Talk me out of this.

[DaleB]

Heh. I'll ask a Wayne style question...

What in your life experiences so far would cause you to believe you have higher skill than the other builders?

9 out of 10 of them haven't done it before, either. What would lead you to believe otherwise?

 

[denverpilot]

9 out of 10 of them haven't done it before, either. What would lead you to believe otherwise?

What's that got to do with your skill? You say you can build it better. Why do you think that?

 

[DaleB]

What's that got to do with your skill? You say you can build it better. Why do you think that?

First, the original question was whether I thought I could "build better than this", with a link to an RV-7 advertised for $85K. Since you asked...

• I don't like the paint job, I'd paint it my way. For me, that's better.
• I don't like the panel at all. Definitely could do better. It's not rocket science. Panel work is ergonomics, electronics and wiring -- three areas where I do pretty well, and two in which I've made my living for a few decades.
• I'd build an RV-9a (the jury is out on the -14), which is what I want, not an RV-7. So, yeah, better for me by quite a margin.
• Build quality? I don't know how well done that one is. Maybe it was built by a riveting pro. Maybe it was built by a guy with less experience than me, no way to tell without a close examination.
• I'd have all my wiring secured.

Do I have the skills to build an RV from a kit at least as well as the next guy? I'm quite sure of it, yes. I haven't spent the last five decades sleeping. Can I do better than paying $85K for an 8 year old airplane that's not really what I want? Again, yes.

 

[Rigged4Flight]

My $0.02 from the sidelines:

- If you go the kit route, you will be committing yourself to two years of the same frustrations that you currently have.
- As Randy said, you'll need to budget rental aircraft $$ for the duration of your project.
- You'll also need to budget flying time until your project is complete.

So you'll continue to live with the issues that brought you to this point in the first place. And the project that will rectify the situation will compete for both time and money with the hobby that this is all centered around.

Sometimes the fantasy is better than the reality. This may be one of those times.

 

[yakdriver]

I have been building and restoring airplanes for over 30 years. I built my RV7 in 2006-7 in 14 months. It was a quickbuild kit and it took 1200hrs less paint. I worked on it just under 100hrs a month. If you have good basic mechanical skills you can build an RV. The kit comes with all the hardware so you don't have to take the time to figure any of that out. One of the biggest hurdles that a first time builder will face is engine installation and the assorted plumbing. You can build 90% of the airplane in a one car garage space. RVs are great flying airplanes and building your own is a great experience but requires a huge amount of dedication. If you have a wife that is going to ***** about you spending huge amounts of time working on an airplane forget it or divorce her now or better yet teach her how to buck rivets. The secret to finishing a homebuilt is to work on it every day even if its only for half an hour. Keep the momentum going because if you take even a week or so break it is really hard to get going again. Good luck and above all have fun. Don

 

[EppyGA]

Why is the jury out on the -14? Vans has a pretty good track record, any reason to believe the -14 isn't a good airplane?

 

[DaleB]

Why is the jury out on the -14? Vans has a pretty good track record, any reason to believe the -14 isn't a good airplane?

Absolutely none. The jury's out on the -14 ONLY because we don't know yet what it's going to cost. If it's within the budget, great. If it's not... oh well. I suspect it's not going to be, just based on a $9K wing estimate.

 

[CJones]

... and some tools and supplies.

Just FYI - unless you are doing metal work as a hobby/side-job, don't expect to get by with what tools you already have laying around. A lot of folks get a couple months into the project and realize only 10% of their 'mechanics' toolsets that they've had for years are useful for building an airplane. We had the tools from the cotton/grain/cattle farming operation and still had to spend quite a bit on tools to do what we needed to do for the build. If you're really trying to put together a dollar-level cost comparison, make sure you do the research on what the correct tools for the job will cost you.

Again, I am VERY much pro-RV, but I don't want to see someone get down the path to epic happiness and not be able to complete the journey because of miscalculations they made in the beginning.

 

[DaleB]

Just FYI - unless you are doing metal work as a hobby/side-job, don't expect to get by with what tools you already have laying around.

No illusions there... I figured in about $3K for tools. I don't know if my compressor would be up to snuff -- probably not.

 

[jesse]

It sounds like you've already made up your mind Dale -- but just keep in mind that you've had an abnormal number of issues with the airplane you've flown.

An older certified airplane can indeed be pretty reliable. You will get to know any airplane you own and you will maintain it to the level that provides the reliability you require.

I have never, once, ever been stranded by an airplane away from home. I've done a LOT more cross country flying then you. Don't let your couple incidents that were out of the norm severely effect your decision

 

[Skylane81E]

I've also never been stranded, and not once have I had to fix anything away from home. The most work I've done away from my home base was pulling the air filter after an induction fire on start up.

I take care of her and she takes care of me!

 

[DaleB]

It sounds like you've already made up your mind Dale -- but just keep in mind that you've had an abnormal number of issues with the airplane you've flown.

An older certified airplane can indeed be pretty reliable. You will get to know any airplane you own and you will maintain it to the level that provides the reliability you require.

I have never, once, ever been stranded by an airplane away from home. I've done a LOT more cross country flying then you. Don't let your couple incidents that were out of the norm severely effect your decision

I wouldn't say I've made up my mind yet. I'm leaning heavily toward it, but a lot will depend on factors like how much we actually wind up flying, how supportive of or opposed to the idea my wife is, and how well the club experience goes. I have committed to not making a decision either way until at least the end of the year - maybe later. In the mean time I've identified some things I can do that will pay off even if I decide not to build. Just an example - I surveyed my over-stuffed garage, and I think I can turn it into a much better space that I'll enjoy a lot more whether there's a plane being built there or not. Won't cost much and will vastly improve it year round. (AND my wife could still park in there if I do decide to build.)

I'm glad you've never been stranded. It's happened to me twice now, with two different airplanes. Admittedly one was a POS trainer that was pretty well beaten. And the club 172 is in need of a more permanent solution -- I think that nose gear strut is simply worn out. Then again, by the time I got my temporary certificate I'd already been ramp checked once and had an FAA guy decide to come along on the check ride. I figure if this run of luck is going to continue, I should consider airline travel.

 

[wabower]

My impression agrees with yours, Jesse. In 50+ years of flying and more than 9k hours of single-engine cross-country, I've been delayed less than a half-dozen times due to mechanical problems. If I had been a mechanic or experimental owner, the delay wouldn't have changed because the parts I needed weren't available at the place (or after normal business hours) where the problem occurred.

Over the years the "should I get the A&P rating so I can fix stuff on the road and get home on schedule" has been discussed and debated ad nauseum by almost every pilot are worth a lot more at home than on the road.

I think Dale has his cart and horse juxtaposed just a bit, and that his current inability to fly the planes that are (or will be) available in his club is clouding his decision process. Once he has access to entire fleet, some (and I think most) of the current problems will disappear.

He's obviously a better salesman than I am, as I would have never convinced the Missus to remotely consider a vacation trip with the limited baggage space available in those garage-built 2-seaters, and one trip of any kind in that green-house fish bowl would have sealed the deal.

It sounds like you've already made up your mind Dale -- but just keep in mind that you've had an abnormal number of issues with the airplane you've flown.

An older certified airplane can indeed be pretty reliable. You will get to know any airplane you own and you will maintain it to the level that provides the reliability you require.

I have never, once, ever been stranded by an airplane away from home. I've done a LOT more cross country flying then you. Don't let your couple incidents that were out of the norm severely effect your decision

 

[DaleB]

Once he has access to entire fleet, some (and I think most) of the current problems will disappear.

Quite possible. It's one reason I'm holding off on making a decision.

He's obviously a better salesman than I am, as I would have never convinced the Missus to remotely consider a vacation trip with the limited baggage space available in those garage-built 2-seaters, and one trip of any kind in that green-house fish bowl would have sealed the deal.

We've done 2700-plus mile cross-country trips on a Harley. Granted, we were towing a small trailer -- but it was mostly full of stuff we wouldn't need in an airplane (leathers, big cooler full of ice & water, etc). The baggage space is a concern, though. It's another reason to hold off and see what the RV-14 looks like; it has a lot more room for her to fill with crap.

 

[yakdriver]

My impression agrees with yours, Jesse. In 50+ years of flying and more than 9k hours of single-engine cross-country, I've been delayed less than a half-dozen times due to mechanical problems. If I had been a mechanic or experimental owner, the delay wouldn't have changed because the parts I needed weren't available at the place (or after normal business hours) where the problem occurred.

Over the years the "should I get the A&P rating so I can fix stuff on the road and get home on schedule" has been discussed and debated ad nauseum by almost every pilot are worth a lot more at home than on the road.

I think Dale has his cart and horse juxtaposed just a bit, and that his current inability to fly the planes that are (or will be) available in his club is clouding his decision process. Once he has access to entire fleet, some (and I think most) of the current problems will disappear.

He's obviously a better salesman than I am, as I would have never convinced the Missus to remotely consider a vacation trip with the limited baggage space available in those garage-built 2-seaters, and one trip of any kind in that green-house fish bowl would have sealed the deal.

My RV7 had better seats than any other airplane I have flown, 500lb payload with full fuel, great ventilation, autopilot, glass panel etc. With my wife and I had over 120lb baggage capacity in a large baggage compartment. 180kts cruise on 10gph with a 4hour range. Plus it is aerobatic and stressed to twice the limits of the average GA airplane also my workmanship is a lot better than any factory airplane. Don

 

[Everskyward]

I priced out an RV-9a quick build kit, with crating and shipping. I added a few nice options like electric trim, really nice heated leather seats, a complete interior with side panels and carpet, and LED lights. I figured in a dual screen Dynon system with battery backup, 2-axis autopilot and GPS, as well as dual ADAHRS and engine monitoring. I did skimp on radios, going with some used King gear from either Bennett Avionics or eBay. Still a transponder and two NAV/COMMs, probably KX-125s.

Then I looked at the cost of a low-time used O-320, and an EFII kit to convert it to fuel injection and HEI. I figured in a 3-blade Catto prop and some tools and supplies. Unless I've completely forgotten something really big, I'd still have room for professional painting (but I can shoot paint myself) and still be well under $85K. If I paint it myself, the difference would pay for my flying club dues and a few hours a month of flying for two years.

In the end I'd have an airplane that would cost a fraction as much to fly as an older Mooney, Comanche or Bonanza. I could fix it myself if something breaks. I could sign off the annual condition inspection. I could put whatever gas in it I felt like. It won't require a high performance or complex endorsement to fly. I won't ever have to worry about retract problems or gear-up landings. Other than the time and effort to build it -- and with the QB kit even that is cut way down -- I'm having a tough time seeing a down side.

For one thing, the RV 9A is a two-place airplane with not much room for baggage if you and your wife intend to travel in it. Their site lists the baggage capacity at 12 cubic feet which is approximately 3 x 2 x 2. It also says the baggage is limited to 75 lbs. I went for a ride in someone's RV 6A about a year ago and I remember him looking dubiously at my very small backpack and asking, "Do you need to bring that?"

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-9spe.htm

But, as you have mentioned, I think the biggest drawback would be the time and effort necessary to build.

 

[yakdriver]

For one thing, the RV 9A is a two-place airplane with not much room for baggage if you and your wife intend to travel in it. Their site lists the baggage capacity at 12 cubic feet which is approximately 3 x 2 x 2. It also says the baggage is limited to 75 lbs. I went for a ride in someone's RV 6A about a year ago and I remember him looking dubiously at my very small backpack and asking, "Do you need to bring that?"

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-9spe.htm

But, as you have mentioned, I think the biggest drawback would be the time and effort necessary to build.

RV6A has 200lbs less useful load than a 9. 3x2x2 is a lot of space and you can pack up to almost a foot higher than that. Also there is room in front of each seat for a small bag. You pack with canvas bags not suitcases. So far four condition inspections have cost the price of oil and filters as I have the repairman certificate on it. Don

 

[wabower]

A few weeks ago I needed to fly to SAT with a client for a visual inspection of a Citation. The ice-chest cooler is in the back seat behind the pilot seat. At the last minute the shop-owner asked for a ride to check on an airplane needing a ferry permit, so I said sure, plenty of room for you and your tools. My cost for owner-assist annuals runs $600-900 year and I'm happy to pay it since I don't know squat about machinery.

RV6A has 200lbs less useful load than a 9. 3x2x2 is a lot of space and you can pack up to almost a foot higher than that. Also there is room in front of each seat for a small bag. You pack with canvas bags not suitcases. So far four condition inspections have cost the price of oil and filters as I have the repairman certificate on it. Don

 

[CJones]

For one thing, the RV 9A is a two-place airplane with not much room for baggage if you and your wife intend to travel in it. Their site lists the baggage capacity at 12 cubic feet which is approximately 3 x 2 x 2. It also says the baggage is limited to 75 lbs. I went for a ride in someone's RV 6A about a year ago and I remember him looking dubiously at my very small backpack and asking, "Do you need to bring that?"

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-9spe.htm

But, as you have mentioned, I think the biggest drawback would be the time and effort necessary to build.

Real-world example of how much shtuff you can fit into an RV - camping gear for 2 people for a long weekend (you can't see the 2 suitcases on the wing behind us). Got out of a 2,600 ft grass strip fully loaded with no problems at all.

 

[Everskyward]

Real-world example of how much shtuff you can fit into an RV - camping gear for 2 people for a long weekend (you can't see the 2 suitcases on the wing behind us). Got out of a 2,600 ft grass strip fully loaded with no problems at all.

Where's the space for all Dale's tools he's going to carry since one of his main reasons for building is that he wants to be able to fix what breaks on the spot?

 

[DaleB]

Yeah, there's another problem... I need to shed about the equivalent of 14 gallons of avgas. I'm probably about two of you.

 

[DaleB]

Where's the space for all Dale's tools he's going to carry since one of his main reasons for building is that he wants to be able to fix what breaks on the spot?

No... I want to fly something that isn't going to break, first off. You know... built more recently than the Nixon administration. If I'm doing the maintenance on my own, at the home drome and not having to pay someone else for every little thing, I think it will be better maintained.

Not that it's the main reason I'm thinking of building, although it is definitely a concern. The main reasons would be speed, operating cost, and a whole lot more control over how, when and what gets done.

 

[rainsux]

> If I'm doing the maintenance on my own, at the home drome and not
> having to pay someone else for every little thing

I worry that you are seriously under-informed re: the maint options
available to owners of factory built aircraft operated under Part 91.

You don't have to pay someone for every little thing. Part 43 does allow
owners to do a fair amount of routine maint themselves.

It is also possible to go beyond Part 43 ... *IF* you develop a working
relationship with an A&P that *TRUSTS* you and is willing to allow you to
work "under (their) supervision" just like an apprentice for the A&P.

Example: I just pulled my JPI and FF sender and sent them off for IRAN. I
will [re]install them - he'll review my work & sign-off the repair.

One of the reasons I prefer pre-1980 aircraft is the Vintage Aircraft Maint
Advisory Circular. It defines alternative methods of determining the
compliance of substitute parts. Example: I am using Gates (industrial)
Green-Stripe belts - legally.

I do admit that Experimental category aircraft do enjoy some benefits in
this regard. But the situation for certified aircraft is not as limiting as you
have stated. Really.

> I want to fly something that isn't going to break

Buy a well maintained aircraft & keep it that way. In the six years that I
have owned this C205, I have not (yet) been AOG away from home.

Hint: There are plenty of poorly built and/or maintained Experimental
aircraft.

>> 3x2x2 is a lot of space.

Not for my wife! Really.

 

[Tom-D]

> If I'm doing the maintenance on my own, at the home drome and not
> having to pay someone else for every little thing

I worry that you are seriously under-informed re: the maint options
available to owners of factory built aircraft operated under Part 91.

You don't have to pay someone for every little thing. It's an option, but
not necessarily required ... *IF* you develop a working relationship with an
A&P that *TRUSTS* you and is willing to allow you to work "under (their)
supervision."

Example: I just pulled my JPI and FF sender and sent them off for IRAN. I
will [re]install them - he'll review my work & sign-off the repair.

One of the reasons I prefer pre-1980 aircraft is the Vintage Aircraft Maint
Advisory Circular. It defines alternative methods of determining the
compliance of substitute parts.

> I want to fly something that isn't going to break

Buy a well maintained aircraft & keep it that way.

>> 3x2x2 is a lot of space.

Not for my wife! Really.

Well put.

 

[X3 Skier]

3x2x2? My wife's purse wouldn't fit in there.

Cheers

 

[DaleB]

I worry that you are seriously under-informed re: the maint options
available to owners of factory built aircraft operated under Part 91.

Not at all. I am well aware that I am allowed to do whatever repairs and maintenance are needed, as long as I can find an A&P with the time and inclination to sign it off in the log. And yes, I am well aware that I can do routine preventive maintenance myself if I own the plane. And owner assisted annuals and all of that.

I'm also well aware that a lot of things are either simply not possible or are prohibitively expensive in a certified airplane, and some of these are things I would probably want to do. Things like installing a modern, GPS-coupled autopilot and EFIS. Or bringing the Lycosaur into the 1980s, at least, if not the 90s, with improved ignition and fuel injection. Some of it's theoretically possible with a factory built plane from the 60s or 70s -- but not for much less than what I have left to pay on my house.

I'm now sure I'll hear the usual "be a real pilot and hand fly the airplane" comments, or someone will point out that a lot of used airplanes have at least wing levelers. All true. But for about what I'd spend on a certified airplane in good shape, well maintained and equipped -- I could be flying something 20-30 knots faster, brand spanking new, with a state of the art panel and equipment, and burning about half the gas. OK, so the penalty for that is the time and effort to build. It might (might, mind you... I haven't decided yet) be worth the sweat equity to have something newer, faster, and significantly less expensive to operate and maintain.

 

[BurtM]

No... I want to fly something that isn't going to break, first off. You know... built more recently than the Nixon administration. If I'm doing the maintenance on my own, at the home drome and not having to pay someone else for every little thing, I think it will be better maintained.

Not that it's the main reason I'm thinking of building, although it is definitely a concern. The main reasons would be speed, operating cost, and a whole lot more control over how, when and what gets done.

The parts that in my experience are most likely to fail away from home, like vacuum pumps, mags, alternators and batteries, are going to be the same parts on an RV as they are on a Cessna or Piper.

I feel your frustration about having MX problems - that's a part of what drove me toward a partnership.

If speed is important, than an RV would be a good choice. But you're going to spend a couple of years at 0 kt while you're building.

I don't know what you're considering as operating costs, but the better "gas mileage" you'd get from an RV is going to be more than offset by the amount of money you're going to tie up buying the kit, the engine/prop, avionics, paying for the paint job, and so on compared to a used certified plane.

Don't think I'm critiquing RVs - I'm not and when I see one I'll always go look at it. They are neat planes. But to build one, you need to be like a woodworker that sees a nice piece of furniture at the store and says to him/herself, " I can do better than that, even if it costs more and takes a long time."

 

[X3 Skier]

IMHO, there is no way to make decision on wether to buy or build based on facts and figures about a particular design. For every plus on one side there is a minus and vice versa. Build it yourself, enjoy the effort and wait till its done or buy a whatever you like and enjoy it immediately.

My guiding principle is to make no decision before its time but when it's time, make a decision.

Bottom line, figure out what you want to fly when and decide if you can build it or need to buy it in that time. Me, I'm to old to build and wait even though I would like to do that. So I fly whatever is handy this week since just about all GA single engine aircraft have similar characteristics in whatever item I choose. All of them get me from A to B in about the same time and cost.

Whatever you choose, don't get an ulcer making up your mind. You do want to pass your next medical, don't you?

Cheers

 

[CJones]

Yeah, there's another problem... I need to shed about the equivalent of 14 gallons of avgas. I'm probably about two of you.

Well, that was 5 years ago, so I've put on a few lbs since then. If you really are '2 of me' you might want to at least sit in a -9A (with your wife, if possible) to decide if it fits you well. With me and my wife flying in winter with Iowa-sized winter coats, it wasn't the roomiest place to be. I think that's the big selling point of the -14 -- it fits the FAA standard+ folks better.

 

[L.Adamson]

I'm now sure I'll hear the usual "be a real pilot and hand fly the airplane" comments, or someone will point out that a lot of used airplanes have at least wing levelers.

Yep................half the fun of flying your new RV, is sitting back, listening to the stereo, while your state of the art auto-pilot, that you installed is accurately flying the aircraft to the precise destination. Of course, in the meantime, you're also keeping track of all progress, with your ultra modern panel..........at a fraction of the cost of certified.

L.Adamson --- RV6

P.S. even for the 6, they've got baggage that's made to taper with the seat back for added room. Our seats are very comfortable leather, and my wife loves flying in these planes.

 

[DaleB]

The parts that in my experience are most likely to fail away from home, like vacuum pumps, mags, alternators and batteries, are going to be the same parts on an RV as they are on a Cessna or Piper.

Unless, of course, your airplane HAS no vacuum pump or magnetos, and you've got two alternators and two batteries. And they're all new.

I feel your frustration about having MX problems - that's a part of what drove me toward a partnership.

And on top of it all, I just got an email telling me that the club 172 is now down for FOUR WEEKS for a major overhaul. Wonderful. So I'm back to either not flying, renting FBO Cherokee trainers, or flying the 182 or Arrow with an instructor -- which I need to do anyway, but I really was hoping to make a dinner run or two with my wife. Oh well.

If speed is important, than an RV would be a good choice. But you're going to spend a couple of years at 0 kt while you're building.

I don't know what you're considering as operating costs, but the better "gas mileage" you'd get from an RV is going to be more than offset by the amount of money you're going to tie up buying the kit, the engine/prop, avionics, paying for the paint job, and so on compared to a used certified plane.

Don't think I'm critiquing RVs - I'm not and when I see one I'll always go look at it. They are neat planes. But to build one, you need to be like a woodworker that sees a nice piece of furniture at the store and says to him/herself, " I can do better than that, even if it costs more and takes a long time."

You nailed it exactly. I do that all the time (usually not with furniture). Most of the time it's, "I can do better than that, but it's not worth the time and effort to me." But not always. One time it worked well enough that I turned into a little side business that now pays for my other hobbies and our vacations.

I'd probably maintain my club membership while building so I don't forget how to fly before I'm done. I wouldn't start the project unless I had a few hours a month flying time in the budget.

 

[denverpilot]

I see an awful lot of "rental" problems, that aren't necessarily solved by building an RV.

There's a guy six or seven hangars down who does like building (he's not building an RV, but it doesn't matter) and he's right at the point of hanging the engine. It's about another year until flight test.

He's so sick of not flying, he bought ANOTHER aircraft (small, certiicated, barely crams in the same hangar as where he's building the Experimental) so he can fly SOMETHING after not flying for five years+.

When I asked him if that will slow down his build, flying the "new" used airplane for currency and trips and what-not, he shrugged and didn't say anything, but his body language said, "I don't care... I've had enough building and want to go flying."

 

[wabower]

Every time I ask a kit-built owner about the actual time required to complete the task (like the neighbor who built a drop-dead beautiful RV-7) and hear the years/hours number I immediately reflect back to the places I've been and the hours I've flown since they were confined to stir to build their whatever.

Having watched a "18-month 2 year" restoration of my L-2 grow by 5x, I understand all I need to know about the process. No mas.

If the choice came down to buying a completed RV that wasn't exactly what I wanted it or building one that would be perfect (given that such an outcome would be highly suspect due to my well-cocumented inability to assemble a swing-set) that might fly in 5 years if the stars aligned and Elvis returned to the stage, the decision would rank high on the all-time no-brainer list.

There's a guy six or seven hangars down who does like building (he's not building an RV, but it doesn't matter) and he's right at the point of hanging the engine. It's about another year until flight test.

He's so sick of not flying, he bought ANOTHER aircraft (small, certiicated, barely crams in the same hangar as where he's building the Experimental) so he can fly SOMETHING after not flying for five years+.

When I asked him if that will slow down his build, flying the "new" used airplane for currency and trips and what-not, he shrugged and didn't say anything, but his body language said, "I don't care... I've had enough building and want to go flying."

 

[DaleB]

If the choice came down to buying a completed RV that wasn't exactly what I wanted it or building one that would be perfect (given that such an outcome would be highly suspect due to my well-cocumented inability to assemble a swing-set) that might fly in 5 years if the stars aligned and Elvis returned to the stage, the decision would rank high on the all-time no-brainer list.

That, sir, would account for a lot of our differences of opinion on the matter, I think. I do a pretty respectable job when I'm building something; sometimes it's even really, really nice. And it's almost always better than what I could have bought... otherwise I wouldn't have done it in the first place.

If I do make the decision to build, it will only be after I've determined that I have a very significant chance of (and I have a plan for) finishing the job well within a couple of years, and a way to keep flying in the mean time. No other way I'd do it. I'm not taking on some five or ten year epic tar baby.

 

[Tom-D]

That, sir, would account for a lot of our differences of opinion on the matter, I think. I do a pretty respectable job when I'm building something; sometimes it's even really, really nice. And it's almost always better than what I could have bought... otherwise I wouldn't have done it in the first place.

If I do make the decision to build, it will only be after I've determined that I have a very significant chance of (and I have a plan for) finishing the job well within a couple of years, and a way to keep flying in the mean time. No other way I'd do it. I'm not taking on some five or ten year epic tar baby.

And every body that had their homebuilt kill them, thought the same thing.

 

[DaleB]

And every body that had their homebuilt kill them, thought the same thing.

Sure, and everybody that had their factory built airplane kill them trusted the manufacturer and their A&P.

 

[wabower]

I think the problem of determining the time that will actually be required is the joker in the buy-vs-build deck. I hear the 1-2 year numbers much more frequently during the early-on estimates and the 5-7 year (actual) numbers much more freqently during the celebration following the first flight.

OTOH, I know how much time will pass until I fly whatever I buy. It's usually the amount of time required for the seller's bank to confirm the wire transfer and the escrow companie's confirmation of the filing on the FAA registry.

That, sir, would account for a lot of our differences of opinion on the matter, I think. I do a pretty respectable job when I'm building something; sometimes it's even really, really nice. And it's almost always better than what I could have bought... otherwise I wouldn't have done it in the first place.

If I do make the decision to build, it will only be after I've determined that I have a very significant chance of (and I have a plan for) finishing the job well within a couple of years, and a way to keep flying in the mean time. No other way I'd do it. I'm not taking on some five or ten year epic tar baby.

 

[Neal Howard]

According to Van himself, the combined safety record of the entire RV fleet is actually slightly better than the combined safety record of the entire GA certificated spamcan fleet. Its the non-RVs that drag the overall safety record of homebuilts down so much.

I bought a completed, flying RV-6 in May with low hours, and equipped pretty well for $60K. Steam gauges, no glass, but it does have a TruTrak autopilot. I know the builder personally, so there was no question of the build quality of this aircraft. In fact I watched it being built way back when I first learned to fly.

I've wanted an RV for at least 4 or 5 years now, but could never really afford one, and flew a $25K Cherokee 140 for the better part of a decade until I could finally position myself financially to get an RV. Howver, if I'd never bought the Cherokee, and had instead saved up all the money I spent to buy it, maintain and fly it over all those years, I could've bought or built a fully tricked-out glass panel RV7 or RV8 with IO-360 and CS prop.

Now that I have an RV of my own, I could never go back to a certificated spamcan unless I win the lotto and can afford a brand new jet.

I flew my little RV-6 to Oshkosh and back, loaded to the hilt with camping gear, and got 195-200 MPH TAS at 7500/8500MSL running at max cruise speed and burned 8.9 gph doing it. I left Wichita Falls at 7:00am and taxied off of runway 27 at Oshkosh at 12:15pm, and that included a 15-20 minute fuel & restroom stop near Kansas City. I had zero mechanical issues with the aircraft the entire round trip.

I've helped friends build 4 different RVs and have had enough building myself, so I chose to buy one ready to fly. When you hear folks say you can build an RV in two years, don't believe them. The only way to do that is to have no life whatsoever outside of building the plane, and to bust your tail every day working on it. Much more realistically, you're looking at 3 to 4 (closer to 4) absolute minimum years (5-7 is common too, if you're married) to really build any RV other than the RV-12.

 

[yakdriver]

I built my RV7 quickbuild in 14 months working about 25hrs a week with no other help. Don

 

[Henning]

I have yet to see a built RV that I'd buy. None are done the way I'd do them -- panel, engine, etc -- so if I'm going to have to do a buttload of work, why not do it from the beginning? And I can pay for it gradually.

Plus... I am pretty sure I can build it well enough that I'd fly it. I'm not sure someone else would build it well enough that I'd fly it... if you know what I mean. "you never know what you don't know", you know?

Plenty of 'unfinished' build projects come up for sale that you can finish as you please, however there are two basic types of these projects for sale. Some come up because the people lack the money, skill or time to complete; avoid these. Then there are the ones built by the guys who love to build, get it to the point of power and panel and sell it to make room for the next; these are the ones you want to buy. At that point you either finish it yourself or negotiate with the builder to finish it as you wish.