What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Continuing rise of experimentals

airguy

Unrepentant fanboy
Sponsor
I had a conversation with a couple fellow pilots last week in which the topic of the rising popularity of experimentals was hashed about. The pros and cons, pitfalls and advantages - but the biggest thing that jumped out of the conversation was the pricing. An "average man" can afford to build an RV whereas we cannot all reach the same point of purchasing a certified aircraft of similar performance.

Case in point - this morning on Avweb Cessna announces the return of the Turbo-182. https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/turbo-skylane-returns-to-textron-lineup/

Now look at the specs - 4 seats, 165 knot cruise, glass panel, nearly a thousand nm max range. Compare that to the RV10 - very similar. The turbo 182 will have a "base price" of $653,000 and you can build a nice RV10 today for $250,000 with a full glass panel. Compare that as well to a new Cirrus SR22T at $779,000, which is the market Cessna is trying to undercut at $653k. This is precisely why the experimental market in general, and Vans in particular, continues to grow by leaps and bounds.
 
Last edited:
I had a conversation with a couple fellow pilots last week in which the topic of the rising popularity of experimentals was hashed about. The pros and cons, pitfalls and advantages - but the biggest thing that jumped out of the conversation was the pricing. An "average man" can afford to build an RV whereas we cannot all reach the same point of purchasing a certified aircraft of similar performance.
Case in point - this morning on Avweb Cessna announces the return of the Turbo-182. https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/turbo-skylane-returns-to-textron-lineup/
Now look at the specs - 4 seats, 165 knot cruise, glass panel, nearly a thousand nm max range. Compare that to the RV10 - very similar. The turbo 182 will have a "base price" of $653,000 and you can build a nice RV10 today for $250,000 with a full glass panel. Compare that as well to a new Cirrus SR22T at $779,000, which is the market Cessna is trying to undercut at $653k. This is precisely why the experimental market in general, and Vans in particular, continues to grow by leaps and bounds.

While this is true, there is a very good reason for this. A builder of an RV-10 has nowhere near the liability constraints that Cessna faces in today's litigious society.
 
RV-10 popularity

Case in point, people are willing to spend $350,000 and soon $400,000 for a well equipped glass cockpit RV-10.

Simply put, it is worth it! Maybe these experimentals are finally getting the recognition they deserve. A well built -10 is so capable it competes in a very real way with these certified planes.

I'll argue that for a bit less utility, and on only four cylinders, my -7 is also 75% there. And we see all RV prices reflecting their capability and desirable speed, utility and practicality as great aircraft.

If we keep building them and flying them the future looks bright if we ever need to sell. Right now I'm re-imaginging my RV-7 since kit lead times are so far out, it just makes sense for me to spend time on a new panel, engine and prop instead of building a whole new airframe. I'm taking my existing plane to the next level of performance since it is worth keeping and flying.

When kits are more available again (and my hangar is finished next year) there's no reason not to build a -10. A great experience while I fly my -7 and no risk if I don't love it...just sell it to the hungry pilots eating these up. :cool:
 
I started my flight training with no previous GA flight experience two years ago. I am now part owner of a Grumman Traveler. If I knew at the start what I now know about Experimental, I would not own a certified aircraft. Anecdotal observation in two years, there is a huge increase in experimental aircraft interest for a variety of reasons. Vans demand is a clear indication of that shifted mindset.
 
Experimental is the way to go

Hi Friend,
I fully agree with you.
Learned it the hard way after being a part owner of a Cirrus SR 20 for 4 years. There is much more to the base cost of the plane, like operating and maintenance cost when it comes to certified standard version of aircraft.
In an experimental, we can include what we want and adjust anything and everything to ones' liking and comfort as well as maintain it ourselves.
So i chose to build an RV-14A with all the bells and whistles I needed. Only down side I see to this approach is the time it takes, especially at recent times, to build one from start to end with all the supply delays, pandemic restrictions, inflation and cost overruns. Life events could derail things at times during this long haul of 2 years (min). So it is not for everyone.
Apart from that everything is a plus. The most exciting thing for me is the learning that comes with building a plane that can / will help in giving back to the society.
So it is always better to build one if one can do it at an affordable cost than buy a certified plane at an exorbitant cost and follow / learn what others have included in it. I would like to enjoy the fruits of my effort including the mistakes I make rather than the ones others pass it on to me.
Regarding risks, I strongly believe, when my time is up, it is up.. Nothing can be done about it whether I am on the ground or up in the air. So I accept it with a smile.
Thanks for bringing this up.
Cheers
Sreekumar V Nair
 
Downside

Even though I tend to agree with the previous comments, I see another side of this conversation.

I purchased my RV8 in 2015 for $72K. Since then I have made improvements costing roughly $35K. Glass panel, FI, electronic ignition, inverted oil, and a number of smaller items. My RV8 could probably be sold for about $130K, perhaps more.

In other words, I could no longer afford to buy it. I've been priced out of the market.

The popularity of experimental aircraft has evolved from the low cost of building/buying, and the reduced cost of maintenance. Those advantages are going away, especially with regard to the cost of acquisition.
 
Disclaimer, I bought and did not build for 2 reasons. First life is not at a point that I can dedicate enough time to build and complete in the next 3 to 4 years, second I'd rather spend the free time I have flying.

I went from Certified to EAB for 1 main reason, the flexibility to do what we want to our planes with out miles and miles of red tape and road blocks.

I'm part of the local EAA chapter and have spent hours talking to the folks on the field that have their mind set on Certified planes. I took a couple folks up in the -6A and both are now true believers. (I know by doing this I'm not helping the supply/demand problem) I'm happy that I was able to get a couple people to see that EAB is not scary, worth every penny and will open up a completely different plane ownership experience.

I will at some point build, probably a -10, but for now I'm happy flying my -6A and it fits 90% of the mission.
 
Lawyers

I read somewhere that 30%-50% of the cost of a certified plane is for the insurance needed to protect against litigation....for what it almost always user error, lack of maintenance, etc. If that's true, it makes a lot of sense that a new 182T would be about double a completed, a well equipped RV10.

I think it's great news that Cessna is putting out such a capable plane and that Vans is so busy. While I wish I had my kit in hand to start building, the fact they are so busy increases the chance that they'll keep putting out new products, enhancements, and be available for parts well into the future. I mean, who isn't excited about the RV15 unveil. If the RV12 build is doable for me I see a 10 or 15 in my future with the existing plane financing a lot of the upgrade- kind of like moving up to a nicer home.

I'm lucky to have found a reasonably priced 180hp 172 a few years ago to start my flying experience- like someone said, at today's prices I would likely be priced out of the market. Hopefully with new inventory coming online thru manufacturers and experimental builders the market will moderate and we can see a resurgence in GA pilots/owners....which would lead to airports being built/revitalized. Will be interesting to see how things turn out.
 
And ‘Nother Thing

While that $653,000 Cessna Turbo 182 should be able to run a good long time without requiring a lot of maintenance, (should!) eventually it will need parts from Cessna and their parts prices are far beyond insane. Compare that to Vans who are super reasonable. BTW, as great an airplane as the 182 is, (and I’m not being sarcastic, it’s one of the world’s great airplanes) Cessna’s performance numbers tend to be pretty optimistic so folks who buy that big money 182 need to know they might not get the performance they expect. Hmm, 165 knots, even with the IO-540 and the turbo humming along at FL200? Does not seem likely.
 
Last edited:
On our field, we have a number of A&P(/IA)s and professional pilots who hold A&Ps as well. Some of them have built experimentals (some have built many) and restored certified aircraft.

Several of those insist up and down that a non-A&P non-builder owner cannot legally perform modifications on their Experimental aircraft. Some even claim that the non-builder owner cannot even perform major maintenance legally. Some even claim that builder owners may not perform major modifications in some cases.

Obviously, these guys are incorrect, but there's so much bad information about what owners and even builders can do out there. These A&Ps who make these claims are severely muddying the waters--we have people come to our EAA chapter meetings who have been convinced by their A&P buddies that there is no maintenance/modification benefit to Experimenal aviation.

I'm getting a bit tired of it.
 
but really

While that $653,000 Cessna Turbo 182 ..... Cessna’s performance numbers tend to be pretty optimistic so folks who buy that big money 182 need to know they might not get the performance they expect. Hmm, 165 knots, even with the IO-540 and the turbo humming along at FL200? Does not seem likely.

After spending 653K, during every bar story over beer, they will swear it actually goes 165kts.
and it will if you start the let down just as soon as the climb is completed. coming down from 6.5K, I was able to keep a 172 at 140kts for a while.
 
I agree with Gregs assessment completely. At some point every decision becomes based on finances! When I completed and flew my 7A 10 years ago, I had this thought. I had a new plane... Zero time airframe and engine with the speeds and range we all enjoy in our RV's... all for a tad less the $100K. To get the same performance in a production aircraft, one would have to spend at that time approx half million dollars to have everything new with the same zero times. Silly math... for fun, I figured the difference in price and divided by the hours to come up with this thought. I had quick build and it took me about 1300 hours. I figured I was saving myself $319.00 an hour by building. Truth is if I'd had to buy a new production aircraft it would have never happened. Again, another decision driven solely by finances! :)
 
Last edited:
On our field, we have a number of A&P(/IA)s and professional pilots who hold A&Ps as well. Some of them have built experimentals (some have built many) and restored certified aircraft.

Several of those insist up and down that a non-A&P non-builder owner cannot legally perform modifications on their Experimental aircraft. Some even claim that the non-builder owner cannot even perform major maintenance legally. Some even claim that builder owners may not perform major modifications in some cases.

Obviously, these guys are incorrect, but there's so much bad information about what owners and even builders can do out there. These A&Ps who make these claims are severely muddying the waters--we have people come to our EAA chapter meetings who have been convinced by their A&P buddies that there is no maintenance/modification benefit to Experimenal aviation.

I'm getting a bit tired of it.


The A&P mechanic is trying to keep his CASH FLOW in the green.

How about owner assist annuals and the other things you can also do
With certified.
Can also be done on the experimental side.

Boomer
 
The A&P mechanic is trying to keep his CASH FLOW in the green.

How about owner assist annuals and the other things you can also do
With certified.
Can also be done on the experimental side.

Boomer

The crazy thing is that one of the A&P/IAs who argues against owner mods and maintenance also does a ton of owner-assisted annuals.
 
I read somewhere that 30%-50% of the cost of a certified plane is for the insurance needed to protect against litigation....

I'm sure insurance costs are part of it, but probably not that high. There are lots of other things that add plenty of cost...

Unless you've worked for an aircraft manufacturer it's hard to believe the absolutely staggering level of non-value-added paperwork and busywork that come along with designing, testing, certifying, producing, and updating certified aircraft. Add in all of the fixed costs and overhead for the factory, equipment, real estate, admin personnel, and so on, and spread it over small production numbers. Look at how much our homebuilts cost to build, and that's with "free" labor and facilities.

Cars cost as little as they do because of the production volumes.
 
After spending 653K, during every bar story over beer, they will swear it actually goes 165kts.
and it will if you start the let down just as soon as the climb is completed. coming down from 6.5K, I was able to keep a 172 at 140kts for a while.

Oh, I believe it will do 165 KTAS - but only at 20,000’. Especially if they’ve improved the landing gear fairings. Remember, with the turbo it will still make a lot of power. And the indicated speed is just around 120 KIAS. The problem is that you’ll spend half your trip climbing to get that high, the other half coming down (fast!). I note the quoted useful load is 100 lbs less than my -10, which means it’s really a 3+ person plane. You can leave some gas out, but then you don’t have enough gas to get to 20,000’!
 
Oh, I believe it will do 165 KTAS - but only at 20,000’. Especially if they’ve improved the landing gear fairings. Remember, with the turbo it will still make a lot of power. And the indicated speed is just around 120 KIAS. The problem is that you’ll spend half your trip climbing to get that high, the other half coming down (fast!). I note the quoted useful load is 100 lbs less than my -10, which means it’s really a 3+ person plane. You can leave some gas out, but then you don’t have enough gas to get to 20,000’!

Those speeds sound about right - see below with my airplane coming home from Reno in 2018 - and that's without a turbo!
 

Attachments

  • screenshot-N16GN-SN04047-15.4.A2.4676-20180917-132744-632-en_US.png
    screenshot-N16GN-SN04047-15.4.A2.4676-20180917-132744-632-en_US.png
    535.8 KB · Views: 298
I read somewhere that 30%-50% of the cost of a certified plane is for the insurance needed to protect against litigation....for what it almost always user error, lack of maintenance, etc. If that's true, it makes a lot of sense that a new 182T would be about double a completed, a well equipped RV10.


I'm doing a major remodel on a house right now, which, thanks to recently discovered issues under the drywall, is turning into a major major remodel. But the work that we do on demo, design, etc directly saves money from paying a contractor.

Which brings me to my point... Let's say that a well-equipped RV-10 costs $225,000 to make. And it takes 1500 hours for an experienced, repeat builder, to make one. And the fully-loaded equivalent hourly rate of the builder is $150 an hour (salary, employer taxes, benefits, 401k match, etc). That alone would add another $225K. And assume that a certified plane probably costs $50,000 or more in increased part costs (G1000 versus G3x, for example).

That gets us to $500,000. Add in some profit margin, marketing, training, fixed costs, and $600,000 is easily reached.

So sure, liability insurance is certainly a problem. And costs of certification are a problem.

But the biggest differentiator is that my time building this thing is free, I have no marketing costs, I have no overhead costs other than my hangar. Once you include that, experimental and certified really aren't that different in total costs.
 
I'm doing a major remodel on a house right now, which, thanks to recently discovered issues under the drywall, is turning into a major major remodel. But the work that we do on demo, design, etc directly saves money from paying a contractor.

Which brings me to my point... Let's say that a well-equipped RV-10 costs $225,000 to make. And it takes 1500 hours for an experienced, repeat builder, to make one. And the fully-loaded equivalent hourly rate of the builder is $150 an hour (salary, employer taxes, benefits, 401k match, etc). That alone would add another $225K. And assume that a certified plane probably costs $50,000 or more in increased part costs (G1000 versus G3x, for example).

That gets us to $500,000. Add in some profit margin, marketing, training, fixed costs, and $600,000 is easily reached.

So sure, liability insurance is certainly a problem. And costs of certification are a problem.

But the biggest differentiator is that my time building this thing is free, I have no marketing costs, I have no overhead costs other than my hangar. Once you include that, experimental and certified really aren't that different in total costs.

But in volume production, there is little machine set up time. Most of my time building is in setting up to rivet, wire etc. The actual time i spend making airplane parts is very small percentage. And they say the second plane builds much faster, i will let you know in a few years.

Almost ever home built is like the first run of a production line....
 
Not to tread into lawyer-land, but is the lack of liability concern really true with an experimental? If I sell an RV I built, and the new owner flies it into a gold-lined Gulfstream full of doctors, and decides to sue me for liability, I'm going to need to defend myself as the manufacturer, no matter how many "AS IS" we agreed to on the bill of sale. I don't plan to sell mine, but at least in the USA I can't think of a truly lawyer-proof way to sell it and release myself of all liability as the manufacturer.

I always thought the price differential between experimentals and certified was mostly due to manufacturing costs, paperwork, and the need for factories to certify everything.
 
Last edited:
Unless you've worked for an aircraft manufacturer it's hard to believe the absolutely staggering level of non-value-added paperwork and busywork that come along with designing, testing, certifying, producing, and updating certified aircraft. Add in all of the fixed costs and overhead for the factory, equipment, real estate, admin personnel, and so on, and spread it over small production numbers. Look at how much our homebuilts cost to build, and that's with "free" labor and facilities.

.

I worked for an OEM for 14 years, and this is dead on. It's not just liability, or cert, or labor, etc....it's everything.
 
Not to tread into lawyer-land, but is the lack of liability concern really true with an experimental? If I sell an RV I built, and the new owner flies it into a gold-lined Gulfstream full of doctors, and decides to sue me for liability, I'm going to need to defend myself as the manufacturer, no matter how many "AS IS" we agreed to on the bill of sale. I don't plan to sell mine, but at least in the USA I can't think of a truly lawyer-proof way to sell it and release myself of all liability as the manufacturer.

I always thought the price differential between experimentals and certified was mostly due to manufacturing costs, paperwork, and the need for factories to certify everything.

You are absolutely correct, if you sell your airplane you will always live under a cloud of liability. But you just cannot buy the liability coverage you need for anything close to reasonable premiums. There have been aviation lawsuits for the craziest of reasons, totally off the wall. The issue is even when you win, you lose, because you generally have to pay your lawyer 5 figures or more, and judges seldom order the plaintiffs to re-imburse you. Your main defense is that most individuals just don't have the money these guys are after. Back when I was a 182 partner, we carried (for extraneous reasons)$3M CSL liability. But the second $2M was more than twice the cost of the first $1M. I asked the agent how that could be? Her answer: that kind of coverage just invites lawsuits, and the insurance company was anticipating they would have to mount a defense for you at some point in time, even if it was a crazy accusation.
 
Last edited:
And yet, there has never been a (documented) successful liability lawsuit against an experimental seller.
 
I'm doing a major remodel on a house right now, which, thanks to recently discovered issues under the drywall, is turning into a major major remodel. But the work that we do on demo, design, etc directly saves money from paying a contractor.

Which brings me to my point... Let's say that a well-equipped RV-10 costs $225,000 to make. And it takes 1500 hours for an experienced, repeat builder, to make one. And the fully-loaded equivalent hourly rate of the builder is $150 an hour (salary, employer taxes, benefits, 401k match, etc). That alone would add another $225K. And assume that a certified plane probably costs $50,000 or more in increased part costs (G1000 versus G3x, for example).

That gets us to $500,000. Add in some profit margin, marketing, training, fixed costs, and $600,000 is easily reached.

So sure, liability insurance is certainly a problem. And costs of certification are a problem.

But the biggest differentiator is that my time building this thing is free, I have no marketing costs, I have no overhead costs other than my hangar. Once you include that, experimental and certified really aren't that different in total costs.

That's a great summary. My "free" labor is repaid in terms of an education and a true labor of love, ongoing even on the third E-AB. But if I sold my airplane with that dollar per hour labor value added it would mean that it would be in the ballpark for a standard certificated aircraft. You can find basket cases of both types of aircraft that aren't worth much money, but in general people looking towards the experimental market are getting a bargain for the reasons you stated. Now let me tell you about the cost of parts for my 65 year old Cessna...
 
And yet, there has never been a (documented) successful liability lawsuit against an experimental seller.

It doesn’t have to be successful. After John Denver crashed by running a tank dry at low altitude, his family sued the builder and all previous owners. While these defendants ‘won’, they still had to pay their lawyers.
According to Boeing, they paid $1M in legal fees before being dismissed from the lawsuit after the Russians shot down a S. korean 747.
The US legal system is totally out of control.
 
It doesn’t have to be successful. After John Denver crashed by running a tank dry at low altitude, his family sued the builder and all previous owners. While these defendants ‘won’, they still had to pay their lawyers.
According to Boeing, they paid $1M in legal fees before being dismissed from the lawsuit after the Russians shot down a S. korean 747.
The US legal system is totally out of control.

The John Denver case is the one that is always brought up when this topic arises Bob - can you cite any other specific cases where an E-AB builder was sued over a crash? I have asked this question of a lot of folks that should know, and no one ever has.

The point being that the average builder doesn’t have enough assets worth going after, and most lawyers know how to research previous cases, and the fact that no one has ever been successful makes it a low probability return on their time….

Now of course I am not saying it can’t happen - but I just can’t find any history to support it being a significant worry.


Paul
 
Now of course I am not saying it can’t happen - but I just can’t find any history to support it being a significant worry.
Paul

I think you’re right - ‘not significant’. But not absolutely zero, either. It seems to be a human trait to fret over things for which we have no control - like frivolous lawsuits - and ignore much more statistically significant risks - like flying, when we think we have some control.
 
The John Denver case is the one that is always brought up when this topic arises Bob - can you cite any other specific cases where an E-AB builder was sued over a crash? I have asked this question of a lot of folks that should know, and no one ever has.

One now has.

N6644. Though the accident pilot was solely at fault, the family of the ride recipient sued the builder, second owner and restoration shop.
 
Not all about cost either

I’ll add my $.02….

At this point in my personal aviation journey, I’m probably 80% done with the -8 and I own a 172. I’m seriously thinking of replacing the 172 when the -8 is done. Likely an S-21, or perhaps whatever the RV-15 ends up being. Pretty much the same mission as the 172 (I’m 6’7 and my wife is 6’4”, for all purposes, the 172 is a 2 place airplane). So why replace something and take on another build for essentially the same mission? I don’t want to be handcuffed to certified airplane rules and expensive parts/maintenance.

Furthermore, you’d think that in 2022 with the expanse of everything creative available to be piped into my living room in an instant, there’d be something good on TV. I don’t find any of that junk near as interesting as building an airplane. I drive every day, so a classic car project is much less interesting than it used to be, and it’s illegal to build your own guns without the proper licensing, which I’m unwilling to figure out how to get. I’ll probably machine a Tesla turbine and a Sterling engine once the RV-8 is done, but I’ll quickly get bored with having nothing to create and want to build another airplane. So that’s a long way of saying that I like building stuff, and want to keep doing it, ‘stuff’ might as well be an airplane, because I can use it for something practical, unlike the Sterling engine or Tesla turbine, which will really just be interesting desktop relics.
 
And yet, there has never been a (documented) successful liability lawsuit against an experimental seller.

How would one know this? Most of these cases get settled. Our airport is now dealing with a wrongful death lawsuit due to a terrible accident which was completely and utterly pilot error. Injury attorneys dont care if you had anything to do with the accident or not. They will bring anyone and everyone into a case that's remotely attached to an event regardless of having liability insurance or not. Whether or not they go after you just boils down to is it worth their time. They get paid by making you pay them to go away.
 

I read these reports and am often utterly shocked at the pilot decision making.

I don't know what would make me decide to fly half a wing above the runway on a high speed pass or do a 60 degree banked turn on climb out.....hoping I never get the "confidence" to try that stuff.

I get the impression from my short time on this forum that most RV drivers are meticulous, safe, and love aviation too much to create those kinds of situations- looking forward to joining the club once I get my 12 built.
 
I read these reports and am often utterly shocked at the pilot decision making.

I don't know what would make me decide to fly half a wing above the runway on a high speed pass or do a 60 degree banked turn on climb out.....hoping I never get the "confidence" to try that stuff.

I get the impression from my short time on this forum that most RV drivers are meticulous, safe, and love aviation too much to create those kinds of situations- looking forward to joining the club once I get my 12 built.

When I got my PPL originally, for the first hundred hours this kind of stuff sounded cool and fun. After that it just sounded dangerous and not worth the risk. As I'm closing on 2,000 hours PIC now I'm actively looking for ways to NOT do stupid stuff. It's funny how age and appreciation of your own mortality changes the way you think.
 
When I got my PPL originally, for the first hundred hours this kind of stuff sounded cool and fun. After that it just sounded dangerous and not worth the risk. As I'm closing on 2,000 hours PIC now I'm actively looking for ways to NOT do stupid stuff. It's funny how age and appreciation of your own mortality changes the way you think.

I couldn't agree more.
 
I read these reports and am often utterly shocked at the pilot decision making.

I don't know what would make me decide to fly half a wing above the runway on a high speed pass or do a 60 degree banked turn on climb out.....hoping I never get the "confidence" to try that stuff.

I get the impression from my short time on this forum that most RV drivers are meticulous, safe, and love aviation too much to create those kinds of situations- looking forward to joining the club once I get my 12 built.

Wow, when I got my PPL, 60 degree banks were required for steep turns, and a low level pass was how we checked the runway for deer…

I wonder what you think about power on, accelerated, cross controlled stalls? How about spins?
 
Last edited:
Wow, when I got my PPL, 60 degree banks were required for steep turns, and a low level pass was how we checked the runway for deer…

I wonder what you think about power on, accelerated, cross controlled stalls? How about spins?

We usually didn't do those at ground level when I got my PPL. Maybe your instructor was a bit different.
 
Wow, when I got my PPL, 60 degree banks were required for steep turns, and a low level pass was how we checked the runway for deer…

I wonder what you think about power on, accelerated, cross controlled stalls? How about spins?

PPL requires 60 degree banks on climb out and half-wing low passes for deer checking? Hmm…we might be talking apples and oranges here.
 
Unless doing the fly-by at 0.9M, it's really not that impressive. Then if you are, I'd wager you've been trained on low level high speed flight.

As much as I wish it weren't true, boneheads own RVs too. They just tend not to advertise here it because this forum and most others are very pro-safety.

I hate to say it, but experimentals are rising to the point of unaffordable to the average Joe as well. I used to think an RV3 or RV4 could be built quite economically, but airframe is only part of the equation. Sure the kits are a couple grand cheaper with the trade-off of more work to build, but the engine, prop, paint, avionics, upholstery still all cost the same.

When the RV14 came out I was disappointed to see it only works with the angle valve engines. They might be fantastic, but they're also ~10 grand more than a parallel valve engine. That doesn't help the affordability problem.

Affordability is certainly the rise of homebuilt aircraft, and they're a lot more affordable than a Extra 200 or Turbo 182. However, they're still out of reach of many, and it's only getting worse. I'm not sure what to do about it either.
 
Affordability is certainly the rise of homebuilt aircraft, and they're a lot more affordable than a Extra 200 or Turbo 182. However, they're still out of reach of many, and it's only getting worse. I'm not sure what to do about it either.

The rise of experimental in popularity has unfortunately made them in competition with certified aircraft instead of, like 20 years ago, their own unique market segment. You can still probably build fairly affordable if you can resist the desire and peer pressure to put in all the bells and whistles that makes it similar to a certified airplane. Nothing wrong with building either way. Embrace the advantages of EAB and make it fit your desire and budget.
 
Last edited:
There are still affordable homebuilts. Perhaps not 215 HP QB RV-14's with three-screen panels, but no one guaranteed steak for baloney money.

Back in younger, simpler days, I had a boatload of fun flying stuff costing less than $10K. Some of them pushed all the way to $15K:

https://youtu.be/h8cWKi4Ir6E

A lot of us did back in the 90's, before Light Sport killed the true light sport world. My friend John Hauck circumnavigated the US in his Kolb, and later to Point Barrow and back, from Alabama.

There are bargains out there, found in the wake of dreamers who don't get the work done. I have a bird in the shop right now for which I gave a tiny fraction of its original parts cost.

Circa 1998, I had about $11K in a scratch built good enough to put a Gold Lindy on the shelf. Even today it remains possible to build on a budget by doing it old-school...you know, actually fabricating all the parts rather than buying a tab-A-to-slot-B kit. For example, my friend Ray (RIP) had about $20K in his beautiful Vagabond, in a world full of $150K kit Cubs. Another friend, Tom, owns it today, and has made it even better.

The game has not changed. We can still fly cheap if we do the work.
 

Attachments

  • Captain Dan.JPG
    Captain Dan.JPG
    49.9 KB · Views: 81
  • Ray Hill.jpg
    Ray Hill.jpg
    65.4 KB · Views: 80
  • Ray.jpg
    Ray.jpg
    71.5 KB · Views: 80
Last edited:
The game has not changed. We can still fly cheap if we do the work.

And willing to make use of used stuff. Homebuilding used to take advantage of used radios and mid time engines. With all the upgrades going on now, a builder can probably even get some pretty cheap used glass if willing to live with one generation older stuff.
I like Experimental as it is actually a driver of new technology, more so than certified does, but it comes at a price that makes homebuilding look unaffordable. I believe RVs can still be built for a pretty reasonable cost if you make certain choices.
 
Bargains

Wittman Tailwind, Thorp T18 and Mustang 2 can often be found for less than what many RV builders spend on the panel.
My Tailwind cruises 170 kts with 0 320 and Whirlwind GA. RV has better runway performance but the Tailwind has far more docile stall characteristics. I have less than 30K in the Tailwind. I built everything except the wheel pants and WITTMAN gear legs.
No matter how much is spent on a EAB panel the vast majority will only be capable of VERY limited IFR. In many areas ice or thunderstorms are a limiting factor much of the time
 
it’s illegal to build your own guns without the proper licensing, which I’m unwilling to figure out how to get.

No it's not. If you have a mill and a lathe, you can build all the guns for your ownership and use you want.

It's actually a big and getting bigger hobby. With a lot of similarities to EAB as far as the people and community go. The rise of cheap CNC mills and lathes has made it easier than ever.
 
Last edited:
The John Denver case is the one that is always brought up when this topic arises Bob - can you cite any other specific cases where an E-AB builder was sued over a crash? I have asked this question of a lot of folks that should know, and no one ever has.

One now has.

N6644. Though the accident pilot was solely at fault, the family of the ride recipient sued the builder, second owner and restoration shop.

Do you have any links to the outcomes of the lawsuits? Googling the crash leads to NTSB reports, but nothing in a civil court.
 
Affordability is certainly the rise of homebuilt aircraft, and they're a lot more affordable than a Extra 200 or Turbo 182. However, they're still out of reach of many, and it's only getting worse. I'm not sure what to do about it either.

So true- overall cost one of the main reasons I'm building an rv12is....initial cost is a factor, but so are operating/maintenance expenses....filling up my meager 172's smallish tanks now costs close to $200 and I'm afraid we'll see higher prices before we see lower. Being able to run on auto-gas and ~4gph will let me fly so much more. Hopefully I can get enough time under my belt so one day my pilot skills will be acceptable to Bob. ;)
 
Liability costs

I read somewhere that 30%-50% of the cost of a certified plane is for the insurance needed to protect against litigation

I’d be very surprised if that’s true. GARA pushed a lot of liability away from the aircraft manufacturers. And even for those new models not (yet) protected by GARA, that percentage seems high.
 
Do you have any links to the outcomes of the lawsuits? Googling the crash leads to NTSB reports, but nothing in a civil court.

I flew with the 2nd owner in it but luckily was not in the log books. I can tell you it was as bad as ANYTHING you can imagine- 5 plus years of constant exposure to the civil suit proceedings.

I have insurance industry feelers out for the pure final costs, I never got replies from the owner I had flown with in it.
 
I was indirectly involved in the John Denver EZ suits, and echo moosepileits observation it's an order of magnitude worse (and more expensive ) than you can possibly imagine.
 
I’d be very surprised if that’s true. GARA pushed a lot of liability away from the aircraft manufacturers. And even for those new models not (yet) protected by GARA, that percentage seems high.

I have no data other than what I've read, which are mostly other's opinions, but it is interesting that a certified G5 costs $2,395 and an experimental version is $1,340 (about 44% less than certified). The difference in avionics might be where the idea came from. It does seem like a high percentage, but nothing surprises me anymore.

I was once told by a lawyer that anyone can sue anyone for anything...and you have to go thru the hassle/stress/expense of defending yourself. It's a crazy system.
 
Back
Top