Advantage of a homebuilt if you cannot do any significant work on it yourself, and solutions?

europaxs wrote:

FL 180 was only an (one more) example, why this aircraft is not available on the certified sector.

Actually, this aircraft isn’t available in the certified sector, because noone has ever certified it. There is no principle that prevents certified small efficient two-seaters with a turbo-Rotax, nor one that prevents certified aircraft to cruise at FL180 :-)

As said, just the combination of ALL those qualities, that isn’t for which ever reason available as a certified.

There was an attempt with the Liberty XL 2 and that’s what came out – just an ATTEMPT, at least IFR-capable

Peter wrote:

That depends on the ability of the owner and what resources he can put together

Of course, but at some point enough is enough. Especially if what you really want to do is just to fly, then the resources you put into it is plain money, and then I don’t see much cost saving in an Evolution, the aircraft is just too complex and special. An RV or a normal Lancair or any other home built will can be fixed by anyone.

Peter wrote:

That depends on the ability of the owner and what resources he can put together. Almost nobody would work on a Lyco engine. It goes to an engine shop… and whether a Lyco needs fixing or not is determined by its operation; it is nothing to do with the plane it is mounted in.

The aptitude of the owner and his ability to connect with others is certainly important, but there is nothing beyond that preventing sufficiently motivated people from working on their aircraft engines in both certified and non-certified aircraft. A couple of weeks ago a friend (who happens to be an A&P) flew his newly restored Cub for the first time (since 1962, that is) and found that the valves on one cylinder were sticking. The C85 engine was supposedly overhauled by Continental assuming the logbook that came with the engine, bought used, is actually associated with that engine… I suspect it isn’t. Regardless of that the hydraulic valve lifters (tappets) were faulty, requiring engine disassembly. On Saturday, he was pulling the cylinder to check it out, on Sunday the engine came off the plane and was completely disassembled, on Tuesday he stuck most of the engine parts in his other plane and flew them to a local shop for inspection. I imagine it’ll be back together and flying again in less than a month.

Ever heard of a Lycoming O-290G? G stands for Ground, they were GPU engines closely related to the non-G aircraft engines and were once widely available in the US for a few hundred dollars. Many homebuilders reversed the G-version changes with their own fair hands and used them as 135 HP aircraft engines. They are still floating around. A friend wanted more power so instead he scrounged O-320 parts from here and there and had the parts overhauled by an airboat engine shop that does more volume and supplies more (ex-aircraft) engines than most aircraft engine shops. He assembled it with new cylinders as an injected IO-320, although not exactly as Lycoming does it, and it drives a constant speed prop. The engine has about 500 non eventful hours on it now and makes maybe 170 HP. Total cost was under $15K.

Another friend built up an O-360 for his certified Swift, as well as building up the whole plane out of three wrecks and a lot of work. The plane is gorgeous now and the O-360 makes a lot more power than the C-125 Continental that came on it originally.

The key thing with engines is being able to obtain (new and often used) parts without breaking the bank, and having experienced machine shops available to check and renew the parts. That may be a problem in Europe, for US manufactured engines. Beyond that, aircraft engines are quite simple so putting the engine back together is not all that complicated for somebody who has general mechanical ability. I did a little A65 myself a few years ago without too much trouble and it’s still flying

Three be the reasons for home-building an aircraft:

1. you enjoy building. There appear to be a few people around like that, they’ll build a plane, fly it just enough to get the paperwork done, then sell it off and build the next
2. you want something that isn’t available otherwise. Myself still dream of flying a DeMonge 7.5 but the only way to obtain one is to build one. Worse, a good deal of (re-)engineering would need to be done, making this kind of project exceptional. One that fits this category was a twin-Rotax pusher canard called “Gerfan”, I saw it many years ago at a French homebuilders rally. Some replicas fall in this category too.
3. the most common case seems to be a combination of both above points and a degree of economy: if one enjoys a certain degree of tinkering and wants a plane with better performance than the average spam can at an affordable price, assembling a kit may well be the best compromise.

I think the fraction of individually owned GA (certified and non-certified) that is occupied by non-tinkerers worldwide is small and relatively inconsequential. It’s obviously a larger fraction in Europe due to all the regulatory and airport nonsense, but in world terms I think ‘totally hands off’ owners probably don’t create a lot of activity in association with aircraft below $500K value – of which there are relatively few. Maybe ‘hands off’ uninvolved ownership was more the case 40 years ago, at the peak of mass marketed factory aircraft production, but the aviation world has moved on and all that’s left are a few Cirrus’s etc and their owners, and fleet aircraft. In particular, owners of homebuilts who maintain their aircraft like that are a very rare breed worldwide – because there are better ways to operate.

Just crossed my mind. What is meant by significant work? If the plane is in OK shape there is nothing significant to be done. Just maintenance.

I think that, once you find the right engineer, the main advantage is that that engineer will be able to maintain your aeroplane with both hands and both eyes, (not having to divide them between engineering and administrating), not have to dance a little jig to appease the regulatory Gods and use whatever part he deems fit for purpose from whatever source in order to get you flying again. This makes for a happier engineer who will likely charge you less for the privilege.
Peter’s made several posts over the years about a certain type of screw or nut that Socata want squillions for which can quite easily be bought for pennies from any auto factor or RS components.

The issue of a mechanic having to process prodigious amounts of paperwork in association with working certified aircraft is largely solved by moving away from EASA controlled registers.