Testing Electric Propulsion Unit For a Light Airplane

[ErichKeane]

I think the disrupting part has been the amateur built and maintained aircraft. New avionics were pouring in that rivaled what the big guys had. And wasn't tens of thousands for an AM transceiver. I think this started to become an embarrassment to the FAA, as it has clearly demonstrated just how big of a millstone poorly done regulation can be.

I think it is just as much the industry as a whole got lazy. Everyone was happy flying 40 year old Cessnas/Mooneys, and the new planes were able to charge $500k because you had no other choice. The Experimental aircraft I think are cutting into their profits a whole bunch, so they not have the motivation to try to get better certified stuff out there.

Heck, even today a new C152 is something like $190k last I looked. You can build an RV12 for $60k, or buy a certified one for ~$120k that is 2x the plane.

The old manufacturers just got used to sending out the same crap year after year and investing nothing into the planes, knowing that flight schools were going to pay whatever they asked for the same old planes.

 

[wrat]

To put the FAA certification process in perspective, light aircraft are still commonly made such that the pilot manually controls the engine fuel/air mixture ratio. While this has some complications in conjunction with thinner air at higher altitude, and engine cooling at higher power, it is basically a certification issue. When’s the last time you saw a new car with a manual choke?

In fairness, there are lots of "upscale" planes touting gas engines with FI and no choke/mix controls. Trouble is, IMO, it belongs in every plane. But if your powerplant was designed in the 1930s, there is stays. And if the engine with that fuel delivery was Certified in the 1950s, ditto. Unless someone goes through the incredible task of re-designing and re-certifying a fuel delivery system. And even then, it's not for every engine, it's for THAT engine on THAT model.
There have been huge industry complaints about the slow movement of regulation. I'm not really complaining. The regs are written in blood, so they say. And they are.

 

[wrat]

Heck, even today a new C152 is something like $190k last I looked. You can build an RV12 for $60k, or buy a certified one for ~$120k that is 2x the plane.

The old manufacturers just got used to sending out the same crap year after year and investing nothing into the planes, knowing that flight schools were going to pay whatever they asked for the same old planes.

IMO, this is very unfair.
Those "old manufacturers" have to pass tests that the RV12 would fail for certain. Whether in the air or on the ground. Not even close.
Whether Dick VanGunsven or Brut Rutan or any other, it's EASY to look like an "innovator" or "revolutionary" when you don't have to be scrutinized. It's EASY to have the performance when you don't have to have the structure or the aerodynamics.
If all you gotta do is make if fly, there's any of a thousand designers that can do THAT.
These people have been in court hundreds of times and, of course, not been found guilty because of the "assumed risk" involved in amateur building.
Heck, Rutan got off the hook something like 28 times on the Long EZ alone simply because he drew the plans in such a way that it could NOT be constructed per plans. Then, in court, the construction is examined and found to not be "per plans" thus making it "some other aircraft". Can't hold him liable for a design that's not his, right?
Legal meets bureaucratic.

 

[ErichKeane]

IMO, this is very unfair.
Those "old manufacturers" have to pass tests that the RV12 would fail for certain. Whether in the air or on the ground. Not even close.
Whether Dick VanGunsven or Brut Rutan or any other, it's EASY to look like an "innovator" or "revolutionary" when you don't have to be scrutinized. It's EASY to have the performance when you don't have to have the structure or the aerodynamics.
If all you gotta do is make if fly, there's any of a thousand designers that can do THAT.
These people have been in court hundreds of times and, of course, not been found guilty because of the "assumed risk" involved in amateur building.
Heck, Rutan got off the hook something like 28 times on the Long EZ alone simply because he drew the plans in such a way that it could NOT be constructed per plans. Then, in court, the construction is examined and found to not be "per plans" thus making it "some other aircraft". Can't hold him liable for a design that's not his, right?
Legal meets bureaucratic.

The RV12 is available in a certified version now that is used in flight-training now. So that RV12 DID have to pass those same tests.

 

[wrat]

I think the disrupting part has been the amateur built and maintained aircraft. New avionics were pouring in that rivaled what the big guys had. And wasn't tens of thousands for an AM transceiver. I think this started to become an embarrassment to the FAA, as it has clearly demonstrated just how big of a millstone poorly done regulation can be.

Slightly related story:
Textron buys Beech Aircraft; already owns Cessna. The Employees Flying Clubs are combined. Wonderful, right? Not E X A C T L Y.
So there's this lineup of C-172s that have full glass Garmin cockpits. How cool is that? Well, first off, you gotta be "checked out" on their system which is basically a month of classes to find all the buttons and 4-deep menus (we're in a 172, remember).
So you got full GPS everything, moving maps, fuel management, plus all the bells and whistles.
Trouble is, from time-to-time, the system has to update, so you sit in the cockpit for upwards of a half-hour while the system downloads all new software BEFORE the engine will start. When does that happen? No one can really predict, it seems.
So why not grab an old steam gauge plane and go practice some touch-and-go pattern work? Sorry. They're gone.

 

[wrat]

The RV12 is available in a certified version now that is used in flight-training now. So that RV12 DID have to pass those same tests.

Not Certified. Not same tests.
Approved for SLSA , not Part 23.
Notice there are no ADs (Airworthiness Directives) on an RV12. Because it's not "airworthy" - because it's not Certified.
There are "Safety Directives" issued not by the FAA, but by Van's. Not for compliance to a Regulation, but to an arbitrary company standard.
Now, yes, Van's makes a nice plane. Very nice. My RV3 was REALLY fun.
And a solid argument can be made that a Part23 plane will not, and cannot, ever equal the nimble performance of any sport plane. I agree.
But the tradeoff is predictability in an unpredictable situation.
That's what the regs are for. It's not for when everything is working and flying right. They're for when something goes wrong.