A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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

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

Experimental complex...?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 14th 07, 07:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
soaringpilot2
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default Experimental complex...?

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

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

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

Cheers!
Ryan in Madison

  #2  
Old November 14th 07, 09:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Experimental complex...?

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

  #3  
Old November 15th 07, 12:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
BT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 995
Default Experimental complex...?

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

BT

"soaringpilot2" wrote in message
ps.com...
I've got what may be a dumb question (since I suspect the answer is
obvious), but here it goes:

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

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

Cheers!
Ryan in Madison



  #4  
Old November 15th 07, 01:35 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Dave S
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 406
Default Experimental complex...?

soaringpilot2 wrote:
I've got what may be a dumb question (since I suspect the answer is
obvious), but here it goes:

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

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

Cheers!
Ryan in Madison


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

The answer to that question is no.

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

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

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

Dave
  #5  
Old November 15th 07, 06:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Andrew Sarangan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 382
Default Experimental complex...?

On Nov 14, 2:55 pm, soaringpilot2 wrote:
I've got what may be a dumb question (since I suspect the answer is
obvious), but here it goes:

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

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

Cheers!
Ryan in Madison


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



  #6  
Old November 16th 07, 12:16 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
BT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 995
Default Experimental complex...?

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

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
...
On Nov 14, 2:55 pm, soaringpilot2 wrote:
I've got what may be a dumb question (since I suspect the answer is
obvious), but here it goes:

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

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

Cheers!
Ryan in Madison


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





  #7  
Old November 16th 07, 11:50 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
soaringpilot2
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default Experimental complex...?

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



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

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

-Ryan in Madison
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FADEC = complex Bob Gardner Piloting 237 November 29th 06 01:55 AM
Is this a Complex Plane? [email protected] Piloting 12 December 7th 05 03:19 AM
Engine with Complex History Mike Granby Owning 4 August 30th 04 02:48 AM
The "Complex" TAS calculation Arnold Pieper Soaring 2 December 14th 03 12:22 PM
Complex aircraft question Robert M. Gary Piloting 5 October 17th 03 12:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.