Looking to build an airplane

GSXR69 said:
Thanks for the reply, I do agree that the low cost of ownership could be a myth.

However, I do live in the San Francisco Bay area and low cost of ownership might be relative just because of how expensive it is to rent anything other than a trainer plane. And every time we want to do a trip, the trainer planes are a hassle to book. Hence the decision to build my own plane.

That being said, if you have any other insights that I might not have looked into, please share as it would be much appreciated.
Click to expand...
I kinda think you should only build if you want to build. For the experience of the process. If your only reason to build is to fly. I recommend buying one that someone else built.
 
A friend of mine built, I think, 3 planes. He just liked to build planes. As I understand it, he built the first one, then it wasn't quite what he wanted, so he sold it and started building something else. Rinse/repeat. He was retired and found putting in rivet after rivet after rivet relaxing. He didn't fly much.
 
WOW, great responses here guys. I even got a few PMs so that I can call. Thanks a bunch!
 
If your budget is $250k then you area buyer not a builder. 4place e/ab is not that common most popular planes are 2person.
 
pfarber said:
If your budget is $250k then you area buyer not a builder. 4place e/ab is not that common most popular planes are 2person.
Click to expand...
I consider myself a builder as much as anyone who’s built a 2-place kit. The RV-10 is very popular and the Slings are growing steam. Add in Velocity, Lancair, and Murphy to name a few and 4-place E-ABs are well solid market segment now. Just because they are more expensive kit to build doesn’t make the purchaser any less of a kit builder.
 
tsts4 said:
I consider myself a builder as much as anyone who’s built a 2-place kit. The RV-10 is very popular and the Slings are growing steam. Add in Velocity, Lancair, and Murphy to name a few and 4-place E-ABs are well solid market segment now. Just because they are more expensive kit to build doesn’t make the purchaser any less of a kit builder.
Click to expand...
velocity lancair et al are a tiny segment. I remember when the Lancair first flew. They used to run an ad on the back cover of kitplanes with a red lancair for years.

the eab workd is full of unique solutions to the same problem. but other than the RV series i cant see how any other line can be considered a sucess. since 1984-ish there are how many lancairs inthe sky?
 
pfarber said:
velocity lancair et al are a tiny segment. I remember when the Lancair first flew. They used to run an ad on the back cover of kitplanes with a red lancair for years.

the eab workd is full of unique solutions to the same problem. but other than the RV series i cant see how any other line can be considered a sucess. since 1984-ish there are how many lancairs inthe sky?
Click to expand...
What do you consider success? Lancair, Velocity, Bearhawk, and lots of others are still in business after decades and their aircraft are getting built today. In my book that's success. If you are going to restrict the definition to market share or number of completions, then that's your choice but I'm not taking that myopic of a view of the industry.
 
Glad I found this thread. My budget is $75-100k but i dont want to make payments on something I cant afford to fly often and I dont like $40,000 dollar surprises. Im inclined to build a zenith 801 but my wife wants a 6 place. I could probably afford to acquire a Cherokee 6 or a Beech Sierra but paying an A&P to do every jot and tiddle would put me in the poor house or looney bin.

2/4 of my kids want to be pilots so that helps justify the cost, but a 2 or 4 place me-built bush plane kept here at the ranch would probably cost a lot less than a certified plane kept at our unsecured local airport.
 
I
moparrob66 said:
I could probably afford to acquire a Cherokee 6 or a Beech Sierra but paying an A&P to do every jot and tiddle would put me in the poor house or looney bin.
Click to expand...
As the builder/owner of two experimental, I’ll tell you that maintenance expenses should not be a deciding factor. You’re talking about a relatively small number, and one that can be mitigated by owner assistance.
 
There are other factors for me. Not a lot of certified planes that will get 4 people in and out of my 600 (800 with some dozer work) foot backyard strip. That eliminates hangar rental or tiedown fees as well as more spontaneous flying instead of making time to drive to the airport.

If money were no object, I'd probably be showing off a Helio Courier.
 
moparrob66 said:
There are other factors for me. Not a lot of certified planes that will get 4 people in and out of my 600 (800 with some dozer work) foot backyard strip.….
Click to expand...

You’re trying to check a lot of boxes in one fell swoop. Good luck finding the unicorn.
 
I think that it is definitely doable, but you really probably wouldn’t like the results, the light wingloading it would require would make it useless in all but still air ( including calm days from around 10:00 am to 5:30 ish pm, because you’ll be a leaf in the wind unless you ballast it to gross weight) and the fuel burn per mile covered in the rare times it would actually be comfort to fly would be eye watering.
 
moparrob66 said:
Glad I found this thread. My budget is $75-100k but i dont want to make payments on something I cant afford to fly often and I dont like $40,000 dollar surprises. Im inclined to build a zenith 801 but my wife wants a 6 place. I could probably afford to acquire a Cherokee 6 or a Beech Sierra but paying an A&P to do every jot and tiddle would put me in the poor house or looney bin.

2/4 of my kids want to be pilots so that helps justify the cost, but a 2 or 4 place me-built bush plane kept here at the ranch would probably cost a lot less than a certified plane kept at our unsecured local airport.
Click to expand...
Check out the Bearhawk web site. They are all tailwheel planes, designed for bush flying, and I think I remember they have a 6 place model.
 
Craig said:
Something to understand about building, is that the average completion time is something like 5-7 years. Dedicated builders can do it much quicker, but they typically are single and have no significant family life. Van's estimates a minimum of 2000 hours to build their 4 seat RV-10. Kyleb can give you a good data point on the RV10 build time.
Click to expand...
5 to 7 years to finish an already- 49%-complete kitplane. Long time. When I got into homebuilding 50 years ago there were no kitplanes to speak of, and it could take 10 or more years to build a two-seater. At that time, only about 10% of homebuilt projects ever got finished. With kits, I would imagine that percentage to be better, but probably still rather small.
GSXR69 said:
I think what is top of mind right now is the time it will take to build. My kinds are 5 and 6 right now and this is something I was looking to do so that they could be involved but I am starting to realize that it is risky as they might loose interest and then I definitely don't want to be the dad that spent all evenings and weekends in the garage / hanger. Something I need to think about a bit more.
Click to expand...
The kids will lose interest real quick. They want results NOW.
Ed Haywood said:
You'll either spend your weekends and evenings in the garage/hangar alone, or take 10 years to finish.

Building a plane is not a recipe for family togetherness. It is a recipe for missing soccer practice, dance recitals, family dinners, etc.
Click to expand...
That there. I remember a nice homebuilt at the Arlington fly-in a long time ago. It had the old EAA information placard hanging on the prop, giving the designer, model and builder, along with performance specs. There was a line for Cost To Build, and on that line the fellow had written "My family." You neglect them to build that airplane, and you could easily lose them. It's not worth that.
simie1 said:
Get a 172. Fly it a lot. Go places with your family. Then get a 182. Or heck start there. We have flown all over the country in our 182. Started in a 172 and flew it all over the country too. Took a month and travelled the west one year. Many trips west and south. All an adventure and pure family time. I dreamed about building a Kitfox with my boys, but the time we spent flying places and being together probably beat hell out of wrenching in the garage from a “quality time” perspective. You have a great budget for a family traveler. Do that.
Click to expand...
Much better advice. Leave the ambitious build for the empty nest or early retirement. If you just have to build an airplane, build a simple and much less expensive and time-consuming one.
 
tsts4 said:
What do you consider success? Lancair, Velocity, Bearhawk, and lots of others are still in business after decades and their aircraft are getting built today. In my book that's success. If you are going to restrict the definition to market share or number of completions, then that's your choice but I'm not taking that myopic of a view of the industry.
Click to expand...
Success would, by definition require lots of customers. Building 2 kits a year is a hobby, not a thriving business. The Market for $2-500k+ EAB's are so small it should not be considered. A Lanciar Turoprop is a million dollars. Just because they sell one or two doesn't mean its successful, does it? I mean success at business would be more than just 'didn't close shop'.

Kitfox as a company has been sold how many times? Most of the long term manufacturers are far removed from the original owners.

Wiki (Man do I hate citing Wiki) says there are 78 bearhawks flying. Ok, thant's nice.. considering its a 20 year old design? Meh not what I consider a raging success when compared to say almost 12,000 RVs?

Take the Cirrus. That is a success also although no longer an EAB and actually owned by the Chinese government now.
 
Dan Thomas said:
When I got into homebuilding 50 years ago there were no kitplanes to speak of
Click to expand...
Sorry but I gotta give a shout out to my homie Jim Bede (RIP)

The BD-5 was the first full kit offered for sale in early 1970.

I hate the BD-5 with a passion.. it, like the VariViggen are craptastic aircraft... but they just. won't. die.
 
pfarber said:
Sorry but I gotta give a shout out to my homie Jim Bede (RIP)

The BD-5 was the first full kit offered for sale in early 1970.

I hate the BD-5 with a passion.. it, like the VariViggen are craptastic aircraft... but they just. won't. die.
Click to expand...
I regularly went to the Arlington Fly-in, starting in 1975, soon after I got my PPL. There were no BD5s there because nobody ever got a complete kit. Ever. I think I saw a BD4 once or twice, maybe. I stopped going in the early 80s. 15% mortgages and airplane projects didn't mix.

Like I say, no kitplanes to speak of. Lots of fancy magazine ads and promises, though.
 
If your planning on building, by the time your done your initial goal of a 4 person cross country homebuilt will no longer be achievable.

Figure 4 to 6 years to build a four place homebuilt and your boys, with wife and luggage are not going to be going far.

Take a close look at weight and balance and fuel for whatever aircraft you're looking at and see what I mean.

The idea of a true 4 passenger cross country machine is not simple or easy to find. And there will be compromises.
 
Ed Haywood said:
At that age, your kids will get bored after 15 minutes. They will then distract themselves by picking up sharp tools and toxic chemicals.

You'll either spend your weekends and evenings in the garage/hangar alone, or take 10 years to finish.

Building a plane is not a recipe for family togetherness. It is a recipe for missing soccer practice, dance recitals, family dinners, etc.
Click to expand...
Exactly..
 
Lndwarrior said:
If your planning on building, by the time your done your initial goal of a 4 person cross country homebuilt will no longer be achievable.

Figure 4 to 6 years to build a four place homebuilt and your boys, with wife and luggage are not going to be going far.

Take a close look at weight and balance and fuel for whatever aircraft you're looking at and see what I mean.

The idea of a true 4 passenger cross country machine is not simple or easy to find. And there will be compromises.
Click to expand...
An rv-10 will do it unless you have large family members. My typical Oshkosh trip has the airplane loaded with 4 people who average 180 lbs, nearly 100 pounds of stuff and 50 gallons/500 miles of fuel with reserves.
 
Been a while, but I re-discovered this thread researching the BD-4. Since posting in this thread, I bought a Zenith 801 that's approximately 70% complete. Its piled neatly In my shop and once a car project is together enough to move, I'll begin construction. By all accounts, that will get 4 butts in and out of my back yard. My 17 year old started lessons, so I bought an ifr capable 172 to save on plane rental. Once he has his private, plan is to use the 172 for our instrument ratings and then sell it to focus on the kit.

I get a lot of down time at work, and I'd love to find an experimental thats capable of carrying a lightweight motorcycle. Murphy moose comes to mind, but I'm intrigued by the simplicity of the BD-4. Why couldnt it be stretched (wings and fuselage) and become the plane I crave?

Piper did it with cherokees, cessna did it with the 205-206-207...im sure there are other examples. The way the BD-4 is built seems like a good starting point.

Yes, its ugly as a mud fence, but the zenith is growing on me, so...
 
I gather that some were built from plans...it looks like mostly angle stock.
 
GSXR69 said:
Hey there, I'm a new pilot with 170 hours and I'm really interested in building my own airplane.

I have been researching quite a few different airplanes and I am considering the Sling high wing (primarily due to the rotax fadec engine) and the Velocity XL / markIV cozy (the canard fascinates me)

What I'm looking for:
Cross country capable (comfort and cruise speed) for a family of four. Me 220lbs, wife 120lbs, two boys 40 lbs each but growing
Fuel efficient and low cost of ownership - hence experimental
Comfortable with a nice interior and modern avionics and autopilot - g3x touch or dynon hdx
Total budget under $250,000

I'm leaning towards the sling high wing just because most of my training/ flying has been in a Cessna. Any thoughts from this community and/or are there any additional ones I should look into.
Click to expand...
Every single builder I talk to says they spent YEARS building. Kudos to those with that level of patience and tinkersaurus skills.. high wing fetish? Buy a Cessna 172 or 182
 
moparrob66 said:
I gather that some were built from plans...it looks like mostly angle stock.
Click to expand...
mechanical engineering is not my thing, but my rough understanding of it is that angle iron makes kind of a lousy structural support, in that that is has weird buckling failure modes that aren't necessarily accurately modeled by anything. That was a terrible sentence. In other words, you have to design it to be heavy for any given load, which is why airplanes aren't made with unsupported angles, but rather tube stock. Ignore all of that if they're butted up together and used as T sections, or otherwise supported on one side.
 
Albany Tom said:
mechanical engineering is not my thing, but my rough understanding of it is that angle iron makes kind of a lousy structural support, in that that is has weird buckling failure modes that aren't necessarily accurately modeled by anything. That was a terrible sentence. In other words, you have to design it to be heavy for any given load, which is why airplanes aren't made with unsupported angles, but rather tube stock. Ignore all of that if they're butted up together and used as T sections, or otherwise supported on one side.
Click to expand...
I’ll bet that although he used the term angle iron, most likely it was 2024 or 6061 extruded aluminum angle conforming to AND10133 specs that’s widely used in kits and general aircraft construction and not the stuff from your local big box hardware store, much less actual angle iron. If you compare cross sections, the aviation angle has radius’s on the edges and on the inside corner where the Home Depot stuff has sharp edges and a straight 90* inside corner which is not ideal for carrying loads.
 
Last edited:
Canard vs high-wing? Or canard AND high wing?

IMG_9603.jpeg

Short field performance and load carrying, and in your price range if you find an older one.
 
Ignoring that a Katmai doesn't fit into the E/AB category...

I would love to look under the cowling to see the linkage to the elevators. Seems like it would make some maintenance tasks challenging.
 
Definitely a great design....why not add it to an experimental?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top