As I understand the 51% only counts on things that makes an aircraft airworthy (main structures typically).
OK, now I understand better… So if you buy such a kit, at some stage you go to the factory to “supervise” the joining of the wing and fuselage halves which by some strange arithemetic counts as having done 51% of the work involved in building an aeroplane. Three months later, you return to collect your finished and painted and test-flown complex retractable pressurized de-iced turboprop. In a way that’s certainly better and safer than having these things really bulit by amateurs, on the other hand, one can understand why many other countries refuse to put these on their registers as amateur-built aircraft.
The thing is… once you establish a “homebuilt” regime (a way to sidestep ICAO certification requirements) then you have to accept that very few people will be able and willing to put in a genuine 51%. Even a very competent DIY person with a well equipped workshop would take many months full-time to build it. There are many specialist skills involved – even a very basic taildragger requires excellent TIG welding skills on the frame, whose tubing is pretty thin. On a composite – forget it.
So the 51% figure will always be a bit of a charade, otherwise the whole scene would never work.
We should be grateful that this is possible!
We should be grateful that this is possible!
i don’t know. The rules should be the same for everyone, everywhere (ICAO wide at least). Why do companies like Piper and Socata have to go (almost) bust over the certification process of their aeroplanes while others are allowed to bypass all that by allowing their customers to point a screwdriver in the direction of their aeroplane during two weeks?
Why do companies like Piper and Socata have to go (almost) bust over the certification process
That FAR23 is much too complicated for the lower end of the GA spectrum is now widely recognized, even within the FAA
Hence the Part 23 rewrite. But don’t expect it to advance quickly, given the recurring FAA budget problems.
Hence the Part 23 rewrite.
That will indeed be a good solution. Much better than “fake homebuilding” as seems to be allowed now.
That will indeed be a good solution. Much better than “fake homebuilding” as seems to be allowed now.
Yes, when it (or even if it) finally arrives.
In the meantime, experimental amateur built is the work around.
In the meantime, experimental amateur built is the work around.
But there is nothing experimental or amateur built about a Lancair Evolution. Over 50 nearly identical ones have been built by now and this is what is called “series production”. All built by professionals from the factory…
The largest GA plane maker today is Vans. In the US, the experimental market has completely killed the certified market.
If I was in the US, I’d fly an experimental for sure. In Europe, you can’t fly IFR cross border unless you are OK breaking the law.
Most Experimental Amateur Built aircraft in the US are built over a period of years, by the builder. The factory assist programs are only a very small slice of the market.
Yes, Van’s aircraft are being produced in greater volume than other GA designs worldwide.
Most Experimental Amateur Built aircraft in the US are built over a period of years, by the builder
That, however, takes a massive dedication, and I bet you the average age of that community goes up by precisely 1 year every year… And I’d like to think I have the ability and equipment to DIY build any kit plane no matter how complex, and I don’t mean 51%.
It’s great to have this concession, but it’s not really a way forward to support or save GA. In Europe, it’s an incredibly niche market because almost nobody is going to build a reasonably high performance aircraft when they cannot fly across countries and that in turn really benefits from IFR.
In the US, the experimental market has completely killed the certified market.
Not quite 
I am sure the vast majority of (even) Americans would not touch an Exp, ever. Otherwise, how would Cirrus have shifted several k new planes?
The Exp models are mostly really basic. I don’t for a moment want to knock say an RV (which is a very capable plane which significantly outperforms my TB20 and on significantly less juice) but the one I flew in didn’t need windows because you could see the ground through the gaps in the hull 
You certainly didn’t need ventilation, and the heater wouldn’t be of any use. The elevator trim linkage came off a week or two later… OK – that is just substandard build quality by that particular builder, but that alone does show one of the issues. And a lot of people do want the comfort etc which comes (cost effectively) only on certified models.
But there is nothing experimental or amateur built about a Lancair Evolution. Over 50 nearly identical ones have been built by now and this is what is called “series production”. All built by professionals from the factory…
Yes, but this is barely relevant in Europe, where the non ICAO status makes them of little utility value. And within the USA, they can do what they like and still retain some 99% of the value because flying outside the USA is not a common thing.
