be one of the worst ways to die.
One thing that was not brought up was the issue of compensation, which the FAA does not let you do in experimentals. So if you thinking of getting a plane to do something like flight instruct than you are limited to going with certified.
Nice video! I trained in a Cirrus SR20 back in 2008. The flight school told me that it had a parachute because it was not a spin rated aircraft. Thus, it had to have the CAPS system to be certified.
Hi. You know who's Burt Rutan? You know the voyager? Experimental aircraft. Without that man, the industry would not have the composites structures.
Thanks Mike. Allways enjoy your videos. Some comments left about purchasing a previously owned experimental is a good idea as long as you are 100% confident that all the work done is top quality and verifiable through build inspection records, and a good going over from a good AP and test flight before purchase. Looking forward to seeing your airplane finished, and flown by you. HANG IN THERE. Great job 👍
Thanks again!🛩️
Can't wait to see your completed project. I'm no aviation buff but I see your passion. Thanks for sharing man.
MIGUEL ANGEL ALVAREZ GOMEZ can’t wait to see the complete title of the video
@@Fluedix Lol. I think we can well most of us can make out that a L is missing I see no issue or what does that have to do with the video..
MIGUEL ANGEL ALVAREZ GOMEZ I read his comment and thought of commenting this. Take it like a joke, the way it’s meant to be :)
Funny I just saw that. Thanks for point out. It's been corrected.
@@mojogrip No worries man. We had a little laugh. Awsome vlog thanks.
Mike If you are a pilot and want to fly and not wait while building, you have options.
one join a flying club. This give you the flying time you need or want while building you Kit.
Two purchase a low cost airplane say with a partner, Fly this airplane while your building your kit. This way you are not rushing
the build. Once your are done with the kit sell your share. Both ways keep you flying while you are building. Good luck to you all. CFI, ME
You totally missed talking about ELSA Aircraft. Two points about them. One, you can’t just do anything to your E-LSA until after you it receives its Airworthiness Cert, and even then you can’t do any modifications that will take it out of the ELSA category. Point two the ELSA design is based on a certified SLSA design (just a note: SLSA Aircraft are not type certificated there is a difference between type certificated and certified) so when you build a E-LSA your building a exact copy of the SLSA design. because it’s a exact copy. There is only a 5 hour phase one fly off. (Test Flight).
Thank you for all your great videos. Very informative.
What about insurance? Is it cheaper to insure a certified airplane? Or maybe the insurance for an experimental airplane is cheaper because the purchase cost is a quarter of the certified one? Great job Mike with your videos!
Insurance will vary. Outside of the value of the aircraft, the pilot's certifications(s)/ratings and flight hours is a big factor in determining cost.
Hi Mike, what about buying a certified aircraft cheep and changing what you like. What’s involved with converting from certified to experimental. Best of both worlds if you don’t care about resale and it’s a keeper.
The Sling reminds me alot like the Gruman Tiger, but better!! Socata TB 20 Trinidad is a really nice aircraft too!!
My stepbrother had a Grummand Cheetah till he got grounded for a medical and sold it. Unfortunately not to me.
The Bristell paint jobs are off the charts, beautiful!!
"Experimental Aircraft Insurance" GO!
Great video! Easy to follow along. Thanks, Mike!
It seems like the certification process is outdated. Especially with today's precision fabrication processes, modeling software and standardization of many parts.
I work as a DOD contractor, and a story a colleague told me was the old CRT monitors needed a $25k cert to fly on ISR planes. Of course when everything switched to LED these certification were still required even though LED monitors can't possibly explode at high altitudes. But someone was still there to collect the 25k fee.
What are the limitations of owning an experimental. Can we buy an experimental or we have to build it? Can we have our kids on board experimental and fly for travel?
I don't have the time, space, or interest in building an airplane. I also don't want to do maintenance. But I like the way experimentals look
You also can't do everything in an experimental that you can in a certified
You can change some things on a certified aircraft if it is a Supplemental Type Certificate.
Can you purchase an experimental aircraft preassembled? Used?
Yes, of course.
Hi Mike, can I fly my experimental aircraft to any airport/locations around the world? I am considering purchasing a sling after my PPL....
Fantastic explanation. It's a real shame how expensive certification can be because of how high the standards need to be. Your examples of engines are perfect. It's "easy" to make an experimental airframe or navigation app for an iPad, but an experimental engine that is actually better than a rotax from the 70's.
Maybe they need to tier it. You can still buy a 100% constricted aircraft, but still limited to not being allowed for fly IFR? Maybe the FAA need to stop being babysitters and start respecting pilots decisions.
Holding tiny startup companies that make 2 seat fun fliers to the same standard as Boeing is crazy when they are completely different use cases.
Let's hope they don't start cracking down on experimental. Long live past 103 ultralights, and long live experimental!
Ps, out of absolutely nowhere CZcams has started recommending your videos, and I am loving them!
I'm not sure Big Brother is fond of letting any Joe go ahead and build their own aircraft in their garage.
The FAA is quite frankly a disaster run by old politicians who are hopelessly behind understanding any kind of innovation in aviation or aerospacetech.
Look up videos about FAA vs SpaceX... basically, under Trump the FAA was just turning a blind eye on SpaceX and not trying to apply any kind of rules to them, because they had trust that SpaceX knew what they were doing waaay better than FAA could ever hope to know, and that FAA had no business trying to apply any kind of rules to an organization like that.
In January - the FAA for some reason suddenly decided to hit SpaceX with some compliance requirements which are so out-of-date that they don't even belong on this planet anymore.
Elon's response was to reach out to Russia and probe the ground for transferring SpaceX there.
I'm guessing his point was:
"Hey old farts in FAA - if you ain't gonna let me do whatever the fuck I want - Putin will. I'm not even American-born, so SpaceX doesn't necessarily need to remain American. And driving SpaceX out of the USA by stupid regulations will do YOU more harm than it will do me or my company".
Anyway. I'm also in favor of experimental aircraft. Learned to fly in a Sling-2 and it's so much nicer than a Cessna-172. And I trust any Joe who's built and flown his aircraft like 100 times more than I trust a piece of paper (flightworthyness certificate) which claims the aircraft or any given part of it (like a wheel nut or rubber hose) is "flightworthy", because some old politician who probably never even saw the thing - put his signature on it.
I was leaning that way , then started leaning this way , now I'm not sure . But thanks for the info .
What is the consequence on the flying side having an experimental!
I hope someone here can answer my question..i'm thinking of buying an experimental airplane but i am not sure if i can use it for time building.. i need hours for airlines..please if someone can answer this question
Mr M great video
Great video Brother
Mike you don't have to build your own experimental aircraft. A pre-owned pre-built one is the same as purchasing a certified GA aircraft
GUNSLINGER DA TRUTH Nope.
Great topic. Thanks!
You can buy second-hand experimental aircraft as well certified one. Due to the fact that all ultralight and most LSA falls into the experimental category, you have significantly more none certified aircraft flown by inexperienced or even unlicensed pilots who are greatly contributing to the number of accidents and even that is way lower than accident rate in another way of transport.
All certified aircraft are flown by licensed pilots or students with some training, most hang gliders, paragliders, part103 planes and many other are part of the experimental category and in most of the cases are flown without any experience, license or training.
The main reason certified craft are so expensive is the manufacturer is charging so much for the planes is people talked here about the hours and hours of test flights and things. There is also the need to build prototypes for destructive testing. So you are going to lose planes just to testing. I have seen estimates of between 25 and 50 million dollars just to get a small 4 seat GA plane certified and that doesn't include the production process certification. You have to sell a lot of planes to get that much money back. So not the manufactures fault. It also isn't the lawyers or our litigious society, it is in the name of safety. Good or Bad that is the reason the FAA is so strict about it. when a person (non pilot) gets into a certified plane they expect a certain level of safety. When they get into an experimental they see all the signage they know it is not the same proven aircraft as their doctor friend's bonanza, even though the experimental might actually be safer than the production planes and have better instrumentation, more power, and that parachute when all else fails along with a lot of other bells and whistles.
My only problem with experimental aircraft for me personally is that although they are great for building time cheaply and perform great is that once you get your CFI you cannot give instruction in it nor rent it out to your students. It is ok if it is the students experimental plane but not yours. Also if you get your commercial ticket and want to just haul cargo say to a remote village in Alaska you are not allowed nor can you take paying passengers to their hunting or fishing lodges. Any business operations require a certified plane even when your experimental might be more well suited to the job than any certified plane on the market. This is something the AOPA and other aviation lobbyists need to get pushing on. If an experimental is the best plane for the job and there are no production planes that will do even close to that job as safely and efficiently, they should issue a waiver to the experimental plane so it is allowed to be used. As an example. STOL short take off and landing planes for bush pilots. Some experimentals can land and take off regularly in less than 150 feet. No certified production planes made today can do this. Also the 31" Bush Tires or Tundra Tires, with these you can land and take off in small boulder fields without damage to your aircraft. No certified planes that I know of are allowed these tires although some of the Cessnas can use up to a certain size but then again those cost a lot more for less performance. Didn't mean to get on my shoebox here or step on anyone's toes just my humble opinions.
What's your experience and opinion about flight training from a CFI done in an LSA in comparison to an old Cessna or Piper?
@@OrlandoemCasa I really don't have much of an opinion or experience one way or another. I learned in a new piper warrior back in 1975 well it was a 1974 model i think. The LSA's seem to be about the same performance but I wonder about their stability in rough air compared to their heavier old piper and cessna counterparts. The ceiling restrictions of 2500 feet agl I think might present a problem for me for slow flight stall and spin recovery. I know my CFI took me to between 5k and 8K feet agl when we started that training and then eventually felt more confident in going lower for practice. I think a lot of the LSA's have much more advanced avionics then the older planes so that is a plus. I still like to see the old steam guages in there at least as a backup to a glass panel and all students should have some of that experience with the older avionics. All in All I don't se a huge problem and I wouldn't be against flight training in an LSA. I don't know if I ever went that route I would want to do it but somebody has to if just for the sport pilots to get their certification. Just my opinion .
Great video. However, I am quoting you when you said certified airplains are "several, many many hours tested" Just a friendly reminder, pay attention of what you say.
So, am I understanding correctly that if I bought a certified airplane, and modified it beyond a certain limit, that I would then fall into the experimental territory? Would this necessitate extra licensing for me or the plane? What third party could I hire to ensure my engineering is up to snuff? Thanks.
Dan Kennerson if there is no STC for the modifications you make and they are major then you lose the certification. At that point it will need to undergo flight testing (maybe about 20 hrs worth) and will require about the same looking over as a from scratch experimental. Sometimes you get restrictions on where you can fly it depending on how modified it is. You’d have to ask around for engineering support but those who modify will know someone (like Mike Patey).
Congrats on your cover👍👍👍
Thank you
NICE !
Just wanna buy an experimental second hand
Hello Mike, is any restriction in flying one versus another ?
A private pilot license should get you in either or. But as per flight rules, that will depend on the equipment you have onboard.
which of the two would you personally recommend mike?
Im trying to decide weather to look into getting a Grumman Tiger or a revalo stryker
Tiger's are great airplanes. I own a Grumman purchased 2000. very Quick and easy to fly, but make sure you get some
instruction, not on the flying as they fly very nice. But on the landing. The Grumman's feel like your going down an elevator when landing, They in no way land like a Piper or Cessna. Landing just feel strange at first and they love to land with some small about of power. Keep the nose up as long as you can. Keep the elevator back as your roll slows down.
Once you get a few landing out of the way you are good to go. And Good luck I am in Connecticut, any questions just ask.
I do not think Mike has much time in a Tiger, Cheetah or Traveler . I may be wrong. Greg CFI ME
Never hear of revalo stryker who makes that ?
Greg Plaka
Uhh... I think I spelled the name wrong, but the Stryker is an experimental airframe with dual tail-fins and canard wings,
Its made by a company called “revelaero”
@@redjaypictures4528 bobklynstra.wixsite.com/website
@@redjaypictures4528 Go with the Grumman. IMO
Do your hours still count in experimental airplane
Yes
Cessna made numerous changes to their air frames in the last decades. You have to pay more attention..
Even in the experimental aircraft people pay thousands of dollars for a nice panel.
Here's the twist, I can turn that cirrus into an experimental buy getting ride of the air worthiness certificate. Then I can put any part I want on it.
But it cost more to buy and u lose value. Source:130 iq
@@sw3w537 Uhm, I'm just stating that you can take a type certificated aircraft and turn it into an experimental. For people that don't know that. Get it?
@@521CID yes, because i once chopped up my furniture for firewood. We think the same... Probably the same 86 iq
Wish I could thumbs up twice
when used cessna can buy normal 20-30 000¤ this experiment plane used need can buy 2000-5000$ maximum.
A&P here. You are incorrect about major changes automatically turning a certified aircraft to experimental. This is what STC’s are for. Examples being going from piston to a turboprop or adding winglets. Things like those can be done with an STC and the aircraft will stay certified. Now if we’re talking about shorting wings or something, well that’s when we dive into experimental territory.
lets clip the wings on all the Cub's out there.
Greg, Piper already did this... Clipper, Vagabond, Pacer, and Tri-Pacer....
@@alanaspurling6469 You missed the sarcasm Funny
Andre3K
He is not incorrect, you just have a low bar to what his definition of 'major changes' meant. Your A&P badge didnt make you look any less stupid.
Greg Plaka, sorry I guess I missed it. Lol, I’ll just go spend some quality time in my Tri-Pacer, the “Rodney Dangerfield” of the Piper line up.
I would love a partial certification, something that you can buy pre-built from the factory but for 1/5th the cost.
They would go through some testing, but not nearly as extensive as the full certification.
And the biggest point, with partially-certified aircraft, if one crashes, then it serves as lawsuit protection for the aircraft producer. It would completely shut down any lawsuit towards the company because when the person bought the plane, they knew it wasn't guaranteed to be safe and reliable like a fully certified aircraft, and if it crashes, then it's their own fault.
This would allow traditional aircraft producers like cessna and whatnot to be more innovative and way cheaper, not to mention preventing sue happy people from getting their way.
Fun fact: You need skills in order to build your own aircraft. Not within the reach of many.
Very good video??
The cost of government interference destroys innovation, destroys industry. The end.
Plans build , another option .
Когда будут русские субтитры?)
The word *EXPERIMENTAL* is a deal breaker for most of our wives.
👍🏿
Sling vids only guy
You need money to own a airplane, my observation is that pilot that work for there money go experimental, pilot that don't work for there money go certified, it's my observation that is true 90 % of the time. lolll no offense
Gil what in this green earth are you talking about? How do you not work for money ? do you live on Tera Prime (Earth)?