Buying/selling homebuilts

[es330td]

Browsing controller.com I noticed that there is a category for
homebuilt/experimental aircraft. My limited understanding of
homebuilt aircraft is that it is an experimental plane, built for the
pleasure/education of the builder. The builder of said plane, being
the mfr, may work on it or an A&P mechanic can.

I didn't think the FAA would allow someone to legally fly an
experimental they bought; however, the number of planes on controller
indicate that this is allowed or at least not enforced. I am curious
then about a few things:

1. Are there people who just build kit/plan planes to sell them?
2. Does the FAA simply choose to ignore them?
3. What responsibilities does the builder have with the plane?
4. As the owner of a homebuilt they didn't build, can the purchaser
work on the plane or does it now become like a 172 that must be
repaired by an A&P guy?
5. How much can you trust a purchased homebuilt? I know they have to
get an airworthiness inspection to fly but that doesn't mean it was
built well. Is there a certain minimum level of quality a plane must
have to get the certificate?

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

es330td wrote:
> Browsing controller.com I noticed that there is a category for
> homebuilt/experimental aircraft. My limited understanding of
> homebuilt aircraft is that it is an experimental plane, built for the
> pleasure/education of the builder. The builder of said plane, being
> the mfr, may work on it or an A&P mechanic can.
>
> I didn't think the FAA would allow someone to legally fly an
> experimental they bought; however, the number of planes on controller
> indicate that this is allowed or at least not enforced. I am curious
> then about a few things:
>
> 1. Are there people who just build kit/plan planes to sell them?
> 2. Does the FAA simply choose to ignore them?
> 3. What responsibilities does the builder have with the plane?
> 4. As the owner of a homebuilt they didn't build, can the purchaser
> work on the plane or does it now become like a 172 that must be
> repaired by an A&P guy?
> 5. How much can you trust a purchased homebuilt? I know they have to
> get an airworthiness inspection to fly but that doesn't mean it was
> built well. Is there a certain minimum level of quality a plane must
> have to get the certificate?

What you think that once you build a HB you are stuck with it for life.
Of course you can sell it and the new owner can fly it. Now for your
questions.

1. Yes there are people that build Exp-HBs JUST to sell them. And it is
a violation.
2. The FAA is going to come down on these guys sooner or later.
3. That is a legal question that doesn't have a lot of case law on it.
4. The owner or anybody else can work on a Exp-HB. What he can't do is
the annual inspection. Only an A&P or the original builder who got the
Repairman's certificate can do that.
5. Like any aircraft you should get someone you trust to go over it.

[es330td]

On Feb 6, 5:47*pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:


Well...It didn't make sense to me that only the builder of a plane can
fly it; what would happen when they eventually pass on? Are all
builders supposed to be buried in their plane? Since I don't have a
HB (though there are a couple I'd like) I really didn't know anything
the actual rules.

[Jim Logajan]

es330td > wrote:
> 3. What responsibilities does the builder have with the plane?

Here's one link that discusses this issue (note that it mentions the death
of John Denver in a homebuilt and a lawsuit involving a death in a
homebuilt gyroplane):

http://www.aviationlawcorp.com/content/liabhomeblt.html

> 5. How much can you trust a purchased homebuilt? I know they have to
> get an airworthiness inspection to fly but that doesn't mean it was
> built well. Is there a certain minimum level of quality a plane must
> have to get the certificate?

Here's one broad overview article of buying and selling homebuilt aircraft
that briefly discusses those issues:

http://www.kitplanes.com/magazine/pdfs/0200p22.pdf

[BobR]

On Feb 6, 5:00*pm, es330td > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 5:47*pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>
> Well...It didn't make sense to me that only the builder of a plane can
> fly it; what would happen when they eventually pass on? Are all
> builders supposed to be buried in their plane? *Since I don't have a
> HB (though there are a couple I'd like) I really didn't know anything
> the actual rules.

I know of a few builders who would probably love to be buried in their
plane but NO, it is not necessary. On the issue of trusting a
homebuilt aircraft, I would probably be more trusting of most of the
homebuilt aircraft that I have seen than many production aircraft,
especially some of the 20-30+ year old planes out there. While I have
seen a few less than stellar homebuilts, most are built to what I
would consider higher standards than any production aircraft.

That said, you would be well advised to do a very complete inspection
of any homebuilt you are considering buying. Having an inspection by
an A&P would be adviseable rather you are buying a homebuilt or used
production plane.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"es330td" > wrote in message
...
> Browsing controller.com I noticed that there is a category for
> homebuilt/experimental aircraft. My limited understanding of
> homebuilt aircraft is that it is an experimental plane, built for the
> pleasure/education of the builder. The builder of said plane, being
> the mfr, may work on it or an A&P mechanic can.

Or, if you buy it, you can work on it. The builder can do the annual
"condition inspection" (assuming the get a repairmans's certificate). A
second owner would have to get an A&P, an AI, or the original owner to do the
inspections.

>
> I didn't think the FAA would allow someone to legally fly an
> experimental they bought; however, the number of planes on controller
> indicate that this is allowed or at least not enforced. I am curious
> then about a few things:

It's legal to sell and buy a homebuilt.
>
> 1. Are there people who just build kit/plan planes to sell them?

Yes. Though, that is not the intent of the regs.

> 2. Does the FAA simply choose to ignore them?

Depends.

> 3. What responsibilities does the builder have with the plane?

Pretty much the same as Cessna or Piper or... You wreck it, your heirs can
attempt to sue the builder.

> 4. As the owner of a homebuilt they didn't build, can the purchaser
> work on the plane or does it now become like a 172 that must be
> repaired by an A&P guy?

As above, you can do work, but the inspections must be done by an A&P (or AI)
so it makes a lot of sense to not do the work without making sure the A&P
will sign off on it when the time comes.

One would also want to make sure that one's A&P of choice is willing to
inspect and sign the work done by the original builder BEFORE putting a money
down. Remember - it is likely that the aircraft has never been seen by an
A&P...

> 5. How much can you trust a purchased homebuilt? I know they have to
> get an airworthiness inspection to fly but that doesn't mean it was
> built well. Is there a certain minimum level of quality a plane must
> have to get the certificate?
Buyer Beware. The FAA makes sure you have done all the required paperwork.

Most homebuilts are very well built. But there are those with flaws. Even if
it looks well built, it's possible, for example, that the builder liked to
"add stuff" and/or "beef it up a bit" and/or but a larger than original
engine and... It wouldn't be the first time a very nice looking homebuilt
with all the bells and whistles came out with an empty weight that exceeds
the designers intended gross weight. Find someone who has built and flown the
type you are looking at to inspect the aircraft with you (along with your
choice of A&P). Most common designs have some kind of builders association
who can help you out.

There are a lot of really nice homebulit aircraft out there. But you (as a
buyer) have to do some extra work to make sure you know what you are really
getting.

Remember - each individual homebuilt aircraft is unique.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 14:05:19 -0800 (PST), es330td > wrote:

> Browsing controller.com I noticed that there is a category for
> homebuilt/experimental aircraft. My limited understanding of
> homebuilt aircraft is that it is an experimental plane, built for the
> pleasure/education of the builder. The builder of said plane, being
> the mfr, may work on it or an A&P mechanic can.
>
> I didn't think the FAA would allow someone to legally fly an
> experimental they bought; however, the number of planes on controller
> indicate that this is allowed or at least not enforced. I am curious
> then about a few things:
>
> 1. Are there people who just build kit/plan planes to sell them?
> 2. Does the FAA simply choose to ignore them?
> 3. What responsibilities does the builder have with the plane?
> 4. As the owner of a homebuilt they didn't build, can the purchaser
> work on the plane or does it now become like a 172 that must be
> repaired by an A&P guy?

Anyone can *work* on a homebuilt, but it takes either the original builder or an
A&P to do the yearly condition inspection (e.g., "annual," but not really).

> 5. How much can you trust a purchased homebuilt? I know they have to
> get an airworthiness inspection to fly but that doesn't mean it was
> built well. Is there a certain minimum level of quality a plane must
> have to get the certificate?

Been flying a used homebuilt for ~12 years...in fact, I'm the fourth owner of
it.

Your posting reminded me that I forgot to post the FAQ this month. See the
separate posting....

Ron Wanttaja

[Wayne Paul]

As Capt Thorpe stated, after purchasing a homebuilt aircraft you can do
repairs and modifications.

In my case, I purchased a HP-14 sailplane. This was my second Schreder
design. An overview of the work performed prior to flying the bird is
contained in the second paragraph of the following link.
(http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-14/N990/N990.html)
The second paragraph is a summery of 26 log book entries. Once I thought my
HP-14 was safe to fly I had an A&P perform a condition inspection. (In my
case my inspector didn't need to have the P-powerplant designation.)

This homebuilt had given me three years of enjoyable soaring. This winter I
am in the process of modifying the wings to fuselage fairings, control hinge
seals, etc in order to improve performance. Again, my work will be
inspected during my yearly condition inspection.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder


"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in message
...
> "es330td" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Browsing controller.com I noticed that there is a category for
>> homebuilt/experimental aircraft. My limited understanding of
>> homebuilt aircraft is that it is an experimental plane, built for the
>> pleasure/education of the builder. The builder of said plane, being
>> the mfr, may work on it or an A&P mechanic can.
>
> Or, if you buy it, you can work on it. The builder can do the annual
> "condition inspection" (assuming the get a repairmans's certificate). A
> second owner would have to get an A&P, an AI, or the original owner to do
> the inspections.
>
>>
>> I didn't think the FAA would allow someone to legally fly an
>> experimental they bought; however, the number of planes on controller
>> indicate that this is allowed or at least not enforced. I am curious
>> then about a few things:
>
> It's legal to sell and buy a homebuilt.
>>
>> 1. Are there people who just build kit/plan planes to sell them?
>
> Yes. Though, that is not the intent of the regs.
>
>> 2. Does the FAA simply choose to ignore them?
>
> Depends.
>
>> 3. What responsibilities does the builder have with the plane?
>
> Pretty much the same as Cessna or Piper or... You wreck it, your heirs can
> attempt to sue the builder.
>
>> 4. As the owner of a homebuilt they didn't build, can the purchaser
>> work on the plane or does it now become like a 172 that must be
>> repaired by an A&P guy?
>
> As above, you can do work, but the inspections must be done by an A&P (or
> AI) so it makes a lot of sense to not do the work without making sure the
> A&P will sign off on it when the time comes.
>
> One would also want to make sure that one's A&P of choice is willing to
> inspect and sign the work done by the original builder BEFORE putting a
> money down. Remember - it is likely that the aircraft has never been seen
> by an A&P...
>
>> 5. How much can you trust a purchased homebuilt? I know they have to
>> get an airworthiness inspection to fly but that doesn't mean it was
>> built well. Is there a certain minimum level of quality a plane must
>> have to get the certificate?
> Buyer Beware. The FAA makes sure you have done all the required paperwork.
>
> Most homebuilts are very well built. But there are those with flaws. Even
> if it looks well built, it's possible, for example, that the builder liked
> to "add stuff" and/or "beef it up a bit" and/or but a larger than original
> engine and... It wouldn't be the first time a very nice looking homebuilt
> with all the bells and whistles came out with an empty weight that exceeds
> the designers intended gross weight. Find someone who has built and flown
> the type you are looking at to inspect the aircraft with you (along with
> your choice of A&P). Most common designs have some kind of builders
> association who can help you out.
>
> There are a lot of really nice homebulit aircraft out there. But you (as a
> buyer) have to do some extra work to make sure you know what you are
> really getting.
>
> Remember - each individual homebuilt aircraft is unique.
>
> --
> Geoff
> The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
> remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
> When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Matthew Speed[_2_]]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:20:11 -0800 (PST), BobR
> wrote:

>
>I know of a few builders who would probably love to be buried in their
>plane but NO, it is not necessary. On the issue of trusting a
>homebuilt aircraft, I would probably be more trusting of most of the
>homebuilt aircraft that I have seen than many production aircraft,

My CFI says the same thing. There are a bunch of homebuilts at the
airfield at which I am learning and he speaks very highly of the
general quality of them. One of his planes shares a hanger with a
very nice Velocity RG (that happens to be for sale)

[Rich S.[_1_]]

"Matthew Speed" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:20:11 -0800 (PST), BobR
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>I know of a few builders who would probably love to be buried in their
>>plane but NO, it is not necessary. On the issue of trusting a
>>homebuilt aircraft, I would probably be more trusting of most of the
>>homebuilt aircraft that I have seen than many production aircraft,
>
> My CFI says the same thing. There are a bunch of homebuilts at the
> airfield at which I am learning and he speaks very highly of the
> general quality of them. One of his planes shares a hanger with a
> very nice Velocity RG (that happens to be for sale)

Saw one of those on final approach to Tacoma Narrows airport the other day.
Damn if'n they aren't pretty. Like watching Princess Leia coming down final
on Waterworld. :))

Rich S. (from the great Pacific NorthWet)

[es330td]

On Feb 6, 11:42*pm, "Rich S." >
wrote:
> "Matthew Speed" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:20:11 -0800 (PST), BobR
> > > wrote:
>
> >>I know of a few builders who would probably love to be buried in their
> >>plane but NO, it is not necessary. *On the issue of trusting a
> >>homebuilt aircraft, I would probably be more trusting of most of the
> >>homebuilt aircraft that I have seen than many production aircraft,
>
> > My CFI says the same thing. There are a bunch of homebuilts at the
> > airfield at which I am learning and he speaks very highly of the
> > general quality of them. *One of his planes shares a hanger with a
> > very nice Velocity RG (that happens to be for sale)
>
> Saw one of those on final approach to Tacoma Narrows airport the other day..
> Damn if'n they aren't pretty. Like watching Princess Leia coming down final
> on Waterworld. *:))
>
> Rich S. (from the great Pacific NorthWet)

One of my computer consulting clients also owns a Velocity SE RG. He's
offered to take me up but our schedules haven't worked out for me to
go up yet. I'm trying to figure out how I could get to fly it given
the FAA regs on homebuilts.

[BobR]

On Feb 6, 10:20*pm, Matthew Speed > wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:20:11 -0800 (PST), BobR
>
> > wrote:
>
> >I know of a few builders who would probably love to be buried in their
> >plane but NO, it is not necessary. *On the issue of trusting a
> >homebuilt aircraft, I would probably be more trusting of most of the
> >homebuilt aircraft that I have seen than many production aircraft,
>
> My CFI says the same thing. There are a bunch of homebuilts at the
> airfield at which I am learning and he speaks very highly of the
> general quality of them. *One of his planes shares a hanger with a
> very nice Velocity RG (that happens to be for sale)

I have yet to see a Velocity, Lancair, Glassair, GlasStar, KIS or
Stallion that I wouldn't take in a heartbeat. I have only seen a
couple of RV's that I wouldn't want and even those were probably in
better shape than most of the available fleet of older used spam
cans. Of the other homebuilts on the market, it might take a bit more
than a single heartbeat but most of those would gain a nod as well.
The overall quality of the homebuilt fleet that I have seen over the
past 15 years is well above any quality of standard to be expected.

[BobR]

On Feb 7, 9:28*am, es330td > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 11:42*pm, "Rich S." >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Matthew Speed" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:20:11 -0800 (PST), BobR
> > > > wrote:
>
> > >>I know of a few builders who would probably love to be buried in their
> > >>plane but NO, it is not necessary. *On the issue of trusting a
> > >>homebuilt aircraft, I would probably be more trusting of most of the
> > >>homebuilt aircraft that I have seen than many production aircraft,
>
> > > My CFI says the same thing. There are a bunch of homebuilts at the
> > > airfield at which I am learning and he speaks very highly of the
> > > general quality of them. *One of his planes shares a hanger with a
> > > very nice Velocity RG (that happens to be for sale)
>
> > Saw one of those on final approach to Tacoma Narrows airport the other day.
> > Damn if'n they aren't pretty. Like watching Princess Leia coming down final
> > on Waterworld. *:))
>
> > Rich S. (from the great Pacific NorthWet)
>
> One of my computer consulting clients also owns a Velocity SE RG. He's
> offered to take me up but our schedules haven't worked out for me to
> go up yet. *I'm trying to figure out how I could get to fly it given
> the FAA regs on homebuilts.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Not sure I understand you final statement. What regulations are you
talking about and why wouldn't you get to fly it? If you are a pilot,
you would only need to be checked out in it before flying. If you are
a non-pilot, you could fly it in the presense of a pilot as long as
the pilot remains the PIC. There are no FAA regulations that keep you
from flying in a homebuilt plane once the restrictions have been flown
off following construction.

[es330td]

On Feb 7, 10:46*am, BobR > wrote:
>
> Not sure I understand you final statement. *What regulations are you
> talking about and why wouldn't you get to fly it? *

I should have been more clear. I'd like to use it for a cross country
trip but I don't know if I am allowed to pay for anything outside
fuel, e.g. prorated engine overhaul costs. I know I can fly it,
especially if I am sitting right seat, but for me flying is about the
freedom to go places.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

es330td wrote:

>
> One of my computer consulting clients also owns a Velocity SE RG. He's
> offered to take me up but our schedules haven't worked out for me to
> go up yet. I'm trying to figure out how I could get to fly it given
> the FAA regs on homebuilts.

There is NO FAA regulation that would keep you from flying any homebuilt
for which you are otherwise qualified. Further, if your client wanted
to sell you his Velocity there is no regulation stopping him from doing so.

[Peter Dohm]

"es330td" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 10:46 am, BobR > wrote:
>
> Not sure I understand you final statement. What regulations are you
> talking about and why wouldn't you get to fly it?

I should have been more clear. I'd like to use it for a cross country
trip but I don't know if I am allowed to pay for anything outside
fuel, e.g. prorated engine overhaul costs. I know I can fly it,
especially if I am sitting right seat, but for me flying is about the
freedom to go places.

------------above this line is the prior post--------------

This subject has been addressed frequently, to such an extent that I am
unable to add anything of substance--except to mention that it has been
discussed in AOPA Pilot (probably John Yodice's column) and you could
probably search elsewhere with arguments such as "share expense part 91" or
"sharing expenses aviation" on some of the Internet search engines and/or
the FAA website.

Presumably other travel expenses could enter the equasion as well if you are
dividing them up that formally.

I hope this helps.
Peter

[[email protected]]

On Feb 6, 3:47 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:

> 4. The owner or anybody else can work on a Exp-HB. What he can't do is
> the annual inspection. Only an A&P or the original builder who got the
> Repairman's certificate can do that.

For the Canadians lurking here: You buy it, to fix it, you do
the annual on it, too.

> 5. Like any aircraft you should get someone you trust to go over it.

Got that right, for sure.

Dan

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
> On Feb 6, 3:47 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>
>> 4. The owner or anybody else can work on a Exp-HB. What he can't do is
>> the annual inspection. Only an A&P or the original builder who got the
>> Repairman's certificate can do that.
>
> For the Canadians lurking here: You buy it, to fix it, you do
> the annual on it, too.
>
>> 5. Like any aircraft you should get someone you trust to go over it.
>
> Got that right, for sure.
>
> Dan
>
That isn't specific to aircraft.

Peter

[[email protected]]

On Feb 9, 7:56 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:

> That isn't specific to aircraft.

No, but pilots, like everyone else, can be real suckers when they
get infected with airplaneownershipitis. We like to think we're
smarter that the average bear, but we're as impatient as the boat or
auto buyer and many end up with airplanes that are nothing more than
holes into which to pour money. Airplanes are (usually) more expensive
than other toys and much, much more regulated, and their buyers can
get stung much worse.


Dan

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
> On Feb 9, 7:56 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>
>> That isn't specific to aircraft.
>
> No, but pilots, like everyone else, can be real suckers when they
> get infected with airplaneownershipitis. We like to think we're
> smarter that the average bear, but we're as impatient as the boat or
> auto buyer and many end up with airplanes that are nothing more than
> holes into which to pour money. Airplanes are (usually) more expensive
> than other toys and much, much more regulated, and their buyers can
> get stung much worse.
>
>
> Dan

Very true. BTW, I had intended to add a smiley and then forgot.

Peter

[es330td]

On Feb 10, 2:07*pm, wrote:
>
> Airplanes are (usually) more expensive than other toys
>
Considering that even a modest plane costs as much as a house, I can
barely imagine the world of people whose toys cost more than their
planes.

I have a feeling that the first plane I own will be one I build
myself.

[Jim Logajan]

es330td > wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2:07*pm, wrote:
>>
>> Airplanes are (usually) more expensive than other toys
>>
> Considering that even a modest plane costs as much as a house,

While it is true that one can find houses for $50,000, they generally
aren't much larger than a modest plane.

[es330td]

On Feb 11, 4:40*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> es330td > wrote:
> > On Feb 10, 2:07*pm, wrote:
>
> >> Airplanes are (usually) more expensive than other toys
>
> > Considering that even a modest plane costs as much as a house,
>
> While it is true that one can find houses for $50,000, they generally
> aren't much larger than a modest plane.

I guess I need to change my definition of "plane." My Dad has owned
an Archer II and a C182 so I think of planes in terms of enclosed, IFR
& GPS equipped cross country transportation. I guess if one takes the
IFR stuff out they get much more affordable rather quickly.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

es330td wrote:
> On Feb 11, 4:40 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> es330td > wrote:
>>> On Feb 10, 2:07 pm, wrote:
>>>> Airplanes are (usually) more expensive than other toys
>>> Considering that even a modest plane costs as much as a house,
>> While it is true that one can find houses for $50,000, they generally
>> aren't much larger than a modest plane.
>
> I guess I need to change my definition of "plane." My Dad has owned
> an Archer II and a C182 so I think of planes in terms of enclosed, IFR
> & GPS equipped cross country transportation. I guess if one takes the
> IFR stuff out they get much more affordable rather quickly.

Or just do a little research on the cost of older Archers and 182s.

[Wayne Paul]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> es330td > wrote:
>> On Feb 10, 2:07 pm, wrote:
>>>
>>> Airplanes are (usually) more expensive than other toys
>>>
>> Considering that even a modest plane costs as much as a house,
>
> While it is true that one can find houses for $50,000, they generally
> aren't much larger than a modest plane.

From my perspective the cost of an aircraft is related as the purpose you
have in mind. If your desired aircraft is to avoid the hassle of commercial
air travel, then the cost is in the millions. On the other hand, if the
purpose is the simply challenge and enjoyment of flying is isn't much more
expensive the a good modern snowmobile.

For me, it is the challenge; and, joy of flying and maintaining/improving my
bird. ( I have long ago abandoned the idea of using a an aircraft for
transportation.) I have left the "power community" and focused on soaring.
I fly 40 year old homebuilt technology and find pleasure in every minute I
am in the air.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Flights/6F_Gold_Distance.html
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-14/N990/N990.html
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder

What does something like this cost?
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/Trading_Post/The_Trading_Post.html

It is a lot of enjoyment for the dollar!!!

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/

[BobR]

On Feb 11, 2:14*pm, es330td > wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2:07*pm, wrote:
>
> > Airplanes are (usually) more expensive than other toys
>
> Considering that even a modest plane costs as much as a house, I can
> barely imagine the world of people whose toys cost more than their
> planes.
>
> I have a feeling that the first plane I own will be one I build
> myself.

If your point of comparison is to a new production aircraft, my house
was much cheaper. On the other hand, building a plane yourself will
probably be cheaper than a new production aircraft, don't look for it
to be some super bargain. You can easily run into the six figures
with your own homebuilt.

[Charles Vincent]

BobR wrote:
> You can easily run into the six figures
> with your own homebuilt.
>

These days you are pretty much guaranteed to go to six figures with a
homebuilt, at least if you count your pennies like I do... ;')

Charles

[Scott[_1_]]

I would debate this idea. I think you would be hard pressed to be able
to build something for less money than an old Taylorcraft or Aeronca
Chief, etc...

Scott


es330td wrote:

> On Feb 10, 2:07 pm, wrote:
>
>>Airplanes are (usually) more expensive than other toys
>>
>
> Considering that even a modest plane costs as much as a house, I can
> barely imagine the world of people whose toys cost more than their
> planes.
>
> I have a feeling that the first plane I own will be one I build
> myself.

--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

[cavalamb himself[_2_]]

Scott wrote:
> I would debate this idea. I think you would be hard pressed to be able
> to build something for less money than an old Taylorcraft or Aeronca
> Chief, etc...
>
> Scott
>
>
> es330td wrote:
>
>> On Feb 10, 2:07 pm, wrote:
>>
>>> Airplanes are (usually) more expensive than other toys
>>>
>>
>> Considering that even a modest plane costs as much as a house, I can
>> barely imagine the world of people whose toys cost more than their
>> planes.
>>
>> I have a feeling that the first plane I own will be one I build
>> myself.
>
>


True, but it won't be an RV-6,

[Scott[_1_]]

And I won't debate that ;) My take was the poster was implying that he
thought it was cheaper to build rather than buy and on that assumption,
I suggested he check out some older "classics" if cost was the only
criterion :)

Scott


cavalamb himself wrote:

>>
>>
>>
>
>
> True, but it won't be an RV-6,

[BobR]

On Feb 11, 7:22*pm, Charles Vincent > wrote:
> BobR wrote:
> > You can easily run into the six figures
> > with your own homebuilt.
>
> These days you are pretty much guaranteed to go to six figures with a
> homebuilt, at least if you count your pennies like I do... *;')
>
> Charles

I don't dare count all the pennies, my wife might get hold of the
numbers and realize just how much I have spent. <BG> Actually, she
has been keeping track of it all from the beginning. I have an
estimate but really didn't care until recently when money became a bit
less abundant.

[BobR]

On Feb 12, 5:50*am, Scott > wrote:
> And I won't debate that ;) *My take was the poster was implying that he
> thought it was cheaper to build rather than buy and on that assumption,
> I suggested he check out some older "classics" if cost was the only
> criterion :)
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> cavalamb himself wrote:
>
> > True, but it won't be an RV-6,- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The relative cost of Build vs Buy will vary greatly depending on the
mission requirements and the amount of time used in the calculation.
In many cases, it might be cheaper to buy for the initial expense but
depending to circumstances the long term costs would be greater when
you consider annual inspections and the costs of buying parts for
production aircraft. Building your own might be more expensive on the
initial price but prove less costly if you intend to keep the plane
for an extended period of time.

[cavalamb himself[_2_]]

BobR wrote:
> On Feb 12, 5:50 am, Scott > wrote:
>
>>And I won't debate that ;) My take was the poster was implying that he
>>thought it was cheaper to build rather than buy and on that assumption,
>>I suggested he check out some older "classics" if cost was the only
>>criterion :)
>>
>>Scott
>>
>>
>>
>>cavalamb himself wrote:
>>
>>
>>>True, but it won't be an RV-6,- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> The relative cost of Build vs Buy will vary greatly depending on the
> mission requirements and the amount of time used in the calculation.
> In many cases, it might be cheaper to buy for the initial expense but
> depending to circumstances the long term costs would be greater when
> you consider annual inspections and the costs of buying parts for
> production aircraft. Building your own might be more expensive on the
> initial price but prove less costly if you intend to keep the plane
> for an extended period of time.


In the end it always comes back to, :If you want to fly, buy;
if you want to build, build".

[Anthony W]

Scott wrote:
> And I won't debate that ;) My take was the poster was implying that he
> thought it was cheaper to build rather than buy and on that assumption,
> I suggested he check out some older "classics" if cost was the only
> criterion :)
>
> Scott

The problem with buying a classic (as I understand it) is that I won't
be able to do the repair and maintenance on it. I've seen a bunch of
old ratty Cessna 150s sitting around the air parks that look like they
need a lot of TLC to get flying. If I bought one of those, I'd have to
pay an A&P a fortune to get it in the air.

Tony

[Blueskies]

"Charles Vincent" > wrote in message et...
> BobR wrote:
>> You can easily run into the six figures
>> with your own homebuilt.
>>
>
> These days you are pretty much guaranteed to go to six figures with a
> homebuilt, at least if you count your pennies like I do... ;')
>
> Charles



IMHO, the best bang for the buck: http://bd-4.org/
also: http://www.tvap.com/

[Peter Dohm]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
...
> "Charles Vincent" > wrote in message
> et...
>> BobR wrote:
>>> You can easily run into the six figures
>>> with your own homebuilt.
>>>
>>
>> These days you are pretty much guaranteed to go to six figures with a
>> homebuilt, at least if you count your pennies like I do... ;')
>>
>> Charles
>
>
>
> IMHO, the best bang for the buck: http://bd-4.org/
> also: http://www.tvap.com/
>

Probably very true. Just remember what a BD4 owner, who had intentionally
spun his, told me long ago:

It will spin. DON'T!

Peter

[Dave S]

es330td wrote:
>
>
> 1. Are there people who just build kit/plan planes to sell them?

yes. It doesn't meet the intent of the regs.

> 2. Does the FAA simply choose to ignore them?

Its difficult to enforce this rule when you are short staffed and have
bigger fish to fry. Choose? not so much. Unable to effectively police?
Probably. You dont rise to their attention, they dont spank you.

> 3. What responsibilities does the builder have with the plane?

It ends when the transaction is complete. You may hold them liable for
something after the fact, but thats determined in the courts, not in the
regs.

> 4. As the owner of a homebuilt they didn't build, can the purchaser
> work on the plane or does it now become like a 172 that must be
> repaired by an A&P guy?

read carefully: ANYONE can work on an experimental amatuer built
airplane. ANYONE. pilot. owner. Joe Bob the Gardner down the street.

Every year, a "condition inspection" must be performed, analagous to an
annual inspection in a certified plane. The condition inspection must be
done by an A&P (doesnt have to be an IA) or the holder of the
Repairman's Certificate for that particular plane/airframe.

In comparison, most maintenance on certified planes must be done by an
A&P (certain preventative maintenance items are excluded from this rule)
and the annual inspection must be done by an IA.

Heres the gotcha: While ANYONE can do the day to day and major
maintenance, John Smith A&P or the original repairman certificate holder
is under no obligation to sign off on a condition inspection for work
they didn't do, or have no reasonable way to validate that any work was
done with proper/up to their standard workmanship. Here's where it pays
to develop a good working relationship with someone qualified to do the
annual condition inspection and go from there.


> 5. How much can you trust a purchased homebuilt? I know they have to
> get an airworthiness inspection to fly but that doesn't mean it was
> built well. Is there a certain minimum level of quality a plane must
> have to get the certificate?

There is no hard fast line in the sand minimum level. It is subjective
in the eyes of the examiner. And even then its only ready for Phase 1
flight test - solo, VFR day for up to 40 hrs (minimum). The owner is
responsible for moving on from phase 1 operations. If it hasn't shaken
itself apart in 40 hours, the presumption is it wont anytime soon.

Here is where having an experienced inspector on YOUR payroll comes in
handy. Trust is a matter between the builder and the buyer. Shoddy
workmanship where you CAN see it may very well indicate shoddy
workmanship where you CANT see it. Without experience on your side, you
are throwing dice in a crap shoot

Interact with some local EAA technical counselors and flight advisors in
your area. You wont get the requisite experience solely here on usenet.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> And I won't debate that ;) My take was the poster was implying that he
> thought it was cheaper to build rather than buy and on that assumption, I
> suggested he check out some older "classics" if cost was the only criterion
> :)
>


Or older used homebuilts (to bring us back to the original topic)

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Anthony W" > wrote in message
news:d4msj.16$th.10@trnddc05...
> Scott wrote:
<...>
> The problem with buying a classic (as I understand it) is that I won't be
> able to do the repair and maintenance on it. I've seen a bunch of old
> ratty Cessna 150s sitting around the air parks that look like they need a
> lot of TLC to get flying. If I bought one of those, I'd have to pay an A&P
> a fortune to get it in the air.
>

Another reason to buy a used homebuilt...

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Anthony W]

"Scott" > wrote
> And I won't debate that ;) My take was the poster was implying that
> he thought it was cheaper to build rather than buy and on that
> assumption, I suggested he check out some older "classics" if cost was
> the only criterion :)

What classics can be worked on by a non A&P owner and could be licensed
under the LSA rules?

Tony

[Anthony W]

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:

>> The problem with buying a classic (as I understand it) is that I won't
>> be able to do the repair and maintenance on it. I've seen a bunch of
>> old ratty Cessna 150s sitting around the air parks that look like they
>> need a lot of TLC to get flying. If I bought one of those, I'd have
>> to pay an A&P a fortune to get it in the air.
>>
>
> Another reason to buy a used homebuilt...

I'm still thinking it would be better to scratch build myself. I'm very
picky about how things go together and I doubt someone else as picky as
me wouldn't sell a plane they've built.

If it weren't for the certification rules, I'd buy an old classic and
restore it myself. I think that would be as satisfying as building
something from scratch.

Tony

[Steve Hix]

In article <tLLsj.231$sh.31@trnddc07>, Anthony W >
wrote:

> "Scott" > wrote
> > And I won't debate that ;) My take was the poster was implying that
> > he thought it was cheaper to build rather than buy and on that
> > assumption, I suggested he check out some older "classics" if cost was
> > the only criterion :)
>
> What classics can be worked on by a non A&P owner and could be licensed
> under the LSA rules?

As far as *operated* under LSA rules, here's one list:

http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/lsa/standard_certificate_aircraft.html

[Blueskies]

"Anthony W" > wrote in message news:JOLsj.232$sh.18@trnddc07...
> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
>
>>> The problem with buying a classic (as I understand it) is that I won't
>>> be able to do the repair and maintenance on it. I've seen a bunch of
>>> old ratty Cessna 150s sitting around the air parks that look like they
>>> need a lot of TLC to get flying. If I bought one of those, I'd have
>>> to pay an A&P a fortune to get it in the air.
>>>
>>
>> Another reason to buy a used homebuilt...
>
> I'm still thinking it would be better to scratch build myself. I'm very
> picky about how things go together and I doubt someone else as picky as
> me wouldn't sell a plane they've built.
>
> If it weren't for the certification rules, I'd buy an old classic and
> restore it myself. I think that would be as satisfying as building
> something from scratch.
>
> Tony


You can do that. You need a certified person to do the signoffs, but you can do all the work...

[Anthony W]

Steve Hix wrote:

> As far as *operated* under LSA rules, here's one list:
>
> http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/lsa/standard_certificate_aircraft.html

I want to be able to work on my plane not just fly it under the FAA
rules, this excludes all former certificated aircraft.

Tony

[Anthony W]

Blueskies wrote:

>> I'm still thinking it would be better to scratch build myself. I'm
>> very picky about how things go together and I doubt someone else as
>> picky as me wouldn't sell a plane they've built.
>>
>> If it weren't for the certification rules, I'd buy an old classic and
>> restore it myself. I think that would be as satisfying as building
>> something from scratch.
>>
>> Tony
>
>
> You can do that. You need a certified person to do the signoffs, but you
> can do all the work...

Finding someone that would sign off on the work is highly unlikely since
I would also expect to rebuild the engine myself too.

Tony

[Steve Hix]

In article <aqNsj.2297$eU3.78@trndny04>,
Anthony W > wrote:

> Steve Hix wrote:
>
> > As far as *operated* under LSA rules, here's one list:
> >
> > http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/lsa/standard_certificate_aircraft.html
>
> I want to be able to work on my plane not just fly it under the FAA
> rules, this excludes all former certificated aircraft.

Interesting.

You'd better tell all those who have restored old aircaft back to flying
condition, what with replacing fabric, interiors, instruments, engines,
....

Somebody had to sign off the work, granted, but it's possible to do much
of the work yourself. Also legal.

[Peter Dohm]

"Anthony W" > wrote in message
news:zvNsj.2612$YL3.1639@trndny05...
> Blueskies wrote:
>
>>> I'm still thinking it would be better to scratch build myself. I'm very
>>> picky about how things go together and I doubt someone else as picky as
>>> me wouldn't sell a plane they've built.
>>>
>>> If it weren't for the certification rules, I'd buy an old classic and
>>> restore it myself. I think that would be as satisfying as building
>>> something from scratch.
>>>
>>> Tony
>>
>>
>> You can do that. You need a certified person to do the signoffs, but you
>> can do all the work...
>
> Finding someone that would sign off on the work is highly unlikely since I
> would also expect to rebuild the engine myself too.
>
> Tony

I have no personal experience with this, but have heard that it is normally
done by working under the supervision of the certified mechanic. In effect,
you would be paying to be an apprentice--but you would be paying less than
to have the mechanic do all of the work and you would be gaining the
education and skills. As best I understand the procedure, the certified
mechanic would perform the critical tasks, or at least supervise those tasks
*very* closely, and much of work that you would do could also be used as
experience toward certification as a mechanic. (Remember that much of the
work to be done can be performed by a helper.)

Further comment is invited--I am interested in possibly using the same
technique in the future.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"Anthony W" > wrote in message
news:aqNsj.2297$eU3.78@trndny04...
> Steve Hix wrote:
>
>> As far as *operated* under LSA rules, here's one list:
>>
>> http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/lsa/standard_certificate_aircraft.html
>
> I want to be able to work on my plane not just fly it under the FAA rules,
> this excludes all former certificated aircraft.
>
> Tony

It may not be quite that cut and dried; and I have attempted to start a
further discussion elsewhere in the same thread.

Peter

[BobR]

On Feb 13, 6:19*pm, Anthony W > wrote:
> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
> >> The problem with buying a classic (as I understand it) is that I won't
> >> be able to do the repair and maintenance on it. *I've seen a bunch of
> >> old ratty Cessna 150s sitting around the air parks that look like they
> >> need a lot of TLC to get flying. *If I bought one of those, I'd have
> >> to pay an A&P a fortune to get it in the air.
>
> > Another reason to buy a used homebuilt...
>
> I'm still thinking it would be better to scratch build myself. *I'm very
> picky about how things go together and I doubt someone else as picky as
> me wouldn't sell a plane they've built.
>

I think you might be very surprised on the above point. There are
many builders out there who are absolute perfectionists that are more
into building than flying after they build. I have known a couple who
simply move from one project to the next using their last project to
finance the next one. Their real joy is the pride and joy they take
in their workmanship.


> If it weren't for the certification rules, I'd buy an old classic and
> restore it myself. *I think that would be as satisfying as building
> something from scratch.
>
> Tony

From what I have seen of some of the old classic planes at Oshkosh
over the years, I would have to agree with you 100%. Not much could
be more satisfying than finding an old decaying classic in a barn or
hangar and bringing it back to life.

[BobR]

On Feb 13, 8:15*pm, Anthony W > wrote:
> Blueskies wrote:
> >> I'm still thinking it would be better to scratch build myself. *I'm
> >> very picky about how things go together and I doubt someone else as
> >> picky as me wouldn't sell a plane they've built.
>
> >> If it weren't for the certification rules, I'd buy an old classic and
> >> restore it myself. *I think that would be as satisfying as building
> >> something from scratch.
>
> >> Tony
>
> > You can do that. You need a certified person to do the signoffs, but you
> > can do all the work...
>
> Finding someone that would sign off on the work is highly unlikely since
> I would also expect to rebuild the engine myself too.
>
> Tony

While I have never attempted this myself, I would bet you a dollar to
a dime that if you joined your local EAA Classics chapter you would be
able to find someone there. My local EAA chapter has several old
pilot members who are into the classics and would be willing to help
someone like you. You might also visit the local airport and just
talk with some of the AP's and see what you could work out.

Where there is a will....there is a way.

[cavalamb himself[_2_]]

Anthony W wrote:

> Steve Hix wrote:
>
>> As far as *operated* under LSA rules, here's one list:
>>
>> http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/lsa/standard_certificate_aircraft.html
>
>
> I want to be able to work on my plane not just fly it under the FAA
> rules, this excludes all former certificated aircraft.
>
> Tony

Find an A&P that will put up with you for supervision and sign-off.
Do the work to his standards.
Get the A&P to recommend you for The Test
Get your OWN A&P rating.

Find some fool YOU can put up with for supervision and sign-off.
etc...

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Anthony W wrote:
> Blueskies wrote:
>
>>> I'm still thinking it would be better to scratch build myself. I'm
>>> very picky about how things go together and I doubt someone else as
>>> picky as me wouldn't sell a plane they've built.
>>>
>>> If it weren't for the certification rules, I'd buy an old classic and
>>> restore it myself. I think that would be as satisfying as building
>>> something from scratch.
>>>
>>> Tony
>>
>>
>> You can do that. You need a certified person to do the signoffs, but
>> you can do all the work...
>
> Finding someone that would sign off on the work is highly unlikely since
> I would also expect to rebuild the engine myself too.
>
> Tony

There are a lot of folks restoring older aircraft out there and not all
of them are A&Ps. I'd be willing to bet that there is a subset of A&Ps
around the country that if they don't specialize in checking restorer's
work at least do it regularly. You might check with the EAA.