Lately i've seen quite a few aircraft for sale on Barnstormers and other sites that started life certified but now carry experimental exhibition (EE) airworthiness certificates due to modifications. This is usually touted as a great benefit in the advertisement and I understand that it probably is from a maintenance or upgrade perspective just like EAB is. I haven't looked up the rules on EE in detail yet but it seems to me like folks are possibly trying to use EE to skirt the STC process.

What would the drawbacks be to purchasing such an aircraft? Anyone here ever owned or operated an EE?

A couple of examples.

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1261835_Cessna+185+tail+wheel+conversn.html

http://www.quietaviation.com/

It was always my understanding that those were only to be issued for R&D and after the product was tested, the aircraft is to return to a standard certificate. I don't think the FAA intended for it to remain as an experimental indefinitely with no further annual inspections completed. (condition inspections for experimentals dont require an IA). I'd stay away.....and I'm not the only one thinking that, the 170 on BS has been on there for over a year I believe

FAR 21.191

(d) Exhibition. Exhibiting the aircraft's flight capabilities, performance, or unusual characteristics at air shows, motion picture, television, and similar productions, and the maintenance of exhibition flight proficiency, including (for persons exhibiting aircraft) flying to and from such air shows and productions.

Exhibition aircraft have additional requirements regarding flights. To maintain the cert, they have to be displayed a certain number of times per year, which you have to submit to your local FSDO your schedule for the year. You are also required to inform other FSDOs when the plane is transiting through a district it’s not based in. I was told by one FSDO, that like pot in the previous administration, those were rules they weren’t spending manpower on enforcing, but nevertheless, the rules are there. My conversation came up when importing a Canadian home built, since Canada has slightly different rules regarding the 51% rule than the US. In the end, thankfully, I was able to get a homebuild cert and not have to mess with exhibition

Guy I know used to own a Yak 52, same exp-exh status.
Every year, he turned in a list of all the fly-ins etc he thought he might possibly attend.
Also put in something about doing a lot of proficiency flights.
PITA but he pretty much flew it whenever he wanted, no problem.

I had a phone conversation with the Seattle FSDO a few weeks ago regarding that exact issue. I was looking at an IAR823, also experimental exhibition. My exact question was to know if I can go on hamburger flights and be in compliance with the FAR’s. His short answer was no but there is no effort for enforcement either. I think the bottom line is that all of us are on the fuzzy side of some rule some of the time, it’s all a spectrum issue.

flyingzebra wrote:I had a phone conversation with the Seattle FSDO a few weeks ago regarding that exact issue. I was looking at an IAR823, also experimental exhibition. My exact question was to know if I can go on hamburger flights and be in compliance with the FAR’s. His short answer was no but there is no effort for enforcement either. I think the bottom line is that all of us are on the fuzzy side of some rule some of the time, it’s all a spectrum issue.

All quite true, but like a lot of things, it may work right up till it doesn’t. Go for a burger, brake locks up, ground loop, maybe take out a parked plane, and it could get really ugly.

And, if that burger spot wasn’t listed on your annual itinerary, your insurance company may not be happy either.

But if nothing bad happens......

MTV

^^^^^^^^^Yup, what MTV said ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You never have a problem until you have a problem. Like I say, "start at the hearing and work your way backwards" , this works in a lot of aspects of aviation as well as other things in life.

As far as "hamburger flights" in in exhibition class, weren't you doing "proficiency landings at that airport? You weren't actually there for a burger, sounds good to me.

I'm in full agreement with the "works until it don't" POV and decided in that direction. I do believe that sometimes there's some FAR somewhere that I'm not in full compliance with, but I definitely prefer to stay as far toward the lighter gray end of the spectrum as possible and ruled out the IAR for the reason. I have zero judgement of anybody else but that's where my comfort zone is. I like to wander and don't ever want to have to be having to make excuses for my choices.
I was super fortunate to do all of my flight training as a Civil Air Patrol member at the NAS Whidbey flying school. Not only was the peer group amazing but they didn't need me or my money at all. I always felt completely welcome there but the expectation was also always very clear, do it right or go home. That always seems like a worthy goal and there's been more than one day in my flying career that realizing the one option wasn't possible, I just went home. Little thread drift there, sorry, sorta.

mtv wrote:

flyingzebra wrote:I had a phone conversation with the Seattle FSDO a few weeks ago regarding that exact issue. I was looking at an IAR823, also experimental exhibition. My exact question was to know if I can go on hamburger flights and be in compliance with the FAR’s. His short answer was no but there is no effort for enforcement either. I think the bottom line is that all of us are on the fuzzy side of some rule some of the time, it’s all a spectrum issue.

All quite true, but like a lot of things, it may work right up till it doesn’t. Go for a burger, brake locks up, ground loop, maybe take out a parked plane, and it could get really ugly.

And, if that burger spot wasn’t listed on your annual itinerary, your insurance company may not be happy either.

But if nothing bad happens......

MTV

But if nothing bad happens then who needs insurance at all, or an annual, or a medical or a biannual or even a plots licence. Been doing this all wrong for years. Just buy what you want and fly where you want. But stay out of Mexico

It’s an end run around a flawed system. One where a thousand airplanes wear GY26 tires but you have to wait years or forever to get permission for yours. Or the wakeful nights spent drenched in sweat thinking that you really should have bought that $400 LED PAR36 landinglight instead of the $40 equivalent. STC process and cost, think of the equivalent for apps on your iPhone: now $0-5, where thirty years ago any equivalent software cost hundreds. Motivation is to bring the cost down, and all reasonable minds and rigorous analysis know whether it is “safe” - airplane doesn’t know if it has a piece of paper in the logbook or not. No, we’ll run scared and paralyzed from fear of litigation, and continue the downward spiral of GA.

I really have no problem with EE!! Have a couple of birds with this, Only had 1 question, but proficiency and training the ground crew has always worked. Why I can afford to fly the Broussard instead of a Beaver about # 300,000 cheaper!