High time homebuilts?

[FormerHangie]

I was perusing Barnstormers, and was looking to see the number of hours flown that the homebuilts being offered for sale had. What I found was that the average was something less than 50 hours. As you'd expect, traveling machines like the various RVs and Lancairs had more hours per year, typically in the 70 hour range, while fly for fun types like a Sonex or a Kolb averaged less than 50, and some seemed to only fly 10 or 20 hours per year.

That seems like a lot of work for not much aviating, making me wonder if there are a lot of people who like building more than flying. I realize that I'm looking at a skewed sample set, people who don't fly are more likely to sell, but I was surprised how little most of them had been flown.

 

[1600vw]

When one flies one hr at a time and is also trying to hold down a job. Then throw in the weather. 30 hrs a year is a lot.

Most fly on the weekend. How many nice weekends in the summer?

What are you looking for?

Tony

 

[flyingriki]

making me wonder if there are a lot of people who like building more than flying.

There's a lot of that too.

At Oshkosh you will see several prop tags with 1000, 2000 and a couple 4000 hour planes.

 

[dans2992]

I think a lot of the folks building EAB planes intend to sell them right after they've passed flight testing.

 

[wanttaja]

I think a lot of the folks building EAB planes intend to sell them right after they've passed flight testing.

Roughly speaking, about the same number homebuilts change hands as are completed each year (about a thousand).

No way to find statistics on number of hours on the aircraft, but we can use my homebuilt accident database to make some educated guesses. As part of my analysis process, I make an estimate as to whether each aircraft was still owned by the original builder.

A lot of factors go into that... an airplane with significantly more hours than the pilot has time-in-type, a "Jones RV-6" registered to someone named Smith, and even the NTSB reports themselves sometimes indicate if the plane had been purchased. I don't designate a homebuilt as purchased unless I have positive factors to support it...though, of course, even those can be wrong.

Roughly half of the accidents in my 1998-2012 database involved aircraft I flagged as purchased. By subtracting the pilot's time-in-type from the aircraft total time, we know approximately how many hours the plane had when it was purchased.

In cases where we have values for both aircraft total time and pilot time-in-type (~850 cases), it averages to the aircraft having about 375 hours at the point it was purchased (the median is about 230).

Of course, we have no idea of the owners involved are the second or later owners... so the "375 hours" doesn't necessarily mean the original builder flew that many hours.

If we look at just the aircraft listed as being completed in the past ten years, the average drops to about 200 hours. But there's only 186 cases.

Lotsa reasons low-time homebuilts might be for sale:

1. Builder likes to build, and needs money to start a new aircraft.
2. Builder didn't do his research, and finds the airplane doesn't fit his needs.
3. Builder has had a life change and needs to sell the airplane (lost job, lost medical, etc.).
4. Builder does not like the way the airplane flies/handles. This may be due to poor research (e.g., didn't fly an example before starting) or something due to his construction.
5. Builder has scared himself and doesn't want to fly it anymore.
6. Builder has discovered major flaws.

#6, hopefully, should be discoverable during a good pre-buy.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[dans2992]

What about option 7 - builder makes money/makes a living building and selling?

Is that possible? I've met a few people that claim "someone they know" builds and sells RVs to make money.

 

[airflite1]

I hope I can add a little input, I have an RV-4 and a Bonanza. Before I bought the Bo the RV was for commuting and flew 100 to 150 hours per year. Now the RV is for fun and 1/2 hour to an hour now and then is all it gets used for, 25 to 50 hours a year is it.

 

[wanttaja]

What about option 7 - builder makes money/makes a living building and selling?

Is that possible? I've met a few people that claim "someone they know" builds and sells RVs to make money.

It's possible, and an option I did leave off. However, it does require a certain degree of lying when certifying the airplane.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[RotorAndWing]

What about option 7 - builder makes money/makes a living building and selling?

Is that possible? I've met a few people that claim "someone they know" builds and sells RVs to make money.

It's possible, and an option I did leave off. However, it does require a certain degree of lying when certifying the airplane.

Ron Wanttaja

Oh, now we all know that would never happen.....

 

[Henning]

I was perusing Barnstormers, and was looking to see the number of hours flown that the homebuilts being offered for sale had. What I found was that the average was something less than 50 hours. As you'd expect, traveling machines like the various RVs and Lancairs had more hours per year, typically in the 70 hour range, while fly for fun types like a Sonex or a Kolb averaged less than 50, and some seemed to only fly 10 or 20 hours per year.

That seems like a lot of work for not much aviating, making me wonder if there are a lot of people who like building more than flying. I realize that I'm looking at a skewed sample set, people who don't fly are more likely to sell, but I was surprised how little most of them had been flown.

From what I have seen there's more of that going on than you may think. There are a lot of old men out there that are retired master craftsmen and building planes gives them something to do. A lot of those sell with a complete, or nearly so, airframe, no engine, and no panel and typically you can get them to complete it after you buy it, the power plant, and panel. Some of them will complete the plane and hope to make a bit of money on the side. Then there are some guys who will do a couple a year for more income, not quite legal, but not much that can be done about it at a reasonable cost/benefit ratio.

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.

 

[RV10flyer]

I was perusing Barnstormers, and was looking to see the number of hours flown that the homebuilts being offered for sale had. What I found was that the average was something less than 50 hours. As you'd expect, traveling machines like the various RVs and Lancairs had more hours per year, typically in the 70 hour range, while fly for fun types like a Sonex or a Kolb averaged less than 50, and some seemed to only fly 10 or 20 hours per year.

That seems like a lot of work for not much aviating, making me wonder if there are a lot of people who like building more than flying. I realize that I'm looking at a skewed sample set, people who don't fly are more likely to sell, but I was surprised how little most of them had been flown.

25-50 hrs/year on ours. It is fun AND we(4 of us) travel. It was the same amount of work to build our house 8 yrs prior. I built to save 50%, just like the house. I do all of my own repairs on both. Do I want to build either again? No way. But I would if I had too. We have average family incomes, two teenagers at home, grow much of our own food, no satellite tv or wired internet at home, pack our lunches, rarely dine out and drive old vehicles. It is all about priorities. If we had the money, we probably would not have the time. If we had the time, we would not have the money. We would not want to see the whole country in one year or it would not be as exciting planning that next trip.

 

[RV10flyer]

As with any purchase, research and get a pre-buy inspection by someone very experienced in type.

 

[Geico266]

What about option 7 - builder makes money/makes a living building and selling?

Is that possible? I've met a few people that claim "someone they know" builds and sells RVs to make money.

I did.

 

[Geico266]

It's possible, and an option I did leave off. However, it does require a certain degree of lying when certifying the airplane.

Ron Wanttaja

Why is that? Build it, fly it, show it, sell it. I put 350 hours on mine before I sold it. I built it with the intentions of selling it, just had to wait for the right buyer that knew what it was worth.

 

[FormerHangie]

When one flies one hr at a time and is also trying to hold down a job. Then throw in the weather. 30 hrs a year is a lot.

Most fly on the weekend. How many nice weekends in the summer?

What are you looking for?

Tony

I would have guessed 50 hours per year for the "around the patch" types like a Kolb or a Rans Airaile, closer to 100 hours per year for traveling machine types such as an RV or a Lancair. Maybe I'm expecting too much, considering you can find more than a few cabin class twins with 150 hours per year on them, but some of these airplanes have less than 25 hours per year on them. There's no way that the builder would have ever spent more time in the air than in the shop.

From what I have seen there's more of that going on than you may think. There are a lot of old men out there that are retired master craftsmen and building planes gives them something to do. A lot of those sell with a complete, or nearly so, airframe, no engine, and no panel and typically you can get them to complete it after you buy it, the power plant, and panel. Some of them will complete the plane and hope to make a bit of money on the side. Then there are some guys who will do a couple a year for more income, not quite legal, but not much that can be done about it at a reasonable cost/benefit ratio.

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.

That's for sure. You can find some birds out there that look very well done for less than the cost of the kit and major components. If someone really wants an experimental, buying a completed one looks like a better value proposition than does building one.

 

[Bill Watson]

From what I have seen there's more of that going on than you may think. There are a lot of old men out there that are retired master craftsmen and building planes gives them something to do. A lot of those sell with a complete, or nearly so, airframe, no engine, and no panel and typically you can get them to complete it after you buy it, the power plant, and panel. Some of them will complete the plane and hope to make a bit of money on the side. Then there are some guys who will do a couple a year for more income, not quite legal, but not much that can be done about it at a reasonable cost/benefit ratio.

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.

There is a continuum of builder/flyer profiles and I would suggest that stereotypes don't really tell the whole story. There are some mechanically gifted energetic craftsman than build things like some people drink. Aircraft represent just one channel for their obsessions and many of them don't even consider kit planes. They may spend more time on tooling than building and may never complete an aircraft because flying was never the goal. These are people that scratch build faster than most of us can inventory a kit. Some restorers fit in this category but they work on certificated craft, even if it's just from a data plate and a couple of drums of trash.

There are certainly people that prefer to build over flying, and those that just do it to fly, and all flavors in between. There's a tendency to focus on the build to sell types which there certainly are, some for profit but more for enjoyment.

Some people really know what they want and what they are doing, some find out they are going down the wrong path. Some are extremely competent, some not so much.

25-50 hrs/year on ours. It is fun AND we(4 of us) travel. It was the same amount of work to build our house 8 yrs prior. I built to save 50%, just like the house. I do all of my own repairs on both. Do I want to build either again? No way. But I would if I had too. We have average family incomes, two teenagers at home, grow much of our own food, no satellite tv or wired internet at home, pack our lunches, rarely dine out and drive old vehicles. It is all about priorities. If we had the money, we probably would not have the time. If we had the time, we would not have the money. We would not want to see the whole country in one year or it would not be as exciting planning that next trip.

There's an example of someone who really knows what they want and what they are doing.

Why is that? Build it, fly it, show it, sell it. I put 350 hours on mine before I sold it. I built it with the intentions of selling it, just had to wait for the right buyer that knew what it was worth.

Looks like another one.

I would have guessed 50 hours per year for the "around the patch" types like a Kolb or a Rans Airaile, closer to 100 hours per year for traveling machine types such as an RV or a Lancair. Maybe I'm expecting too much, considering you can find more than a few cabin class twins with 150 hours per year on them, but some of these airplanes have less than 25 hours per year on them. There's no way that the builder would have ever spent more time in the air than in the shop.

That's for sure. You can find some birds out there that look very well done for less than the cost of the kit and major components. If someone really wants an experimental, buying a completed one looks like a better value proposition than does building one.

Sometimes it is just economics. 100 hours in a traveling machine could easily cost $10k independent of travel costs like hotels and rental cars and days off from work.

For someone who wants a plane to fly, this value proposition is dead on.

 

[wanttaja]

Why is that? Build it, fly it, show it, sell it. I put 350 hours on mine before I sold it. I built it with the intentions of selling it, just had to wait for the right buyer that knew what it was worth.

The problem arises when the builder has to supply the signed affidavit that the airplane was built for education and recreation. There are always gray areas; in your case you got 350 hours of personal use out of it before selling even if it was your intent all along. The issue is a bit different when a person sells an RV-8 with 5 hours TT every six months.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

If your hobby (recreation) is building airplanes because you enjoy building airplanes, what should you do with them when you are done if you would rather be building than flying?

 

[wanttaja]

I would have guessed 50 hours per year for the "around the patch" types like a Kolb or a Rans Airaile, closer to 100 hours per year for traveling machine types such as an RV or a Lancair.

That's actually pretty close to the results I got from the aircraft in the homebuilt accident database. About 60 hours a year overall for homebuilts, with the "fun machines" about 45 hours a year, and the "traveling machines" closer to 80.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

If your hobby (recreation) is building airplanes because you enjoy building airplanes, what should you do with them when you are done if you would rather be building than flying?

That's where the gray comes in. There are plenty of "serial builders" who do it because they like building. Tony Bingelis is a good example.

I just dislike checkbook homebuilding. Pay a guy $250,000, have him build a homebuilt, get your name in the records as the builder, then go to Oshkosh to collect your trophy. I think it's a disservice to the true amateurs.

Personally, I'd like to see a separate Experimental category created for pro-built aircraft.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[FormerHangie]

That's actually pretty close to the results I got from the aircraft in the homebuilt accident database. About 60 hours a year overall for homebuilts, with the "fun machines" about 45 hours a year, and the "traveling machines" closer to 80.

Ron Wanttaja

That's good, it shows my sampling bias. People who are selling, are doing so because they aren't flying.

 

[KeithASanford]

That's where the gray comes in. There are plenty of "serial builders" who do it because they like building. Tony Bingelis is a good example.

I just dislike checkbook homebuilding. Pay a guy $250,000, have him build a homebuilt, get your name in the records as the builder, then go to Oshkosh to collect your trophy. I think it's a disservice to the true amateurs.

Personally, I'd like to see a separate Experimental category created for pro-built aircraft.

Ron Wanttaja

Can you currently have 49% of an aircraft "professionally" built? Sounds like it would be a pretty lucrative business.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Can you currently have 49% of an aircraft "professionally" built? Sounds like it would be a pretty lucrative business.

The 51% rule requires that an amateur tick of more than half of the tasks on a check list. You don't need to do any near 51% of the actual work of fabricating an aircraft from flat stock.

Some homebuilts go for enough that you probably could earn some money building them. Others, not so much. The kit for mine was about $18,000, the engine $16,000, plus prop, instruments, etc. etc. etc. I bought it already built and flying (and a few years old) for $20,000. Not much money made on that one.

 

[Henning]

If your hobby (recreation) is building airplanes because you enjoy building airplanes, what should you do with them when you are done if you would rather be building than flying?

That's the thing, if that was your intent, that's fine. If your intent was to build a plane and make an income, that is not fine.

 

[KeithASanford]

The 51% rule requires that an amateur tick of more than half of the tasks on a check list. You don't need to do any near 51% of the actual work of fabricating an aircraft from flat stock.

Some homebuilts go for enough that you probably could earn some money building them. Others, not so much. The kit for mine was about $18,000, the engine $16,000, plus prop, instruments, etc. etc. etc. I bought it already built and flying (and a few years old) for $20,000. Not much money made on that one.

Will that 51% qualify you as "the builder" so that you could do your own maintenance?

 

[Henning]

Can you currently have 49% of an aircraft "professionally" built? Sounds like it would be a pretty lucrative business.

Reality is you can do what you want, it all works on the honor system.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Will that 51% qualify you as "the builder" so that you could do your own maintenance?

A repairman's certificate is issued to one individual. That individual can then do the once a year condition inspection (or it can be done by an A&P).

Anyone can do the maintenance. You don't need the repariman's certificate to do repairs - you just need it for the condition inspection.

I bought an already flying E-AB aircraft and I do all of the work on it and pay an A&P to inspect it each year (all he does is inspect and sign the log).

 

[dans2992]

Even if I did build it, I'd want an A&P to look at it annually.

Second set of eyes is good.

 

[Bill Watson]

Even if I did build it, I'd want an A&P to look at it annually.

Second set of eyes is good.

Before building one, I kind of thought the same thing. After all, I still lack the skills and experience of a well trained and experienced A&P. I never had the urge to do much on my old Maule other than change the oil.

I'm coming up on my 3rd condition inspection and can't imagine having someone else do the inspection or even help with it. I assembled every component, designed the electrical system, installed the avionics, drove most of the rivets, shaped every bit of composite and even sprayed the paint. I've also flown every hour. Who could possibly know more about my aircraft? Who could be more engaged and focused on it's well being?

That's not to say I know how to maintain or fix everything. And different eyes/opinions/perspectives are useful. Fact is, it took me over 2 leisurely weeks to complete my inspection last year... I'm slower in part due to the lack of experience but I'm not on the clock either.

Even though I built a Vans fast build, I did far more than the 51%. I don't know how many 51%+ builders have an A&P do the condition inspection... I just can't imagine doing that myself.

 

[tsts4]

Will that 51% qualify you as "the builder" so that you could do your own maintenance?

The 51% rule applies to E-AB certification and has nothing to do with eligibility for a repairman's certificate.

 

[kyleb]

Even if I did build it, I'd want an A&P to look at it annually.

Second set of eyes is good.

I always have an IA buddy to go behind me and put his eyeballs on everything FWF. Those guys have seen a LOT more FWF installations than I ever will and know where the problem areas live.

In 13 years, he hasn't found a singe thing that I missed, but it only takes once...

BTW, I fly my RV-6 about 70 hours a year. That's probably 50 flights, including 3-4 long X/C's a year. One thing about a fast plane - those 100 NM flights to pancake breakfasts or fly-in's don't rack up a lot of hours.

 

[Neal Howard]

Kyle got it... an important thing to factor in for lower number of hours flown per year is that the faster homebuilts such as RVs when used as xc traveling machines get from point A to point B in a lot less time than does a spamcan. The same number of miles flown in a year in my old Cherokee might have been 100 hours in the air but is only 60-65 hours in the RV-6.

 

[JHW]

The problem arises when the builder has to supply the signed affidavit that the airplane was built for education and recreation. There are always gray areas; in your case you got 350 hours of personal use out of it before selling even if it was your intent all along. The issue is a bit different when a person sells an RV-8 with 5 hours TT every six months.

Ron Wanttaja

One has nothing to do with the other. Building is building. Flying is flying. they are unrelated activities. You are approaching it with a biased view that all people want to fly. Some of the best builders I've seen don't even have a pilot's license.

 

[wanttaja]

One has nothing to do with the other. Building is building. Flying is flying. they are unrelated activities. You are approaching it with a biased view that all people want to fly. Some of the best builders I've seen don't even have a pilot's license.

No...my bias is that I think Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft should be built by Amateurs. If anyone...pilot or no...wants to build multiple homebuilt aircraft, that's fine. As long as they're building for their own recreation or education.

Take Tony Bingelis. He built about ten airplanes, with a broad mix of types. Yes, he built more than one example of some models, but no one would question that he was an amateur.

Compare that to some who buys an RV-7 kit every year, builds it, and sells it for ~$50,000 more than his material cost. If that $50,000 per year is his only income...is he an amateur? If he runs an ad offering to build Rv-7s to customer's desires...is he an amateur?

Just for S&Gs, I llooked at RV-7s for sale on Trade-A-Plane. The first ad that came up said, "Professionally built by XXXX". Yet it's licensed as "Experimental Amateur Built". Seems a bit of a contradiction.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[JHW]

No...my bias is that I think Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft should be built by Amateurs. If anyone...pilot or no...wants to build multiple homebuilt aircraft, that's fine. As long as they're building for their own recreation or education.

Take Tony Bingelis. He built about ten airplanes, with a broad mix of types. Yes, he built more than one example of some models, but no one would question that he was an amateur.

Compare that to some who buys an RV-7 kit every year, builds it, and sells it for ~$50,000 more than his material cost. If that $50,000 per year is his only income...is he an amateur? If he runs an ad offering to build Rv-7s to customer's desires...is he an amateur?

Just for S&Gs, I llooked at RV-7s for sale on Trade-A-Plane. The first ad that came up said, "Professionally built by XXXX". Yet it's licensed as "Experimental Amateur Built". Seems a bit of a contradiction.

Ron Wanttaja

It's an ad. My brother bought a horse for his kids. The ad said "good with kids". That horse got a bullet a couple months later.

 

[Paulie]

Who do you think builds those turbine legends, lancair 4s, or most of the kits that cost over 125k just for a pile of airframe parts? It certainly ain't the owner in most cases. Check how many "builder assist" companies there are. The feds tried to clamp down on this a few years ago without success.

 

[Henning]

Kyle got it... an important thing to factor in for lower number of hours flown per year is that the faster homebuilts such as RVs when used as xc traveling machines get from point A to point B in a lot less time than does a spamcan. The same number of miles flown in a year in my old Cherokee might have been 100 hours in the air but is only 60-65 hours in the RV-6.

I really hate to burst your bubble, but RVs ARE Spam Cans... And Lancairs are Clorox Bottles same as a Cirrus.

 

[Henning]

Who do you think builds those turbine legends, lancair 4s, or most of the kits that cost over 125k just for a pile of airframe parts? It certainly ain't the owner in most cases. Check how many "builder assist" companies there are. The feds tried to clamp down on this a few years ago without success.

They kinda realized it would be counter productive and did modify the rules some. Builder Assist though has never been a problem, it's when the assist provides ALL the work and builder provides the money, that's when it gets sticky.

 

[yakdriver]

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

 

[Direct C51]

Reality is you can do what you want, it all works on the honor system.

It isn't on the honor system at all. Things have changed and the DAR will expect to see a builders log, and as an unwritten rule, will expect to see the builder in those pictures. No pictures, or pictures of a bunch of parts in a shop isn't going to work. It's ok if someone else does some or even all of the 51%, as long as they are an amateur, and they have provided a builders log to prove they did that work. It is legal and allowed to have multiple builders work on the plane, or for the kit to be partially built, sold to another builder, a little more built, sold, etc. as long as amateurs build 51%.

Furthermore the 51% rule is based on 1/10 of each task and a checklist is now used by the FAA and DAR. The generic checklist can be found here :

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/kits/media/AmBuiltFabAssyCklistFW.pdf

And if the kit is part of the NKET, the checklist can be found here:

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/kits/nket_list/