Few Observations

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:24:16 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:


And therein lies the rub. Insurance is run off of statistics. As a whole,
insurance says experimental is a bad risk, because some (a few) use
homedepote valves, and that will cause problems, (sometimes) and there goes
the risk up.

On the other hand, the well done experimentals you mentioned are safer (as
an individual case) than a spam can that has been pencil whipped, but
because fewer spam cans are poorly maintained in that manner, they are a
better risk. (as a whole category) The insurance company does not go out
and inspect each individual experimental, or each spam can.

Too bad they do not have the ability to inspect each one. That would be a
great incentive for change, and make insurance a much better bargain for the
safe builder. It would probably make general aviation a much safer "place",
too.

I agree on the statistics thing, but it's no different than your house
or car - you are in a group. A well built RV is in there with the
ultralight with a motorcycle engine, Home Depot cables, and Ace
hardware bolts. I seriously doubt that an insurance company has the
expertise to know how well an aircraft was built even if they could
look at each one. Something to think about is the great Steve Whitman
and his wife died because he used improper materials to cover his
aircraft and used hardware store stuff in the aileron hinges. The
reality is Steve was flying an un-airworthy aircraft because of the
way he built it. If you couldn't trust Steve to build one right, who
can you trust? Do you think an insurance company could tell he used
regular dope on Ceconite instead of what the Ceconite STC calls for?
I'm and A&P and IA and I couldn't. With any aircraft, you have to
trust the builder and maintainer. Those two things are generally
known on certified aircraft.

Someone here asked me why should I let insurance companies run my
life. It's very simple. I die in an RV and the wife gets zip - nada
from the life insurance company. I think that our society is becoming
so self-centered that we forget about all the folks around us and how
our actions effect them. It's a symptom of our feel-good mentality -
do it because it feels good to me. I'm sure, with enough money I could
get the coverage, but we have to balance all the factors and decide
what makes the most sense. I can rent a nice fast Mooney once in a
while for less all-up cost than building something comparable. Of
course, I didn't have the fun of building.

There are times during the interior completion of a new corporate
aircraft that we test fly them prior to the interior STC being issued.
They have EXPERIMENTAL plastered by the door, a ferry permit in the
holder, and my insurance doesn't cover me. During the flight I did
yesterday, the new Gulfstream G-550 I spent six hours flying around in
was in same group to my life insuranc carrier as a homebuilt. I took
the risk because of all the deep pockets involved. At least my wife
had someone other than Bob the first time builder to sue if I would
have become a smoking hole.

Don

Don Hammer wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:24:16 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:


During the flight I did
yesterday, the new Gulfstream G-550 I spent six hours flying around in
was in same group to my life insuranc carrier as a homebuilt. I took
the risk because of all the deep pockets involved. At least my wife
had someone other than Bob the first time builder to sue if I would
have become a smoking hole.

Don

Yes that is the right attitude lets think about sueing someone even if
it is not their fault. Yup thats the way to do it, I just love the fact
that we or our families can sue somone even if it is our own fault that
we created the smoking hole, Yup lets go after those "DEEP POCKETS"
people like you are what causes our insurance to be so high to start
with, you should not even be allowed to be around airplanes IMO.

"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...
I wonder how close the external configuration has to be? I mean, an
RV-8's external configuration is pretty close to an RV-4's. From 200
feet away I doubt anyone who hadn't built one could tell them apart.

For that matter, Vari-EZ's are coming up on 30 years. Long's look
like Vari's. Berkut's look like Longs.....

". . .which has the same external configuration as an aircraft built at
least 30 years ago. . ."

If Unca BOb were to answer this, I imagine he'd write, "What part of 'THE
SAME' don't you get???"

SAME adj.
1. Being the very one; identical: the same boat we rented before.
2. Similar in kind, quality, quantity, or degree.
3. Conforming in every detail: according to the same rules as before.
4. Being the one previously mentioned or indicated; aforesaid.

RIch "He wouldn't have added the smiley, though." S.

"Jerry Springer" wrote in message
...
Not really, that is just a category of aircraft. There is Experimental
homebuilt, Experimental Exhibition, and some others. Experimental does not
mean that they do not meet industry standards. Experimental Exhibition
aircraft could very well meet industry standards. While homebuilt aircraft
my not, that is not the reason for the word experimental.

Moreover, many EXPERIMENTAL homebuilt aircraft are not required to have such
a placard. Within a very few years, RV-3's and 4's will be in that genre.

Rich S.

"Cy Galley" wrote in message
news:ifMre.51056$_o.26541@attbi_s71...
When did this come about? When the lettering wears off?

It's in the F.A.R.'s, Cy. I carry a copy of the applicable sections in the
Emeraude for the express purpose of showing EAA judges that it is NOT
required on a homebuilt of a certain design date and/or one of the same
external configuration.

Look it up in F.A.R. 45.22 for the full wording. Here are the key sentences
with added emphasis:

45.22 Exhibition, antique, and other aircraft: Special rules.

(b) A small U.S.-registered aircraft built at least 30 years ago or a U.S.-
registered aircraft for which an experimental certificate has been issued
under Sec. 21.191(d) or 21.191(g) for operation as an exhibition aircraft or
as an amateur-built aircraft and which has the same external configuration
as an aircraft built at least 30 years ago may be operated *without* repeat
*without* displaying marks in accordance with Secs. 45.21 and 45.23 through
45.33 if:

(1) It displays in accordance with Sec. 45.21(c) marks at least 2 inches
high on each side of the fuselage or vertical tail surface consisting of the
Roman capital letter "N" followed by:
(i) The U.S. registration number of the aircraft; or
(ii) The symbol appropriate to the airworthiness certificate of the aircraft
("C", standard; "R", restricted; "L", limited; or "X", experimental)
followed by the U.S. registration number of the aircraft; and
(2) It displays no other mark that begins with the letter "N" anywhere on
the aircraft, unless it is the same mark that is displayed under paragraph
(b)(1) of this section.

The following section is included for your reference. Note that it is *not*
applicable under the foregoing section.

45.23 Display of marks; general.
(a) Each operator of an aircraft shall display on that aircraft marks
consisting of the Roman capital letter "N" (denoting United States
registration) followed by the registration number of the aircraft. Each
suffix letter used in the marks displayed must also be a Roman capital
letter.
(b) When marks that include only the Roman capital letter "N" and the
registration number are displayed on limited or restricted category aircraft
or experimental or provisionally certificated aircraft, the operator shall
also display on that aircraft near each entrance to the cabin or cockpit, in
letters not less than 2 inches nor more than 6 inches in height, the words
"limited," "restricted," "experimental," or "provisional airworthiness," as
the case may be.
[Doc. No. 8093, Amdt. 45-5, 33 FR 450, Jan. 12, 1968, as amended by Amdt.
45- 9, 42 FR 41102, Aug. 15, 1977]

I seem to remember at Oshkosh '99, they were celebrating the 25th.
anniversary of the first RV. That would make it 31 years ago. I'm sure Unca
BOb knows exactly when the RV-3 was released. The RV-4 can't be far behind.

Rich S.