What's the latest on the Production Certificates for the Calidus?

David Meyer

Junior Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
18
Location
Cookeville, TN.
When the type certificates were issued last year, the Production Certificates were expected to follow in October 2017. I've not read any more news since.
 
Rumors from the FAA only a month after the certificate was issued is there is no short process for the production certificate and it will take time and lots of money.
 
I do not know about the PC in this specific case and also about the PC in case of this type of Restricted Category Certification, not Part 23 or 27. In general though Production Certificate is where FAA is very heavy on. Its relatively easy to work with an ACO and in time get the Type Certificate but when it comes to PC in the Type Certificated world, Production Cert takes 5 times the cost of TC and much more work. For example, in airplane Part 23 certification FAA's stats say that average Part 23 TC costs $8 million and PC for the same costs $42 million. This is exactly why it was mandated by Congress via GARA (General Aviation Revitalization Act) to FAA to develop ASTM F44 as an alternate process to simply compliance for airplane certification, so Part 23 does not need to be used and production certificate is based on Industry Consensus standards. F44 is only being finished for airplanes right now though.
Having said all that Calidus is not in that realm. Its a much simpler certificate based on criteria basically agreed upon between FAA and the manufacturer and suggested initially by the manufacturer (BCAR Sec T with a few changes) and they were allowed to use engineering reports from the UK which usually is not allowed unless it has a true Type Certificate (which it does not) so their process should be way less and much more lenient. So perhaps that will allow them to get it without big expenditure. I do not see a business case of going through the investment and hassle.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the details Abid.


fara;n1134393 said:
... I do not see a business case of going through the investment and hassle.
Yes the only benefit I can think of is commercial use so they can be rented to solo in and we have so few instructors.

Flying clubs rentals which you can accomplish with co-ownership agreements of EAB gyros so not much help there.

And used as a cheaper alternative to helicopters being able to charge for commercial use.

However drones are replacing helicopters for many of those mission so missed are window of being a cheaper alternative.

So that leaves the tourist market, pig etc hunting, mission where you carry two and need more maneuverability and lower speeds than a FW.

As Abid said that is not a very large market to ever pay back your investment and it will make the cost of those certified go up.

The cost of insurance will be the same because that a factor of the number of gyros in the insurance pool/group. Which is less than 2000 maybe 1000 but very few compared to a used FW fleet over 200K.
 
Last edited:
The thing that I am looking at, is the possibility of when these machines come on line it may effect the ability of the instructors to continue with there LODA, as one of the reasons for having a LODA would no longer exists.
 
In my opinion it would be a large benefit to be able to rent a gyroplane.

It is my observation pilots get excited that a Sport Pilot, Rotorcraft-Gyroplane add on is so inexpensive until they wonder what they can do with it. Unless they purchase a gyroplane there is not much they can do with a Sport Pilot, Rotorcraft-Gyroplane rating.

I am headed toward ROTOR now in a rental car and it would be nice to rent a gyroplane there. Unfortunately the operating limitations for experimental amateur built aircraft prohibit anything that is not for recreation or education so I will mostly be interacting with friends and a fly in becomes a drive in for me.
 
JEFF TIPTON;n1134447 said:
The thing that I am looking at, is the possibility of when these machines come on line it may effect the ability of the instructors to continue with there LODA, as one of the reasons for having a LODA would no longer exists.

FAA will get sued big time if that happened. If there is a single manufacturer and a couple of models that does not constitute competition and will choke the industry.
In trikes for instance when the transition from fat ultralights that BFIs were using to SLSA trikes happened, FAA tried to restrict LODAs for fat ultralight trikes for BFIs who converted to SP-CFIs. That eventually had to be rolled back and shot down. Gyroplanes: FAA does not even allow SLSA so they are encumbering the industry more than trikes which were included in SLSA. Think about the field day the same lawyers will have with the same FAA lawyers that they dealt with on trikes for the same issue.
There would have to be 5 or 6 manufacturers who commit 6 to 10 models of different configurations to Primary Category TC to get to what you are saying and even then its questionable and a long transition period and grandfathering would have to be allowed.
There have been type certificated gyroplanes in the 60's and 70's and they remained viable in the 90's. FAA was not able to force all gyroplane training in the 90's to them.
 
Vance;n1134450 said:
In my opinion it would be a large benefit to be able to rent a gyroplane.

It is my observation pilots get excited that a Sport Pilot, Rotorcraft-Gyroplane add on is so inexpensive until they wonder what they can do with it. Unless they purchase a gyroplane there is not much they can do with a Sport Pilot, Rotorcraft-Gyroplane rating.

I am headed toward ROTOR now in a rental car and it would be nice to rent a gyroplane there. Unfortunately the operating limitations for experimental amateur built aircraft prohibit anything that is not for recreation or education so I will mostly be interacting with friends and a fly in becomes a drive in for me.

The right answer there is allow SLSA for gyroplanes based on ASTM standards just like they do for trikes and airplanes
 
fara;n1134455 said:
The right answer there is allow SLSA for gyroplanes based on ASTM standards just like they do for trikes and airplanes

I'm not sure that solves much. I haven't seen much in the way of available rental SLSA trikes and airplanes. Apparently nobody's figured out how to break even on it yet, especially when it's cheaper to rent an older Part 23 airplane than a new SLSA.
 
PW_Plack;n1134617 said:
I'm not sure that solves much. I haven't seen much in the way of available rental SLSA trikes and airplanes. Apparently nobody's figured out how to break even on it yet, especially when it's cheaper to rent an older Part 23 airplane than a new SLSA.

There are plenty of SLSA airplanes for rent but dispersed around the country. Of course flight schools being businesses, want lowest cost and there are plenty of $37k Cessna 172's out there from the 1960's. So they try and get two or three of those and rent them to increase their revenue.
Its impossible to compete in price with a 40 year old airplane. These planes are however becoming more and more un-airworthy every year and will have to die off.
However there is fleet of thousands of gyroplanes present like a C172. So that will not apply.
Trikes can be rented but the insurance for rental is not available and in our sue happy society that is what stops trikes to be rented. Insurance is really the hurdle there.
I am not sure as a manufacturer "rental" market is where I want to focus my growth. I think there are enough people otherwise who want the thrill and pleasure of flight in a gyroplane or LSA that its a sustainable model. I have not seen rental model drive sales for a manufacturer after some saturation in that market.
 
Top