How safe is it flying a kit aircraft built by someone else !

[Butch]

If I were to buy a second hand home built kit aircraft how safe would it be ?

 

Looking at aircraft for sale most amateur built aircraft are mainly cheaper than factory built.

 

My question is do you spend more for a factory built aircraft or take the risk buying a home built ?

 

I'd like to hear your advice and the reasons why,

 

thanks in advance,

 

cheers Butch.

 

 

[Chris SS]

It depends entirely on what you’re buying...

 

If you’re looking at a KR2 built in the 80s - I probably wouldn’t. I would be reluctant to buy anything built from plans only unless it is looked over by someone way cleverer that I am.

 

If you’re buying a Van’s RV that was built from a quick build kit with matched holes, properly inspected during construction, and with a lycoming engine - you’re good to go.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Totally depends on your choice of kit?

 

And of course the skills of the builder

 

 

[derekliston]

Since the majority of factory built aircraft in this country are 30+ years old, or new and super expensive, I would say home built within a hundred or so hours on would be the way to go, but get a good LAME to give it THOROUGH inspection first!

 

 

[Happyflyer]

A good kit build will have more care and attention lavished on it than a factory build could ever have. If it's a good kit like a Vans RV, coupled with a good builder you will probably never have a better aircraft. Once you have made your choice spend whatever it takes to get someone who is familiar with the type and has the knowledge and ability to give it a good pre buy inspection and report.

 

Components like engine, instruments and avionics should be by good reputable makers with support available. If it is the builder's second or subsequent build so much the better. Looking at the paperwork is very important. Who maintained it, what are the records like, does the paperwork match the aircraft and components, is it all legal. Again, it will pay to get someone competent to look at this side of things.

 

Do the ground work and you will get a great aircraft, for a price you could not build it for. Worked a treat for me!

 

 

[Butch]

Thanks you all for the feed back . I'm on a budget to buy, but safety is paramount,

 

cheers Butch

 

 

[Geoff13]

A factory build is no guarantee of safety.

 

 

[djpacro]

I've never seen a kit built Pitts as good as a factory Pitts and never seen a rebuilt Citabria/Decathlon as good as one from the factory.

 

I've seen some diabolical homebuit Pitts.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

I have seen a few factory built aircraft that I would have sent back....but not GA....LSA

 

 

[onetrack]

Perhaps the question you should be asking, is not how it was built, or who built it - but how it has been flown?

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Perhaps the question you should be asking, is not how it was built, or who built it - but how it has been flown?

Yes you should ask that but that's not exclusive to home builds!

 

 

[Downunder]

Thanks you all for the feed back . I'm on a budget to buy, but safety is paramount,cheers Butch

I would say second hand, factory built then.

 

I see buying a second hand kit as more to do with the risk profile of the buyer rather than individual aircraft.

 

Determine your risk profile and go from there. Will you lay in bed at night worrying about it, if you bought a kit?

 

I decided to go new, factory built but if others are happy buying a second hand kit, that's fine by me.

 

I bought for long term ownership.

 

 

[seb7701]

A kit produced from a well respected manufacturer is a good start, such as Vans, Rans, Kitfox etc. who have been in the biz for a long time with a proven track record. That way some of the variables have at least been eliminated, as opposed to a plans build where much more of the aircraft has been put together from parts gathered up by the builder saw them as fit to do the job.

 

As Happy Flyer mentioned, many kits have been lovingly and meticulously completed in a far better manner than any factory aircraft, whilst others...not so much. Just read a copy of 'Kitplane' to see.

 

As an example, I was happy with a kit Jab, as the majority of structural aspects have been completed by the factory, with much less critical aspects left to the builder. (Yes, I know that still leaves lots of other important points, but you get the idea..) Meanwhile, 90% of items such as controls, fittings etc. can be visually checked for manner of assembly, whereas the timber structure inside a fabric covered Fisher Koala's wing might be a bit harder to verify in terms of proper construction technique.

 

At the end of the day, the manner of completion tells the story to a large degree, so a kit aircraft is just fine....depending!! A good LAME or L2 who IS FAMILIAR with the type of aircraft should soon be able to guide as to the manner of completion of a kit plane which could quite possibly meet your budget requirements a little cheaper than some other factory versions.

 

Lastly, as one-track mentioned, a flight with the owner to see how they handle it is also very telling sometimes, as treatment is also everything and a good indicator with a potential purchase.

 

My two cents..

 

 

[rgmwa]

Well designed and carefully manufactured kits like RV's are usually well built because builders typically take a lot of pride in their work and build the best aircraft they can, but you can also find plenty of examples of poor and sometimes dangerous workmanship on the forums. Sometimes the defects are obvious such as misdrilled holes and poorly set rivets, but there are often apparently minor departures from good practice that only a trained eye would spot. I would be more wary of a scratch-built aircraft, because the opportunity for deviation from the plans is greater, not necessarily because the quality of workmanship is inferior. I think the best assurance to to have the plane inspected by an experienced LAME, L2 or SAAA tech counsellor or AP familiar with the type.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[scre80]

I purchased a 2nd hand home built back in March, a Zodiac 601 HDS. Very happy with it, I had a LAME 2/4 go over it completely (He has also built a few himself too). But I would never buy it without someone who knows their stuff going over it.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Well - I have to say that many of the above do represent a lot of best case wishful thinking not necesarily reality.

 

The fact is that when someone builds a home built you have all possible ranges of quality. With no guarantee that it's been done right. It may be done to a meticulous standard ( because as stated many builders lavish care and attention). Or it may be done to a shoddy "slap it together as fast as I can - I want to go flying" standard.

 

And there is no likelihood that every section has been to the same standard. A build takes years and in that time builders learn as they go, have good days and bad days, get confused at complex descriptions in manuals or parts especially after long hours in the shed, or just make mistakes.

 

I have to disagree about kits stopping or even limiting errors. Jabirus ( of which I have been involved with many) are in fact quite complex with many places where poor knowledge/experience or lack of attention can lead to huge variation on quality. We have one here which despite looking all right at preinspection - ended up needing to have so much work done on it it would have been quicker to strip it completely down and rebuild it. And once the kit shell has been completed , stuff like cables, electronics, avionics and set up of control trims etc are completely at the whim of the builder and it's back to anything goes.

 

Our chapter of the SAAA members has a number of aircraft purchased as already-builds which even to pre-purchase inspection looked good or great. It's only later when maintenance happens that the new owners have started to find issues, some serious and some just annoying.

 

Then there is the issue of maintenance - if it's homebuilt and you have to get a LAME you may run into issues of finding one experienced on that model. One of our members bought a fantastic plastic fastest little rocket but then lamented that he paid for his LAME to learn on his plane.

 

While factory builds might have issues on the issues of likelihood of controlled quality, of fallback if there are problems - ADs issued for problems ( and you can check to see they have done) the overall likelihood that it will be safe is much higher in a factory build.

 

Without dragging this post out too long - as sad as it is for me to say ( and I am a Technical Counsellor in the SAAA - if safety is your prime mover then give homebuilts of all types a big swerve and get a factory build.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Jaba

 

I would have to agree with some of your statements. I am rebuilding a crashed aircraft now that was kit built ...this aircraft was built as a "I want to go flying now" type for a price by not the original purchaser of the kit. I only found this out when pulling it apart to repair the damage. Consequently the whole aircraft is now coming apart to basically a kit condition again then being rebuilt because I am not happy with the quality of how it was put together and certain things that were done during the build that you couldnt see unless you knew what you were looking for.

 

I have seen some terrible builds BUT I have also seen some beautiful builds too.

 

You cant just say buy a factory built either because a lot of factory built I have seen have been monday or friday builds as well. It all just goes back to the care and attention when it was done. I do believe though that you do need certain skills to be able to put a kit together AND I believe that there should be more observation and inspections of the builds along the way. The new Tech manual now has some of this implemented but that doesnt cover all the ones made before this

 

Mark

 

 

[cscotthendry]

I would suggest to talk to the original builder if that is possible.

 

If you're buying it from the original builder, you can often get a good idea of how much care and attention they put into building it. Another clue is the finish and appearance of the plane. Even a superficial look at a poorly built plane will show signs. Look for things not fitting or operating correctly. Did the builder take the time to decorate the plane nicely? That shows that they took some pride in the project and were prepared to invest some extra time and money on it. The finish says a lot about the builder. By the time a builder reaches the end of the physical construction, there is a strong urge to get it into the air. It may have been built to a very high standard, but if the builder was prepared to take the extra time to make it also look nice, that suggests that they are thorough and patient, two very important attributes of a good builder. I think that how the builder finished the plane suggests how they built the plane.

 

Also, if you are buying from the original builder, ask to have a look at the build log. If it is almost or completely non-existent then I'd run a mile... in the opposite direction. In contrast, a builder that trots out something the size of a dictionary, with lots of pictures and drawings and explanations, and then bores the sox off you describing how he solved the tricky door latch issue, has probably built a good, safe plane.

 

Also, if you're buying from the builder, you can ask them whether they varied anything from the original build instructions and if so, why.

 

Ask about compliance with ADs and SBs on the airframe and engine. Have a look at the maintenance log and other documentation. Look specifically for documentation of builder-initiated mods made after the first registration.

 

Ask about damage history and look for signs of any repairs made to the plane. If the builder/owner admits there is any damage history, look for it in the logs. Damage is not necessarily a show stopper, but it must be properly repaired and documented. Also it should be factored into the sale price.

 

Ask other people who might know anything about the plane. Ask at the airport where the plane is based and ask here on the forums.

 

I'll probably be stoking the hornets nest with this, but did the builder put a new or second hand engine in the plane when they first built it? If they put a second hand engine in, that suggests to me that they were building on a tight budget and there might be other areas where they went for the "cheap" option. Would you buy a car that had a half-life or near-end-of-life engine installed when the car was new? I wouldn't.

 

All of these things will be checked by a competent L2 or LAME, but a lot of them are things you can check before you start throwing money at professional inspectors.

 

Finally, if you're buying from the builder and they show any hesitation to be completely honest about any aspect of the build or maintenance of the plane, run a mile in the opposite direction. Your life could depend on it.

 

EDIT: One last thing, take your time buying a plane and be prepared to walk away if you're not completely comfortable with any aspect of the purchase.

 

 

[derekliston]

I built my CH701 from a Zenith kit bought from the USA. I was, during the build process, a LAME looking after a fleet of 12 aircraft pretty much single handedly. If you are looking for a build log, my log is purely photographic, pretty much nothing written down. However, for two whole years I didn't touch this aeroplane because I was so frustrated with the plans and the difficulty in complying with good aeronautical practice. Bear in mind that I was a LAME with years of experience in the U.K. and Australia, so if I found it difficult, how would your ordinary non- aeronautical builder cope. Things as simple as edge clearances for rivets were sometimes difficult to achieve. There were absolutely no instructions regarding firewall forward nor instrument or radio installations and I have often wondered about how many kits are either a) sitting unfinished somewhere or b) not truly airworthy if you could actually view the internal structure. Having said all that, this aeroplane flies much more precisely and is 1000% more fun to fly than any Piper, Cessna or Aerospatiale product so if you can find a good home built you will not regret it but just be very, very cautious.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

I built a Skyranger Nynja from a kit. At first glance, the build instructions looked "thin" to me. However, once I got going into the build, I found that the important part, the structure was pretty much fool-proof if you didn't try to "improve" it. Where the instructions were thin was with the finishing part, and as Derek mentioned about his kit, with the engine plumbing, electrics and instrument/radio installations. With the electrics, I had an advantage as I'm an avionics tech (retired) so I had some ideas about that. As for everything else, it was a combination of head-scratching and when all else failed, call the dealer.

 

My guess is that other kits would follow this same rough outline, where the structure and aerodynamic parts are worked out and shouldn't be altered but the mechanics and electrics can be tailored to the builder's needs. The main things the builder has to do are a) respect the designer's input as to structural and aerodynamic practices, b) Keep the finished W&B within specs, and c) build the aircraft as trouble-free as they can. Part c) goes to things like restraining wires and hoses from movement and preventing chafing etc. and following best aeronautical practices such as safety wiring, bolt placements and torques.

 

I also have seen a number of kit planes where the builder either ran out of money or time. Home-built airplanes are no different to houses or boats in that regard.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

going through my wiring on one of my tornadoes and noticed that old mate has mounted the regulator with clecos and of course, my cleco pliers didn't fit

 

 

 

[Nobody]

The financial resources available to the builder and their mindset also come into consideration. I know that during my build there were times I made a mistake and made a mistake eg drilled a hole in the wrong location. In many instances the part could have perhaps been used as it would be hidden in the long term but I have always just ordered another piece from Vans. It's always only a "few" dollars and a short wait but it all adds up.

 

I know some others would have used the damaged parts as they encouraged me to do so. I consider the cost of the extra parts the cost of learning and am willing to spend it to get a good final product. Others just want to finish.

 

Edit: The photo posted by fly_tornado above also shows what I am talking about at little. I have found that the better quality crimp tools produce a much more sound crimp than those shown. A builder who chooses to invest in the higher quality tool gets a better outcome.

 

 

[Yenn]

When you have had a good look at a homebuilt, you will have some o=idea of build quality, but I would also suggest that you have a look at the hours flown already and the maintenance records.

 

If the plane has done 30 hours a year for several years, that is average recreational use. A rough builder would also probably be a rough pilot and accordingly a poor build would show more signs of defects.

 

The idea of thinking that using a second hand engine for the first flights is a sign of slipshod building, to get into the air cheaply, is not always good thinking. It is a big strain on the test piloting to be breaking in a new engine and also a new aeroplane.

 

I put a second hand 1600cc Jab in my Corby when I built it. That way I test flew the plane with an engine I knew would run reasonably well.

 

When I built my RV I put a new Lycoming in and had to worry about both engine and airframe. I was happy to do that because of the good reputation of the RV design.

 

Your best help will come from getting people who know the design to look at it.

 

 

[derekliston]

I bought a second-hand, read 'overhauled' 2200 Jabiru in mine from Jabav in Victoria. Since been factory rebuilt to nil hours by Jabiru through no fault of the engine but a prop strike. Cost about $10,000 dollars less than a Rotax would have been and a couple of thousand less than a brand new Jab. I really don't think you can generalise.

 

 

[poteroo]

Your best help will come from getting people who know the design to look at it.

Spot on! I strongly recommend buying or building a type that is popular and there are local examples. 'Orphans' can prove very costly! If it's an RV - there is a lot of knowledge about: in building tips and test flying tips too. happy days