wrote:

Experimental Amateur Built has, to an extent, become a simple and
baldfaced dodge around type certification. When 90% of builders are
building a few types of 49% done kits on a cookie cutter basis, it's
time to re-evaluate "the system". Experimental should be for
experimenters: people like Van Grunsven should be told to get a type
certificate, tool up, and build a finished airplane.

I can't comment on the quick-build kits, but Van's standard kits do
require you to learn how to build an airplane.

As for experimentals being only for experimenters, I guess that's one
opinion. According to the FAA document that you have to provide for
the cert., the builder is building the airplane as an educational
experience. If you get around to finishing said homebuilt, it's most
likely that you got an education. I don't think the FAA should limit
experimentals only to folks who are trying to do something that hasn't
been done before. Many of the folks that do go on to pioneer new
designs, first build someone elses "cookie cutter" homebuilt. Where
are these pioneers supposed to come from?

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)