Has your kit company gone bankrupt?

[[email protected]]

I am researching an article about builders whose kit supplier has
closed or gone bankrupt. If you have found yourself in this
predicament, I would like to talk with you about how you dealt with it
during the building process. You may contact me directly at

Thanks.
Mary Bernard

[[email protected]]

It just seems prudent to me to not build a homebuilt that can't be
built from plans.

[abripl]

wrote:
> It just seems prudent to me to not build a homebuilt that can't be
> built from plans.

You can also buy the whole kit right away and then you have all the
parts to finish even if they dissapear. Thats what I did and finished
my plane. It turned out my kit company is still in business.

There is much better chance of doing the job right with a kit. And kits
can take much less time to finish than plans built. I finished mine in
about 3-1/2 years including the 14 month test phase. I seen people work
15 years finishing their plans built. If you are nearing 60 you may not
have 15 years to finish and enjoy it. If you are younger when you start
a plans built, the chances of abandoning the project after 5 years are
high.
-----------------------------------------
SQ2000 canard: http://www.abri.com/sq2000

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 22 May 2005 15:00:15 -0700, "abripl" > wrote:

wrote:
>> It just seems prudent to me to not build a homebuilt that can't be
>> built from plans.
>
>You can also buy the whole kit right away and then you have all the
>parts to finish even if they dissapear.

Wellll...that depends on whether the company is DELIVERING kits and kit
components quickly. Most companies seem to have a bit of delay between
receiving the order and shipping the kit (an argument for picking it up
yourself, true). Tottering companies sometimes delay shipments of expensive
goodies, like engines, etc. I know a guy who waited eight months for the
off-the-shelf Maule tailwheel assembly that was supposed to come with his kit.

Ron Wanttaja

[abripl]

> an argument for picking it up yourself, true....

Yes thats what I did. I phoned them ahead and asked if they have the
pieces ready and then went there and picked it up and paid them on the
spot. Actually they still did not have 100% everything but it all
trickled in within a few months. I did hear of some other scarry
stories - like where a retract gear was paid for in advance and did not
get delivered for five years. Fortunately the builder still did not get
to that stage anyway.

[[email protected]]

A simple plans built airplane can be built in 2000 hours,assuming you
work halfway efficiently. The problem is many builders have no skills
and also no great amount of time to devote to the project because they
are working a lot of hours. (You'd think they would be therefore
affluent enough to buy an airplane....)

The sad part is kits wind up taking these people almost as much time
as a scratchbuilt airplane would.

The bottom line is you need to become a skilled aircraft mechanic to
build an airplane...is it a skill set you value enough to learn at this
price? (Don't mistake "skilled" for "licensed". They have absolutely
no relation whatsoever to each other.)

Experimental Amateur Built has, to an extent, become a simple and
baldfaced dodge around type certification. When 90% of builders are
building a few types of 49% done kits on a cookie cutter basis, it's
time to re-evaluate "the system". Experimental should be for
experimenters: people like Van Grunsven should be told to get a type
certificate, tool up, and build a finished airplane.

[abripl]

> ...Experimental should be for experimenters...

Thats somewhat of a misnomer. We often use the term "homebuilt" or
"amateur built" for an aircraft that is essentially cheaper for the
performance and not necessarily building it as an experiment or
pioneering in the field. I built a homebuilt in order to have an IFR
aircraft that cruises about 200mph and seats 4 (and incidentally uses
about 5gal/hr at 120knots) for a fraction of the price of a certified.
Yes. I had fun... but now I enjoy more flying it rather than
"experimenting" with it.

The biggest advantage of plans built is cost. Although too much
"experimenting" even with a plans built can erase that advantage.
The biggest disadvantage is time and the chance that the original
builder will abandon the project - about 90% of the time.

>.....A simple plans built airplane can be built in 2000 hours....

Yeah ... too simple....
A comparative plans built aircraft would take me twice as long as my
kit unit did. Most similar plans built units I have noted, took 10-15
years. There isn't a great chance I could finish one to enjoy flying
one at my age.
--------------------------------------------------------------
SQ2000 canard: http://www.abri.com/sq2000

[Darrel Toepfer]

wrote:

> Experimental Amateur Built has, to an extent, become a simple and
> baldfaced dodge around type certification. When 90% of builders are
> building a few types of 49% done kits on a cookie cutter basis, it's
> time to re-evaluate "the system". Experimental should be for
> experimenters: people like Van Grunsven should be told to get a type
> certificate, tool up, and build a finished airplane.

I'm all for it if the price stays the same...

[[email protected]]

wrote:
>
> Experimental Amateur Built has, to an extent, become a simple and
> baldfaced dodge around type certification. When 90% of builders are
> building a few types of 49% done kits on a cookie cutter basis, it's
> time to re-evaluate "the system". Experimental should be for
> experimenters: people like Van Grunsven should be told to get a type
> certificate, tool up, and build a finished airplane.

I can't comment on the quick-build kits, but Van's standard kits do
require you to learn how to build an airplane.

As for experimentals being only for experimenters, I guess that's one
opinion. According to the FAA document that you have to provide for
the cert., the builder is building the airplane as an educational
experience. If you get around to finishing said homebuilt, it's most
likely that you got an education. I don't think the FAA should limit
experimentals only to folks who are trying to do something that hasn't
been done before. Many of the folks that do go on to pioneer new
designs, first build someone elses "cookie cutter" homebuilt. Where
are these pioneers supposed to come from?

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Jerry Springer]

> people like Van Grunsven should be told to get a type
> certificate, tool up, and build a finished airplane.
>

What is your beef? Sounds like you have an agenda or some type of beef
with people that build aircraft for "educational and recreational"
purposes. Experimental is not what the homebuilt aircraft is about
although that is certainly a part of it.

Jerry

[Rich S.]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Experimental should be for experimenters: people like
> Van Grunsven should be told to get a type
> certificate, tool up, and build a finished airplane.
>

Jawohl, mien herr!

[Lou]

I'm curious Mary, are you researching an article about builders, or
researching to write an article about builders? I could see where it
would be a good article.
Lou

[MJC]

If Van Grunsven were to go through certification, we'd all be treated to
the thrill of paying a quarter million for an RV7. No thanks. It's only
through people like Van who have refined the Experimental market to being a
"cookie cutter" operation that many of us can now afford to fly brand new
aircraft that equal or exceed capabilities of GA, and are safer as well (if
built to designers recommendations for systems and engines).
Don't mess with a good thing. If you think that to be a real man is to
build an "experimental" from scratch or plans, have at it. Just leave the
rest of us alone. This "system" is doing fine.

MJC

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> A simple plans built airplane can be built in 2000 hours,assuming you
> work halfway efficiently. The problem is many builders have no skills
> and also no great amount of time to devote to the project because they
> are working a lot of hours. (You'd think they would be therefore
> affluent enough to buy an airplane....)
>
> The sad part is kits wind up taking these people almost as much time
> as a scratchbuilt airplane would.
>
> The bottom line is you need to become a skilled aircraft mechanic to
> build an airplane...is it a skill set you value enough to learn at this
> price? (Don't mistake "skilled" for "licensed". They have absolutely
> no relation whatsoever to each other.)
>
> Experimental Amateur Built has, to an extent, become a simple and
> baldfaced dodge around type certification. When 90% of builders are
> building a few types of 49% done kits on a cookie cutter basis, it's
> time to re-evaluate "the system". Experimental should be for
> experimenters: people like Van Grunsven should be told to get a type
> certificate, tool up, and build a finished airplane.
>

[Montblack]

"MJC"
[snip]
> Don't mess with a good thing. If you think that to be a real man is to
> build an "experimental" from scratch or plans, have at it. Just leave the
> rest of us alone. This "system" is doing fine.


Yeah. Like take-and-bake pizza.


Montblack

[[email protected]]

Lou wrote:
> I'm curious Mary, are you researching an article about builders, or
> researching to write an article about builders? I could see where it
> would be a good article.
> Lou

Lou,
The purpose of the article is to inform builders (who may find
themselves in this situation) about what they can do to complete their
projects. In other words, perhaps builders will share their experience
with other builders.
I was hoping that through this thread, I would receive some information
about what people have done with regard to starting builders groups,
mining Internet sources, securing alternative parts/assemblies vendors,
etc.--whatever has worked to get the project finished despite problems
with the company.
Mary

[Dude]

"MJC" > wrote in message
...
> If Van Grunsven were to go through certification, we'd all be treated
> to
> the thrill of paying a quarter million for an RV7.

And it would be slower, heavier, and most everything about it would be worse
except stability and crashworthiness.

I would say build quality would be better, but I have seen the build quality
of many homebuilts be higher than some lower quality factory planes.
There's a guy fighting with Raytheon here over his new jet that they had to
completely re-rivet the wing on. He wants a BIG price break, and they want
to spruce up the paint.




No thanks. It's only
> through people like Van who have refined the Experimental market to being
> a
> "cookie cutter" operation that many of us can now afford to fly brand new
> aircraft that equal or exceed capabilities of GA, and are safer as well
> (if
> built to designers recommendations for systems and engines)

I would like to agree with you but can't. Van's, and almost all Kit's would
fail some of the FAR's. They are not as crashworthy or stable as the new
certifieds (Cirrus being the possible exception).
..
> Don't mess with a good thing. If you think that to be a real man is to
> build an "experimental" from scratch or plans, have at it. Just leave the
> rest of us alone. This "system" is doing fine.
>
> MJC

Amen Bro!

[Lou]

Well, like I said, it sounds like it will be a good article.
Unfortunatly you can see what happens to a post when you really want
information. Usually 2 post on the subject and 56 straying so far off
that you get tired of checking back for an intelligent answer. Good
luck to you, and I hope you are not one of those unlucky people who are
halfway through a bankrupt kit.
Lou

[W P Dixon]

Mary,
I would think that most people that tackle building a plane could
probably finish up with "plans" if they had to. I would imagine that they
would also outsource things they were not comfie doing themselves. Seems
like the only thing one could do in those circumstances. Good luck with the
article, maybe a list of some companies that were good outsource resources
would be very beneficial to "defunct kit" builders. I have not found a cheap
kit myself so I'll have to stick with building them the old fashioned way ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Lou wrote:
>> I'm curious Mary, are you researching an article about builders, or
>> researching to write an article about builders? I could see where it
>> would be a good article.
>> Lou
>
> Lou,
> The purpose of the article is to inform builders (who may find
> themselves in this situation) about what they can do to complete their
> projects. In other words, perhaps builders will share their experience
> with other builders.
> I was hoping that through this thread, I would receive some information
> about what people have done with regard to starting builders groups,
> mining Internet sources, securing alternative parts/assemblies vendors,
> etc.--whatever has worked to get the project finished despite problems
> with the company.
> Mary
>

[[email protected]]

wrote:

> I was hoping that through this thread, I would receive some information
> about what people have done with regard to starting builders groups,
> mining Internet sources, securing alternative parts/assemblies vendors,
> etc.--whatever has worked to get the project finished despite problems
> with the company.

You need to find a Wheeler Express builder or two. Most have been
through all that a few times at least.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[MJC]

"Dude" > wrote in message
.. .

> No thanks. It's only
> > through people like Van who have refined the Experimental market to
being
> > a
> > "cookie cutter" operation that many of us can now afford to fly brand
new
> > aircraft that equal or exceed capabilities of GA, and are safer as well
> > (if
> > built to designers recommendations for systems and engines)
>
> I would like to agree with you but can't. Van's, and almost all Kit's
would
> fail some of the FAR's. They are not as crashworthy or stable as the new
> certifieds (Cirrus being the possible exception).

The RV series has over 4000 flying, and they're not exactly falling out
of the sky any worse than any GA aircraft. So I don't see where they are
less stable than any other GA aircraft in a similar class (meaning less
controllable). There aren't too many GA aircraft that allow you to turn with
almost no rudder input like you can with an RV. That's sounds pretty
"stable" to me.
Everyone who has flown an RV agrees that they are more "responsive" than
lot's of other aircraft, but that's what people like about them. Any pilot
who flies a particular aircraft soon gets used to it's performance to the
point where a pilot flying a 200hp RV is every bit in control as would be a
pilot who only flew C150's. They'd both get to know their aircraft and fly
them just as professionally. An experienced F-16 fighter jock has no more
trouble flying his aircraft than would a C150 pilot because they have both
become accustomed to their respective aircraft.
And other than a stall induced crash (where you die no matter what
aircraft you're in or who makes it), any RV that's landed while still being
controlled by the pilot has been proven plenty crashworthy to protect it's
occupants.
Here's a thread on the RV list where a 79 year old RV6 pilot made an
emergency landing on the side of a mountain and lived. When the rescue crew
arrived, they immediately thought the pilot must be dead because the plane
was mangled so badly. Still, the RV managed to protect the pilot enough to
survive.
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=1324&highlight=crash
And then there's Greg Young who's engine stopped on his first RV6 flight
and he had to put it down in the middle of a trailer park (road). If you
have ever seen the photos, I think you might agree that you wouldn't like to
have done the same thing in a fiberglass plane, or a light plane like a
Kitfox. The impact of that forced landing (but still under control) would
have easily killed the pilot of a lesser aircraft.

MJC

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, Dude wrote:

> Van's, and almost all Kit's would
> fail some of the FAR's...

> ...They are
> not as crashworthy or stable as the new
> certifieds (Cirrus being the possible
> exception).

Please provide cites on both of those assertions. Which FAR standards
do you know the RVs don't meet, and upon what data do you base your
statement regarding crashworthiness?

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[Dave S]

Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> Please provide cites on both of those assertions. Which FAR standards
> do you know the RVs don't meet, and upon what data do you base your
> statement regarding crashworthiness?
>
> Thanks, and best regards to all
>
> Bob K.
> http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24
>
EXACTLY...

There is a BIG distinction between "not meeting standards", "not being
ABLE to meet standars" and "not being PROVEN to meet standards".

The VANS designs havent been PROVEN by completion of an FAA
certification and test process.

Properly built, I suspect they (VANS) exceed normal category aircraft
standards by a large margin.

Dave

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 26 May 2005 13:12:29 GMT, Dave S > wrote:

>There is a BIG distinction between "not meeting standards", "not being
>ABLE to meet standars" and "not being PROVEN to meet standards".
>
>The VANS designs havent been PROVEN by completion of an FAA
>certification and test process.
>
>Properly built, I suspect they (VANS) exceed normal category aircraft
>standards by a large margin.

Are RV seats are rated for a 26G impact (Ref 14CFR 23.562)?

Ron Wanttaja

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, Ron Wanttaja wrote:

> Are RV seats are rated for a 26G impact (Ref 14CFR 23.562)?

Hmmm. Y'know, I had a hard time parsing 23.562 as it would pertain to
an aircraft in which the seating provisions are built into the cabin
structure. What's your take on it, Ron?

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 26 May 2005 15:55:34 -0700, "Bob Kuykendall" > wrote:

>Earlier, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
>> Are RV seats are rated for a 26G impact (Ref 14CFR 23.562)?
>
>Hmmm. Y'know, I had a hard time parsing 23.562 as it would pertain to
>an aircraft in which the seating provisions are built into the cabin
>structure. What's your take on it, Ron?

I'm no expert, but I'd guess that the first five numbered paragraphs in section
(c) are the key... the seat must retain the occupant, the seat mounts and seat
belts must still be intact, the shoulder harness must remain in place and the
lap belt still be across the pelvis, and the occupant must be protected from
head injury. The use of the cabin structure for seat mounts might take some
give-and-take with the certification folks, but the primary aspects will be the
degree of injury.

For all I know, some or all planes in the RV series may pass the test without
change, but my uneducated guess is that they didn't design the cockpits with the
exact provisions of 23.562 in mind. I don't doubt that it's safe, but that
wasn't the issue in this thread....

Ron "Ouch" Wanttaja

[Drew Dalgleish]

Well the RV 10 seats were designed and are built by oregon aero. They
are made to meet the standard IIRC from an article in custom planes.

>On 26 May 2005 15:55:34 -0700, "Bob Kuykendall" > wrote:
>
>>Earlier, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>>
>>> Are RV seats are rated for a 26G impact (Ref 14CFR 23.562)?
>>
>>Hmmm. Y'know, I had a hard time parsing 23.562 as it would pertain to
>>an aircraft in which the seating provisions are built into the cabin
>>structure. What's your take on it, Ron?
>
>I'm no expert, but I'd guess that the first five numbered paragraphs in section
>(c) are the key... the seat must retain the occupant, the seat mounts and seat
>belts must still be intact, the shoulder harness must remain in place and the
>lap belt still be across the pelvis, and the occupant must be protected from
>head injury. The use of the cabin structure for seat mounts might take some
>give-and-take with the certification folks, but the primary aspects will be the
>degree of injury.
>
>For all I know, some or all planes in the RV series may pass the test without
>change, but my uneducated guess is that they didn't design the cockpits with the
>exact provisions of 23.562 in mind. I don't doubt that it's safe, but that
>wasn't the issue in this thread....
>
>Ron "Ouch" Wanttaja
>

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 27 May 2005 03:51:36 GMT, (Drew
Dalgleish) wrote:

>Well the RV 10 seats were designed and are built by oregon aero. They
>are made to meet the standard IIRC from an article in custom planes.

Oregon Aero has a good article on this subject at:

http://www.oregonaero.com/p48_2001.htm

The Van's web page says, re the RV-10, "Special Oregon Aero impact-absorbing
front seats are standard." So it looks like the -10 seats, at least, probably
meet the FARs.

Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 26 May 2005 22:29:42 -0700, Richard Riley >
wrote:

>On Thu, 26 May 2005 21:40:29 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote:
>
>:The Van's web page says, re the RV-10, "Special Oregon Aero impact-absorbing
>:front seats are standard."
>
>Special seats are standard.
>
>Damn, I miss the English language.

You're part of a large group of unique people, then. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Roger]

On 23 May 2005 14:01:41 -0700, wrote:

>
> A simple plans built airplane can be built in 2000 hours,assuming you
>work halfway efficiently. The problem is many builders have no skills

Simple may not be what the builder is after. It's really difficult to
find a high performance plans, or kit built that is simple.

>and also no great amount of time to devote to the project because they
>are working a lot of hours. (You'd think they would be therefore
>affluent enough to buy an airplane....)

If they are building a G-III, or a Lancair IV, or IV-P they are! I am
and I did. You can purchase a very nice Bonanza or Mooney for what
you'll have in one of these, but you won't have the aerobatic
capabilities of the G-III or the long legs of the IV-P. I'll have far
more in the G-III than in the Deb even with upgrades, mods and
maintenance.

>
> The sad part is kits wind up taking these people almost as much time
>as a scratchbuilt airplane would.

It depends. The G-III is one of the most labor intensive kits out
there at roughly 4000 hours. Even in the fast build or "jump start"
form as they call it, you are only looking at roughly 800 hours less
and about $30,000 more.

Either of these planes would be a real trial as a plans built.
To do the equivalent in plans built would add considerably to the
complexity and build time required.

I have over 1000 hours into a G-III and it's only starting to look
like an airplane.

>
> The bottom line is you need to become a skilled aircraft mechanic to
>build an airplane...is it a skill set you value enough to learn at this
>price? (Don't mistake "skilled" for "licensed". They have absolutely
>no relation whatsoever to each other.)
>
> Experimental Amateur Built has, to an extent, become a simple and
>baldfaced dodge around type certification. When 90% of builders are
>building a few types of 49% done kits on a cookie cutter basis, it's

At 49% done I'd still be looking at something in the neighborhood of
2000 hours plus. That is basically a one year, full time job.

>time to re-evaluate "the system". Experimental should be for
>experimenters: people like Van Grunsven should be told to get a type
>certificate, tool up, and build a finished airplane.

Again, even with the fast build kits, the builder still has to develop
a set of skills and you don't put these things together over night.
Most builders are still looking at several years, or more. Plus they
are looking at performance figures not available in certificated
aircraft and the ability to do maneuvers prohibited in all but
certificated aerobatic aircraft.

The builder assist programs are something else, but again I see them
more as a training program for the builder. They are a lot of work
and they are expensive.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:20:00 -0400, Bryan Martin
> wrote:

>The only reason they're in the "experimental" category is that that was the
>only convenient pigeonhole the FAA had to stick them in back when they
>finally acknowledged their existence and decided that it was more
>politically expedient to give them legal status than it was to drive them
>out of existence. Most Amateur built aircraft are no more "experimental"
>than all those old war birds that are flying with "experimental"
>certificates.

And we can experiment with "add ons", or changes that would not be
possible with certificated aircraft.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On 24 May 2005 15:14:08 -0700, wrote:

>
>
>Lou wrote:
>> I'm curious Mary, are you researching an article about builders, or
>> researching to write an article about builders? I could see where it
>> would be a good article.
>> Lou
>
>Lou,
>The purpose of the article is to inform builders (who may find
>themselves in this situation) about what they can do to complete their
>projects. In other words, perhaps builders will share their experience
>with other builders.
>I was hoping that through this thread, I would receive some information
>about what people have done with regard to starting builders groups,
>mining Internet sources, securing alternative parts/assemblies vendors,
>etc.--whatever has worked to get the project finished despite problems
>with the company.

In that case:

The Glasair would probably be a good example.
The original company did go under and there were some who got burnt,
but I don't think it was a large number.

OTOH the G-III is an expensive kit and I'd guess many opted for the
installment plan. I picked up a complete kit albeit a bit old. It
was from an estate and had never been taken out of the crate.

I went through the ADs and Updates and ordered all after calling to
make sure they were in stock. Within a few weeks I had all of the
updates.

About the only problem I had was obtaining resin after SH went out of
business and before the New Glasair started up. As they use Dow
Derakane it takes some hunting to find. Also I wanted it "unpromoted"

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>Mary