Buying a used home-built?

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.
--

"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..."

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.

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!

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.

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.

"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.

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)

"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.

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