05/06/2004 02:07:04 PM,
Serialize complete at 05/06/2004 02:07:04 PM
Hi All
I am interested in the US approach to aerobatic authorisation for the
Europa. From the discussions it does not seem to include any proof that
the
aeroplane is strong enough. From this side of the pond the theory seems
to
be that if you can demonstrate a manoeuvre in the first 40 hours without
ripping the wings off then all is ok. Am I missing some hidden point?
I did do some aeros with Pete Clark in G-YURO on the demo flight in
1992(?),
but subsequently discovered that the Europa would not be cleared in the
UK,
as I understood, because of differences in construction from the
demonstrator.
Pete
In the US, homebuilt aircraft do not require formal proof of structure,
just personal responsibility.
Unlike the PFA, the FAA does not require an Engineering Analysis in order
to install a cup holder.
In fact, a new builder's unique design for an aircraft can be certified
after inspection for construction
quality without any formal aerodynamic or structural analysis(NB, I don't
recommend this).
There is no subtle missing point, just a fundamental philosphical
difference in regulation.
It may well be that many in the UK would not consider building a homebuilt
in the US because they feel a
need for the PFA level of hand holding. I suspect however that many more
secretly yearn for much
less regulation, oversight and strangulation of initiative and progress.
BTW, I've seen at least one very early factory prototype and it was not
built with any superior
changes in technique from my XS(aside from the obvious), yet it had flown
in numerous airshows.
Also, at Lakeland with the factory demonstrator and company pilot, I
performed several aerobatic
maneuvers in 2001.
Each to their own preferences!
Cheers,
Ira, N224XS flying at last
|