Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Van's RV14 - build outsourcing

LeSving wrote:

And not a bad one. Glasair (the kit company) used to have this “2 weeks to fly” thing. The builder came to the factory and “built” an aircraft there in a limited time span of “two weeks”. For a factory this requires lots of resources, and lots of planning up front, and the end price the owner has to pay will reflect this.

It seems to me that the builder still gets to know the aircraft on a deep level and is likely to build it to a high standard with no silly mistakes. It sounds like a good system to me.

“provided it isn’t ‘paid help”
No one in the UK would ever accept or give backhand cash for any work or service – that would cheat HMRC, and possibly the unemployment benefits system. :-)

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

What does 51% actually mean? What is considered the 100% build effort and what is considered parts supply? You could argue that an engine is part of the build effort so if you buy it complete it could count towards what you did not build on your own or it could be parts/material supply? You could build your own avionics but it assume those also count as parts supply. Probably it comes down to the kit manufacturer. If he sells you big assemblies as “parts” and produces the right paperwork this is probably not part of the 100%?

www.ing-golze.de
EDAZ

kwlf wrote:

It seems to me that the builder still gets to know the aircraft on a deep level and is likely to build it to a high standard with no silly mistakes. It sounds like a good system to me.

Yes it is, kind of. On the other hand it is a bit in opposition to the very idea of allowing amateurs to build aircraft (in their own interest and education). It’s a process taking years, including learning from mistakes, talking to all kinds of people along the way, and in no way will you be equally educated in two weeks with professional supervision at every single operation. But, if the end objective is to get a high quality aircraft, then this is a good approach. However, if that is the main objective, then 100% factory built is a better way to reach that goal.

In reality it is a tiny bit cheaper way to get a factory built non certified aircraft. It would be similar to a person spending two weeks at the Pipistrel factory mounting some odd bolts here and there on a Alphatrainer UL and then call it a amateur built non certified aircraft. That IS a factory built aircraft in every sense of the word.

IMO we have certified aircraft and non certified aircraft. Who actually build the non certified aircraft is irrelevant in principle. But it is very far from irrelevant in a legal sense unless this is accounted for. This can only be accounted for by transferring all legal responsibility to the current owner/user. The problem is, the current owner/user would need some minimum of technical/administrative competence to handle this properly, and understand it. Can that be learned in two weeks at a factory? Highly doubtful. A previous owner of a certified aircraft would be in a much better position in some cases. You won’t learn anything of relevance in two weeks at a factory pulling a rivet or two.

This is the dilemma in a nutshell. It has nothing to do with who builds the aircraft, but everything to do with legal responsibilities of the aircraft when it is operating as an aircraft. Lots of people today cannot even wrap their head around the concept that they are sole responsible (in a legal sense) for an aircraft that IS fully built by an amateur, yet alone an aircraft that is built at a factory. Certification solves this dilemma by the root.

ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Sebastian_G wrote:

What does 51% actually mean?

It is actually very well defined by NKET. and here.

This is a list for the kit manufacturer to show the authorities the kit is actually 51% build by the “amateur”, it’s not something the builder needs to bother with. It’s only the aircraft structure, wiring and cabling etc that is eligible. The engine and avionics themselves do not count. Building from drawings is obviously 100%, and a normal kit is also approximately 100% or a bit lower. Quick built kits is typically exactly 51%

ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

There was a Vans for sale in Belgium for quite some time (something like OO-144).

A quick-build RV14 is one the easiest kits to be built. They are final-size drilled too.
Just don’t think it will end up cheaper than most used planes

LFPT, LFEH

LeSving wrote:

It is actually very well defined by NKET. and here.

Thanks that makes sense. So looking at the list this means it is actually possible to design a kit which requires way less than actual 51% effort. Man tasks seem to count 1 point while they require different efforts. For example fabricating and assembling the cowling count the same while I assume fabricating it take a lot more time.

www.ing-golze.de
EDAZ

“Built from plans” means you can go overweight with wood or composite. Or C of G problem. This can make the aircraft useless.
Even a Vans can be degraded by a perfect paintjob adding weight.
Europa empty weights used to be available online. There was a lot of variation.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

Maoraigh wrote:

Even a Vans can be degraded by a perfect paintjob adding weight.

The biggest problem is painting of control surfaces, at least for fast metal planes. Most RVs and Sonexes have Vne above 200 mph. Painting of control surfaces, and especially without re-balancing, may, and probably will, cause flutter. The manuals are very clear on this though, but a guy purchasing a used plane and wants to re-paint it at a local car garage, may not know this.

ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

I have recently ordered the first (empennage) kit for an RV-7.

Here starteth the adventure.

EGLM & EGTN
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top