LeSving wrote:
I am building an RV-4 and a Onex. The RV-4 I started ages ago (it seems), and got interrupted by a “new” wife and refurbishing of the house and a busy job. So I wanted to have something quicker “in the mean time” and bought a Onex kit that hopefully will fly next summer (it’s about 85% done, “only” rigging left).
@LeSving, I’m curious, what happened to those build projects?
As I already outlined in this initial post of mine, I built the RV-4 airframe of HB-YVZ, which is happily criss-crossing European skies 
No troll; this accident report has just come out, and a lot of it deals with the building arrangement.
I was responding to RV14’s
Most people “outsource” parts of the building process: painting, instrument panels and avionics etc. Paying someone to build a complete airplane is not unheard of.
There are ways and means…
It is likely that doing that might void your insurance…
Also my Q remains:
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.
I will start a new thread.
@Peter, you’re trolling us around, aren’t you, (tired)
Yes, there were some irregularities re the aircraft involved in that tragic accident. But it had nothing to do with the outcome itself. Please re-read these extracts from the accident report (my bolds):
Any of us could dig dozens of accident reports due to dodgy maintenance, falsified or not properly done paperwork, unqualified pilots, and so on, relating to the fantastically regulated and expensive world of certified aviation some indulge in.
The majority of homebuilts are built with pride and enthusiasm, to standards often exceeding those of spam cans. By people loving to do so. Self satisfaction whilst producing something… an airplane!
Same for a few of our wives, who might for instance be carding, spinning, and knitting… their produce, a sweater or some other piece of garment!
Once completed, the performance of that homebuilt is probably unmatched in the certified world. It can then be modified, improved, maintained, all source of joy for anybody interested in knowing more about his pride and joy, rather than just coughing up for bills.
Thanks to advanced kit production, flight training availability by most kit providers, increased overview by the responsible associations, the accidents rates are on the decline, and hopefully will continue to do so.
Long live the homebuilt world, its supporters and industry. For the ones thinking differently, just remember that famous (probable) first motorised and controlled flight of December 17th, 1903. A homebuilt 
PS
Can we please all go back to very title of this thread, reminder: What are you building/flying?
Paying someone to build a complete airplane is not unheard of.
There are ways and means…
Indeed. Until something goes wrong. See this (page 7 onwards) Aeroprakt_A32_Vixxen_G_ENVV_06_23_pdf which was not built by the purported builder.
The insurance outcome is going to be interesting, since by UK LAA rules this plane basically doesn’t exist, and it will exist even less when the dependants of the dead “probable passenger” (2 kids) go after the estate of the “probable PIC” (who was a known cowboy and whose licenses were nonexistent anyway, though that’s irrelevant, although perhaps “somewhat indicative”).
Unfortunately the outcome will never be published.
Obviously getting someone to help you is all fine, and anyway this is country-dependent. But according to my well placed source, that accident is regarded as having blown the cover off a widespread practice here in the UK. It may not actually be widespread (although perhaps there is more of it in the higher value markets where the customer is cash-rich and time-poor) but if that is the CAA perception (and it probably will be, for anybody who actually read that AAIB report) then there is more trouble to come.
Another interesting Q is how the periodic LAA inspections during the build were arranged
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. Under the UK LAA system the privileges are same whether you built it or not. So why the subterfuge? 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).
Peter wrote:
I just cannot imagine most people having the time to sit in a shed for such a vast number of hours, while having a life.
It’s an oversimplification as there are homebuilts and there are homebuilts.
simple ones, like RV12 can be easily completed within a reasonable amount of time, not special skills required
on the other hand, building something like RV3 can take decades and it’s certainly not an easy project to accomplish
Most people “outsource” parts of the building process: painting, instrument panels and avionics etc. Paying someone to build a complete airplane is not unheard of.
There are ways and means…
@ivark that Vinka is interesting, looks very similar to a Bulldog.
The Vinka is a bit bigger and heavier, with enough useful load to carry four people. Engine is the same angle valve O-360, 200 HP.
It’s certainly a learning curve and requires time + serious commitment. But it ain’t rocket science…
RVs are so common in my area that they are run of the mill planes, I might see 10 different RVs in a day of flying without looking around much, it’s not at all uncommon to have two or three of them simultaneously in the run up area with me as I leave base. Their kit assembly is simple enough that while it’s significant project that takes multiple years it is not on the same level of time commitment as an old school home built, and while significant persistence is needed the skill level needed is not super high. Also, the design is developed to the extent that once the plane is built to a standard configuration there will be relatively little development needed once it’s done – which is an important consideration for builders looking for a practical plane. The above considerations are a big part of why there are so many of them completed and flying.
I couldn’t build. Too much learning time to building time ratio. And I don’t enjoy that kind of work. With an engineering background it’d be different. Some guys enjoy building
I am not cynical; just realistic. I’ve seen and heard many stories, most of which are of course never posted publicly. My inability to post stuff I’ve been told in confidence enables others to easily criticise what I write, but so be it
There are a few very skilled builders but the majority of projects are disasters of various sizes. Many are part-built before they are abandoned and sold on, then sometimes abandoned again. It’s just a fact that most people don’t have the mechanical skills needed. Also people who abandoned a build and eventually got rid of it tend to keep quiet and one finds out only when asking them years later.
I just cannot imagine most people having the time to sit in a shed for such a vast number of hours, while having a life.
This is a very relevant thread too.
Posts moved to existing “building” thread. See the “Threads possibly related to this one” below for some interesting reading.
@Graham I would love to build and absolutely will put an RV7 together one day. I’ve looked at getting a partially completed kit, which is still an option as the wait for a new one is not currently viable for me. My preferred option currently a to get a basic RV6.
I know @Peter is a bit cynical about builds, and it’s not without reason. It’s definitely doable but I guess most people understimate the task before they begin. I see no reason to not try though.
@ivark that Vinka is interesting, looks very similar to a Bulldog.
