I want an RV-15!!

He passed away, unfortunately!

@@tylerp6375 Chris Heintz passed a couple of years ago, I just talked to Sebastian at AirVenture last week.

They are outstanding!

Interesting. Curious if anyone knows.

@@TakingOff The 70’s had lots of experimentals. I was a fan of Jim Bede’s designs, though my fav was not a slow-landing missionary-niche design. Same with Ken Rand’s 2-seater, which I briefly owned a partially constructed one of, before my then-future got a big self-administered dent (driving infraction, project was at the other end of the country so I gave it away). I had gone to Oshkosh in iirc ‘78 (met KR there, RIP), and don’t recall a paucity of high-wing slow ‘n low experimentals. I am also curious about the above mentioned plane.

An aircraft whose design has been evaluated, inspected, tested by the FAA, and has received an FAA-issued Type Certificate (TC) may be eligible to receive an FAA Form 8100-2 Standard Airworthiness Certificate if the Type Certificate allows, or some TC'd aircraft must be certified in other categories such as "Restricted" for Ag Aircraft. Any aircraft that has not gone through the FAA Type Certification process is grouped in the Special or Experimental category, such as Special Light Sport Aircraft. Special Light Sport Aircraft are required to meet an ASTM standard which has been accepted by the FAA. Any other aircraft eligible to receive an airworthiness certificate would receive an 8130-7 Special Airworthiness Certificate that identifies the aircraft's purpose, such as Restricted, Air Racing, Experimental Research & Development, Experimental Amateur Built, etc. A name other than "Experimental" may be more confidence-inspiring to some, but the purpose is to identify an aircraft that does not conform to an FAA Type Certificate approving that design. Having said all of this, many of the companies providing kits to a builder have engineered and produced a design or a kit that may very well exceed strength and safety parameters of Type Certified aircraft. They may very well be as good as, or better than, a TC'd aircraft. The difference is that the kit manufacturer has done their own in-house design engineering and testing, but they did not go through the time and expense of FAA Type Certification. This does allow them to provide a cheaper aircraft design or kit. Another consideration is that the aircraft was not completely built, flight tested, and certified under an FAA-issued Production Certificate for the production approval holder's FAA-approved procedures and quality control system.

@@grbockman1310yes I get that and it could be explained to someone who would be apprehensive about getting in to an aircraft labeled Experimental. However no explaining in the world will convince them any different even if it looked refined as a Cirrus that it is anymore safe than something that billy Bob put together down by the crick with scrap that was laying around, some duct tape, zip ties, and bubble gum. If you could picture such a contraption. However an Experimental aircraft is probably about all Ill ever be able to afford if that. More likely if I ever scrape the money together to get my license (certificate) I’ll have to rent when I want to go

You’re right 🧐👍

They’re much better than me.