This refers.
This is registration-country-dependent.
I don’t get why you can’t just pay somebody to build the whole plane, overtly, and he registers it as his, and then hands it over to you.
Under the UK LAA system the privileges are same whether you built it or not.
In the US system, there is a small difference (a non-builder needs the annual A&P signoff).
Basically it is like a surrogate baby and with the same risks (you pay the money but may not get the baby) 
I would guess that the problem with the above route is exactly the “surrogate baby” one in that nobody will build a plane for you on trust, so you have to pay in advance and you could end up paying the whole amount and then the builder says “thank you, but I will keep it”.
And you cannot have a contract preventing that, because that would void the 51% principle. The builder would be a de facto factory.
From here
However, and this is country-dependent, I don’t get why you can’t just pay somebody to build the whole thing anyway, overtly, and he registers it as his, and then sells it to you.
In the US you could do that, and obviously you could also be involved to whatever lesser extent you wanted as long as your name isn’t on the FAA paperwork. You’d have to trust the builder as he would own the plane legally until it was transferred to you, and I believe the eventual sale from the builder would be subject to sales tax, which is typically between 5 and 10% – a lot of money unless you’re doing this in one of the five US states that have no sales tax. That would be galling given that you’d likely already have paid the same rate of tax on many of the components and materials to build the plane, notwithstanding that Vans is located in Oregon, one of those five states.
The subsequent requirement to have an A&P mechanic (IA not required) inspect the plane yearly is also a significant disincentive, even if you or anybody else could maintain the plane and make logbook entries for all work outside of annual condition inspections. It’s nice not to have others involved in any aspect of maintaining your plane, as is the case for the original builder under FAA regulations. A partial solution for any buyer of completed FAA E-AB aircraft might be to have the original builder sign off the Annuals – he is authorized to do so even after the plane is sold.
Regardless of the Annual sign-off issue the US market for used RVs is strong, so there are different segments to the market. Being able to maintain your own plane except for conducting annual inspections is an incentive for those buyers shopping both used certified and used E-AB aircraft.
I don’t understand the question. Who says you cannot? I have a friend who bought RV-10 from South Africa and the plane is on Estonian register, soon will be used even for IFR training. Also, people in LAK glider factory in Lithuania are assembling RV kits.. In ES register you need a certified mechanic to sign the annuals for experimentals (unless they are ultralight).
As noted, every country is different in how they treat experimental/homebuilt/amateur-built aircraft. Those of us in countries that allow it for personal use, development, experimentation, and education don’t want to lose that privilege. There are some “serial builders”, “builders for hire” and “hired guns” for sure, but there are only a handful.
The entire certification process seems to be in need of modernization, and it is slowly coming in some countries. With a few exceptions, the homebuilt market is where a lot of innovation is originating.
BTW, if anyone wants me to build an RV for them, I’ll be happy to get started on it at my standard day rate of 2500 CHF/day, paid one year in advance.
Interesting answers, and even more interesting lack of answers
You’d have to trust the builder as he would own the plane legally until it was transferred to you
This is obviously the main reason people don’t do this routinely. You would hand over some tens of k (obviously the builder doesn’t need the engine, prop, etc) and then you could get scammed.
I have a friend who bought RV-10 from South Africa and the plane is on Estonian register
In some countries (the UK being one) this could take a year or more. Some are impossible – France post-1998 one big example (see threads). I’ve just heard of one import, RV, which took a year.
Buiding a kit built or plans built RV in France and registering it in France is a relatively straightforward and well laid out process.
Getting somebody else to build it for you? Well that doesn’t tend to happen simply because by the time you have paid the builder an RV would cost more than many certified aircraft such as a Robin or the most modern fully equipped ULMs.
Just look at the prices of RVs on Planecheck.
However, there is nothing to stop you building an RV as a group and there may well be others in your area, even clubs and Lycée students who would happily be involved.
Buying an previously built RV from another country is a problem, because there are certain things, dossiers, testing standards etc that have to be presented to and approved by OSAC before it can go on the French register. These include a builders manual and an aircraft flight manual and a POH.
If the country you are buying from has the same standards of homologuetion as France, it is less of a problem, providing the build manual exists.
But the simplest method is to strip it back to a point acceptable to OSAC and to rebuild from there making the necessary dossiers at the same time.
That dossier or dossiers, also acts as maintenance manual for you to do your own maitenanance if you so wish. Its all your responsibility.
OSAC issues a C of A (I would have to check on this next bit because the last a/c I helped the builder on was registered as a ULM and there are some differences) which is for the life of the aircraft and then a CDN (again not fully up to date) every 3 years. This is often just a paperwork excercise with OSAC or the RSA unless you have made changes which would mean alterations to the dossier.
In the ULM world the C of A is valid for the life of the aircraft and then becomes the sole responsibility of the owner/pilot to keep it fit to fly. IOW a self declaration which you don’t have to declare, just like the medical
gallois wrote:
by the time you have paid the builder an RV would cost more than many certified aircraft such as a Robin or the most modern fully equipped ULMs.
As a person intimately familiar with a Robin and somewhat familiar with vl-3 I can assure you, that RVs are a different class
Let me give you an example:
My RV14 would cruise +190kn TAS and would land at Baltrum or any 300m long grass strip and is aerobatic. I can put inside two bromptons, camping gear, 50 gal of gas and two full sized adults, be within W&B limits and fly comfortably longer than my bladder would allow. All of the above with a with a very simple naturally aspirated engine fed by mechanical fuel injection. At FL 160 it still goes +140kn TAS with fuel consumption of 25 l/h. Did I mention autopilot flying coupled LPV approaches?
Don’t get me wrong, Robins, those built till 1973 are lovely aeroplanes, but different.
Well that doesn’t tend to happen simply because by the time you have paid the builder an RV would cost more than many certified aircraft such as a Robin or the most modern fully equipped ULMs.
That is true but at the upper end of the market the customers are mostly time-poor and cash-rich. There are a number of such communities in GA. IMHO this drives the 200k-300k UL market – they are factory built and come well equipped, so there is little for a builder to do.
But the simplest method is to strip it back to a point acceptable to OSAC
The DGAC wanted back to 51%. Past threads on that. Almost nobody did that; instead they went PH-reg. That is no longer possible but also the DGAC allowed the transfer without dismantling.
The build quality which is possible (if rare) on an RV is way above a Robin. And the great advantage of a serial builder is that the build quality can be very high. Whereas with owner-building, in nearly all cases it is the first plane he’s built (and usually the last ) and whatever skills he had, he learnt on that one build. That’s why the recommendation (I have this from one RV expert) is to start on the tail of which you can buy another one fairly cheaply if you messed up too badly.
Peter wrote:
The build quality which is possible (if rare) on an RV is way above a Robin.
Taking into account ADs related to wing spar of Robins, and quality issues dating back to 1973, I’m afraid it’s the other way around
@RV14 I was not my intention to start a debate between the pros and cons of a Robin v an RV.
But more to do with the fact that looking on Planecheck and the prices they are asking for a previously owned, flown, maintained by some individual who may or may not know one end of a spanner from another when for less money I could buy a new certified aircraft (I chose Robin aircraft as a manufacturer I know and aircraft I enjoy flying, but I could have chosen another aircraft manufacturer.
BTW there are Robins which can legally fly an LPV coupled approach and any other instrument approach you care to mention in France where homebuilts are restricted to VFR DAY.
I have nothing against RVs. Some models I quite like. There are other aircraft I would prefer to build if I was going to build.
The thing about building your own aircraft is that you can build to your own tastes and that’s great. But to get somebody else to build it for you, which is the subject of this thread, its not something I would consider for the reasons I have given.
@Peter how do you measure 51% of an aircraft?
