On Jan 2, 11:07*am, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,









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

,

*Mark IV wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the plane can be flown outside the area.

Ron Wanttaja

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

I'm wonder how this would play

out:

a. Person designs a unique plane,

one of a kind, no other ones to

compare it to.

b. It is a single-seater.

c. It has unique control surfaces,

and only someone "trained" can

fly it.

d. Gear is retractable.

e. Propulsion is "rather mysterious".

Now, how would this plane be certified?

No one else can fly it. Much of the

technology is sealed beneath carbon

fiber. No one knows how fast it goes.

It is homebuilt. Builder is willing to

concede that it isn't lightsport.

Thank you all for your input, as amateur-built

is new to me. *Interesting note: *Shortly after

posting my question I ran into a very nice fellow

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

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

long before he was pulling photos out of his

wallet of the planes he built over the years, including

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

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

served in some capacity with Flight Certification

over the years and much information was shared

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

entry ports of observation to check for safety wires,

and other such basic requirements. The time will

have to be flown off the plane, and technically,

being experimental, it isn't supposed to be flown

over population centers.

So... you all are right.

Thanks.

---

Mark

My question:

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

nobody else can fly without special training?

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

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

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

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

---
Mark

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

Correct. (also I should have spelled it Horten)

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

It is semi-standard, but involves electromechanical
actuators and glass panel unique to this craft.

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