High time homebuilts?

51% is absolutely not based on time. Its based on tasks. Are you just making this up as you go?
 
Correct. Tenths of each task. Edited, thanks. Don't know where that came from.
 
I really hate to burst your bubble, but RVs ARE Spam Cans...:rofl::rofl::rofl: And Lancairs are Clorox Bottles same as a Cirrus.

Negative. :mad: ;)

Spam cans are factory built airplanes.

I guess it just depends on definitions.
 
Last edited:
Negative. :mad: ;)

Spam cans are factory built airplanes.

I guess it just depends on definitions.

And to be even more pedantic, "spamcan" means *slow* factory built fixed gear metal airplanes, e.g. Cherokees, Skyhawks, Cardinals, Beech Musketeer, etc... I'd even categorize the Grumman AA5 models as spamcan.
 
I think a lot of the folks building EAB planes intend to sell them right after they've passed flight testing.

I think your right and some of the builders are real pros. If you look at some of the finished product they are real masterpieces. Some like to build rather than fly. Also true in the antique- classic field. Some of the rebuild people turn out aircraft much better than new.
 
The big reason the FAA clamped down is because so many of the guys who had the airplane built for them were applying for the repairman certificate. Now when the DAR inspects the airplane he asks the builder enough questions to determine if he is the builder before giving him the recommend for the repairman cert. Don

I wish that was always true. I know of way too many checkbook airplanes.

One day one of those checkbook builders is gonna have a bad day and bring down the FAA, Nancy Grace, and a bunch of shrieking nanny state proponents on the entire HB community.
 
I wish that was always true. I know of way too many checkbook airplanes.

One day one of those checkbook builders is gonna have a bad day and bring down the FAA, Nancy Grace, and a bunch of shrieking nanny state proponents on the entire HB community.

:rofl:
 

Can you imagine 'ol Nancy shrieking about "DANGEROUS HOMEBUILT AIRCRAFT" on primetime for a couple of weeks? Compounded by Scary Mary fueling the fires with her "expert" idiocy?

Makes me want to slit my wrists.
 
One day one of those checkbook builders is gonna have a bad day and bring down the FAA, Nancy Grace, and a bunch of shrieking nanny state proponents on the entire HB community.
Badwater Bill Phillips was killed in a hired-gun airplane, and that didn't make a ripple outside the aviation community. Of course, he hit a few dozen acres of desert floor rather than a school, daycare, etc.....

Ron Wanttaja
 
I think a lot of the folks building EAB planes intend to sell them right after they've passed flight testing.
Well, let's take a look at some statistics.

I took my copy of the FAA registration database for 31 December 2012, and extracted all Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft that were listed with a 2012 Year of Manufacture.

Then I checked to see how many had changed owners as of my 30 Dec 2013 database.

There were about 660 aircraft in my initial "Homebuilts completed in 2012" list. As of a year later, 43 of them (6.5%) had changed owners.

(the end-of-year 2013 database actually showed more aircraft completed in 2012 than the end-of-year 2012 database did. Suspect these were delayed listings. But we're just comparing "n" aircraft known to be new vs. the change in ownership.)

Of those 43 aircraft, here's the breakdown as to aircraft type:

Zenair: 5
Vans: 5
Rans: 4
Kolb: 2
Challenger: 2
Just: 2

This accounts for roughly half of the homebuilts that changed hands, the remainder were all single examples of types.

What's interesting is the relatively small numbers of what might usually be considered "hired gun bait." Only one Lancair, only one Velocity. But of course, the "hired guns" can list the purchaser's name as the owner right from the start, and not have to file a bill of sale.

Five RVs...obvious "hired gun" potential, but there are so many added to the roster each year that five doesn't seem to stand out. Four RV-7s and one RV-10, for anyone keeping track.

The five Zenairs were a scattering of models... two 601s, and one each of a 200, 701, and 750.

In any case, I don't think the near-immediate sale of less than 10% of completed homebuilts is an indication that a lot of folks are building these things with the intent on an immediate sale.

However, the number of "little guys" (small aircraft without much profit margin for a hired gun) might be a good indication of "serial builders" at work...more power to 'em!

Ron Wanttaja
 
You really have to love building and get high satisfaction and emotional value out of it to make it worthwhile, otherwise you are better off buying from one of the old men that build a plane like a work of art.

Never take on building because you want a cheap plane to fly.

This is exactly what Mary and I did. We hired an expert to find a finely-crafted, already built RV-8A. We are the third owner of this plane -- the builder sold it with less than 100 hours, and the second owner put around 200 hours on it in ten years. If you add up the cost of the kit, the engine, and the panel, the original builder's labor was valued at $0.00 in the price we paid for the plane.

We are going to skew Ron's statistics, since we flew her 200+ hours last year, which is a helluva lot of flying, when you figure we're going 200 mph. We've covered Texas -- an enormous state -- pretty thoroughly, and hit quite a few other states as well.

I would LOVE to build an airplane, but I'm in the last year of this hotel renovation project -- and that takes all my time, times two -- but the end is in sight. (One more winter!) Maybe in five more years, after I've grown tired of sitting on the beach all day drinking gin & tonics, I'll pick a project.
 
And to be even more pedantic, "spamcan" means *slow* factory built fixed gear metal airplanes, e.g. Cherokees, Skyhawks, Cardinals, Beech Musketeer, etc... I'd even categorize the Grumman AA5 models as spamcan.

:rofl::rofl::rofl: Self delusion is a wonderful thing isn't it?:rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
Well, let's take a look at some statistics.

I took my copy of the FAA registration database for 31 December 2012, and extracted all Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft that were listed with a 2012 Year of Manufacture.

Then I checked to see how many had changed owners as of my 30 Dec 2013 database.

There were about 660 aircraft in my initial "Homebuilts completed in 2012" list. As of a year later, 43 of them (6.5%) had changed owners.

(the end-of-year 2013 database actually showed more aircraft completed in 2012 than the end-of-year 2012 database did. Suspect these were delayed listings. But we're just comparing "n" aircraft known to be new vs. the change in ownership.)

Of those 43 aircraft, here's the breakdown as to aircraft type:

Zenair: 5
Vans: 5
Rans: 4
Kolb: 2
Challenger: 2
Just: 2

This accounts for roughly half of the homebuilts that changed hands, the remainder were all single examples of types.

What's interesting is the relatively small numbers of what might usually be considered "hired gun bait." Only one Lancair, only one Velocity. But of course, the "hired guns" can list the purchaser's name as the owner right from the start, and not have to file a bill of sale.

Five RVs...obvious "hired gun" potential, but there are so many added to the roster each year that five doesn't seem to stand out. Four RV-7s and one RV-10, for anyone keeping track.

The five Zenairs were a scattering of models... two 601s, and one each of a 200, 701, and 750.

In any case, I don't think the near-immediate sale of less than 10% of completed homebuilts is an indication that a lot of folks are building these things with the intent on an immediate sale.

However, the number of "little guys" (small aircraft without much profit margin for a hired gun) might be a good indication of "serial builders" at work...more power to 'em!

Ron Wanttaja

From my experience, your methodology does not produce a representative view of how it typically works. What I see is also the planes being sold prior to initial registration at high levels of completion, then completed under the buyer's name.
 
Badwater Bill Phillips was killed in a hired-gun airplane, and that didn't make a ripple outside the aviation community. Of course, he hit a few dozen acres of desert floor rather than a school, daycare, etc.....

Ron Wanttaja

My idea of a really bad day involves fatalities at a school, an apartment complex, or some other high profile location that captures the attention of the news media on a slow day.

Didn't realize BWB was in a checkbook airplane when he went down. It wasn't the auto conversion RV was it?
 
People who love to build (for themselves) are often people who do not get much of a thrill from flying after the first rounds of adulation at the local fly-in and going to the Big O or to SnF.
So they sell and start a new project after a year or two.

Pro builders are just that, they build for money and have little or no interest in flying. The plane is rolled over into cash as fast as they can - often registered in another name as was pointed out.

Neither is better or worse than the other. Just be glad the FAA is willing to put off the inevitable end of GA flying in this country by allowing this to go on. And they recognize that the hired gun usually turns out a well built product compared to the average guy building a one and only - even as they give lip service to "amateur experimental" in public..
 
From my experience, your methodology does not produce a representative view of how it typically works. What I see is also the planes being sold prior to initial registration at high levels of completion, then completed under the buyer's name.
That is true, my method won't detect this sort of operation. We are, after all, referring to fraud being committed, and I'm sure the guilty parties are doing something to hide that.

True amateur serial builders have no need to perform such misdirection.

Ron Wanttaja
 
My idea of a really bad day involves fatalities at a school, an apartment complex, or some other high profile location that captures the attention of the news media on a slow day.

Didn't realize BWB was in a checkbook airplane when he went down. It wasn't the auto conversion RV was it?
No, Lancair Legacy N151HT. He'd made no secret of buying it brand new; it had 70 hours at the time of the accident. This was the one of three Lancair Legacies the builder of record had done in a ~2 year period.

Ron Wanttaja
 
No, Lancair Legacy N151HT. He'd made no secret of buying it brand new; it had 70 hours at the time of the accident. This was the one of three Lancair Legacies the builder of record had done in a ~2 year period.

Ron Wanttaja

So in all of those, the buyer was the original registrant, right? Yeah, I'm not sure if it's actually possible to guess the scope of the issue without doing an anonymous survey of all first registrants, but I would hazard to guess that a third or more of all first registrant amateur built planes were actually something you and I would agree to consider professionally built.

The rule revolves around involvement, not actual labor. If someone hires a hired gun to run the tools while observing and learning the processes, putting a hand here and there to assist, I consider that legitimate from the both the rule and spirit of Ex/AB. From what I have read and understand, the FAA agrees with this as well since you have met the 'educational' criteria.

It's the guys that drop off a check and decide paint schemes and panel designs they take issue in because they don't become involved in 51% of the processes. Those guys can't have a repairman's certificate. I do have it from a reasonably reliable source, that you can gain a subsequent repairman's certificate by disassembling to a certain point and reassembling. I have not put that to any research or test though so it may be false, although it is sensible.
 
Never take on building because you want a cheap plane to fly.

Amen ... the two Exp/AB's that I've built certainly weren't cheap when
I added up the costs. I wanted them built right and exactly the way I
wanted them equipped. I built them to fly and that's what I've done. You
can't really expect to get your money back when you sell doing that though.
But the way I view it is ... if I sell for $10000 less than my build cost and get $15000 worth of flying time out of it (compared to renting) .. then I'm money ahead.

I do know people though who just enjoy tinkering and I know they'll never
fly what they're working on.

RT
 
The only way to get the repairman certificate on a homebuilt is if your name is on the airworthiness certificate. The RV7 I built will always be a Don Chapton RV7 even though I sold it. Don
 
I was very happy to find a Lancair 360 with around 1100 hours when I bought it. I was also the 5th owner and was able to speak with 2 of the previous owners.

I've put 600 hours on it since then, she's nicely broken in!

If funds were available, I would absolutely consider having a professional shop build a plane for me, but I wouldn't expect to have a repairman's cert when it was done.

To put things in perspective, my condition inspections usually cost me around $800, and I welcome the opportunity for someone else to look at the airplane. Even if I could have a repairman's cert, I think having another set of eyes on it isn't a bad thing.
 
met a guy today who has 988 hours on his Air Bike
 
Back
Top