What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Parting out an airframe

abuura

Well Known Member
I'm cheap and anxious about the liability embedded in selling my RV-7. I'm also very interested in building an RV-15. My 7 has 1500hrs on it, and I'm contemplating the likelihood of overhauling my beloved TMXO-360 in about 5 years.
My imaginary construct is order the 15 kit as soon as it's available and start building it. When I get to the FWFWD stage, take the engine (motor mount?) off the 7 for installation on the 15. Ditto for my avionics suite, lovingly integrated and configured for IFR flight since 2007. The webinar seems to indicate an O-360 with 72" CS prop would work; I'm not interested in max performance/competition, so the 200+HP with 82" prop combo is not that enticing to me.
This leaves the airframe, gears, and wheels. Question to the group is, if I part out the empennage, wings, and fuse, can someone use them for their project? Target audience would be slow-builder with less time than expected needing a ready-made set of wings/fuselage, someone recovering from damage, etc... A builder would have to consider staying over the 51% threshold; accident/damage replacement on a built airplane would not be material.
Thoughts? Thanks.
 
"Imaginary" not imagery. Another way of saying "mental doodling". Keep reading, I'm interested in good feedback.
 
“A builder would have to consider staying over the 51% threshold.”

Why? For the repairman’s certificate?

I think that is up to the DAR to decide and the worst case is paying an A&P once a year to look over your CI. I am a firm believer in my ability to screw up or miss something and love having the second set of eyes on my CI’s.
 
“A builder would have to consider staying over the 51% threshold.”
Why? For the repairman’s certificate?
I think that is up to the DAR to decide and the worst case is paying an A&P once a year to look over your CI. I am a firm believer in my ability to screw up or miss something and love having the second set of eyes on my CI’s.

For clarification, The 51% rule has nothing to do with the repairman certificate. The 51% rule has to do with the qualification of the aircraft to be amateur built.

To qualify for the repairman certificate the applicant must be listed as a primary builder and prove that he/she has sufficient knowledge of the build to competently perform the condition inspection.

Example; If a team of 5 people build the aircraft, most likely no one person will have built 51%, but one of those builders can apply for the repairman certificate.
 
I'm with Greg - just sell it as is. IMO the liability risk, although never zero, is extremely low. Outside of someone looking to quickly replace a damaged part, like a rudder, the airframe (especially one with 1500+ hrs) most likely holds little value to a new builder. The real value would be in the engine and potentially your avionics. YMMV....
 
The -7 engine mount likely won't work and your parallel-valve 360 will be too light for the -15. And by the time you have your -15 ready for avionics installation, what you have in your -7 will be obsolete. Plus you'd have to make new wiring harnesses anyway, so not much $$/time saved.
 
For clarification, The 51% rule has nothing to do with the repairman certificate. The 51% rule has to do with the qualification of the aircraft to be amateur built.

To qualify for the repairman certificate the applicant must be listed as a primary builder and prove that he/she has sufficient knowledge of the build to competently perform the condition inspection.

Example; If a team of 5 people build the aircraft, most likely no one person will have built 51%, but one of those builders can apply for the repairman certificate.

Good feedback. My original question simply had to do with the 51% rule -- in order to meet the EAB threshold. I imagine builder(s) having spent a ton of time on the slow build fuselage and wanting to accelerate the process would be within their 51% "budget" when putting on completed wings. At that point the wings would be at the 2000hr point, but for a non-aerobatic plane, factory built tanks with no fuel leaks, that option might be attractive.
 
Ditto, that's good advice for all the reasons the other folks mentioned.
Plus, if you follow your hypothetical plan, you'd be grounded for several years.

Dave

I don't think so. Basically, when I was ready to install the engine and avionics on the 15, I'd send the motor out for overhaul and meantime migrate the panel, pitot plumbing, firewall accessories, etc... Greg Hughes says I'd need a new Dynafocal mount, so that'd be on by the time the engine came back. I'd be grounded for a while, for sure, but as a full-time retiree builder with experience estimate I'd be ready for first flight well inside a year.
I do take the advice to sell the 7 whole. That would be the most cost effective way to fund the 15 project, for sure.
 
Especially seeing the canopy crushed; that was the hardest part of the build, by far!

Oh man, that brings back memories. I destroyed 2 of them learning how to work (or not work) with plexiglass in cool temps.
 
AirGuy is Right

I parted out and sold the parts of an RV-9A for a couple who listened to their lawyer. It's a tough, sad job that takes a really long time. I'll never do that again. It felt like killing a healthy puppy. I ended up doing a fair bit of research about EAB liability. Attorneys all said the risks from selling are high, but none provided any case law. I've been told that suits almost always get settled before going to trial, hence, no headlines.
 
It's very confusing to hear that there are people who will refuse to sell a perfectly good airplane because they're are worried about theoretical-but-untested liability from one buyer, but seem perfectly fine with parting the same aircraft out and incurring the exact same theoretical-but-untested liability from potentially dozens of buyers.

If you're going to part it out, what the difference between selling it as one part and selling it as 50 parts? Any theory that says you're on the hook if someone crashes two decades down the line surely attaches to the ASI or GNS430 or fuel pump every bit as tightly as it attaches to the airframe, so if selling is risky then parting it out can only increase your legal exposure.

Thousands of RVs get sold all around the world all the time. If there was even one case of one of the prior owners getting sued after a subsequent accident, there'd be a 100-page VAF thread about it, and nobody would sell an RV ever again.

They get sold because that's never happened. Imaginary threat.

Just sell the darn airplane. It's fine.

- mark
 
The EAA has recommendations for sell EAB aircraft. Search their site or call if you are member. Long story short. Liability risk is very very small.
 
A builder would have to consider staying over the 51% threshold
Replacing the engine and the intruments in an airframe doesn't constitute making a new airplane... So there's no 51% consideration here, assuming someone wanted to buy your airframe, put a new engine and instruments in it, and go fly.

As for liability, I think you'd have a better case with a complete aircraft that's proven itself for 1500 hours. If you sell just the airframe, and someone else puts in an engine and instruments and then wads it up into a ball 5 hours later, you'll have a hard time shaking the suggestion that there was something wrong with it on the parts that you built vs. the work the new owner did to make it fly again.
 
If I didn't have a -10 project, I'd happily take a complete bare airframe as a 'rebuild and add my own touches' project.

While I agree with the others that your best value is to sell the whole airplane (and would respect your personal decision either way) - You won't have problems selling the bare, complete airframe. I'd love to have it for a future budget build (but the -10 has taken my budget for a long time). I know some other individuals would like this as well!
 
Last edited:
Well, There Was This One Caveat

”It's very confusing to hear that there are people who will refuse to sell a perfectly good airplane because they're are worried about theoretical-but-untested liability from one buyer, but seem perfectly fine with parting the same aircraft out and incurring the exact same theoretical-but-untested liability from potentially dozens of buyers.

If you're going to part it out, what the difference between selling it as one part and selling it as 50 parts? Any theory that says you're on the hook if someone crashes two decades down the line surely attaches to the ASI or GNS430 or fuel pump every bit as tightly as it attaches to the airframe, so if selling is risky then parting it out can only increase your legal exposure.”

In the case of the RV-9A that I parted out, the attorney said it was safe to sell off the engine, instruments, avionics, wheels, brakes… all that kind of stuff. Parts that my friends manufactured, like all the sheetmetal, needed to be scrapped. Their liability did not extend to items manufactured by suppliers… he said. I had some inquiries from potential buyers about airframe parts but could not sell those. Ultimately, the bare airframe was donated to a facility that trains rescue dogs, but then it got melted into a puddle in a brushfire.
 
I'm thinking it probably depends on the assets of the builder. If he doesn't have enough for a greedy lawyer to go after, he's probably safe. If a multi-millionaire sells an E-AB that crashes, the greedy will come out of the woodwork.
 
I'm thinking it probably depends on the assets of the builder. If he doesn't have enough for a greedy lawyer to go after, he's probably safe. If a multi-millionaire sells an E-AB that crashes, the greedy will come out of the woodwork.

It's a bit disconcerting to read some of these opinions. I hate to see a perfectly good aircraft destroyed but I'd hate it more to unnecessarily burden my family; especially if I'm gone. Case law? There's always a first and a defense would be expensive and stressful for those I've left.

We haven't lived below our means our entire life together to become targets. You don't have to be a multi-millionaire become one; especially as the value of your assets keep increasing.

A lot more could be said; but, I fully respect without reservation anyone's effort to protect their family's wellbeing.
 
Thousands of RVs get sold all around the world all the time. If there was even one case of one of the prior owners getting sued after a subsequent accident, there'd be a 100-page VAF thread about it, and nobody would sell an RV ever again.

- mark

I think you meant a *successful* lawsuit.
After John Denver crashed his Long EZ (or similar plane) his estate sued every single former owner and the original builder.
After an Rv10 builder managed to get RTV into his fuel lines (which were subsequently block by a blob of the stuff) his estate sued Vans.
While I *believe* none of these suits were successful, no one knows if there was an out of court settlement, nor how much was spent on legal defense costs. I do know that Boeing publicly claimed to have spent $1 million on legal costs, before they were excused from a lawsuit that resulted from the Russians shooting down a Korean 747. So the risk is remote, but real. Some people are willing to trash a perfectly good airplane, if it lets them sleep at night.
 
If this were a serious issue, wouldn’t Vans have closed up shop years ago?

:eek:

You may recall that Cessna ceased production for some years (early 90's??), claiming that legal costs were the reason. They resumed production only after Congress offered them a limitation on their liability.

I suspect that Vans tries hard to keep itself from being a target, by having few real assets. e.g., they are a small company, most profit is likely immediately distributed to the owners. If they ever lose one large lawsuit, they'll simply declare bankruptcy. So I'd say it is an infrequent issue; but not zero.
 
What about donating to a museum after removing the data plate?

Or donate to your local A&P school. They can always use it for training on items like brake changes/bleeding, or rigging. We had several old Experimental aircraft in the Miramar College hangar that we worked on. All were unflyable, and you'd probably get a tax deduction!
 
The gentleman who decided to "recycle" his RV didn't ask my permission before he bought it. He certainly didn't need my approval when he decided to crush it. His airplane....his business....

I may do the same one of these days.
 
If you live on the east coast, you could just tie it down at the wrong airport at the right time.......:eek:
 
Wither the Hiperbipe

You may recall that Cessna ceased production for some years (early 90's??), claiming that legal costs were the reason. They resumed production only after Congress offered them a limitation on their liability.

I suspect that Vans tries hard to keep itself from being a target, by having few real assets. e.g., they are a small company, most profit is likely immediately distributed to the owners. If they ever lose one large lawsuit, they'll simply declare bankruptcy. So I'd say it is an infrequent issue; but not zero.

The Sorrel bros were sued out of the business after an accident.
 
We haven't lived below our means our entire life together to become targets. You don't have to be a multi-millionaire become one; especially as the value of your assets keep increasing.

A lot more could be said; but, I fully respect without reservation anyone's effort to protect their family's wellbeing.

The gentleman who decided to "recycle" his RV didn't ask my permission before he bought it. He certainly didn't need my approval when he decided to crush it. His airplane....his business....

I may do the same one of these days.

Completely agree with both of these well stated posts.
Building/buying/flying/owning/selling Experimental Amateur Built aircraft has many risks, this is but one. Everyone weighs them in their own way.
 
If I'm not mistaken the RV7 Wing spars and centre spar section come as a match pair, so unless someone bought the fuselage and wings they wouldn't have a matched pair :( Happy to be corrected

As others have said sell the RV7 as a whole aircraft.
 
It's very confusing to hear that there are people who will refuse to sell a perfectly good airplane because they're are worried about theoretical-but-untested liability from one buyer, but seem perfectly fine with parting the same aircraft out and incurring the exact same theoretical-but-untested liability from potentially dozens of buyers.

If you're going to part it out, what the difference between selling it as one part and selling it as 50 parts? Any theory that says you're on the hook if someone crashes two decades down the line surely attaches to the ASI or GNS430 or fuel pump every bit as tightly as it attaches to the airframe, so if selling is risky then parting it out can only increase your legal exposure.

Thousands of RVs get sold all around the world all the time. If there was even one case of one of the prior owners getting sued after a subsequent accident, there'd be a 100-page VAF thread about it, and nobody would sell an RV ever again.

They get sold because that's never happened. Imaginary threat.

Just sell the darn airplane. It's fine.

- mark

Ask the guy who built the plane John Denver died in. Pretty sure he paid a handsome sum in the settlement.

Selling something like an airplane carries certain legal presumptions that do not apply to selling parts that make up an airplane. Not going to write a long post here, but suggest discussing with an attorney to figure out the differences. Anyone can sue for anything, but selling a complete plane assumes that it is flyable. Selling one wing does not make such an implication. Not saying there is no liability is selling a wing, just MUCH harder to prove that you were guilty of negligence. the common bar for winning a lawsuit, AND that negligence was responsible for the loss.
 
Last edited:
If you're going to part it out, what the difference between selling it as one part and selling it as 50 parts? Any theory that says you're on the hook if someone crashes two decades down the line surely attaches to the ASI or GNS430 or fuel pump every bit as tightly as it attaches to the airframe, so if selling is risky then parting it out can only increase your legal exposure.”

I

The BIG difference is that with the whole plane, YOU are the manufacturer and carry liabilities typically held by manufacturers. When you sell a part in the EAB world, that fact quickly fades into history and the NEW BUILDER becomes the manufacturer. We have a lot of legal precedence that holds manufacturers responsible for delivering safe products. MUCH harder to hold parts suppliers to that and impossible without a good paper trail.
 
Last edited:
After John Denver crashed his Long EZ (or similar plane) his estate sued every single former owner and the original builder.

Did they? I couldn't find such lawsuits doing a search with the Googles, but I *did* see where they sued, and settled with, Spruce and the company that made the fuel selector valve.
 
https://www.eaa.org/videos/85494169001

Nice Webinar from EAA on liability. You need to log in

Parting out does not eliminate your liability.
This includes parts you did not build.

Example: You maintained the certified engine.
Perhaps you sell it as from a operating aircraft xxx hours with or without logs.
They can still claim negligence.

The lectures good EAA has some good resources.

If you want to eliminate all liability give it to the scrap yard and watch them crush the whole plane with the engine !
 
Is there a thread on the subject of liability? I never even considered the fact that selling my plane at some point would be a negative experience.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTurner View Post
After John Denver crashed his Long EZ (or similar plane) his estate sued every single former owner and the original builder.

Did they? I couldn't find such lawsuits doing a search with the Googles, but I *did* see where they sued, and settled with, Spruce and the company that made the fuel selector valve.

Still waiting for an answer to this one...
 
Still no E-AB builders successfully, and few unsuccessfully, sued AFAIK. Anyone know otherwise? Of course anyone can sue for anything, essentially.

that may be true. However a large number of suits don't go on to verdict, but instead settle. Most settlements contain non disclosure and are not public record.
 
Every builder has to do what he/she is comfortable with.

Even though destroying an aircraft is not my cup of tea, I would not encourage anyone to go against his/her preference.
 
Still no E-AB builders successfully, and few unsuccessfully, sued AFAIK. Anyone know otherwise? Of course anyone can sue for anything, essentially.

What is almost impossible to find is how much ‘successful’ defendants had to pay for legal costs, but it’s likely five figures. Even when you win, you lose.
 
There are over 20,000 users on this forum. There have been over 11,000 RVs built (that we know of). Nobody has provided even a single example of a suit that went to court, and further, I'm pretty sure that if people were being sued and settling in any sort of numbers beyond incredibly small ones, we'd be hearing about it here.

Does anyone here have any *direct* knowledge of someone who sold a plane and then got sued? I mean you or someone you know personally, as we've seen how rumors get started (e.g., the John Denver case...apparently, no, his family did NOT sue the previous owners and builders and everyone else...just the fuel valve company and ACS).

I have no intention of selling mine, until the day comes when I can't fly it anymore, and then I have a pretty good idea who will get it, and I won't lose a wink of sleep over mythical lawsuits.
 
I think carefully vetting the buyer, to make sure he/she is COMPETENT and not braindead, would go further to protect you as a seller than anything else.

There is a lot of emphasis placed by the BUYER upon making sure the aircraft is in good condition - in my opinion the SELLER needs to be making the same evaluation of the buyer.
 
Back
Top