A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Homebuilt Question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 1st 13, 03:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Homebuilt Question

I'm wonder how this would play
out:

a. Person designs a unique plane,
one of a kind, no other ones to
compare it to.

b. It is a single-seater.

c. It has unique control surfaces,
and only someone "trained" can
fly it.

d. Gear is retractable.

e. Propulsion is "rather mysterious".

Now, how would this plane be certified?
No one else can fly it. Much of the
technology is sealed beneath carbon
fiber. No one knows how fast it goes.
It is homebuilt. Builder is willing to
concede that it isn't lightsport.

Thanks.

--
Mark

  #2  
Old January 1st 13, 05:37 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mark IV[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Homebuilt Question

On Jan 1, 9:49*am, wrote:
I'm wonder how this would play
out:

a. Person designs a unique plane,
* *one of a kind, no other ones to
* *compare it to.

b. It is a single-seater.

c. It has unique control surfaces,
* *and only someone "trained" can
* *fly it.

d. Gear is retractable.

e. Propulsion is "rather mysterious".

Now, how would this plane be certified?
No one else can fly it. *Much of the
technology is sealed beneath carbon
fiber. *No one knows how fast it goes.
It is homebuilt. *Builder is willing to
concede that it isn't lightsport.

Thanks.

--
Mark


It looks kinda like this, except no pusher prop,
or winglets. It has 11 control surfaces.

http://www.electravia.fr/Eclub/ECnoirA.jpg

How do I certify it?

---
Mark
  #3  
Old January 1st 13, 07:30 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Vaughn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 154
Default Homebuilt Question

On 1/1/2013 11:37 AM, Mark IV wrote:
How do I certify it?


Assuming you are in the USA, you certify it the same way you certify any
homebuilt airplane.

As always, Google is your friend in any search for knowledge. In this
particular case however, you might want to start with the EAA.

http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuil...ing/index.html

or at least: eaa.org/

Vaughn
  #5  
Old January 1st 13, 11:20 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Ron Wanttaja[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default Homebuilt Question

The answer is simple: It is an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft. It
does not have to meet any certification standards. It only has to have
the required markings and the record-keeping to show that it was built
for "education or recreation". The unusual control system is moot, as
is the fact that it takes special training to learn to fly it. The FAA
doesn't care, for an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft.

What MIGHT happen, though, is the FAA might assign a more-limited test
area, and require longer than the traditional 40 hour test period before
the plane can be flown outside the area.

Ron Wanttaja

On 1/1/2013 6:49 AM, wrote:
I'm wonder how this would play
out:

a. Person designs a unique plane,
one of a kind, no other ones to
compare it to.

b. It is a single-seater.

c. It has unique control surfaces,
and only someone "trained" can
fly it.

d. Gear is retractable.

e. Propulsion is "rather mysterious".

Now, how would this plane be certified?
No one else can fly it. Much of the
technology is sealed beneath carbon
fiber. No one knows how fast it goes.
It is homebuilt. Builder is willing to
concede that it isn't lightsport.

  #6  
Old January 2nd 13, 02:16 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mark IV[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Homebuilt Question

On Jan 1, 5:20*pm, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
The answer is simple: *It is an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft. *It
does not have to meet any certification standards. *It only has to have
the required markings and the record-keeping to show that it was built
for "education or recreation". *The unusual control system is moot, as
is the fact that it takes special training to learn to fly it. *The FAA
doesn't care, for an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft.

What MIGHT happen, though, is the FAA might assign a more-limited test
area, and require longer than the traditional 40 hour test period before
the plane can be flown outside the area.

Ron Wanttaja

On 1/1/2013 6:49 AM, wrote:







I'm wonder how this would play
out:


a. Person designs a unique plane,
* * one of a kind, no other ones to
* * compare it to.


b. It is a single-seater.


c. It has unique control surfaces,
* * and only someone "trained" can
* * fly it.


d. Gear is retractable.


e. Propulsion is "rather mysterious".


Now, how would this plane be certified?
No one else can fly it. *Much of the
technology is sealed beneath carbon
fiber. *No one knows how fast it goes.
It is homebuilt. *Builder is willing to
concede that it isn't lightsport.


Thank you all for your input, as amateur-built
is new to me. Interesting note: Shortly after
posting my question I ran into a very nice fellow
(Joe) who was wearing a "Reno Air Races" ball
cap and we struck up a conversation. It wasn't
long before he was pulling photos out of his
wallet of the planes he built over the years, including
entries for Reno. His specialty now is Zenair STOL's.

Anyway, Joe's dad (who is in his 90's) has
served in some capacity with Flight Certification
over the years and much information was shared
with me. Seems the main thing is, they will need
entry ports of observation to check for safety wires,
and other such basic requirements. The time will
have to be flown off the plane, and technically,
being experimental, it isn't supposed to be flown
over population centers.

So... you all are right.

Thanks.

---
Mark
  #7  
Old January 2nd 13, 04:34 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 824
Default Homebuilt Question

In article
,
Mark IV wrote:

On Jan 1, 5:20*pm, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
The answer is simple: *It is an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft. *It
does not have to meet any certification standards. *It only has to have
the required markings and the record-keeping to show that it was built
for "education or recreation". *The unusual control system is moot, as
is the fact that it takes special training to learn to fly it. *The FAA
doesn't care, for an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft.

What MIGHT happen, though, is the FAA might assign a more-limited test
area, and require longer than the traditional 40 hour test period before
the plane can be flown outside the area.

Ron Wanttaja

On 1/1/2013 6:49 AM, wrote:







I'm wonder how this would play
out:


a. Person designs a unique plane,
* * one of a kind, no other ones to
* * compare it to.


b. It is a single-seater.


c. It has unique control surfaces,
* * and only someone "trained" can
* * fly it.


d. Gear is retractable.


e. Propulsion is "rather mysterious".


Now, how would this plane be certified?
No one else can fly it. *Much of the
technology is sealed beneath carbon
fiber. *No one knows how fast it goes.
It is homebuilt. *Builder is willing to
concede that it isn't lightsport.


Thank you all for your input, as amateur-built
is new to me. Interesting note: Shortly after
posting my question I ran into a very nice fellow
(Joe) who was wearing a "Reno Air Races" ball
cap and we struck up a conversation. It wasn't
long before he was pulling photos out of his
wallet of the planes he built over the years, including
entries for Reno. His specialty now is Zenair STOL's.

Anyway, Joe's dad (who is in his 90's) has
served in some capacity with Flight Certification
over the years and much information was shared
with me. Seems the main thing is, they will need
entry ports of observation to check for safety wires,
and other such basic requirements. The time will
have to be flown off the plane, and technically,
being experimental, it isn't supposed to be flown
over population centers.

So... you all are right.

Thanks.

---
Mark


My question:

Why does it have to have a unique, nonstandard control system that
nobody else can fly without special training?

It seem to me that it violates a very important principle that has cost
dearly -- namely the KISS Principle, or: Keep It Simple, Stupid!
  #8  
Old January 2nd 13, 03:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Homebuilt Question

On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 10:34:24 PM UTC-5, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article

,

Mark IV wrote:



On Jan 1, 5:20*pm, Ron Wanttaja wrote:


The answer is simple: *It is an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft.. *It


does not have to meet any certification standards. *It only has to have


the required markings and the record-keeping to show that it was built


for "education or recreation". *The unusual control system is moot, as


is the fact that it takes special training to learn to fly it. *The FAA


doesn't care, for an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft.




What MIGHT happen, though, is the FAA might assign a more-limited test


area, and require longer than the traditional 40 hour test period before


the plane can be flown outside the area.




Ron Wanttaja




On 1/1/2013 6:49 AM, wrote:
















I'm wonder how this would play


out:




a. Person designs a unique plane,


* * one of a kind, no other ones to


* * compare it to.




b. It is a single-seater.




c. It has unique control surfaces,


* * and only someone "trained" can


* * fly it.




d. Gear is retractable.




e. Propulsion is "rather mysterious".




Now, how would this plane be certified?


No one else can fly it. *Much of the


technology is sealed beneath carbon


fiber. *No one knows how fast it goes.


It is homebuilt. *Builder is willing to


concede that it isn't lightsport.




Thank you all for your input, as amateur-built


is new to me. Interesting note: Shortly after


posting my question I ran into a very nice fellow


(Joe) who was wearing a "Reno Air Races" ball


cap and we struck up a conversation. It wasn't


long before he was pulling photos out of his


wallet of the planes he built over the years, including


entries for Reno. His specialty now is Zenair STOL's.




Anyway, Joe's dad (who is in his 90's) has


served in some capacity with Flight Certification


over the years and much information was shared


with me. Seems the main thing is, they will need


entry ports of observation to check for safety wires,


and other such basic requirements. The time will


have to be flown off the plane, and technically,


being experimental, it isn't supposed to be flown


over population centers.




So... you all are right.




Thanks.




---


Mark




My question:



Why does it have to have a unique, nonstandard control system that

nobody else can fly without special training?



It seem to me that it violates a very important principle that has cost

dearly -- namely the KISS Principle, or: Keep It Simple, Stupid!


It's a little complicated, and goes all
the way back to the Horton Brothers, and
Mr. Northrop. Coming forward in time, look
at why Andrews Air Force base is named after
Mr. Andrews, and finally... we see why the
greatest airplane flying today, the B-2 Spirit,
as well as the X47B and others like it depend
on a "fly-by-wire" system directed with
software from the Moog corporation.

To maintain yaw and pitch authority within
limited moments at high g's.

---
Mark
  #9  
Old January 2nd 13, 05:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 824
Default Homebuilt Question

In article ,
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 10:34:24 PM UTC-5, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article

,

Mark IV wrote:



On Jan 1, 5:20*pm, Ron Wanttaja wrote:


The answer is simple: *It is an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft. *It


does not have to meet any certification standards. *It only has to have


the required markings and the record-keeping to show that it was built


for "education or recreation". *The unusual control system is moot, as


is the fact that it takes special training to learn to fly it. *The FAA


doesn't care, for an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft.




What MIGHT happen, though, is the FAA might assign a more-limited test


area, and require longer than the traditional 40 hour test period before


the plane can be flown outside the area.




Ron Wanttaja




On 1/1/2013 6:49 AM, wrote:
















I'm wonder how this would play


out:




a. Person designs a unique plane,


* * one of a kind, no other ones to


* * compare it to.




b. It is a single-seater.




c. It has unique control surfaces,


* * and only someone "trained" can


* * fly it.




d. Gear is retractable.




e. Propulsion is "rather mysterious".




Now, how would this plane be certified?


No one else can fly it. *Much of the


technology is sealed beneath carbon


fiber. *No one knows how fast it goes.


It is homebuilt. *Builder is willing to


concede that it isn't lightsport.




Thank you all for your input, as amateur-built


is new to me. Interesting note: Shortly after


posting my question I ran into a very nice fellow


(Joe) who was wearing a "Reno Air Races" ball


cap and we struck up a conversation. It wasn't


long before he was pulling photos out of his


wallet of the planes he built over the years, including


entries for Reno. His specialty now is Zenair STOL's.




Anyway, Joe's dad (who is in his 90's) has


served in some capacity with Flight Certification


over the years and much information was shared


with me. Seems the main thing is, they will need


entry ports of observation to check for safety wires,


and other such basic requirements. The time will


have to be flown off the plane, and technically,


being experimental, it isn't supposed to be flown


over population centers.




So... you all are right.




Thanks.




---


Mark




My question:



Why does it have to have a unique, nonstandard control system that

nobody else can fly without special training?



It seem to me that it violates a very important principle that has cost

dearly -- namely the KISS Principle, or: Keep It Simple, Stupid!


It's a little complicated, and goes all
the way back to the Horton Brothers, and
Mr. Northrop. Coming forward in time, look
at why Andrews Air Force base is named after
Mr. Andrews, and finally... we see why the
greatest airplane flying today, the B-2 Spirit,
as well as the X47B and others like it depend
on a "fly-by-wire" system directed with
software from the Moog corporation.

To maintain yaw and pitch authority within
limited moments at high g's.

---
Mark


It is Edwards AFB, named after Maj. Glen Edwards, who was kille in a
crash of the YB-49, not Andrews AFB.

If you have a FBW system, it is best to set up the manual controls so
that they emulate standard control systems -- a-la F-16, rather than
introduce a lot of specialty controls that you have to learn, and which
can get you into trouble in high workload situations.

The above-cited aircraft have controls which resemble standard controls
and respond in a similar fashion.
 




Thread Tools
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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
History question: homebuilt pushers [email protected] Home Built 7 May 3rd 07 03:51 PM
FSBO Question - rec.aviation.homebuilt Gary T. Ciampa Home Built 2 August 2nd 06 10:37 PM
homebuilt glider question Stealth Pilot Soaring 9 July 10th 06 09:40 PM
Electrical Question for Experimental Homebuilt Dick Home Built 1 March 30th 05 01:52 AM
question on intercoms for my new homebuilt w b evans Home Built 1 July 23rd 03 12:57 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.