Buying a used home-built?

[Jay Honeck]

It seems that there are some remarkable deals out there for 200 mph used
Glasairs, but I would hesitate to buy one simply because I wouldn't trust
the workmanship.

What's the consensus on this issue? Is this a valid fear, or -- as some
have told me -- does the workmanship on the average home-built meet or
exceed that of the average Spam Can?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

I subscribed to the Velocity newsletters for a while, and concluded
that on average they are OK. The problem is that any single aircraft
may be at either end of a long scale - i.e. a large standard deviation.
Builders are often tempted to take shortcuts on "non-essential" items
such as wiring, fluid lines, and particularly engines. Somebody's been
trying to sell a Velocity for several years that carries a GM
automobile engine.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:12:51 GMT, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>It seems that there are some remarkable deals out there for 200 mph used
>Glasairs, but I would hesitate to buy one simply because I wouldn't trust
>the workmanship.
>
>What's the consensus on this issue? Is this a valid fear, or -- as some
>have told me -- does the workmanship on the average home-built meet or
>exceed that of the average Spam Can?

It's certainly something to consider. Completed composite structures are
difficult to inspect. But if you have someone familiar with them inspect the
homebuilt in question, he or she can probably see enough clues in the visible
areas to be able to conclude whether the hidden areas are done right. One
factor in favor is that homebuilts are usually designed with plenty of margin.

The concern is probably worse with a new airplane...if you're dickering on a
used one with a thousand hours or so, if it's still sticking together, odds are
it was done right.

If you are looking at a non-composite homebuilt, the process is a bit easier.
It's no tougher inspecting an RV-6 than it is a Cessna.

Ron Wanttaja

[Mike Rapoport]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:AlvFd.4154$OF5.3311@attbi_s52...
> It seems that there are some remarkable deals out there for 200 mph used
> Glasairs, but I would hesitate to buy one simply because I wouldn't trust
> the workmanship.
>
> What's the consensus on this issue? Is this a valid fear, or -- as some
> have told me -- does the workmanship on the average home-built meet or
> exceed that of the average Spam Can?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


I wouldn't be afraid to buy one but I would consider taking a building
seminar for the model being considered or at least one with the same
construction technique. I would also look for quality touches like
nutplates instead of rivnuts. Also look for things like tefzel wire, nylon
temninals, neat wiring and fluid lines. Basically you want an airplane that
was built with care and not on a low budget. The homebuilts that I have
seen are all much higher quality than spam cans.

Mike
MU-2

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Jay Honeck asks;

> What's the consensus on this issue? Is this a valid fear,.....

Sure, the fear is valid, because there's no oversight of the
manufacturing - as has been pointed out, the standard deviation of
quality can be a lot larger than for spam-cans. However.....

> .....or -- as some
> have told me -- does the workmanship on the average home-built meet or
> exceed that of the average Spam Can?

This is also true - the AVERAGE homebuilt is better than the AVERAGE
spam can. The standard deviation of quality is higher, too, as
mentioned above, so there will be some homebuilts that are a lot
crappier than spam cans, but most will be better.

That being said, having a person knowledgable in the particular aircraft
you're looking at examine the plane for you will tell you which end of
the spectrum you're on.

For composite aircraft, there are a few things that may be harder to
determine than with metal aircraft. For those, flight hours will be a
large determining factor. Even though I fly a composite aircraft, and
am very familiar with the technology, I wouldn't purchase a composite
homebuilt that had less than a hundred or so hours on it, and had
documentation (or at least attestations) that it had been tested to the
design limits. But if the plane in question has been flying for 300
hours, you can be pretty sure that the structure is sound, even without
looking at it.

Glasairs are VERY nice planes.... :-).

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2004

[Dude]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:AlvFd.4154$OF5.3311@attbi_s52...
> It seems that there are some remarkable deals out there for 200 mph used
> Glasairs, but I would hesitate to buy one simply because I wouldn't trust
> the workmanship.
>
> What's the consensus on this issue? Is this a valid fear, or -- as some
> have told me -- does the workmanship on the average home-built meet or
> exceed that of the average Spam Can?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Jay,

If this is really a concern, then go with a Van's.

Unless you intend to learn about composites to do your own repairs, then the
Van's will be a better purchase anyway. OTOH, if you want to learn about
composites, you can educate yourself to the point of being able to examine
glass work for quality and safety.

The rest is finding someone who knows the type to tell you what parts of any
particular design just like you have done on cert planes.

You getting bored up there in winter?

[Jay Honeck]

> You getting bored up there in winter?

Not bored, but restless. I've always got a zillion things going on, so I
can't imagine ever being bored -- but mostly I just want to go fly.

Unfortunately, the weather has been completely uncooperative for the last 3
weeks.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jon A.]

Jay;
I've seen some ****-poorly built RV's that fly just fine. Unless it
was built by a fellow or crew with much experience, and not their
first model, I'd just stay away. Pick what you want and build it
yourself. There's nothing better than that accomplishment and you
know it's done right.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:12:51 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>It seems that there are some remarkable deals out there for 200 mph used
>Glasairs, but I would hesitate to buy one simply because I wouldn't trust
>the workmanship.
>
>What's the consensus on this issue? Is this a valid fear, or -- as some
>have told me -- does the workmanship on the average home-built meet or
>exceed that of the average Spam Can?

[Jay Honeck]

> I've seen some ****-poorly built RV's that fly just fine. Unless it
> was built by a fellow or crew with much experience, and not their
> first model, I'd just stay away. Pick what you want and build it
> yourself. There's nothing better than that accomplishment and you
> know it's done right.

No way. I've known too many homebuilders to wish that fate on anyone.

There is no way I can afford to spend every waking spare moment, for the
next five years, away from my family building an airplane.

a) I don't have that many spare moments to spend with my family
b) I like to fly too much to waste that much time.

I truly admire those who have done it, but building a plane ain't for me.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Jon A. > wrote:

> Jay;
> I've seen some ****-poorly built RV's that fly just fine. Unless it
> was built by a fellow or crew with much experience, and not their
> first model, I'd just stay away. Pick what you want and build it
> yourself. There's nothing better than that accomplishment and you
> know it's done right.
>
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:12:51 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
> >It seems that there are some remarkable deals out there for 200 mph used
> >Glasairs, but I would hesitate to buy one simply because I wouldn't trust
> >the workmanship.
> >
> >What's the consensus on this issue? Is this a valid fear, or -- as some
> >have told me -- does the workmanship on the average home-built meet or
> >exceed that of the average Spam Can?



Bud Davisson is alleged to have said, "Given the choice between buying a
used homebuilt or a used snake, buy the snake."

There are a lot of fine homebuilts out there -- and there are a lot of
dogs, too! If you contemplate buying one, get some of your friends who
know the type homebuilt you're examining to go along and, literelly, go
over it with a fine tooth comb.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

as far as I know, the accident rate with experimentals is WAY higher
than with "spam cans". What's the reason for that? Is it building
quality?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dude]

Jon,

Your point is lost on me.

If the planes were poorly made, but flew just fine, then it appears that it
would not be that risky to buy an RV. Your statement tells me that you can
tell reasonably easily the quality of the build ("some" implies you have
seen at least 3 that you somehow decided were poorly built). Furthermore,
even those that are poor quality seem to fly just fine. More kudoos for
Van.

[Dude]

>
> Bud Davisson is alleged to have said, "Given the choice between buying a
> used homebuilt or a used snake, buy the snake."
>
> There are a lot of fine homebuilts out there -- and there are a lot of
> dogs, too! If you contemplate buying one, get some of your friends who
> know the type homebuilt you're examining to go along and, literelly, go
> over it with a fine tooth comb.

Exactly what I told a gentleman looking to buy a used Bonanza!

[Dude]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Jay,
>
> as far as I know, the accident rate with experimentals is WAY higher
> than with "spam cans". What's the reason for that? Is it building
> quality?
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

Build quality, maintenance quality, design purpose, and likely use.

The build quality is of less consistency.

The maintenance is not nearly as regimented in most cases.

The designs often give up stability for responsive controls or more speed or
more range. They also give up crash worthiness for light weight and low
cost. Add to this the fact that each one is likely to be unique so you
won't get an SB from the factory telling you that the cable you bought and
installed is likely to kink up and let the throttle go because you may not
have bought it from them, and you may not have installed it like
recommended.

Take the Skyhawk. These planes are mostly used by people for training, and
trips. Its designed to be simple, stable, and safe. Until recently, it was
probably the safest piston in the sky. Its not near as likely to be in a
zooming accident, aerobatic accident, or an unexpected equipment failure due
to things like failed cables, poor engine cooling, fuel system failure, etc.

The people that bought it wanted what they got, and are going to use the
plane for the more dangerous pursuits that many experimental builders are
going for.

[Jim Burns]

Idea.... The Vans' RV Suite! Just need to figure out how to get it out once
all the visiting pilots help you build it!
Jim

> a) I don't have that many spare moments to spend with my family
> b) I like to fly too much to waste that much time.
>
> I truly admire those who have done it, but building a plane ain't for me.
> --

[BeaglePig]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Jay,
>
> as far as I know, the accident rate with experimentals is WAY higher
> than with "spam cans". What's the reason for that? Is it building
> quality?
>

Pure Urban legend... do the research before you spout such poppycock!

I don't have time to research it right now, but there was a guy on
either r.a.piloting or r.a.homebuilt who ran the numbers recently, the
REAL numbers and outside the 40 hr testing period (which is why it's
there), the homebuilt numbers were almost as good as the certified
numbers. You can't just run the numbers for all GA against all
homebuilts, you have to compare apples to apples. Compare single engine
LIGHT GA against homebuilts and you now have a truer picture.

Again, once you take out the testing phase for homebuilts, your real
close. Although, other than the testing phase, it's not just that
homebuilts are safer than you thought, it's also that comparable light
GA is a bit more unsafe than you thought, since "GA" statistics ussually
include light scheduled and light charter carriers.

BeaglePig

[Prime]

"Jim Burns" > posted the exciting message
:

> Idea.... The Vans' RV Suite! Just need to figure out how to get it
> out once all the visiting pilots help you build it!
> Jim
>
"Free hotel room for each 5 hours labor building homebuilt aircraft..."

[Jon A.]

Without a doubt, probably the best homebuilt line out there. When you
get into the guts of these things and see missing, mal aligned or
rivets improperly bucked, alignments made necessary by poor
installation of components on the back end and compensated for by
removing goods on the close end, hardware store parts and pieces and
generally going totally against the recommendation of Ol' Van, you
gotta start thinking about what the deal is.




On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:04:27 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:

>Jon,
>
>Your point is lost on me.
>
> If the planes were poorly made, but flew just fine, then it appears that it
>would not be that risky to buy an RV. Your statement tells me that you can
>tell reasonably easily the quality of the build ("some" implies you have
>seen at least 3 that you somehow decided were poorly built). Furthermore,
>even those that are poor quality seem to fly just fine. More kudoos for
>Van.
>
>

[Dan Luke]

"BeaglePig" wrote:
>
> Pure Urban legend... do the research before you spout such poppycock!
>
> I don't have time to research it right now, but there was a guy on
> either r.a.piloting or r.a.homebuilt...

Very convincing.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[smf]

Well....here is a guy with 400+ hrs in a Glasair II. I bought it used with
400 hrs on it. And never a moment regretted it. It flys beautfully, lands
like a dream and is good Instrument platform. As a matter of fact i got my
Instrument rating in it. Don't listen to the guys that only "think" they
know but the ones that have REAL experience in them. I know a lot of glasair
drivers and have never heard one say " this plane is the pits". By the
way... my engine temps run about about 195degrees and very rarely see 200.
The visibilty is good but the only thing you really notice when flying "fast
glas" are the spam cans you overtake.


steve




> wrote in message
oups.com...
> IMHO, the reason why there are cheap Glasairs out there is that they
> are hard as hell to fly, absolutely frightening to land, visibility out
> of the cockpit is abysmal, the engines do not get enough cooling air
> thru them and they're always eating cylinders, and the landing gear is
> constant need of maintenance. I know two fellows who own them and are
> both wishing they didn't. I've ridden in both of them.... once each,
> and I'll never get in another one except perhaps only for taxiing.
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> > It seems that there are some remarkable deals out there for 200 mph
> used
> > Glasairs, but I would hesitate to buy one simply because I wouldn't
> trust
> > the workmanship.
> >
> > What's the consensus on this issue? Is this a valid fear, or -- as
> some
> > have told me -- does the workmanship on the average home-built meet
> or
> > exceed that of the average Spam Can?
> > --
> > Jay Honeck
> > Iowa City, IA
> > Pathfinder N56993
> > www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Dan,

> > Pure Urban legend... do the research before you spout such poppycock!
> >
> > I don't have time to research it right now, but there was a guy on
> > either r.a.piloting or r.a.homebuilt...
>
> Very convincing.
>

I had to smile - thought the same thing. My recollection is that AOPA
wrote about the higher accident rate in Pilot magazine recently.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

IMHO, the reason why there are cheap Glasairs out there is that they
are hard as hell to fly, absolutely frightening to land, visibility out
of the cockpit is abysmal, the engines do not get enough cooling air
thru them and they're always eating cylinders, and the landing gear is
constant need of maintenance. I know two fellows who own them and are
both wishing they didn't. I've ridden in both of them.... once each,
and I'll never get in another one except perhaps only for taxiing.

Jay Honeck wrote:
> It seems that there are some remarkable deals out there for 200 mph
used
> Glasairs, but I would hesitate to buy one simply because I wouldn't
trust
> the workmanship.
>
> What's the consensus on this issue? Is this a valid fear, or -- as
some
> have told me -- does the workmanship on the average home-built meet
or
> exceed that of the average Spam Can?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Jay,
>
> as far as I know, the accident rate with experimentals is WAY higher
> than with "spam cans". What's the reason for that? Is it building
> quality?


No -- it is usually lack of current experience in the type and
performance level of the plane involved.

A lot of homebuilders spend all their free time (and money) building and
either let their flying skills deteriorate or do not have the skills in
the first place.

The EAA Flight Advisor program is designed to address this skill gap.

[AINut]

wrote:
> I subscribed to the Velocity newsletters for a while, and concluded
> that on average they are OK. The problem is that any single aircraft
> may be at either end of a long scale - i.e. a large standard deviation.
> Builders are often tempted to take shortcuts on "non-essential" items
> such as wiring, fluid lines, and particularly engines. Somebody's been
> trying to sell a Velocity for several years that carries a GM
> automobile engine.
>
I'd be interested in that if the price is right. Know how to contact them?

Thanks.

[Fastglasair]

> IMHO, the reason why there are cheap Glasairs out there is that they
>> are hard as hell to fly, absolutely frightening to land, visibility out
>> of the cockpit is abysmal, the engines do not get enough cooling air
>> thru them and they're always eating cylinders, and the landing gear is
Sorry,
I have to stongly dissagree, I flew only C-172/C-182 for 25 years. with 8 hours
of training in type before flying mine I found transitioning to be easy. Unless
you flew underpowered Glasairs or Taildraggers I dont understand how you came
to any of these conclusions. I have very good temps on mine. The glasair
landing gear (retract) is absolutely outstanding. I don't know what planet your
on but its not this one.

>> constant need of maintenance. I know two fellows who own them and are
>> both wishing they didn't. I've ridden in both of them.... once each,
>> and I'll never get in another one except perhaps only for taxiing.
>>
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>> > It seems that there are some remarkable deals out there for 200 mph
>> used
>> > Glasairs, but I would hesitate to buy one simply because I wouldn't
>> trust
>> > the workmanship.

Jay, a little reasearch and some help from knowledgable Glasair owners to help
you on the assesment, I would not hesitate to buy one with proper expert help
on the inspection before purchasing.

>> >
>> > What's the consensus on this issue? Is this a valid fear, or -- as
>> some
>> > have told me -- does the workmanship on the average home-built meet
>> or
>> > exceed that of the average Spam Can?
>> > --
>> > Jay Honeck
>> > Iowa City, IA
>> > Pathfinder N56993
>> > www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> > "Your Aviation Destination"

[BeaglePig]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "BeaglePig" wrote:
>>
>> Pure Urban legend... do the research before you spout such poppycock!
>>
>> I don't have time to research it right now, but there was a guy on
>> either r.a.piloting or r.a.homebuilt...
>
> Very convincing.

Thanks, just as convincing as the original post.....

Ok, now that I had a moment to research, the post was by Ron Wanttaja
who also was/is the author of an article in Kitplanes magazine in the
October issue. Maybe someone who subscribes to Kitplanes can grace us
with a summery of the article.

BeaglePig

[Dude]

"Jon A." > wrote in message
...
> Without a doubt, probably the best homebuilt line out there. When you
> get into the guts of these things and see missing, mal aligned or
> rivets improperly bucked, alignments made necessary by poor
> installation of components on the back end and compensated for by
> removing goods on the close end, hardware store parts and pieces and
> generally going totally against the recommendation of Ol' Van, you
> gotta start thinking about what the deal is.
>
>

These don't sound like litems that would be missed by someone doing a
reasonably thorough prebuy. I still believe that buying a Van's is no less
risky than buying an out of warranty certified plane.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 18:42:31 GMT, BeaglePig > wrote:

>Thanks, just as convincing as the original post.....
>
>Ok, now that I had a moment to research, the post was by Ron Wanttaja
>who also was/is the author of an article in Kitplanes magazine in the
>October issue. Maybe someone who subscribes to Kitplanes can grace us
>with a summery of the article.

I posted just such a summary to this group less than three weeks ago. How time
flies when you're having fun...

http://tinyurl.com/4r3mh

Ron Wanttaja