Experimental complex...?

[soaringpilot2]

I've got what may be a dumb question (since I suspect the answer is
obvious), but here it goes:

If I am looking at buying an experimental homebuilt with a retractable
conventional gear; BUT under 200hp and a fixed pitch prop, do I need a
complex endorsement to legally fly, or is that just with regards to
aircraft with standard airworthiness certificates (factory built)?

I'm having an argument on FAR trivia, and was curious what people
thought.

Cheers!
Ryan in Madison

[[email protected]]

It doesn't matter whether the airplane is storebought or homebuilt; a
complex airplane is a complex airplane -- and the one you're
describing isn't. It needs retractable gear, flaps and a controllable-
pitch propeller to be complex. It doesn't need more than 200 hp --
that would make it a high-performance airplane, requiring a different
endorsement. But you'll need the appropriate endorsement(s) to fly a
plane regardless of its registration category.

[BT]

14CFR61.31(e) makes no distinction of factory built or home built
experimental. It just says "airplane".
It is not complex, as another stated you need flaps, controllable prop and
gear, or if a sea plane, flaps and controllable prop.
Engine Size (HP) does not make any contribution to the complex aspect.

BT

"soaringpilot2" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> I've got what may be a dumb question (since I suspect the answer is
> obvious), but here it goes:
>
> If I am looking at buying an experimental homebuilt with a retractable
> conventional gear; BUT under 200hp and a fixed pitch prop, do I need a
> complex endorsement to legally fly, or is that just with regards to
> aircraft with standard airworthiness certificates (factory built)?
>
> I'm having an argument on FAR trivia, and was curious what people
> thought.
>
> Cheers!
> Ryan in Madison
>

[Dave S]

soaringpilot2 wrote:
> I've got what may be a dumb question (since I suspect the answer is
> obvious), but here it goes:
>
> If I am looking at buying an experimental homebuilt with a retractable
> conventional gear; BUT under 200hp and a fixed pitch prop, do I need a
> complex endorsement to legally fly, or is that just with regards to
> aircraft with standard airworthiness certificates (factory built)?
>
> I'm having an argument on FAR trivia, and was curious what people
> thought.
>
> Cheers!
> Ryan in Madison
>

Retractable gear, by itself, does not a complex aircraft make. You must
have flaps, retractable gear AND an adjustable prop to have a complex
landplane.

The answer to that question is no.

The answer to the other question, does this complex endorsement apply to
standard certificates?

I cannot speak with authority, but i've been led to believe if you are
flying solo, you dont have to have category, class or endorsements
pertinent to the experimental airframe. In the past few years I believe
the Feds wanted folks carrying passengers in experimentals to have
category and class ratings and applicable endorsements..

I'm sure if im mistaken, the corrections will be quick and merciless :P

Dave

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Nov 14, 2:55 pm, soaringpilot2 > wrote:
> I've got what may be a dumb question (since I suspect the answer is
> obvious), but here it goes:
>
> If I am looking at buying an experimental homebuilt with a retractable
> conventional gear; BUT under 200hp and a fixed pitch prop, do I need a
> complex endorsement to legally fly, or is that just with regards to
> aircraft with standard airworthiness certificates (factory built)?
>
> I'm having an argument on FAR trivia, and was curious what people
> thought.
>
> Cheers!
> Ryan in Madison

Which airplane are you talking about? There was some discussion around
this topic regarding the Europa, which has a partially retracting
monowheel. Some argued it was complex, some said no. It turned out
that the insurance companies insisted that it was a complex aircraft,
so whether or not it was really complex under FAA rules became a moot
point (unless you are self-insured).

[BT]

Europa - partially retracting gear, flaps? and a feathering prop? sounds
complex to me.
BT

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
...
> On Nov 14, 2:55 pm, soaringpilot2 > wrote:
>> I've got what may be a dumb question (since I suspect the answer is
>> obvious), but here it goes:
>>
>> If I am looking at buying an experimental homebuilt with a retractable
>> conventional gear; BUT under 200hp and a fixed pitch prop, do I need a
>> complex endorsement to legally fly, or is that just with regards to
>> aircraft with standard airworthiness certificates (factory built)?
>>
>> I'm having an argument on FAR trivia, and was curious what people
>> thought.
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Ryan in Madison
>
> Which airplane are you talking about? There was some discussion around
> this topic regarding the Europa, which has a partially retracting
> monowheel. Some argued it was complex, some said no. It turned out
> that the insurance companies insisted that it was a complex aircraft,
> so whether or not it was really complex under FAA rules became a moot
> point (unless you are self-insured).
>
>
>

[soaringpilot2]

> Which airplane are you talking about? There was some discussion around
> this topic regarding the Europa, which has a partially retracting
> monowheel. Some argued it was complex, some said no.


I'm talking about the Cvjetkovich CA-65 Sky Fly (there's one on
barnstormers right now).

http://www.cvjetkovic-aircraft.com/

-Ryan in Madison