Building a Glasair Sportsman - has anyone done it?

[N2124v]

I've been looking to buy a plane, but the idea of building one has slowly been creeping into my head. I've looked at the Glasair Sportsman online and it looks like it could fit. I like the idea of spreading the cost out, being able to do maintenance on my plane, and the concept of being able to see what I have accomplished at the end of a certain period of time. I know that it is not a cheaper option than buying, but it sure looks like it could be rewarding.

A few questions:

What is a realistic cost to expect for tool outlay (cleco's, specialty tools, etc.)?

I've got a fairly empty two car garage, is this enough space to get started?

Are the fast build options worth it? Or the builder assist where you go there and build it?

What is the financing like for these projects? There are some pieces I can pay cash for, but others it would be nice to finance.

I am reasonably mechanically inclined, I've worked on airplanes, cars, and boats, and can follow directions (my wife might disagree about that one). I know it's a long process

This is the first time I've said out loud that I am looking at going to the dark side, please be gentle.... Any advice is appreciated.

 

[txflyer]

If I were going to build one, I think I would do the two weeks to taxi program at Glasair.

Even if it adds $10,000.00 to the build, think about the hours and hours you'll spend on your own in your garage. Probably a year before you would be at that stage. So you have to put a value on your time.

Good luck. If I were looking for a high wing plane like you are, the sportsman would be what I would be looking at hard also. You're basically getting a brand new C-170 for under $150K with all the modern bells and whistles. And a flight stick!

 

[N2124v]

If I were going to build one, I think I would do the two weeks to taxi program at Glasair.

Even if it adds $10,000.00 to the build, think about the hours and hours you'll spend on your own in your garage. Probably a year before you would be at that stage. So you have to put a value on your time.

Good luck. If I were looking for a high wing plane like you are, the sportsman would be what I would be looking at hard also. You're basically getting a brand new C-170 for under $150K with all the modern bells and whistles. And a flight stick!

Yeah, I blame you for this line of thought! I was happy to plod along looking at 140's and 170's then you posted the Sportsman in my thread.......

 

[txflyer]

I may have done you a dis-service, because if your budget is for a $40K 140, the sportsman is going to eat your lunch.

 

[N2124v]

I may have done you a dis-service, because if your budget is for a $40K 140, the sportsman is going to eat your lunch.

Not at all. You've got to dream big. The budget is a starting point for this endeavor. The wife will go along with spending more for a newer/more capable plane. Mainly wanted a 140 for the cuteness (wife description) and local flying, but starting to waiver on that. I'm just looking at options.

 

[txflyer]

Not at all. You've got to dream big. The budget is a starting point for this endeavor. The wife will go along with spending more for a newer/more capable plane. Mainly wanted a 140 for the cuteness (wife description) and local flying, but starting to waiver on that. I'm just looking at options.

That's good she's all in on it. But she better be prepared to be all in to the tune of maybe three or four times what a 140 will run you.

What happened to the one in Brenham? That was a pretty clean 140 last time I looked at it. It is a hangar queen, and not flown much. I do know that.

 

[Todd Copeland]

I've been looking to buy a plane, but the idea of building one has slowly been creeping into my head. I've looked at the Glasair Sportsman online and it looks like it could fit. I like the idea of spreading the cost out, being able to do maintenance on my plane, and the concept of being able to see what I have accomplished at the end of a certain period of time. I know that it is not a cheaper option than buying, but it sure looks like it could be rewarding.

A few questions:

What is a realistic cost to expect for tool outlay (cleco's, specialty tools, etc.)?
Depends on which way you build. Two weeks to taxi will run you $190-200+k. Slow build with mid time engine, no frills interior and panel, under $100k
I bought my Glastar kit from the original purchaser and only paid $12k. I have a nice well equipped Glastar for about $45k total. You might consider a Glastar?
I've got a fairly empty two car garage, is this enough space to get started?
Yes

Are the fast build options worth it? Or the builder assist where you go there and build it?
They are if you want to get through the build quickly and can afford it. If you enjoy building, save the money.

What is the financing like for these projects? There are some pieces I can pay cash for, but others it would be nice to finance.
Depends on your credit and you circumstances. There are ways to finance.

I am reasonably mechanically inclined, I've worked on airplanes, cars, and boats, and can follow directions (my wife might disagree about that one). I know it's a long process
You would be fine.

This is the first time I've said out loud that I am looking at going to the dark side, please be gentle.... Any advice is appreciated.

I just did my biennial in my Glastar last Wednesday. My instructor has experience in many types. He is mature at about 60 years old and has plenty of credibility. He said to me that the Glastar is an amazing performing airplane. He said it handles better than cirrus' that he flies a lot and he couldn't believe the climb.
Two other reasons for experimental. I annual it myself and even when something needs to be done, it's a lot cheaper. I had my fuel servo on the lycoming io320b1a rebuilt. Same job exactly but without a yellow tag. I paid $800.00, with yellow tag it would have been $3800.00. When I decided to install an autopilot, I bought a Trio, fully functional two axis auto pilot that will fly a coupled approach. $3300.00. A certified installation with that capability in a Cessna would run at least $15,000!

 

[N2124v]

That's good she's all in on it. But she better be prepared to be all in to the tune of maybe three or four times what a 140 will run you.

What happened to the one in Brenham? That was a pretty clean 140 last time I looked at it. It is a hangar queen, and not flown much. I do know that.

She is. I think she is thinking of it like building a decorating a house. You get to pick how you want it.

We couldn't come together on price. Mechanically it was great, but the paint was really rough and while having a Garmin 430 is nice, it was just a little overkill, and that was a lot of his price.

 

[txflyer]

I just did my biennial in my Glastar last Wednesday. My instructor has experience in many types. He is mature at about 60 years old and has plenty of credibility. He said to me that the Glastar is an amazing performing airplane. He said it handles better than cirrus' that he flies a lot and he couldn't believe the climb.
Two other reasons for experimental. I annual it myself and even when something needs to be done, it's a lot cheaper. I had my fuel servo on the lycoming io320b1a rebuilt. Same job exactly but without a yellow tag. I paid $800.00, with yellow tag it would have been $3800.00. When I decided to install an autopilot, I bought a Trio, fully functional two axis auto pilot that will fly a coupled approach. $3300.00. A certified installation with that capability in a Cessna would run at least $15,000!

That's why even hard core STC flyers are having a hard time justifying continuing to fly these over regulated dinosaurs.

If I had it to do all over again, I would have built one.

Even though I love our 180, and think it's a hell of a plane, the ongoing parts and maintenance are outrageous compared to experimental. When you're buying a plane, you really should not think about the purchase price as much as what comes after.

 

[wabower]

Guess it just depends on who you ask. Mine is a breeze.

That's why even hard core STC flyers are having a hard time justifying continuing to fly these over regulated dinosaurs.

If I had it to do all over again, I would have built one.

Even though I love our 180, and think it's a hell of a plane, the ongoing parts and maintenance are outrageous compared to experimental. When you're buying a plane, you really should not think about the purchase price as much as what comes after.

 

[txflyer]

Guess it just depends on who you ask. Mine is a breeze.

Mine too.

Except the window latch on mine was $180 instead of $15 like on a home built.

It's a simple GD latch. Like you find in the old triangle windows of old cars. I could have retro'd one from a Chevy Nova.

 

[Henning]

The Sportsman is a hell of a plane, I got a ride in one with a TSIO-360 and it was extremely impressive. If I was to build one, I'd certainly do the factory build "Two weeks to taxi" program and probably finish there as well. Saves buying and creating a lot of tooling as well as gives you expert help on site.

 

[N2124v]

The Sportsman is a hell of a plane, I got a ride in one with a TSIO-360 and it was extremely impressive. If I was to build one, I'd certainly do the factory build "Two weeks to taxi" program and probably finish there as well. Saves buying and creating a lot of tooling as well as gives you expert help on site.

Glasair is going to be at the aopa summit in Ft. Worth in a few weeks. I think a trip to go learn about them is in my future.

 

[jkgoblue]

I've had my Sportsman for three years and just love. It's a TWTT plane that I bought from the builder and it is as beautifully finished as any certified plane. Most people think it's factory built. With an IO-390 it's a great cross country plane and will land in 300 feet. Had it as a trike for the first year and now as a tailwheel. 1100 lbs useful load and 50 gals takes me and just about anything I can load in it anywhere. Full glass with autopilot, what more do I need.

It really is the ideal plane for me.

 

[Geico266]

A few questions:

What is a realistic cost to expect for tool outlay (cleco's, specialty tools, etc.)?

I've got a fairly empty two car garage, is this enough space to get started?

Are the fast build options worth it? Or the builder assist where you go there and build it?

What is the financing like for these projects? There are some pieces I can pay cash for, but others it would be nice to finance.

I am reasonably mechanically inclined, I've worked on airplanes, cars, and boats, and can follow directions (my wife might disagree about that one). I know it's a long process

This is the first time I've said out loud that I am looking at going to the dark side, please be gentle.... Any advice is appreciated.

GlassXXX is a good choice.

Tools cost estimate is around $2,500, but these can mostly be sold after the build to recoup your investment if you want to.

Staying motivated is a huge thing to finish the plane. Like Henning, I like the two week to taxi thing also, but would go the slower route. Looks for a web site where other builders of the same plane hang out. Lurk a while.

Having your spouse back you up is clearly an advantage.

Two car garage is plenty.

The satisfaction you will get by flying something you built cannot be measured.

 

[wabower]

That's why junkyards, machine shops and owner-supplied parts were invented.

Mine too.

Except the window latch on mine was $180 instead of $15 like on a home built.

It's a simple GD latch. Like you find in the old triangle windows of old cars. I could have retro'd one from a Chevy Nova.

 

[yakdriver]

I built a Glasstar (the Sportsman's Daddy) with a friend and was very impressed with the kit and quality. This is one that a person with basic mechanical skills can build. Has a very easy to follow manual. I would get at least the quickbuild. The factory program is very expensive but you can get the plane done way quicker. If you go a new engine and prop with a Dynon or other glass panel you are looking at $100,000. The secret to finishing a homebuilt is to work on it EVERY day even if it just for 1/2 hour. The Sportsman is a very capable great flying airplane and well worth the effort to build. Don

 

[rbridges]

When I decided to install an autopilot, I bought a Trio, fully functional two axis auto pilot that will fly a coupled approach. $3300.00. A certified installation with that capability in a Cessna would run at least $15,000!

yeah, that's a kick in the junk for certified owners.

 

[Todd Copeland]

yeah, that's a kick in the junk for certified owners.

That, and the performance is why I don't ever intend to own another certified airplane again!

 

[rbridges]

That, and the performance is why I don't ever intend to own another certified airplane again!

It's a tough call for me. The certified thing definitely gets old, but I'm really happy with my bird otherwise. The low entry price is great, but getting stuff like AP and avionics repaired costs substantially more than non-certified. If I had a little more $$ to spend, I'd love to slip into an RV10.

 

[30703]

I posted our Sportsman TWTT build experience here

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38514

We are very happy with our decision to switch from owning an old certified plane (Cardinal 1970 C177B) to a new experimental plane. We added a backup battery and alternator last year. The cost was ~3K (including labor for other items such as wiring both the G430W and SL30 Nav to our backup EFIS Dynon D10A, adding LED cabin lights and installed the strut fairings). Our last two conditional inspections together cost less than $100 for supplies (grease, screws, brake fluid etc).

If you are interested in the Glastar/Sportsman, I highly recommend you joning the Glastar/Sportsman association and check out the forums and resources

http://glastarnet.org/public/

The Glastar/Sportsman builders/owners are very supportive. We attended an EAA Flyin at Rough River in Kentucky 2 weeks ago. We had a boatload of fun and learned many tips and techniques from other Glastar/Sportsman builders. We were very happy to see that Dick King also had dual G3X in his panel. I attempted once to use the Lean assist mode in the G3X but chickened out in seeing flashing red EGTs warnings. I learned from Dick and another Glastar owner that high EGTs are not critical. It seemed that our EGT warning values were set too low (yellow at 1400F and red at 1500F. Dick set his red at 1600F). Dick's plane was right behind us as we were leaving 2I3. He walked me through the process through a chat frequency. I was amazed to see that in the lean of peak mode, we burned only 6.8gph (at 9500 feet). I downloaded the flight logs last weekend to compare the fuel burn rate and speed of the departure and return trips. The tradeoff is 10% speed reduction for 30% fuel saving. We love flying and never in a hurry to get to our destination so this is definitely the way to go.

 

[Frank]

Even though I love our 180, and think it's a hell of a plane, the ongoing parts and maintenance are outrageous compared to experimental. When you're buying a plane, you really should not think about the purchase price as much as what comes after.

I do a lot of economic analysis of transportation equipment, and when I get stumped, often because what we are asking for does not yet exist, I use a figure of 15% to 25% of the new installation price to cover annual maintenance. I think that may be high for airframe and engine, but not for avionics. Nevertheless, there is some percentage of the new cost that will apply to maintenance of an airframe and engine, especially the airframe. A new Skyhawk goes for around $289,000. Figure about 75,000 of that is avionics. It will cost you some percentage of $215,000 each year to maintain a Skyhawk or 172. The older the plane the more that percentage is likely to be, especially if tied down outside. Let's say that the engine is $35,000. That means the airframe is about $180,000. Some of that is product liability insurance costs, but those costs would have to be added to any new parts, as well.

If your annual maintenance cost is as low as 3%, you will have to pay the same 3% regardless of how much you paid for the airplane, $5,400 per year. If you count interior and paint the figure may be twice that.

On your experimental aircraft, you can probably reduce parts costs on engine maintenance, but not labor costs. If you do the work, it is appropriate to count the value of your labor. You can probably reduce the parts costs for engines by about 30%. You can also reduce fuel costs by using Mogas and electronic ignition. You could also use a noncertified fuel injection system that would add much less cost to the aircraft, as in some of the ECI engines. My guess is that you can run your engine for as much as $25 per hour less in the O-320 to O-360 class engines.

When it comes to your airframe, you can cut costs even more relative to a certificated aircraft. The airframe parts costs for aircraft in the same range as the Skyhawk seem to be around $50,000. Your labor is the additional cost. If you value your labor in the airframe at $50,000, you have an airframe worth about $100,000. That is 5/9ths of the cost of the Cessna. If your maintenance costs are 3% per year, then the annual airframe maintenance costs will be $3,000.

The real savings can come from the avionics. You can probably buy the same capability for your homebuilt for $25,000 instead of $75,000. If annual avionics maintenance is 15%, then the Cessna will cost you $11,250 per year, while the homebuilt will cost you $3,750 per year. Note that the avionics costs can now be a huge chunk of aircraft maintenance costs. If you think the percentage I gave is high, look at the extended warranty terms from Garmin and Dynon. On an older Cessna, it makes a lot less sense to install glass panels, so the avionics costs on older aircraft is also likely to be much less. The new installation costs for a GPS IFR system with something like a 430W and a backup NavCom, with no autopilot are likely to be around $25,000 (e.g. Gulf Coast Garmin package 19, for $20K plus another $5K for a Navcom and CDI with ILS). Avionics costs are complicated, and include data updates, obsolescence (think Loran) and repair/replacement.

The point is when you buy an older certified airplane, you are not buying a $25,000 airplane, but rather a $225,000 airplane with lots of wear and tear.

 

[N2124v]

I drove up to Fort Worth, TX yesterday to visit the AOPA Summit airport fest and look at some airplanes. Glasair had a Sportsman 2+2 there and had a chance to look it over with the owner/builder. This is an awesome looking plane. I was really impressed with the steel tube frame with the fiberglass overlay and just the general feel of the plane. Everything felt sturdy. I'm definitely into the penny saving mode for this project.

While there I talked the the Glasair rep about the two week to taxi program. To me that seems like the no brainier way to build this plane. You have the tools, parts, and experience on hand and ready to go. Seems silly not to take advantage of that.

 

[Henning]

I drove up to Fort Worth, TX yesterday to visit the AOPA Summit airport fest and look at some airplanes. Glasair had a Sportsman 2+2 there and had a chance to look it over with the owner/builder. This is an awesome looking plane. I was really impressed with the steel tube frame with the fiberglass overlay and just the general feel of the plane. Everything felt sturdy. I'm definitely into the penny saving mode for this project.

While there I talked the the Glasair rep about the two week to taxi program. To me that seems like the no brainier way to build this plane. You have the tools, parts, and experience on hand and ready to go. Seems silly not to take advantage of that.

No doubt that the TWTT program will save all but the most advanced builder with their own facilities and tooling money and time.

 

[txflyer]

I do a lot of economic analysis of transportation equipment, and when I get stumped, often because what we are asking for does not yet exist, I use a figure of 15% to 25% of the new installation price to cover annual maintenance. I think that may be high for airframe and engine, but not for avionics. Nevertheless, there is some percentage of the new cost that will apply to maintenance of an airframe and engine, especially the airframe. A new Skyhawk goes for around $289,000. Figure about 75,000 of that is avionics. It will cost you some percentage of $215,000 each year to maintain a Skyhawk or 172. The older the plane the more that percentage is likely to be, especially if tied down outside. Let's say that the engine is $35,000. That means the airframe is about $180,000. Some of that is product liability insurance costs, but those costs would have to be added to any new parts, as well.

If your annual maintenance cost is as low as 3%, you will have to pay the same 3% regardless of how much you paid for the airplane, $5,400 per year. If you count interior and paint the figure may be twice that.

On your experimental aircraft, you can probably reduce parts costs on engine maintenance, but not labor costs. If you do the work, it is appropriate to count the value of your labor. You can probably reduce the parts costs for engines by about 30%. You can also reduce fuel costs by using Mogas and electronic ignition. You could also use a noncertified fuel injection system that would add much less cost to the aircraft, as in some of the ECI engines. My guess is that you can run your engine for as much as $25 per hour less in the O-320 to O-360 class engines.

When it comes to your airframe, you can cut costs even more relative to a certificated aircraft. The airframe parts costs for aircraft in the same range as the Skyhawk seem to be around $50,000. Your labor is the additional cost. If you value your labor in the airframe at $50,000, you have an airframe worth about $100,000. That is 5/9ths of the cost of the Cessna. If your maintenance costs are 3% per year, then the annual airframe maintenance costs will be $3,000.

The real savings can come from the avionics. You can probably buy the same capability for your homebuilt for $25,000 instead of $75,000. If annual avionics maintenance is 15%, then the Cessna will cost you $11,250 per year, while the homebuilt will cost you $3,750 per year. Note that the avionics costs can now be a huge chunk of aircraft maintenance costs. If you think the percentage I gave is high, look at the extended warranty terms from Garmin and Dynon. On an older Cessna, it makes a lot less sense to install glass panels, so the avionics costs on older aircraft is also likely to be much less. The new installation costs for a GPS IFR system with something like a 430W and a backup NavCom, with no autopilot are likely to be around $25,000 (e.g. Gulf Coast Garmin package 19, for $20K plus another $5K for a Navcom and CDI with ILS). Avionics costs are complicated, and include data updates, obsolescence (think Loran) and repair/replacement.

The point is when you buy an older certified airplane, you are not buying a $25,000 airplane, but rather a $225,000 airplane with lots of wear and tear.

Good post and it almost makes me want to sell my Cessna. Notice I said almost. :wink2: If it were not such a fine example of a 180, I would let it go and build a Sportsman or some replacement.

What I'm doing little by little is working up the courage to build my own plane. I should have a good twenty years left of flying in me if I don't get sick, so it would make sense. I would feel safe in a plane that I know the builder was not drunk, or mad at his boss, or cut any corners.

Try as hard as I might, I always seem to come back around to the RV line for the ease of building, ease of access, and the most bang for the buck for a serious first project. To a first time builder, the Glasair III seem's more daunting and a lot more $$$$ to **** up with.

 

[yakdriver]

The Sportsman is a great first project. Actually easier to build than an RV and I've done both. Great instructions and blueprints and the hardware and materials are first class. Their firewall forward and engine installation kits are much better than Van's. Get the quickbuild option as it's well worth the money and time savings. If you can afford the two weeks to taxi go for it. But again I'm repeating myself. Flew the Glasstar last week to pick up another airplane. 167mph true on 10gph. Don

 

[e.pie]

Love the sportsman, it's everything the 172 should have evolved in to.

 

[German guy]

Bringing this old thread up again - I wonder if one of those who showed interest in the Sportsman actually decided to build one?

I would be interested to hear about the quality and completeness of the kit, particularly with the quick build option, and how many hours of build time should reasonably be expected?

Did you also consider a Van's RV? If yes, which model and why did you pick one or the other?

The information on Glasair's website is minimal and the Glasair Aircraft Owners forum not publicly accessible.

 

[yakdriver]

I helped build a Glassair quick build. Everything in the kit is first class. Parts, instructions and workmanship is as good or better than any of the other kit makers. It is a great flying airplane as well. Don

 

[German guy]

Thank you.
My wife also likes it, and she is a big high wing fan. We will visit Van's this September to check out the RV-14A and the RV-7A. Since we will already be in the region, we should probably also visit Glasair...

 

[yakdriver]

I have also built a RV7 and helped on RV-6, 7, 8 and again Van's is first class. I would give the Glassair higher marks however for instructions and parts quality and identification. But the Glassair kit is a bit more expensive than a Van's kit. There is a ton of quality aftermarket stuff like upholstery, instrument panels and accessories for both Van's and Glasstar. Don