I am no aircraft designer (just a "normal engineer") but that article URL posted by MH above really resonates with what I have seen, over and over, just watching the "homebuilt/light sports" (using that term loosely) scene from the sidelines.
Also I have always felt the certification costs argument is largely false. If you know the process, then you know what testing is needed, and you can get it done. It doesn't cost hundreds of millions as has been often claimed.
There has also been a lot of obviously fraudulent "flight testing", with flutter issues and stuff like that.
You don't get something for nothing, and only so much weight can be removed by not putting in the fancy interior trim which you get on a $400k plane. In-flight breakups are a pretty common feature of the accident reports.
I see a lot of justifiable frustration in the EU with FAA STCs not being accepted by EASA, but what is the situation with PMA parts?
This is gradually changing. FAA STCs are not accepted directly by anybody except Australia, AFAIK. But the data used to get them (e.g. DER data) is now supposed to be acceptable to EASA, for an EASA STC. One avionics installer confirmed this to me the other day. There is a lot of talk about PMA parts not being acceptable but in reality everybody uses them because GA would grind to a halt otherwise.
But looking at the wider picture, the "common" stuff now has EASA STCs. And most stuff in the "indicating instrument" category is an EASA Minor mod anyway.
My own concern which remains is that the most reputable US engine shops, or instrument overhaulers, do not have EASA approvals and are never likely to have, so their output can go only into an N-reg. EASA approvals are thus used to shield all kinds of poorly performing organisations (ISO9000 anybody?).
But that's OK because EASA has not introduced any long term parking limits on foreign reg planes. It "merely" requires the pilots (subject to conditions) to have EASA pilot papers, but they would need those anyway to get equivalent privileges in an EASA-reg plane.
Well, Silvaire, the 200kts/5GHP/4Person wonder won't be a Cub-class design, mentioned by Ed Swearingen, would it?
Take a look at a Wittman Tailwind some time :-) I've flown in one at 207 mph, on an IO-320 burning about 8 GPH. Wittman was a non-degreed genius with a huge amount of experience before he designed the Tailwind in the late 40's. Its like a Cub, only simpler.
I am a degreed "normal" engineer myself, with 25 years managing multidisciplinary R&D work with budgets up to about $30 million per project. Along the way, I did learn a little bit about both the benefits and limitations of education (and government certification for that matter) :-)
I believe Van's education is in civil engineering or something, not aircraft. He's really good.
There is a lot of talk about PMA parts not being acceptable but in reality everybody uses them because GA would grind to a halt otherwise.
I can surely understand that, and for brake pads etc, its obviously never going to be obvious either way. A more specific question would be whether people can use PMA cylinders etc to overhaul engines for 'EASA aircraft'? Without PMA engine parts, periodic engine overhaul would be a lot more expensive.
That must be engine type dependent, because the best US engine shop I know (Barrett Precision) says Lyco cylinders are the best.
But I don't know the EASA answer... I would ask an EASA approved US engine shop (Pen Yan, etc) about what they do. Obviously we are talking about certified engines here.
Most women won't be seen dead (sorry; an English expression) in most GA planes, which makes the activity rather "specialised"...>
Suppose that puts me well in the minority of women as I am only too happy to fly any GA plane.....but then definitely "special" :)
