experimental planes reddit

Simple Flying

X-planes: the usa's top 5 most unbelievable experimental aircraft.

Your changes have been saved

Email is sent

Email has already been sent

Please verify your email address.

You’ve reached your account maximum for followed topics.

• Bell X-1 was the first piloted aircraft to break the sound barrier. Key record-setting aircraft in US history. (109 characters)
• North American X-15 set speed record, reached hypersonic speeds, conducted valuable high-altitude research. (106 characters)
• NASA X-43 achieved world records for speed, fastest jet-powered aircraft, superseded by the X-51 program. (113 characters)

Over the years, numerous X-planes have been built for various research and experimental purposes. Some programs were canceled for various reasons, while others made it to the air and proved to be successful research airplanes. Several experimental planes hold world records, particularly for speeds and altitudes. This article explores some of the renowned X-planes in US history.

Rocket engine-powered aircraft

• Length: 30 ft 11 in (9.42 m)
• Wingspan: 28 ft 0 in (8.53 m)
• Height: 10 ft 10 in (3.30 m)
• Wing area: 130 sq ft (12 m2) ⠀
• Gross weight: 12,250 lb (5,557 kg)
• Powerplant: 1 × Reaction Motors XLR11-RM-3 4-chamber liquid-fuelled rocket engine, 6,000 lbf (27 kN) thrust
• Maximum speed: 1,612 mph (2,594 km/h, 1,401 kn)
• Service ceiling: 70,000 ft (21,000 m)

The Bell X-1 is a supersonic research project conducted by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) and the US Army Air Forces (USAAF), built by Bell Aircraft. Built in the mid-1940s, the aircraft performed its first flight in January 1946.

As highlighted by the National Air and Space Museum , a Bell X-1, nicknamed Glamorous Glennisand, became the first piloted aircraft to exceed the speed of sound in level flight. Test pilot Chuck Yeager established the record in October 1947. In 1948, the Bell X-1 achieved a speed of nearly 1,000 mph (870 knots, 1,600 km/h). The derivative of the design, the Bell X-1A, with a greater fuel capacity, exceeded 1,600 mph (1,400 knots, 2,600 km/h). The aircraft became the first of the series of American X-planes.

Supersonic History-Maker: The Story Of The Bell X-1

The aircraft has a fascinating history.

2 North American X-15

Hypersonic rocket-powered aircraft.

• Length: 49 ft 2 in (14.99 m)
• Wingspan: 22 ft 4 in (6.81 m)
• Height: 13 ft 1 in (3.99 m)
• Wing area: 200 sq ft (19 m2)
• Empty weight: 14,600 lb (6,622 kg)
• Gross weight: 33,500 lb (15,195 kg)
• Powerplant: 1 × Reaction Motors XLR99-RM-2 liquid-fuelled rocket engine, 70,400 lbf (313 kN) thrust
• Maximum speed: 4,520 mph (7,270 km/h, 3,930 kn)
• Range: 280 mi (450 km, 240 nmi)
• Service ceiling: 354,330 ft (108,000 m)

The North American X-15 was a hypersonic rocket-powered aircraft developed by North American Aviation in the 1950s. The aircraft performed its first flight in June 1959 and was introduced by the USAF later that year. NASA also operated the X-15 as part of the X-plane experimental aircraft. In the 1960s, the X-15 made multiple records, including crossing the edge of outer space and returning.

Valuable data was acquired at very high altitudes to be used in future aircraft and spacecraft design. In 1967, the X-15 built a highest speed record of 4,520 mph (7,274 km/h). Pilot William Knight flew the aircraft at Mach 6.7 at an altitude of 102,100 ft (31,120 m, 19.34 km).

Amazing! How The X-15 Hypersonic Research Program Set All Kinds Of Aviation Records

The X-15's speed record remains unbroken, and (by some definitions) its altitude record wasn't broken until 2004.

3 NASA X-43

Unmanned hypersonic aircraft.

The NASA X-43 is an unmanned hypersonic aircraft designed to test the agency’s Hyper-X test flight program. During test flights, the aircraft set several high-speed records. The NASA X-43 remains the fastest jet-powered aircraft, with a record of approximately Mach 9.6. Three examples of the first series, X-43A, were built, but the first one was destroyed after malfunctioning during a flight in 2001.

The remaining two scramjets underwent slight operational improvements. In 2004, they flew successfully and established world records. Following the hypersonic tests (ten seconds of flight followed by ten seconds of glide), the aircraft intentionally crashed into the ocean. The plan to build more X-43s was canceled and replaced by X-51, a USAF-managed program.

5 Amazing Military Planes Flown By NASA

NASA finds uses for a range of ex-military aircraft - often extensively modified for scientific mission purposes.

4 McDonnell Douglas X-36

Tailless fighter agility research aircraft.

• Length: 18 ft 2.5 in (5.550 m), including pitot boom
• Wingspan: 10 ft 5 in (3.18 m)
• Height: 3 ft 1.25 in (0.9462 m)
• Empty weight: 1,090 lb (494 kg)
• Max takeoff weight: 1,270 lb (576 kg)
• Fuel capacity: 180 lb (82 kg)
• Powerplant: 1 × Williams F112 turbofan engine, 700 lbf (3.1 kN) thrust
• Maximum speed: 160 kn (180 mph, 300 km/h)
• Service ceiling: 20,500 ft (6,200 m)

The McDonnell Douglas X-36 is a stealth subscale prototype jet aircraft featuring a tailless design. The aircraft design configuration was chosen to minimize the structural weight and drag on the aircraft. The design enables greater maneuverability and survivability, ideally conceptualized for fighter jets.

The aircraft performed its first flight in May 1997 and became one of the highly successful test aircraft. The X-36 performed 31 test flights, significantly exceeding the project goals. The researchers found its suitability as a fighter jet of the future. Despite that, there was never any further development in the X-36 program.

Unique NASA Experimental Aircraft Is Up For Sale

The heavily modified de Havilland Canada C-8A Buffalo comes with a reserve price of $10,000.

5 Grumman X-29

Forward swept wing experimental aircraft.

• Capacity: 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) payload
• Length: 53 ft 11.25 in (16.4402 m), including nose probe
• Wingspan: 27 ft 2.5 in (8.293 m)
• Height: 14 ft 3.5 in (4.356 m)
• Max takeoff weight: 17,800 lb (8,074 kg)
• Fuel capacity: 3,978 lb (1,804 kg) in two fuselage bladder tanks and two strake integral tanks
• Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F404-GE-400 afterburning turbofan engine, 16,000 lbf (71 kN) with afterburner
• Maximum speed: Mach 1.6 (956 knots, 1,100 mph, 1,771 km/h)
• Range: 350 nmi (400 mi, 650 km)
• Service ceiling: 55,000 ft (17,000 m)

The Grumman X-29 was an experimental aircraft with forward-swept wind and canard control surfaces. Developed by Grumman in the early 1980s, the USAF and NASA used the two examples built. In addition to the swept wings and canard controls, the three-surface design also included an aft strake control surface.

The X-29 was designed with computerized fly-by-wire controls. The forward-swept wings caused aeroelastic divergent twisting due to the wings’ leading edge rotating upwards. As a result, greater lift was generated, causing the leading edge to rotate even further. The phenomenon could cause the structure to fail under stress. Using composite materials ensured the flexibility and structural integrity of the aircraft. The two X-29s built were tested between 1984 and 1991.

Why Was The Grumman F-14 Tomcat So Versatile?

The aircraft was quite the flying machine.

What are your thoughts on the historic X-planes in the United States? Share your views in the comments section.

• Military Aviation
• North America

The $20 an hour Cessna 172 experiment

When I learned to fly in the 1980s, the school’s fleet was comprised of already decade-old Cessna 172s, most of which clearly showed their age and the toll of countless training maneuvers, hard landings, and checkrides. The seats and interiors were already well-worn and faded, seat belts stained and produced odors of the many previous occupants, plastic dashboards cracked and re-glued multiple times, the original 1960s NAV/COM radios scratchy with often only one properly functioning, not to mention the multiple cowling screw heads stripped from a decade of inspections, oil changes, and engine overhauls.

Back then I paid $45 per hour, wet, for a 172. The CFI cost me another $15-$20/hour depending if VFR or IFR training, and there was no requirement to have your own renter’s insurance (the FBO did offer a $3/hr option that would limit max deductible to $500, but few took then up on the offer). My PPL cost me about $3,500 total, including checkride and even a shiny new Peltor folding headset. There were plenty of planes to rent at numerous small airports due to “trickle-down economics” tax laws that made lease-backs make financial sense. Cessna was producing the same 172s at a rate of over 2,000 a year to pacify demand of FBOs, flight schools, flying clubs, as well as personal buyers—who viewed the price tag of about $17,000 as feasible.

Thirty years later, the same airplanes are flying at flight schools all across the US.

Over three decades later, my daughter expressed interest in learning to fly, and I started calling around to flight schools to figure out where to begin. Although I had a GA background and built time as a CFI, I’ve been flying for the airlines for three decades and have been absent from the GA scene, which I mistakenly assumed had long evolved and would now seem foreign to me.

After just a few calls, nothing had seemed to change except that the same 1970 vintage 172s were now renting out at $115-$125 per hour. Even more unbelievable was that the same engines were used and still required leaded gas—the EPA and FAA seemed hell-bent on eliminating lead’s poisonous emissions in the early 1980s. Somehow aviation became an inverted pricing model compared to all other industries, wherein the older and more worn a plane is, the more it cost to rent, and remained immune from any emissions rules that required all other engine industries to evolve.

Quickly calculating aircraft rental cost alone for a 60-hour private pilot program in my head, it was obvious that there had to be another way. I looked into experimental kit planes, but I had neither the time nor facility to build it, and was uncomfortable buying a completed homebuilt with little way of knowing how or who put it together.

So I began looking into buying a certified plane, but quickly realized there wasn’t all that much savings considering cost of ownership, let alone what I deemed to be ridiculous prices for 40-year-old aircraft in mostly original condition. What used to cost me $45/hour to simply rent and walk away—leaving the ownership cost to some owner who would write it off their tax return—now would cost over $60/hour just for the engine direct operating cost (fuel, oil, overhaul reserves). The engine cost was the real deal breaker, and there had to be some alternative.

The only alternative engines I could find for the 172 were diesel engines that cost over $100,000 for the conversion, and offered little in operating cost savings. My background in marine engineering reminded me how the boat industry develops powerplants. Even the largest marine engine manufacturers use mass-produced automotive engines that they modify for the boat mission, an engineering process I was more than familiar with. This process, called marinization, allows the relatively small marine engine segment access to the newest technologies, state of the art quality control of some of the worlds most successful companies, and at a lower cost of goods then they could even dream of if vertically developing their own product.

I wondered if the same process could work for aircraft engines, and began the experiment of designing and modifying a V8 aluminum marine engine to meet FAA Part 23 and 33 requirements, then install it onto a Cessna 172 airframe. (This wasn’t an original concept, as I discovered. Toyota and Porsche actually certified modified versions of their car engines, but quickly closed the program for a number of practical reasons).

A new approach to aircraft engines.

Almost two years later, with seemingly never-ending obstacles along the way, FAA regulatory hoops to jump through, and even a few small engine fires during ground test, our 1969 Cessna 172K lifted off for its first flight. Regardless of my experience as a former FAA designated engineering representative (DER) and flight test pilot, I admit questioning the logic of bolting a V8 to a Cessna during that first takeoff, especially without a parachute. But the 210 HP Skyhawk flew off with far better takeoff and climb performance than the original POH said it should have, even with our hand carved wooden prop designed to reduce noise.

Vibration meters read normal, air/fuel ratios remained almost perfect, and the several temperature sensors throughout the engine remained as designed. Our redundant electronic fuel injection system worked seamlessly—restarting the windmilling engine within one second after intentionally failing the main ignition and fuel systems. The backup fuel pump also operated as designed, automatically and immediately returning fuel pressure to normal after pulling of the main pump circuit breaker. The alternator circuit produced enough power with just windmilling prop rotation to power the backup ignition system and restart the engine with both batteries off line. The aircraft flew just as any 172, and the absence of mixture and carb heat controls made it noticeably easier to operate.

After about 30 minutes of working through the first flight test plan, it seemed that not only could an experimental-certified hybrid work economically, it could work in lower noise and tailpipe emissions, all while producing better performance.

We continued to improve the design over the next two years to make the aircraft quieter, more efficient, safer, and cheaper to fly. We hired the same engineering firm that worked with the automotive manufacturers on the same EFI system that we use in our design, starting from scratch with blank engine controllers and custom calibration programming specific to the aircraft mission. We worked with certified propeller manufactures to develop even quieter and more efficient designs over the 200 hour flight test plan.

Currently, our 172 costs about 1/3 less to fly (fuel, oil, reserves) compared to the original engine. At current car gas prices, average cost is less than $19/hr, compared to the $62/hr with the original O-320 engine. Added features, such as the digital engine display that monitors over 75 engine parameters and alerts the pilot when something is out of the norm, further reduces workload and distractions. We added the ability to connect to the engine controller by WiFi for reading fault codes, engine logs, and performing remote troubleshooting and tuning to support the product from anywhere in the world.

That ain’t no Lycoming.

My daughter has logged steep turns, stalls, slow flight, and touch and goes, and I figure her private pilot aircraft cost should be south of $1,500 for about 60 hours when taking the check ride planned on her 17th birthday. We look forward to building time flying to air shows as soon as things return to pre-Covid norms, and exhibiting that there are practical alternatives out there for GA to reignite by thinking outside the certified box.

The project received a FAA G1 issue paper for an STC to install the engine on other 172s, but certification cost requires outside investor funding and we have not found the right partner yet. Certification brings a lot of product liability baggage as well, so simply operating a 172 or other certified piston aircraft in the experimental category may be the answer for many. Our FAA experimental operating limitations are about the same as an amateur-built aircraft, and we don’t plan on leasing it back, renting, chartering, or even landing at any class B airports, all of which are prohibited for experimentals. So, for a personal or equity based flying club (where club members own a fraction of the aircraft), there is little compromise, negatives of which are eclipsed by the 60% lower operating cost.

So, practical solutions to what ills GA may be more of a compromise between certified and experimental, rather than to simply continue waiting for one industry to come up with a solution. With just one engine design, we eliminated need for leaded gas, decreased pilot workload of managing archaic engine controls and monitoring gauges, all while increasing performance and reducing cost to a level that most would-be aviators can afford. It may not be a perfect solution, but aviation has a long history of design compromises to produce practical solutions.

Recent Posts

• The $20/hour Cessna 172 experiment—Update - October 31, 2022
• The $20 an hour Cessna 172 experiment - November 25, 2020

O.k. o.k. fine – here take my money! Uh… best of luck in getting someone to take the financial aspect under their wing. With as many 172’s flying out there this should be a no-brainer.

Interesting project. I have flown a diesel 182 a bit and find them to be pretty nice (although I still don’t like the smell of jet fuel). I am not so sure about your idea of operating these in clubs under experimental. Most experimental categories are much more restrictive than EAB.

Thank you, Mr. Stephen Phoenix for sharing this informative article….I’m interested in this or better conversion for my 1974 Piper Warrior II .!!!!!!!! Today, there are far better designed and more efficient engines that could move aviation to the next level. Finally, the Futuristic Technology of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Power Electric Engines is Unstopable…..!!!!! Aviation needs to move forward.!!!! Thank you.!!

The most modern IC engines out there are not much more advanced than the classic O-240 when it comes to the basic parts, but the electronics and fuel handling is pretty ancient compared to Jay’s engine.

Using hydrogen power in a used 172 would cost a fortune, if at all possible, and a newly-built hydrogen-powered one will not be cheap.

Let us hope someone helps Jay to get the manufacturing going!

I have no favorites over gas or diesel……..BUT, the object was to make flying cheaper and he seems to have accomplished that. I applaud that objective and reality and do hope it will have some affect on GA costs and prohibitive expenditures. We need a shot in the arm and nobody seems to be trying to make it more affordable. Even licensed pilots are all too aware of the restrictive costs for ownership and flying. We are killing ourselves over the God almighty dollar…..

$20/hour to fly a C172? No leaded fuel or emissions? I can use the same gas I put in my car costing 1/2 what my FBO charges for AVGAS ?……. What’s the catch? As far as reliability goes, I haven’t heard of a modern car breaking down in decades and few cars are maintained per the owners manual. Great article, we need some new thinking to resurrect GA. The piston fleet continues to dwindle away and be parted out, and new planes have the same old engines and performance but cost $400K! Are they selling the engine now? It would be great to buy on old Cessna or Piper with a worn-out or prop-strike engine and install it. I wish them the best….please keep us updated.

Engine reliability for automotive applications has reached a point of near-perfection. It’s impossible to argue otherwise.

The one caveat is that in an aviation application the engines would be doing doing more work, as they never get a chance to ‘coast’ — similar to a marine application but arguably more demanding, so that could impact reliability (or at least maintenance intervals).

But either way it’s a huge step up from what we’re currently dealing with.

This is the point of downrating. a 300HP auto engine could be de-rated to 200HP for aviation use and should eliminate any “over-stressing” concerns.

Your FBO is only at a multiple of 2x Mogas to100LL? Sweet. :)

Here in South Jersey (KVAY) has been charging $5.50 for an eon, then they reduced to $5.25, now they just graciously dropped it to $5.10. This is in an area where mogas is generally in the 2.05-2.15 range, some are down at 1.99.

What was the change in empty weight, before and after?

Not sure on final weight yet as currently working on using lighter weight composites in several areas, but expect about 130-150 Lb more with extra battery. Our target C172 empty operating weight after conversion is 1,680 lbs.

The weight increase can be cancelled out on older C172 models with lower max gross weight limits by riveting 3 stringers in tail (already installed on most airframes after L and M models), limiting flaps to 30 degrees, and using 6 ply tires. This upgrade has already been FAA approved for other STC’s for increasing EOW to 2,550 lbs with higher HP engines needed to meet minimum climb gradients.

There was an article typo on my part regarding operating cost: Cost is about 1/3 of original Lycoming cost, not 1/3 less. Currently our test C172 demonstrated cost is less than $19/HR with engine reserves, without including MOGAS off highway tax rebates. Using AVGAS obviously increases fuel cost, as well as periodic maintenance cost, and requires an engine run-up to burn spark plugs clean.

Thanks for the interest in our project everybody. We will post progress updates on our website http://www.corsairpower.com and plan to attend fly-ins next year.

I assume that you’re currently operating the aircraft under Experimental – R&D. Would you be willing to share the issued Operating Limitations for this aircraft?

In addition, will you be changing the ticket to a different use, such as Crew Training or Exhibition?

This second aircraft and has a multipurpose airworthiness certificate including crew training, R&D, exhibition and market survey. There’s more specifics on the website but the exhibition is about same limitations as amateur built. We had to operate in R&D for about 14 months for development and then to complete test plan and to fly in different ambient seasonal conditions.

The R&D category is quite restrictive and not a good choice for a private plane, has a max time between FAA inspections (not simply A&P) of a year, and not as easy to get as one would believe as you have to demonstrate you meet the requirements for a program…..you cannot get an Experimental certification simply because you want to install experimental components or reduce cost.

This is where experimental really makes sense for recreational and non-compensated training….. by offering a conversion with all the engineering, manuals, structural analysis, etc, complete and ready to bolt on, it makes sense for the average private aircraft owner.

It’s fair to say I am a newbie to flying and have been in and out of 172s for training for last year then COVID hit and put a hold-short on my progress. I agree with all the entire experience of stepping into an old 172 including the expense and have to say, it was a bit nerve-racking for me to look at the aging components of this plane, and can’t help wondering if this will stay together in flight.

I think it’s time for a refresh, no doubt! This is a cool concept and most of all disruptive.

Flying for $20/hr?? That’s crazy!! It’s no secret that the expense of learning how to fly is what prohibits a lot of people from getting their private pilots’ license…but this, this is a serious game changer!

What are the requirements for taking a certified airframe and turning it to experimental? I have owned a 172 and a Mooney (the 172 was an N model and I upgraded to a 180hp engine using an STC)…I always understood that the FAA took a very dim view on wanting to take certified airframes to experimental….I am currently biting nails waiting to see if the new Mooney ownership will un-orphan my 2008 legacy G1000 panel which has no upgrade path. They are saying they will support a future upgarde to the NXi panel but currently it is ridiculously expensive to upgrade it to WAAS using GIAs that will not be supported in the future and are no longer manufactured, and because the G1000 is part of the airworthiness certificate you can’t change … anything.

I have limited experience with GA, I have soloed in I believe to be a ’74 172. (‘Bama ended my financial ability before I could get my ticket)That said, I have also been an automotive machinist as well as an aerospace machinist making turbine engine parts, from nozzles to axial flow wheels. I have seen both sides (I retired from my automotive diagnostics business last year) and all I can say is that bureaucracy has severely limited light aircraft progress. The example given is obviously based on an inferior engine design. General Motors has always about making the most money with the least investment. That said I know that most automotive gas engines could easily surpass any GA aircraft engines in durability/weight/torque/horsepower and NVH for a given displacement. GA engines are just so unrefined that it’s laughable. Oh, and I forgot to mention my limited experience with GA pilots has also shown me that they treat their dinosaur engines with the same care most people give their lawn mower engines…like change the oil? WTH…it’s a lawn mower… Not trying to start a fight with anyone, just an outside observation, BTW early in my automotive machinist career I had a WW2 vet bring in his prop off of what I remember he said was a J-2 that he had nosed over and bent (at roughly 45 degrees about 6 inches from the tip) it was aluminum and he wanted me to “press it flat” in our press…I refused to do it for fear of it fracturing and causing a crash… well, he was buddies with the manager and I was told to take a break from the shop while they “fixed it!” I worried about that for 6 months waiting for the news to announce that someone had crashed in Glendale or Goodyear AZ. That’s where he was from.

It is not prohibited for an EAB aircraft to land at a Class B airfield as long as it is properly equipped.

Depends on the airfield. I do not believe you will be cleared into O’Hare (ORD) EVER unless it is an emergency.

The experimental world has been converting auto engines for years, as everybody knows, with varying degrees of success. Lately, one of the most successful has been Viking aircraft engines, which has a pretty good track record with their converted Honda Fit engines. They use the same idea of “marinization”, convert a dependable auto engine for aircraft use. I decided to buy one of their first Honda L15B Turbo engines for my Zenith 801. Being the first person to attach this engine to this particular airframe took a couple of years(in my spare time). During ground runs it was very smooth and quiet, but then I over-boosted it and melted a piston and destroyed several sparkplugs from detonation. It still ran though! Now my winter project is to remove it and replace it with a little newer L15B model, add some more monitors and remap the ECU. Such is the world of experimental aviation. In the meantime, I purchased a Zenith 701 with a ULPower 260i, a 4 stroke, 4 cylinder, horizontally opposed direct drive engine with FADEC, dual ignition and fuel injection. The aviation world is moving on from the 1930’s technology that has dominated for so long. Good luck, I wish you success in advancing aviation powerplant technology.

Jay, after reading this I hopped over to your website and found the page on converting to an experimental airframe so no response needed here unless you want to link to it for someone elses benefit…thanks!

Excellent and promising work, Jay. I, too, began flying at the same rates you mention and, after years of family commitments, am disillusioned at the cost to get back to flying.

There are two things missing from this summary of your project that may or should be included. 1) What is the real reason(s) that this design is not being adopted throughout the GA industry, and 2) What is the approximate cost (needed from investors) for the certification and “liability baggage” you mention?

Hi Jay, What is the link to your company? I just did a search for Corsair Aircraft Engine Company, but my search engine could not find it. Thank you.

https://corsairpower.com/

I have restoring a 1968 C150. I have gone the extra mile, dis assembly stripping repainting replacement of all plastic parts and new glass. A new interior and soon a new updated panel. The issue is the O200 @ 100 hp. I ve heard of the 150/150s but the fuel burn and range issues do not fit. I discovered that Cessna in conjunction with Reims in France produced with A O240A 130 hp rolls Royce engine but the engine is no longer in production. The IO 240 is in production and is used in the Diamond DA20. I have sought to put the IO240 into the 150 but have just run into a Bureaucratic wall. Any words of encouragement?

Hi Joe The FAA has been trying new ways to help out owners with orphaned components…. There’s an AC on the subject. REIMS likely built the plane under a licensing type agreement based on existing US model. I would contact a few DAR’s that could help find a way to install one of the other engines included in its type certificate. Good luck.

Wow is that cool! I haven’t followed in recent years, but I thought in general the obstacle to higher power applications was that aircraft engines were by design better able to run at consistently higher power settings, such as cruising for hours on end at 65% or 75% power. Curious how that applies in this case? Also the whole fuel vapor pressure thing for higher altitude ops? – Maybe that’s more of a lead vs unleaded issue than an engine issue…?

If you could strap a couple of 230 hp turbo-normalized auto engines onto a Twin Comanche you’d have an unbelievable machine…

So airline pilot balks at rental costs, then goes and spends obscene amount of money so his daughter can fly an experimental aircraft. Sounds about right.

Robert you don’t know Jay he is a lot more than an Airline Pilot – that is just one of his many accomplishments – This is a great breakthrough for GA Aircraft so yes I do agree with you it does sound about right!

I have to wonder if the true cost of the conversion has been factored in. In the end, is it really $20/hour? Or $220?

Also, this statement from a commenter: “As far as reliability goes, I haven’t heard of a modern car breaking down in decades.” Wow, you’re kidding, right? Modern cars break down all the time. In particular, having had a Subaru, I would NEVER trust one of those engines in an aircraft.

Without any scientific or statistical evidence, I have to agree with you. Based on the number of cars I see being towed by AAA and how busy car repair shops are – there are some concerns about using a car engine in an airplane… at least for me. Also, a look at any car’s online forum will reveal the vast number of problems owners have to endure. Some people will say that a statistical analysis will show tremendous reliability of car engines, but I’m not there yet.

I have been flying behind a semi-modern engine, a FADEC IOF240 (TCM) in a Liberty XL2 for some 15 years now. Yes – modern electronics do make an aircraft engine both more reliable as well as more efficient – my real world fuel burn is about 4.5 GPH. When I started flying, I assumed that, in short order, dependable solid-state electronic ignition with variable timing and mixture based on MAP, MAT, power setting, and RPM would become the norm. Not to be. It’s hard to fathom buying a new composite speedster with a cost nearing the stratospheric 1M range (when equipped as seen in the ads…) and find a mixture control, a prop control (or hidden version of same) and mags with fixed timing! My hope is that, ultimately, a hydrogen fuel cell will have the energy density to power light aviation in an economical and sustainable manner. In the meantime, the Corsair effort is a great step in the correct direction. (One final thought – I drove behind a Subaru Boxter engine for many hundreds of thousands of miles – with great dependability. Despite one of the above comments.)

Once a previously certified plane has an experimental certificate, does that open the window to using non-STC’ed avionics, too? Great to get rid of the 100-year-old technology engine. Even better if able replace the avionics / instruments with the lower cost radios and navigators and instruments that are common in the experimental fleet.

Jim Yes, once converted to EXP you can add non certified components such as avionics. Because aircraft was previously certified, work must be done or signed off by A&P.

Just yesterday, we removed a GM V6 from the used Vans RV6A we just bought. With only 400hrs this new engine had burned the valves out twice, despite upgrades. It was also dramatically heavier. The performance way less than Lyc.

So, we put on a Lyc 320. Electronic ignition will go on as well.

I know of several planes using Aluminum Chev corvette engines. They seem to have reliability and over-temp issues that have to be worked through.

Aircraft are unique when compared to cars and boats in that weight is a major consideration. Also, usually hard to just pull over when the engine fails.

Some day, someone will come up with a great solution…

The 172’s where i fly go for $150.00 an hour. You want a glass cockpit one? Set you back almost $200.00 an hour. For that $200.00 an hour price tag, i fly the 182 RG with steam guages.

When I returned to flying GA, I found some things did change. The C172 I learned a flew 20 years ago is not the same C172. The same can be said for the R22 helicopter I learned in. Yes, the price has doubled or even tripled in price. Many changes have been made to the aircraft, mostly due to lawsuits. What I found was the driving price increase was the insurance. This is included in the price of the new planes. Companies must charge ten times what it should cost because the companies know eventually they will be sued. Long ago, People were getting sued. Just not as much as now.

When I returned to flying GA, I found some things did change. The C172 I learned in and flew 20 years ago is not the same C172. The same can be said for the R22 helicopter I learned in. Yes, the price has doubled or even tripled in price. Many changes have been made to the aircraft, mostly due to lawsuits. What I found was the driving price increase was the insurance. This is included in the price of the new planes. Companies must charge ten times what it should cost because the companies know eventually they will be sued. Long ago, People were getting sued. Just not as much as now.

Very creative work on the engine!

Note that $3,500 in 1985 translates to $8,500 in 2020 with inflation, so your PPL was a bit less expensive back then, but not really that much of a difference.

Most of my cost of flying with the O-320 in my PA-28 is insurance, tie-down, and maintenance, not fuel or engine reserve, so, sadly, even if I cut those last two by 2/3 like you did, it would probably still be only a 10–15% hourly reduction in my total flying cost (at best).

Correct. A lot of people forget about inflation. When I learned to fly – many eons ago – the 172 cost me $12 / hour – wet. But it was still a lot of money for me then. And today there are many more options for spending one’s money. If someone wants to fly an aircraft with a $50,000 – $100,000 avionics package, someone has to pay for it… either the owner or the renter. Regarding the engine discussed in this article and it’s very low projected operating cost, I’m not sure how low maintenance costs will be for this type of engine when there will be relatively few people who can or will work on them. I applaud the creativity and effort, but I think it will be useful for a small number of users, which is fine.

Ethanol. I would be very hesitant to operate an aircraft on any fuel containing ethanol due to its effects on lines and seals and its poor ability to sit for long periods without deteriorating.

Ethanol would not be a problem if the fuel lines and seals were changed to be compatable with mogas – as they are in Rotax powered aircraft. I’m assuming that was an integral part of the conversion. I remember hearing explanations in private pilot ground school in the 1960s about why autogas was unsuitable for aviation uses. With all the mogas STCs around that turns out to be another old wive’s tale.

Let’s be clear that you are not building an Experimental/Amateur Built aircraft. You are modifying a certified aircraft and obtaining STCs from the FAA to support your efforts. Your aircraft’s operating airworthiness certificate may very well be Experimental/Restricted, but that is not the same as E/AB. In fact, the FAA never grants an E/AB airworthiness certificate to a modified version of a certified aircraft. If your 172 is not allowed in Class B airspace that is due to restrictions on the airworthiness certificate, probably placing the aircraft in the E/R category while they sort out your various STC applications.

Yes, let’s be clear. Never mentioned the c172 was E/AB which is impossible as it was previously CAR3 certified…. Not sure how you came to this conclusion. Only mentioned op limits about same (for exhibition cat), not that it was in E/AB….again, not sure how you so misunderstood. Also, didn’t mention anything about restricted from B airspace, only from landing in a class B airport itself, which is FAA national policy for experimentals with few exceptions. But thank you for clearing such matters up on our project.

In the last paragraph it says the need for” leaded gas is eliminated.” Should’nt it be “need for unleaded gas?” “

But what can I use the plane for? Vacation, visit friends, relatives? What constitutes “Exhibition?” Can I park it in the flight line with explanatory materials/signs etc and call that an exhibition? If I want to go on a long xc trip can I call that training? Is prior notice needed.

Experimental exhibition allows for proficiency, maintenance and flight training, with about same restrictions as a kit built aircraft (for small piston aircraft like the c172). Exhibition events are described in FAR 21, but essentially, any fly in event or even a mall opening (the regs are old), but there is no requirement to attend any events.

“Inverted pricing?” You simply neglected basic inflation. Your $45 per hour back in the 1980s is simply worth about $135 now. It’s not the industry – although most who lease aircraft on a small scale seem to be ignorant of basic business sense – but rather the simple effect of inflation.

I received my ppl in 1976. I think the 70’s and 80’s were the hay days of Gen Av. I built time in a Grumman Yankee for $10 / hr wet. Took my check ride in a Tiger for $20 / hr wet. The big disruptions I’ve seen is in GPS and Avionics. The rest is the same, including a closed system for fuel, fbo’s, mechanics, training, etc. Having new engine choices is better, and having new energy sources will be what’s needed for any future leap. I like the piloted drone looking aircraft.

I see nothing in the regulations that says no experimental aircraft can land and takeoff from a Class B airport…..I asked this question in the FB ATC forum and they agree that experiments can land at Class B if the PIC has a PPL license.

How do you see this affecting annual maintenance? The thought of tearing into my relatively simple Lycoming 0-320 already terrifies me as maintenance induced failures are most certainly real. Doing that to a modern engine with all the sensors and tighter tolerances seems particularly dangerous. I’m no mechanic and might be overthinking it…?

Thanks again for interest in our project. I’ll try to address some of the questions posted above.

RE encouragement for installing IO-240 engine on a C150: I am afraid I have little words of encouragement to offer as you will most likely need a STC for either part 23 or primary category or maybe future LSA regulations which will require considerable expense and grief. You could put it in to experimental for R&D but it’s very limiting. Exhibition would require specific reason to meet the requirements and lowering cost won’t meet it. The FAA does not like swapping certified to experimental and it will be difficult . Canada does have such a method for owners to do just this, and FAA is rewriting LSA rules that may make it easier but it’s likely years away. I am a former FAA designated engineering representative (DER) and familiar with the process and I felt like giving up more than once due to the bureaucracy. To do an aircraft swap like you plan would likely require an STC or converting to new/proposed LSA or even primary category, requiring substantial cost. I would start discussing it with a part 23 power plant DER…..but it will be far cheaper to simply buy a more ideal airplane…. and a new one at that.

RE why is an airline pilot griping about renting and doing this: good question, I wish I had a logical answer. My background as a DER and in marine engineering and challenge of improving suckered me into this. Also, believe it could be viable option to lower cost and help reignite GA.

RE fuel vapor concerns: AVGAS vs MOGAS properties have been a reoccurring question from the beginning to the point we added specific info on our website which should answer most questions. But essentially, ethanol is far more prone to vapor lock but is controlled within a pressurized fuel system which keeps vapors within liquid, as well as system constantly circulates fresh/cool fuel throughout system. The bigger concern when introducing ethanol fuel into airframes is ethanol’s solvent property which can break up old existing contaminants, degrade original seals (our kit includes new o rings and seals that are ethanol compatible) and clog filters, and it’s ability to absorb water which limits how long fuel can safely remain in tanks.

RE modern car reliability: I’m not sure how you can say modern cars break down all the time. Statistically, aircraft piston engine experience a failure about every 3,700 hrs. Modern automotive engines are designed to have less than a .5% failure in 200,000 miles. Modern cars do have issues indeed, but from my research when beginning the project, most do not cause engine failure and most were mostly electrical and emissions related. Also, few cars are maintained per recommendations, and nowhere near that required of an aircraft. Our design uses a redundant EFI system which further increases reliability, and flat rating the engine well below its rated limits increases reliability of the engine components.

RE installing experimental radios/avionics/equipment in experimental C172: yes, you can, but your experimental limitations will require navigation equipment meet certified TSO to use for flying IFR. It’s important to maybe note that because the now experimental aircraft was previously certified, part 43 is applicable and certified mechanics still must be used to service the aircraft as if still in certified category.

RE Experimental/AB statement: you are correct, near impossible to put a previously certified aircraft in to amateur built (AB), I never made any statement otherwise in regards to our experiment program. As far as referencing “E/R” which I expect means experimental -restricted category (restricted category is not an experimental category) we did not apply for any restricted category although our C172 could meet the restricted category requirement depending on operator’s mission. The reason our aircraft is prohibited from landing at a class B airport, is the standard issued experimental operating limitation issued to most experimental categories, not because of any FAA certification requirement- such aircraft are issued experimental cert specific to showing compliance.

RE what can I use the plane for under exhibition: the primary use is to exhibit the aircrafts unique features at gatherings and for movies/television media. However, it allows for pilot proficiency and maintenance flights…. as well as training if not compensated. We went into some detail on this topic on our website.

RE servicing the engine: it is a bit more complicated than a O-360, but not that much. The more complicated part is the electronic fuel injection system and related sensors. We are completing an app that allows your phone to connect directly to the engine control module capable of displaying real time data of over 100 parameters, display over 200 engine fault codes with specific troubleshooting trees and can connect remotely to qualified technicians that should curtail the technical learning curve. The engine is internally modified for the aircraft mission and our plan is to offer engine core swap for factory new block or a complete plug & play engine swap.

Hope this helps answer your questions. We added info to our site…which is a work in progress… a Q&A section details a lot of the questions asked here and some I will be adding as a result. Thanks again for all your interest, I’ll try to keep answering questions here promptly.

Keep up the good work!! I would anticipate the bureaucrats making it harder to convert a certified plane to experimental…however, I have a 1948 C-170 with a twisted left leg that I’d love to convert just as soon as I get the EA 81 Subaru into my Long wing Challenger but it’s already EAB so that’s easier.

Enlightening to say least! Sometimes I have a feeling the GA certified engine industry is gonna skip the last 50 years altogether and fall into the electric generation directly from the old and gold avgas days. Thanx for sharing! Even with inflation considered, there’s no sense in the prices we have today.

Jay, Can you explain the need for the PGD in the 172/PA28? It seems that a 376ci V8 would be able to provide the 160-200 HP at 2700 RPM and not need the gear drive and the 40-80 lb. associated with that gearbox. I’m sure there are thrust issues that would have to be addressed but gear reduction on aircraft has a sketchy history and a fairly significant efficiency penalty.

Gary- RE your question on need to use gear reduction. Our intent was to design an engine not just for the C172, but have the same basic design meet different other models as well, such as C182, C210, twin engines, etc.. with changing software and PGD gear ratios. So, although 180-200 HP didn’t really need the bear box, it does for most others above about 200 HP to prevent prop tips from exceeding efficient tip speeds.

However, automotive engines were not designed for stresses of direct drive, and props produce asymmetric loads on the drive shaft (due to load differentials on opposite blades) and efficient transfer of harmful vibrations and stresses directly to the engine. In a car, the rugged transmission essentially absorbs these stresses and provides an even load on the engine crank and its bearings.

There are other reasons as well, such as automotive engines drive shafts are at the bottom of the block, which does not allow for a large diameter prop as it would hit the ground. So for a V8 direct drive the engine would have to be mounted inverted so the prop hub is higher to allow prop ground clearance. This brings other engineering challenges as we found early on.

We considered and flew different gear boxes each with different issues. We ultimately worked with a well established airboat drive manufacturer and modified their proven design to meet our requirements and gear ratios that matched and optimized both prop and engine speeds.

A remarkable step in the direction that GA so desperately needs to move. The shocking expense of light GA is the insurmountable rampart barring so many from accessing their dreams and aspirations. The system itself that is predicted to be severely short of pilots in the future is the same system preventing denying accessibility to tomorrow’s airman.

Kudos to you and your willingness to work on this worthy project. However, as a career CFI, it frustrates me to hear people complain so much about cost, much less someone who is in a comfortable position to pay for the costs. Getting a PPL averages around $10,000; please compare that to a year of college or getting any kind of professional certification (such as welding). It’s very affordable in that context. We need to raise the costs if anything, since CFIs still get paid poorly and any price pressure is usually squeezed out of us instead of airplane costs. I’d like to see a PR campaign from AOPA around raising people’s expectations of flight training costs, rather than keeping costs down and continually putting downward pressure on CFI pay. To go along with that, the industry needs to provide low cost loans towards flight training to make the costs attainable for more people.

As a 30 year CFI, I get the point all too well. A good CFI can save a student thousands of dollars and really make a difference, especially for career bound pilots.

Thanks for sharing your efforts, Jay. Great seeing people doing things to help lower the costs of flying, and what a neat adventure to share with your daughter.

This is amazing, I’d love to see this become normal

The Porsche PFM engine failed because it used more fuel, was dramatically heavier, was less reliable, more complicated, more expensive and presented more cooling drag than the Lycoming it replaced.

It was in every way a worse aircraft engine than the Lycoming — which is pretty much the story of every automotive/marine conversion.

Seems like to me that a lot of the hurdles in the way of this very timely project are bureaucratic. I hate to sound unpatriotic, but perhaps its time to plant this seed on foreign soil where regulators are often more receptive to new ideas. We forget that the Wright brothers had to do the same, taking their Wright Flyer to France when it was -at least initially- very tepidly received in the US.

Thanks for sharing this story and returning to answer questions. Looking forward to seeing your display at OSH ’21. I hope you do a few seminars, too.

Thanks for this story. It’s really a shame that the manufacturers do not offer new modern engine retrofits. Legacy engine technology is primitive compared to the modern automobile engine as are the seats, interiors and just about everything else. Seems the the upgrade market would be greater than the new airplane market.

No offense Jay but your living in a fantasy world if you think “norms” of any kind are coming back. This is the great new world order, economic great reset planned over 60-70 yrs ago. Aviation will never return to where it was pre cov. Infact it’ll barely get back to 30-40% of what it was. And as more and more companies successfully test autonomous/AI, pilotless aircraft, the need for pilots will drop by 85% by 2024-26. By then it’ll be just one person upfront doing pretty much what they’re doing today, computer monitors. I was an old school pilot, steam gauges mixed with a little glass, which made pilots proficient. These all glass cockpits make pilots lazy and dangerous, they lose their hands-on skills too. There were numerous studies done in 2015 in the Bravo airspace that found pilots that hand flew the plane to final were much safer, more precise and focused vs those letting automation fly until final. I did the Airbus and Boeing thing and found the bus quieter and abitmote roomy in the front office but the Boeing was a much more REAL plane. The buses were always trying to kill us and controlling themselves often with to many systems to turn off to fully disconnect the autopilot, not so with a Boeing. And when Boeing tried to copy Bus, 73-Max happened and two fatal accidents and a CEO getting fined for concealment of aircraft safety was not enough. Also, farming out maintenance is a recipe for disaster.

I love your persistence in this project but with aviation going down the tubes and US Airlines hiring foreign pilots, many Chinese there’s no future for wannabe pilots. I don’t want people to get their hopes up when the end of aviation for humans is close at hand, 5-10 yrs at best, and nobody wants to fly the airlines anymore when flight attendants carry handcuffs, people are FORCED to wear a useless mask and the politics and greed is so thick on the corporate level and stressful. Being a part of the crew and or passenger use to be enjoyable, circa pre-2000 back to the mid 60’s. Now it’s a decrepid zoo. The technology is destroying humanity and many businesses right under the world’s noses. 4 billion people will be replaced by AI, drones and robots by 2025 and mass genocide with the soon to be forced vaccines is the future. So enjoy it while you can because it’s all coming to an end in under 5-6 yrs. I have heard what some of the globalist billionaires are pushing.

Is this Ted Kaczynski?

Flying a 2100 hr O-300 in my 1957 172, this does draw attention. I have UL 94 available for local flight in my mogas STC equipped bird, though the price advantage over a gas is now gone. I’ve flown from VPZ to the Gulf Coast 3 times, finding self serve fuel on the way. Where does this leave me, on cross country, when typically only 100LL is available, with an unleaded only car engine?

Engine is flex fuel rated and AVGAS is approved fuel…..POH calls for performing a before takeoff run up to clean plugs if running AVGAS. Further info on website.

$115-$125 per hour? In the UK you won’t even turn the ignition on for that money..

Who makes the gear boxes required to spin a 2,3,4, bladed propeller also the ECM how is it programed to feather a prop V8 or four cylinders great idea what took the enthusiast so long to realize it financially with in range of the do it selfer.Please send any information to my email address what is required to make the transition. Avant

Very interesting article, this time as well as the last time I read it!

Leave a Reply

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Cruise Checklist, Complete?
• Fate is STILL the hunter
• Friday photo: If pigs could fly
• IFR Insights with Spencer Suderman: Procedure Turn and RNAV Circling Approach
• Budget Buys and Early Bye-Bye’s

Email newsletter

Sign up for our free email newsletter, packed with tips, tricks and news for pilots.

Write for us!

Did you know that most of the articles at Air Facts are written by readers like you? You do not have to be Richard Collins or Ernest Gann – simply a GA pilot with a story you’d share with friends sitting in the hangar.

Here’s how to contribute.

Terms of Use

Spread Your Wings at AirVenture

About experimental / amateur-built aircraft.

• EAA Careers
• Community Outreach

Amateur-built aircraft are built by individuals and licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as “Experimental.”  The Experimental designation has been in existence for more than five decades.  It defines aircraft that are used for non-commercial, recreational purposes such as education or personal use.

Under FAA regulations, if an individual builds at least 51 percent of an aircraft, the aircraft is eligible to be registered in the amateur-built category.  They are available in kits (where some of the airplane is already fabricated), or plans (where the builder purchases or manufactures all the parts and assembles them).  These airplanes are also commonly known as “homebuilts,” for the obvious reason that many individuals construct these aircraft at home, often in their garages. 

Currently, more than 33,000 amateur-built/homebuilt aircraft are licensed by FAA. They represent proven aircraft designs that have been flown safely for many years.

Who constructs amateur-built/homebuilt aircraft?

People from all walks of life, including astronauts, airline pilots, military jet pilots, machinists, welders, professional people and others.

Why do they build them?

A variety of reasons:  a personal challenge, education, performance, or to invest “sweat equity” into the cost of an airplane. 

Costs range from under $10,000 to more than $100,000 based on desired performance characteristics and optional engine and avionics packages. By comparison, a new factory-built Cessna 172 costs more than $250,000. 

Many amateur-built/homebuilt aircraft utilize composite materials that help create airplanes that are lighter, faster and more fuel efficient than similar production aircraft.

How long does it take?

An average amateur-built/homebuilt aircraft will take between 1,000 and 3,000 hours to complete.  Some individuals build their airplane in less than a year; others may take a decade or more.

How are these aircraft regulated?

All amateur-built/homebuilt airplanes must be registered with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). These airplanes must be inspected by an FAA inspector or a designated inspector before an airworthiness certificate can be issued. 

This is a fairly rigorous process. The builder(s) must provide logs of when, where and how construction took place, along with supporting documents and photographs. If the aircraft passes this inspection, a pilot must fly between 25-40 hours of test flights in specific non-populated areas to make sure all components are operating properly. Only after that test time is flown may passengers be flown in the aircraft.

In addition, an amateur-built airplane is subject to condition inspections every 12 months, the same scrutiny required of small production aircraft.

Does a person have to be a licensed pilot to fly these airplanes?

Yes. Pilots of amateur-built/homebuilt aircraft must earn and maintain the same federal pilot training and ratings as those who fly factory-built aircraft such as Cessnas, Pipers, and Beechcrafts. They also must follow all appropriate federal regulations during each of their flights.

What does the term “Experimental” mean regarding a homebuilt airplane?

The term “Experimental” is actually a bit of a misnomer; it refers to the FAA category in which the airplane is registered, not the exclusivity or the use of the airplane. 

While there are a handful of homebuilt aircraft that are original designs, the vast majority of homebuilt airplanes are built using standardized, tried- and-true kits or plans that have been successfully constructed thousands of times. 

When the current homebuilt aircraft rules were first introduced in the early 1950s, there was difficulty finding a category where the finished aircraft could be registered. After all, the airplanes were not factory-built, such as Cessnas or Pipers, nor were they transport aircraft (airliners) or military aircraft. Federal officials saw the most practical category as Experimental, and created a new subcategory called “amateur-built.” 

FAA’s Experimental category also includes nearly 10 other subcategories, including aircraft used for crew training, air racing, and historic aircraft (such as World War II military aircraft) flown to air shows and exhibitions.

How safe are amateur-built/homebuilt aircraft?

Studies by FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) show that amateur-built/homebuilt aircraft have an accident rate less than one percentage point higher than the general aviation fleet.  In fact, the accident rate for amateur-built/homebuilt aircraft is dropping.  The total number of registered homebuilt aircraft has doubled since 1994, and the total hours flown have increased by 123 percent, while the total number of accidents has stayed virtually the same. 

Another good barometer of safety is insurance rates. Companies that insure both homebuilts and production aircraft charge about the same rates for owners of either type of airplane. That indicates a similar level of risk.

Are these aircraft the same as ultralights?

No. Ultralights are light, one-person flying machines that operate under a completely different set of federal regulations. All amateur-built/homebuilt aircraft are registered with the federal government in the same manner as production aircraft with corresponding “N-numbers” on the fuselage.

What does EAA do to support the amateur-built/homebuilt program?

EAA was founded in 1953 with a focus on amateur-built/homebuilt aircraft activities.  Since that time, the interests of EAA members have grown to include virtually all of aviation’s broad and dynamic spectrum.  The core of EAA activities continues to revolve around amateur-built/homebuilt activities. 

For more than 60 years, EAA has been educating builders and pilots so they may enhance the safety of their aircraft and their individual flying abilities. For instance, EAA technical counselors, who are experienced airplane builders, restorers and mechanics, volunteer their time to visit builders and review their projects.  EAA flight advisors help pilots evaluate their flying skills so they are well suited to flying this particular type of aircraft. In some cases, the evaluation will point toward more flight training before a pilot flies a newly built or restored airplane. 

EAA also offers a full range of instructional books and educational videotapes, as well as a full-time staff that provides information on specific aircraft so people can embark on a project suited to their individual needs and abilities.

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content

General Aviation News

Because flying is cool

FAA changes will revolutionize homebuilt flight testing

By General Aviation News Staff · April 3, 2021 ·

After years of hard work and advocacy by the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), the FAA has published  draft guidance  to implement an optional task-based Phase I program for Experimental Amateur-Built (E-AB) aircraft.

Under the program, once an aircraft completes a flight test plan that meets FAA standards, Phase I is complete.

The standard 25- or 40-hour flight test period for Phase I will remain an option for all E-AB, and Experimental Light-Sport (E-LSA) continues to carry a five-hour test period, according to EAA officials.

The program is part of an upcoming update to Advisory Circular (AC) 90-89B. Flight test programs do not need specific approval by the FAA, but the circular lays out certain required flight test points and requires the use of test cards for data collection in flight.

Users of the EAA Flight Test Manual should find it a straightforward way to complete the requirements of the task-based Phase I program, but anyone may draft a flight test plan that meets the FAA’s outline, including kit manufacturers and other experts, EAA officials explain.

Task-based Phase I ensures that every hour spent in flight testing is meaningful and is contributing to both validating the airworthiness of the aircraft and gathering the data necessary to build a detailed operating manual. This will benefit the builder in ensuring full exploration of the aircraft’s operating envelope, and it will benefit subsequent owners in having access to quality data on the aircraft. In exchange for this work, the aircraft will be released from Phase I when it is ready, not based on an arbitrary time requirement, according to EAA officials.

“This is the result of more than eight years of work by EAA and the FAA and we couldn’t be happier that it is now nearing completion,” said Tom Charpentier, EAA Government Relations Director. “This will be a true paradigm shift in E-AB flight testing.”

Task-based Phase I is another example of the EAA working collaboratively with the FAA to achieve a win-win solution that benefits the community and enhances safety. The groundwork for this change was laid by the EAA/FAA working group that created the Additional Pilot Program (AC 90-116), which allows another pilot into the cockpit to enhance safety during flight testing.

The Advisory Circular is in draft form and  comments will be accepted  through April 29, 2021.

Relevant language on Task-Based Phase I is housed in Chapter 1, Section 1 of the draft. The rest of the document contains advisory information on flight testing and is not part of the task-based program requirements, EAA officials note.

Share this story

• Share on Twitter Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Reddit Share on Reddit
• Share via Email Share via Email

Join 110,000 readers each month and get the latest news and entertainment from the world of general aviation direct to your inbox, daily. Sign up here .

Curious to know what fellow pilots think on random stories on the General Aviation News website? Click on our Recent Comments page to find out. Read our Comment Policy here .

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Plane crashes in Brazil’s Sao Paulo state, killing all 61 aboard, airline says

A plane with 61 people aboard crashed in a fiery wreck in a residential area of a city in Brazil’s Sao Paulo state Friday, the airline said, but it was not immediately clear how many people were injured or killed.

A plane with 62 people aboard crashed in a fiery wreck in a residential area of a city in Brazil’s Sao Paulo state Friday, the airline said, but it was not immediately clear how many people were injured or killed. (AP Video: Tatiana Pollastri)

This frame grab from video shows fire coming from a plane that crashed by a home in Vinhedo, Sao Paulo state, Brazil, Friday, Aug. 9, 2024. (Felipe Magalhaes Filho via AP)

• Copy Link copied

This frame grab from video shows wreckage from a plane that crashed by a home in Vinhedo, Sao Paulo state, Brazil, Friday, Aug. 9, 2024. (Felipe Magalhaes Filho via AP)

Locator map showing the departure, destination and crash sites of a Brazilian commercial airplane that crashed on Friday Aug. 9, 2024. (AP Digital Embed)

Police guard the gated community where a plane crashed in Vinhedo, Sao Paulo state, Brazil, Friday, Aug. 9, 2024. (AP Photo/Andre Penner)

A refrigerated truck from the fire department arrives at the gated community where a plane crashed in Vinhedo, Sao Paulo state, Brazil, Friday, Aug. 9, 2024. (AP Photo/Andre Penner)

Police patrol the street leading to the gated community where a plane crashed in Vinhedo, Sao Paulo state, Brazil, Friday, Aug. 9, 2024. (AP Photo/Andre Penner)

Police stand along the street leading to the gated community where a plane crashed in Vinhedo, Sao Paulo state, Brazil, Friday, Aug. 9, 2024. (AP Photo/Andre Penner)

Brigadier Marcelo Moreno, head of the National Air Accident Investigation Center, gives a press conference about the Vinhedo plane crash, at his headquarters in Brasilia, Brazil, Friday, Aug. 9, 2024. (AP Photo/Eraldo Peres)

Police vehicles used to carry bodies arrive at the gated community where a plane crashed in Vinhedo, Sao Paulo state, Brazil, Friday, Aug. 9, 2024. (AP Photo/Andre Penner)

VINHEDO, Brazil (AP) — A passenger plane crashed into a gated residential community in Brazil’s Sao Paulo state Friday, killing all 61 people aboard and leaving a smoldering wreck, officials and the airline said.

Officials did not say if anyone was killed on the ground in the neighborhood where the plane landed in the city of Vinhedo, about 80 kilometers (50 miles) northwest of the metropolis of Sao Paulo. But witnesses at the scene said there were no victims among local residents.

The airline Voepass said that its plane, an ATR 72 twin-engine turboprop, was headed for Sao Paulo’s international airport Guarulhos with 57 passengers and 4 crew members aboard when it crashed in Vinhedo. It provided a flight manifest with passenger names, but not their nationalities. A prior statement had said there were 58 passengers.

“The company regrets to inform that all 61 people on board flight 2283 died at the site,” Voepass said in a statement. “At this time, Voepass is prioritizing provision of unrestricted assistance to the victims’ families and effectively collaborating with authorities to determine the causes of the accident.”

It was the deadliest airline crash since January 2023, when 72 people died on board a Yeti Airlines plane in Nepal that stalled and crashed while making its landing approach. That plane also was an ATR 72, and the final report blamed pilot error.

At an event in southern Brazil, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva asked the crowd to stand and observe a minute of silence as he shared the news. Friday evening, he declared three days of mourning.

The state’s firefighters, military police and civil defense authority dispatched teams to the location. Sao Paulo’s public security secretary Guilherme Derrite spoke to reporters and confirmed that no survivors had been found. He also said the plane’s black box was recovered.

“I thought it was going to fall in our yard,” a resident and witness who gave her name only as Ana Lucia de Lima told reporters near the crash site. “It was scary, but thank God there were no victims among the locals. It seems that the 62 people inside the plane were the real victims, though.”

Parana state’s Gov. Ratinho Júnior told journalists in Vinhedo that many of the passengers were doctors from his state attending a seminar.

“They were people who were used to saving lives, and now they lost theirs in such tragic circumstances,” Júnior said, adding he had friends aboard. “It is a sad day.”

Video obtained from a witness by The Associated Press and verified shows at least two bodies strewn about flaming pieces of wreckage.

Brazilian television network GloboNews showed aerial footage of an area with smoke coming out of an obliterated plane fuselage. Additional footage on GloboNews earlier showed the plane plunging in a flat spin.

A report from television network Globo’s meteorological center said it “confirmed the possibility of the formation of ice in the region of Vinhedo,” and local media cited analysts pointing to icing as a potential cause for the crash.

But aviation expert Lito Sousa cautioned that meteorological conditions alone might not be enough to explain why the plane fell as it did.

“Analyzing an air crash just with images can lead to wrong conclusions about the causes,” Sousa told the AP by phone. “But we can see a plane with loss of support, no horizontal speed. In this flat spin condition, there’s no way to reclaim control of the plane.”

And Marcelo Moura, director of operations for Voepass, told reporters Friday night that, while there were forecasts for ice, they were within acceptable levels for the aircraft.

Likewise, Lt. Col. Carlos Henrique Baldi, of the Brazilian air force’s center for the investigation and prevention of air accidents, told reporters in a late afternoon press conference that it was still too early to confirm whether ice caused the accident.

The plane is “certified in several countries to fly in severe icing conditions, including in countries unlike ours, where the impact of ice is more significant,” said Baldi, who heads the center’s investigation division.

In an earlier statement, the center said that the plane’s pilots didn’t call for help nor say they were operating under adverse weather conditions.

In a separate statement, Brazil’s Federal Police said it already had begun its investigation, and had dispatched specialists in plane crashes and the identification of disaster victims.

Authorities began transferring the corpses to the morgue on Friday, and called on victims’ family members to bring any medical, X-ray and dental exams in order as a means to help identify the bodies.

French-Italian plane manufacturer ATR said in a statement that it had been informed that the accident involved its ATR 72-500 model, and said company specialists are “fully engaged to support both the investigation and the customer.”

The ATR 72 generally is used on shorter flights. The planes are built by a joint venture of Airbus in France and Italy’s Leonardo S.p.A. Crashes involving various models of the ATR 72 have resulted in 470 deaths going back to the 1990s, according to a database of the Aviation Safety Network.

The Capela neighborhood where the plane crashed Friday sits in a district far from the center of the prosperous city that’s home to 77,000 residents. It had departed from Cascavel, in Parana state.

Sá Pessoa reported from Guarulhos. AP videojournalist Tatiana Pollastri contributed from Vinhedo. AP writer David Koenig contributed from Dallas.

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Sustainability
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

A new approach to fine-tuning quantum materials

Press contact :.

Previous image Next image

Quantum materials — those with electronic properties that are governed by the principles of quantum mechanics, such as correlation and entanglement — can exhibit exotic behaviors under certain conditions, such as the ability to transmit electricity without resistance, known as superconductivity. However, in order to get the best performance out of these materials, they need to be properly tuned, in the same way that race cars require tuning as well. A team led by Mingda Li, an associate professor in MIT’s Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering (NSE), has demonstrated a new, ultra-precise way to tweak the characteristics of quantum materials, using a particular class of these materials, Weyl semimetals, as an example.

The new technique is not limited to Weyl semimetals. “We can use this method for any inorganic bulk material, and for thin films as well,” maintains NSE postdoc Manasi Mandal, one of two lead authors of an open-access paper — published recently in Applied Physics Reviews — that reported on the group’s findings.

The experiment described in the paper focused on a specific type of Weyl semimetal, a tantalum phosphide (TaP) crystal. Materials can be classified by their electrical properties: metals conduct electricity readily, whereas insulators impede the free flow of electrons. A semimetal lies somewhere in between. It can conduct electricity, but only in a narrow frequency band or channel. Weyl semimetals are part of a wider category of so-called topological materials that have certain distinctive features. For instance, they possess curious electronic structures — kinks or “singularities” called Weyl nodes, which are swirling patterns around a single point (configured in either a clockwise or counterclockwise direction) that resemble hair whorls or, more generally, vortices. The presence of Weyl nodes confers unusual, as well as useful, electrical properties. And a key advantage of topological materials is that their sought-after qualities can be preserved, or “topologically protected,” even when the material is disturbed.

“That’s a nice feature to have,” explains Abhijatmedhi Chotrattanapituk, a PhD student in MIT’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and the other lead author of the paper. “When you try to fabricate this kind of material, you don’t have to be exact. You can tolerate some imperfections, some level of uncertainty, and the material will still behave as expected.”

Like water in a dam

The “tuning” that needs to happen relates primarily to the Fermi level, which is the highest energy level occupied by electrons in a given physical system or material. Mandal and Chotrattanapituk suggest the following analogy: Consider a dam that can be filled with varying levels of water. One can raise that level by adding water or lower it by removing water. In the same way, one can adjust the Fermi level of a given material simply by adding or subtracting electrons.

To fine-tune the Fermi level of the Weyl semimetal, Li’s team did something similar, but instead of adding actual electrons, they added negative hydrogen ions (each consisting of a proton and two electrons) to the sample. The process of introducing a foreign particle, or defect, into the TaP crystal — in this case by substituting a hydrogen ion for a tantalum atom — is called doping. And when optimal doping is achieved, the Fermi level will coincide with the energy level of the Weyl nodes. That’s when the material’s desired quantum properties will be most fully realized.

For Weyl semimetals, the Fermi level is especially sensitive to doping. Unless that level is set close to the Weyl nodes, the material’s properties can diverge significantly from the ideal. The reason for this extreme sensitivity owes to the peculiar geometry of the Weyl node. If one were to think of the Fermi level as the water level in a reservoir, the reservoir in a Weyl semimetal is not shaped like a cylinder; it’s shaped like an hourglass, and the Weyl node is located at the narrowest point, or neck, of that hourglass. Adding too much or too little water would miss the neck entirely, just as adding too many or too few electrons to the semimetal would miss the node altogether.

Fire up the hydrogen

To reach the necessary precision, the researchers utilized MIT’s two-stage “Tandem” ion accelerator — located at the Center for Science and Technology with Accelerators and Radiation (CSTAR) — and buffeted the TaP sample with high-energy ions coming out of the powerful (1.7 million volt) accelerator beam. Hydrogen ions were chosen for this purpose because they are the smallest negative ions available and thus alter the material less than a much larger dopant would. “The use of advanced accelerator techniques allows for greater precision than was ever before possible, setting the Fermi level to milli-electron volt [thousandths of an electron volt] accuracy,” says Kevin Woller, the principal research scientist who leads the CSTAR lab. “Additionally, high-energy beams allow for the doping of bulk crystals beyond the limitations of thin films only a few tens of nanometers thick.”

The procedure, in other words, involves bombarding the sample with hydrogen ions until a sufficient number of electrons are taken in to make the Fermi level just right. The question is: how long do you run the accelerator, and how do you know when enough is enough? The point being that you want to tune the material until the Fermi level is neither too low nor too high.

“The longer you run the machine, the higher the Fermi level gets,” Chotrattanapituk says. “The difficulty is that we cannot measure the Fermi level while the sample is in the accelerator chamber.” The normal way to handle that would be to irradiate the sample for a certain amount of time, take it out, measure it, and then put it back in if the Fermi level is not high enough. “That can be practically impossible,” Mandal adds.

To streamline the protocol, the team has devised a theoretical model that first predicts how many electrons are needed to increase the Fermi level to the preferred level and translates that to the number of negative hydrogen ions that must be added to the sample. The model can then tell them how long the sample ought to be kept in the accelerator chamber.

The good news, Chotrattanapituk says, is that their simple model agrees within a factor of 2 with trusted conventional models that are much more computationally intensive and may require access to a supercomputer. The group’s main contributions are two-fold, he notes: offering a new, accelerator-based technique for precision doping and providing a theoretical model that can guide the experiment, telling researchers how much hydrogen should be added to the sample depending on the energy of the ion beam, the exposure time, and the size and thickness of the sample.

Fine things to come with fine-tuning

This could pave the way to a major practical advance, Mandal notes, because their approach can potentially bring the Fermi level of a sample to the requisite value in a matter of minutes — a task that, by conventional methods, has sometimes taken weeks without ever reaching the required degree of milli-eV precision.

Li believes that an accurate and convenient method for fine-tuning the Fermi level could have broad applicability. “When it comes to quantum materials, the Fermi level is practically everything,” he says. “Many of the effects and behaviors that we seek only manifest themselves when the Fermi level is at the right location.” With a well-adjusted Fermi level, for example, one could raise the critical temperature at which materials become superconducting. Thermoelectric materials, which convert temperature differences into an electrical voltage, similarly become more efficient when the Fermi level is set just right. Precision tuning might also play a helpful role in quantum computing.

Thomas Zac Ward, a senior scientist at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, offered a bullish assessment: “This work provides a new route for the experimental exploration of the critical, yet still poorly understand, behaviors of emerging materials. The ability to precisely control the Fermi level of a topological material is an important milestone that can help bring new quantum information and microelectronics device architectures to fruition.”

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• Quantum Measurement Group
• Plasma Science and Fusion Center
• Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
• Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering

Related Topics

• Nuclear science and engineering
• Materials science and engineering
• Superconductivity
• Quantum mechanics
• Electrical Engineering & Computer Science (eecs)

Related Articles

AI method radically speeds predictions of materials’ thermal properties

Propelling atomically layered magnets toward green computers

Researchers harness 2D magnetic materials for energy-efficient computing

Making more magnetism possible with topology

A cool advance in thermoelectric conversion

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

New open-source tool helps to detangle the brain

Read full story →

LLMs develop their own understanding of reality as their language abilities improve

Building bidirectional bridges

An implantable sensor could reverse opioid overdoses

Study: Rocks from Mars’ Jezero Crater, which likely predate life on Earth, contain signs of water

MIT researchers use large language models to flag problems in complex systems

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

All 61 people aboard plane killed in Brazil crash

An airplane carrying 57 passengers and four crew members crashed in Brazil on Friday, killing everyone on board, the airline operating the flight said.

The Voepass Linhas Aéreas flight took off from Cascavel and was headed to the São Paulo-Guarulhos International Airport when it crashed, according to an earlier statement from Voepass Linhas Aéreas.

 Cascavel is in the state of Paraná, southwest of São Paulo.

The airline confirmed Friday afternoon that all 61 people on board were killed. It had previously said the aircraft was carrying 62 people.

The airline released the names of the passengers and crew Friday evening.

The airline said it did not have any information on how the plane crashed.

At an event Friday, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva told a crowd about the crash, asking for a moment of silence, and noting that it appeared that everyone on board was killed.

The plane, flight 2283, fell in the city of Vinhedo, Voepass Linhas Aéreas said.

Response teams have been mobilized in the neighborhood where the plane crashed. The teams include firefighters, military police and the civil defense authority, the São Paulo government said in a post on X .

Firefighters completed battling the blaze from the crash site from earlier Friday afternoon, the government said in a later post on Friday.

The area was then released to investigators including a scientific police unit.

An area of fire and smoke was captured in footage by Brazil's TV GloboNews. Other footage from the outlet showed a plane spiraling while falling.

Because the plane, an ATR-72, was built in Europe, neither the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board nor the Federal Aviation Administration has jurisdiction over the crash, according to the U.S. agencies.

Brazil has a "robust" crash investigation team, the NTSB said.

Antonio Planas is a breaking news reporter for NBC News Digital. 

Advertisement

Tom Cruise Jumps Off Stadium Roof to Pass Baton to Los Angeles

Cruise, one of Hollywood’s most well-known movie stars, rappelled down into the Stade de France, and the crowd of Olympians went wild as Paris handed over to the next Summer Games, in Los Angeles.

• Share full article

By Alissa Wilkinson

• Aug. 11, 2024

No, it wasn’t a scene from “Mission: Impossible.” Tom Cruise, one of Hollywood’s most well-known movie stars, rappelled down into the Stade de France as H.E.R. played guitar, and the crowd of Olympians went wild as Paris handed over to the next Summer Games, in Los Angeles. He accepted the Olympic flag, shook a lot of hands, jumped on a motorcycle, and drove right out of the stadium and into prerecorded footage.

It’s hard to imagine a more apt melding of the Olympics’ awe-inducing athleticism and Hollywood’s showy sensibility than Cruise, who, at 62, still famously loves to perform as many of his own “Mission: Impossible” stunts as feasible in the film series. At the 2022 Cannes Film Festival , ahead of the release of “Top Gun: Maverick,” he was asked about his penchant for death-defying feats, which he might reasonably be expected to delegate to a stunt person. “No one asked Gene Kelly, ‘Why do you dance?’” he quipped.

Cruise’s carefully choreographed acrobatics (and selfies with athletes) were fit for this closing ceremony’s vibes — especially the showmanship behind them. The details of what exactly was going to happen had been kept quiet, although People reported that back in March he had filmed the segment in which he sky-dives to the iconic Hollywood sign. Nobody quite knew until now what he’d do on live television in Paris. But it’s Tom Cruise: He lives, and occasionally defies death, to give us a good time.

Alissa Wilkinson is a Times movie critic. She’s been writing about movies since 2005. More about Alissa Wilkinson

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

What is the difference between a standard airworthiness and a experimental airworthiness certificate?

What is an experimental certificate? Is it just a certificate that is for aircraft that were built experimentally such as home-built aircraft? What is the purpose of the certificate?

• experimental-aircraft
• airworthiness
• amateur-experimental

• $\begingroup$ An "Experimental Certificate" is a sub-category of a "Special Airworthiness Certificate." The other type of "Airworthiness Certificate" is a "Standard" Airworthiness Certificate. Read the answers below for more detailed information. $\endgroup$ –  user22445 Commented Jul 16, 2023 at 14:53

2 Answers 2

The FAA has two different classifications of Airworthiness Certificates:

• Standard Airworthiness Certificate; and
• Special Airworthiness Certificate. (There are several sub-categories, one of which is the Experimental category).

Here is FAA Order 8130.2J - Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft , which should be very helpful with respect to your questions. This FAA Order has not incorporated the combining of Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter categories into the "Normal" category of a Standard Airworthiness Certificate, as discussed in the Note below.

A Standard Airworthiness Certificate is issued for " Typed Certificated " aircraft in these categories:( Source Also, see the Note directly below with respect to Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter categories)

Note : "Normal" category aircraft certificated under 14 CFR Part 23 now include Utility, Acrobatic and Commuter aircraft as of August, 2017.

According to this change, as noted in the Federal Register ( source ), the FAA is ". . .replacing current prescriptive design requirements with performance-based airworthiness standards." Also, "This rule does not affect the category of existing airplanes, nor does it require the TCDS be revised or reformatted. Airplanes currently certified in the utility category for spin training retain that capability under this new rule. Furthermore, the airworthiness of the existing fleet will not be affected by this rule. " (emphasis is mine) ( source )

A Special Airworthiness Certificate has several sub-categories, one of which is Experimental . A Special Airworthiness Certificate in the Experimental category is issued for the following purposes (assuming that the issuance criteria are met): ( Source )

Also, the difference between a Standard Airworthiness Certificate and a Special Airworthiness certificate in the Experimental Category is noted in the information below: ( Source )

A special airworthiness certificate in the experimental category is issued to operate an aircraft that does not have a "type certificate" or does not conform to its type certificate and is in a condition for safe operation. Additionally, this certificate is issued to operate a primary category kit-built aircraft that was assembled without the supervision and quality control of the production certificate holder.

(emphasis is mine)

• 1 $\begingroup$ I agree... Didn't see that in the previous edit. $\endgroup$ –  Michael Hall Commented Jul 15, 2023 at 20:36
• 1 $\begingroup$ Utility, Aerobatic and Commuter are obsolete categories, as is the FAA web page referenced. All are now Normal with differing requirements based on size and speed. Size is indicated by levels 1-4 with passenger occupancy of 0-1, 2-6, 7-9 or 10-19 respectively. Speed is either low (less than or equal to 250kcas) or high. (more than 250kcas) $\endgroup$ –  Pilothead Commented Jul 15, 2023 at 21:16
• $\begingroup$ @Pilothead Good catch. I modified that part of my answer accordingly. Thanks $\endgroup$ –  user22445 Commented Jul 15, 2023 at 22:23

All certificated aircraft must be safe to fly. The difference between a type certified aircraft and a experimental certificated aircraft is in how this safety is demonstrated.

A type certificate and associated production certificate requires that all the engineering work and construction processes are compliant with safety regulations. This takes years of work and costs millions of dollars. Since the design and production processes have been shown to be compliant, it is assumed that the aircraft produced using these processes are also safe. Minimal flight testing (less than an hour) is needed before delivery to a customer.

An experimental certificate does just the opposite. No (FAA) scrutiny is applied to either the design or production of the aircraft. Instead, the completed aircraft has to undergo extensive flight testing before being deemed airworthy. Forty hours of flight in a defined, restricted area is required before being allowed leave. This allows people interested in aviation to build and fly aircraft without million dollar budgets.

A production aircraft can be sold to customers and used in money making businesses. An experimental aircraft is for personal use (this could also be limited use by a company) and may not be used for revenue generation. So if you want to (try to) make money with aircraft manufacturing you go production; if you do it for fun you go experimental amateur built.

• $\begingroup$ I believe the "Forty hours of flight in a defined, restricted area..." only applies to "Amateur-Built Aircraft." Most of the other sub-categories of "Experimental" Airworthiness Certificated aircraft are not subject to this requirement. $\endgroup$ –  user22445 Commented Jul 15, 2023 at 22:32
• $\begingroup$ @757toga Flight time applies to all "unproven" aircraft, amature built or not. See ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/… . The key is that if you don't certify the design and production, you have to test the result. No third option exists. $\endgroup$ –  Pilothead Commented Jul 16, 2023 at 1:47
• 1 $\begingroup$ 40 hours is defined for an Amateur Built aircraft. Not necessarily so for all other aircraft within the Experimental category. But, this is not an issue the OP is asking about. The OP wants to know the difference between Standard Airworthiness Cert and the sub-category (Experimental) of a Special Airworthiness Cert. $\endgroup$ –  user22445 Commented Jul 16, 2023 at 2:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged experimental-aircraft airworthiness amateur-experimental ..

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• We've made changes to our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy - July 2024
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• What was I thinking when I drew this diagram?
• How can the Word be God and be with God simultaneously without creating the meaning of two Gods?
• How can I obscure branding on the side of a pure white ceramic sink?
• Why are the perfect fifth and fourth called "perfect" in 12-ET when they differ by approximately 2 cents from just intonation?
• Language inconsistency in The Expanse
• Automotive Controller LDO Failures
• Would several years of appointment as a lecturer hurt you when you decide to go for a tenure-track position later on?
• Reference request for a proof of the fact that every congruence-permutable variety is semidegenerate
• Will I have to disclose traffic tickets to immigration (general)
• The minimal Anti-Sudoku
• Characterization of normed spaces based on violation of parallelogram law
• In zsh, annotate each line in a file to which both stdout and stderr have been redirected with the line's source (stdout or stderr)
• Excel subtract function
• How can one design earplugs so that they provide protection from loud noises, such as explosions or gunfire, while still allowing user to hear voices?
• Why would luck magic become obsolete in the modern era?
• Someone wants to pay me to be his texting buddy. How am I being scammed?
• A post-apocalyptic short story where very sick people from our future save people in our timeline that would be killed in plane crashes
• Would a manned Mars landing be possible with Apollo-era technology?
• WW2 Bombers continuing on one of 2 or 4 engines, how would that work?
• What counts as a pet?
• Do comets ever run out of water?
• How much air escapes into space every day, and how long before it makes Earth air pressure too low for humans to breathe?
• Shift right by half a trit
• Sums of X*Y chunks of the nonnegative integers

• Search forums

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

• Controlled Airspace
• Flight Following

Getting a loan on an experimental?

• Thread starter Keane
• Start date Jan 26, 2010

Pre-takeoff checklist

• Jan 26, 2010

Hi all- I recently took a test flight and decided to buy a completed 2001 Zodiac 601 HDS. It fits me almost perfectly, has a great panel, and is a fantastic flier. However, I need to finance a little more than 1/2 of it. I have great credit, and my dad has offered to cosign, so actually getting a loan should be easy. However, I cannot seem to find a bank that will finance on all but a small few experimental aircraft, let alone one that they see as 'light sport'. What options/banks do you guys know about?  

Touchdown! Greaser!

Keane said: Hi all- I recently took a test flight and decided to buy a completed 2001 Zodiac 601 HDS. It fits me almost perfectly, has a great panel, and is a fantastic flier. However, I need to finance a little more than 1/2 of it. I have great credit, and my dad has offered to cosign, so actually getting a loan should be easy. However, I cannot seem to find a bank that will finance on all but a small few experimental aircraft, let alone one that they see as 'light sport'. What options/banks do you guys know about? Click to expand...

You could try Dorr Aviation. I don't know if they loan on experimentals or not. But it wouldn't hurt to ask. ( www.dorraviation.com )  

www.airloan.com  

BTW are you aware of the major design issue affecting the Zodiac's. I think they have a fix but it's not cheap and since it addresses a potentially serious structural problem it needs to be done. Click to expand...

I'm not going to try to throw a wrench in your plans well ok I am. If you are serious about buying a Zodiac and are aware of the issues Lance ( gismo) mentioned above and are prepared to do what ever fix may be necessary to resolve the issues, you may want to contact Jay Maynard who is on this board. here is his profile and contact info http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/member.php?u=4707 Jay is the owner of the most beautiful and well equipped Zodiac I have ever seen and he wants ney needs to sell it. you may just end up with the nicest Zodiac out there at a great price.  

Taxi to Parking

AdamZ said: I'm not going to try to throw a wrench in your plans well ok I am. If you are serious about buying a Zodiac and are aware of the issues Lance ( gismo) mentioned above and are prepared to do what ever fix may be necessary to resolve the issues, you may want to contact Jay Maynard who is on this board. here is his profile and contact info http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/member.php?u=4707 Jay is the owner of the most beautiful and well equipped Zodiac I have ever seen and he wants ney needs to sell it. you may just end up with the nicest Zodiac out there at a great price. Click to expand...

Keane said: I'd already tried Airloan.com and Airfleet capital, both denied this plane. Click to expand...

I know of the issue, however it doesn't affect the HDS. The problem is with the 601 XL and 650, which have a significantly different wing design. Also, it doesn't have the aileron flutter that is reported on some, because it doesn't use the piano hinges on the ailerons. Click to expand...

gismo said: Did they say why? I'm wondering if they are avoiding all Zodiac's because of the problems with the 601 design. OK, I didn't realize this design was that different. Click to expand...

Bob Noel said: You could try Dorr Aviation. I don't know if they loan on experimentals or not. But it wouldn't hurt to ask. ( www.dorraviation.com ) Click to expand...

Cleared for Takeoff

• Jan 27, 2010

I got an email from Kevin that said they don't work with any banks that loan on this plane. BoA has an 'approved' list of Experimentals they loan on, so I figure NAFCO's must be the same way.  

Trapper John

Ejection handle pulled.

Keane said: I got an email from Kevin that said they don't work with any banks that loan on this plane. BoA has an 'approved' list of Experimentals they loan on, so I figure NAFCO's must be the same way. Click to expand...

Trapper John said: Would they be willing to give out a copy of "the list"? Trapper John Click to expand...

Pattern Altitude

There are other options for you to pick from. Experimental aircraft are hard to get financing for, so look at other items you can use as collateral. (i.e. Certificates of Deposit, Autos, 2nd mortgage, etc) I have had better luck using locally owned Banks, but I hate the BIG Corp Banks and will hide my money under a rock before I ever use them.  

Dean said: There are other options for you to pick from. Experimental aircraft are hard to get financing for, so look at other items you can use as collateral. (i.e. Certificates of Deposit, Autos, 2nd mortgage, etc) I have had better luck using locally owned Banks, but I hate the BIG Corp Banks and will hide my money under a rock before I ever use them. Click to expand...

Keane said: The only thing I could identify was my 401k (a loan against one is pretty interesting...), however it doesn't hit my credit report, which was one of the big advantages to this purchase. I contacted the seller and backed out (the sale was contingent on being able to get a loan on it anyway), so I'll just be renting for the future. I was really looking forward to 135 mph on 4 gph and 800 mile range, but it wasn't meant to be. The worst part is I was only trying to finance ~ 1/2 of the purchase price. I'll have to continue saving and look again in another year or two. Click to expand...

Ghery said: Look at the bright side. You'll get a raise this year. The focal budget is greater than 0. Click to expand...

Get the Reddit app

This community is for discussion among pilots, students, instructors and aviation professionals.

Talk me out of building an Experimental

Hey all. I'm a PPL SEL sitting at around 75 hours of time. Rookie numbers, I know. I'm really interested in doing a home built project, particularly the AeroMax by MiniMax. I've done some research through some past posts and have seen some good pros & cons for these experimentals but everyone's situations seem a bit different from mine.

The mission: I'm looking for a plane that I can just go out and have fun with on my own time. I'm not married so I don't need something that I could use to haul around a family. It would be used to enjoy my hobby of flying and not used to continue flight training. Basically a weekend flyer to go to grass strip fly ins and for exploring nature around my state.

I've never homebuilt an ultralight or experimental but I have always had some interest in tinkering with things. The AeroMax experimental has several options for a "quick build" where they send you all of the components pre fabricated (You would have to source your own engine, prop, instruments) which seems like it might be good for someone who doesn't really have a background or tools for doing fab work.

I really like the idea of being able to go at my own pace while piecing the plane together when my budget allows. I'm also planing on visiting with my local EAA chapter to get to know the crowd and see what they have to say. So with that said, I'm interested in what the sub thinks about this. Do I fit into the category of someone who really should pursue a experimental, or should I look for other options to fly as a hobby?

Edit: after speaking with people throughout both communities that I posted this on I have decided to go ahead and take the plunge into building the AeroMax. I decided to build from the ground up in order to ensure the build was exactly as I would like. My empannage kit should be in here in a few weeks!

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Choose a Reddit account to continue

61 killed after plane crashes in Brazil, officials say. Video shows aircraft plummeting.

A passenger plane crashed friday near são paulo brazil. video showed the aircraft plummeting to the ground. passengers who didn't make it onboard are stunned..

A regional plane carrying 61 people crashed Friday in a residential neighborhood in Brazil, killing all on board, the airline said, as emergency crews blanketed the area.

At a briefing Friday afternoon, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said, "I have to be the bearer of really bad news," and called for a minute of silence to honor those aboard the plane that crashed in Vinhedo, a city northwest of São Paulo. The cause of the crash was unknown, he said.

“It appears all have died,” Lula said.

In a social media post , Voepass, a regional airline based in São Paulo state, confirmed the crash of flight 2283. It said 57 passengers and four crew members were on board, all carrying Brazil-issued documents, and there were no survivors. An earlier statement said the plane was carrying 58 passengers.

Some of the passengers were doctors from Paraná heading to a seminar, Paraná Gov. Ratinho Júnior told journalists.

"These were people who were used to saving lives, and now they've lost theirs in such tragic circumstances," he said.

The plane departed from Cascavel, a Brazilian city near the country’s southern border with Paraguay and Argentina, and was headed to São Paulo's main international airport, in Guarulhos, Voepass said in its post.

FlightAware data indicated the plane, a twin-engine turboprop ATR-72, departed at 11:50 a.m. local time and was scheduled to land just before 2 p.m.

City officials in Valinhos, near Vinhedo, said one home in the local condominium complex was damaged but none of the residents were injured.

BREAKING: Voepass Flight 2283, a large passenger plane, crashes in Vinhedo, Brazil pic.twitter.com/wmpJLVYbB3 — BNO News (@BNONews) August 9, 2024

3 people refused entry to plane

Brazil's UOL news channel reported at least three passengers were refused entry to the plane before it took off from the city of Cascavel in the state of Parana.

"I missed my plane and the plane that I missed was the one that crashed. Did you see the news?" one of the lucky passengers, Adriano Silva de Assis, can be seen emotionally telling his daughter in a video posted on UOL and social media. "It's a good thing," Silva de Assis goes on to say. "I love you, I love you so much."

Brazilian media sources reported the passengers were initially angry with airline staff for refusing them entry to the flight.

UOL also interviewed a neighbor of the property where the plane crashed, who told the station he thought the pilot was attempting to divert it away from homes as it fell from the sky.

"I'm no expert, but it looked like the pilot wanted to miss the homes, so he flew into the gated community," gardener Gildo Pacheco told the station.

Pacheco said he heard loud noises coming from above and went outside where he saw the plane descending in a corkscrew pattern. He told his mother they should take cover in the basement but watched as the plane crashed into an adjacent neighborhood.

Pacheco then heard a loud explosion when the plane hit the ground, followed by another explosion a few minutes later.

Plane's black box recovered, officials say

The government of São Paulo state said on social media civil defense and public security officials mobilized in Vinhedo’s Capela neighborhood to respond to the crash. Firefighters were called about 1 p.m. local time and seven teams were immediately sent to the scene, the government’s post said.

Local hospitals were prepared to assist any patients.

“My solidarity to all victims and those affected by this tragedy,” São Paulo state Gov. Tarcísio Gomes de Freitas said in a social media post .

The Associated Press reported Brazilian officials closed the entrance to the residential neighborhood where the plane crashed.

Marcelo Moreno, who leads Brazil's aviation incident investigation center, CENIPA, cautioned in a news briefing it was still too early to determine the cause of the crash but shared an early glimpse into the investigation.

"From what we can tell so far, the aircraft did not reach out to traffic control reporting an emergency," Moreno said.

Voepass chief operations officer Marcel Moura said at a news briefing Friday that ice had been predicted at the altitudes the plane was flying at, but "within the acceptable range."

"But the plane is sensitive to ice, that could be a starting point," Moura added, noting the plane's de-icing system, along with the rest of the aircraft, had been deemed operational before takeoff.

Sao Paulo state official Guilherme Derrite said the plane's "black box" was recovered and it seemed to be intact.

The plane's manufacturer, ATR, released a statement Friday that said it was informed of the crash.

"Our first thoughts are with all the individuals affected by this event. The ATR specialists are fully engaged to support both the investigation and the customer," the company wrote.

A video shared by the site BNO news showed a plane, identified as Voepass Flight 2283, spinning out of control as it plunged behind a cluster of trees near houses, followed by a large plume of black smoke.

Nearby resident Daniel de Lima heard a loud noise before looking outside his condo in Vinhedo and saw the plane in a horizontal spiral.

"It was rotating, but it wasn't moving forward," he told Reuters. "Soon after, it fell out of the sky and exploded."

Footage posted on the news outlet UOL showed the airplane broken into pieces and still aflame between red tile roofs and trees in the Vinhedo neighborhood, about 50 miles northwest of São Paulo.

Plane may have stalled mid-air before tumbling down

Jaafar El-Awady, a professor of mechanical engineering at Johns Hopkins University, told USA TODAY he was stunned by videos showing how the plane tumbled from the sky.

“It’s not like it was flying down. It looks more like a rock was falling out of the sky,” El-Awady said, indicating the plane stalled mid-air. Confirming what happened and why, however, could take months or even years, depending on the root cause.

To maintain flight, an airplane must stay above a certain speed. If it drops below that threshold, the aircraft starts to fall, El-Awady said. Pilots are trained to maneuver out of a stall, but if a plane has suffered critical damage, such as wing or tail problems, coupled with a failing engine, the mission could be doomed.

Since the aircraft that crashed Friday had two engines, if just one failed and there was no other damage, El-Awady said the pilot should have still been able to fly and land.

As an aerospace engineer who champions the safety of air travel, such an incident hits home.

“We have a lot more to do to ensure that these incidents don’t happen again,” he said.

Prior airplane crashes in Brazil

According to the Aviation Safety Network, three of the deadliest airplane crashes in South America have occurred in Brazil. The network is a service of the Flight Safety Foundation, an international nonprofit focused on aviation safety research and advocacy.

On July 17, 2007, all 187 people aboard a commercial airplane died in a runway excursion at the São Paulo-Congonhas Airport. Twelve people on the ground were also killed in that crash, which sparked a fire that took hours to extinguish, according to a report by Brazil’s Aeronautical Accident Investigation and Prevention Center.  

Less than a year earlier, a domestic passenger flight and business jet collided mid-air, the Aviation Safety Network said. All 154 people aboard the Boeing 737 died, while the seven jet passengers survived.

And in the summer of 1982, in what the Aviation Safety Network said was the second worst accident that year, an airplane captain inadvertently descended far below 5,000 feet while he was distracted by bright city lights of Fortaleza, despite two altitude alerts and the co-pilot’s warning of mountains ahead, according to the network. The flight he was piloting struck a wooded mountainside at 1,950 feet. All 137 people aboard died.

Contributing: Reuters

• AOPA Foundation
• You Can Fly
• Air Safety Institute
• Legal & Medical
• AOPA Merchandise

• AOPA Credit Card
• Loan Calculator
• Piston Aircraft
• Turbine & Turbo Prop
• Business Aircraft
• Helicopter Finance

Experimental Aircraft

• Avionics Finance
• Flying Club Finance
• Flight Training Finance
• Request A Quote

Our lenders can provide financing for a wide array of experimental aircraft. 

The requirement is that there are at least 25 of the same make and model registered with the FAA. Our lenders will establish the loan amount of each experimental aircraft based on your experience, credit credentials of the applicant(s) and through valuation guides and/or by way of reviewing at least three comparable aircraft that are for sale in the United States.

In addition to the required financial documentation requested for the loan application process, we will need invoices from each provider that will be used, as well as an estimate of the total cost of the project.

If you are considering purchasing or building an experimental aircraft, please contact us for financing rates and terms.

If you are an experimental manufacturer looking to find financing for your airplane, please call 800.627.5263 and ask for  Adam Meredith, President of AOPA Aviation Finance, to discuss options.

faqs about financing your Experimental/LSAs

What will the lender need in order to determine if they can finance the experimental or not.

Lenders will need at least threecurrent market listings to determine value. Borrowers also have the option to order an appraisal at their own expense if market comps are not currently available. 

Lenders will also need to see a minimum of 25 of the make/model registered with the FAA.

Another way to get a lender comfortable with financing an experimental or LSA is to have the manufacturer and lender work together to develop a specific program for their aircraft. Please contact AAF directly if you are an experimental or LSA manufacturer and would like to speak with one of our lenders.

What terms can I expect?

Currently, our lenders are offering a maximum loan term of 20 years with rates between 4.99%-6.9%.

What does a typical down payment look like?

You can expect a minimum down payment of 15%.

Aircraft Loan Calculator

Application & Approval Process

Aircraft Finance and Ownership News

Request a rate quote.

*Required Fields

Personal Information

Aircraft information.