Pre-Built Kitplanes, now there's a thought.

[Monocock]

There is something within GA that I do not understand one bit. It has no reasoning and it seems there is a market gap that could so easily be filled.

Pre-built kitplanes.......

I hate the phrase "kitplane". It gives me the impression of poorly finished fibreglass edges, badly fitting canopies and bolts that work their way loose really easily.

There is no doubt however that in the days of an ageing GA fleet that turns up the noses of non-flying passengers, that the composite sleekness of some of the homebuilts has much potential.

Until recently I would never have considered going near one. I would walk past the row of such types at a fly-in with scant regard for them. They would have been a waste of good Vintage a/c parking space in my eyes. A row of carefully assembled "plastique" that would soon grace themselves in some form of incident statistic.

Recently however I have thought long and hard about this.

Within 15 years from now surely there is going to be a huge shortage of light aircraft. A large percentage of the relics we keep airborne today will be contributing towards our chinese takeaway packaging and only the real rare/vintage types will be cared for in a way that all a/c deserve to be looked after. The current production of modern singles cannot possibly satisfy the demand that there will be in 15 years time in the same way that the good old 1970's Cessna/Piper has done for us.

So, to the composite.

My wife says they look like plastic toys. My daughter says they look fantastic. My son doesn't like a/c so I haven't asked him.

If it costs £30k to buy and build a top performer like a Vans RV6/7/8/9 etc then why are they selling for £50k+? It can only be a demand based premium and that demand must surely be a niche that the likes of Mr Vans should be tapping into? Would it really cost Mr Vans £20k to assemble one????

Take the Pulsar for instance. It has to be one of the most stunning 2 seat a/c in its class. It cruises at 140 kts and can be bought for £18,000. But.....you have to spend 1000 hrs building the damn thing. How many of us would pay say £10k more to know that we are buying one direct from the manufacturer. One that is unflown and built to a factory approved quality. One that hasn't been put together by a ham fisted bloke from Barnsley who did 25% of his building hours when he got home from The Lamb and Flag with a belly full of Stella and pork scratchings?

And this is the problem.

The majority of "next generation" types are degraded in my eyes because of the "kitplane" phrase that devalue them before they even come out of the mould. With the exception of the Cirrus and Diamond range, let's face it, the rest of the composites have a "garage born" image and reputation. Mark Hales might be able to build a chopper in his garage but I for sure 'aint gonna go near the damn thing.......

I wonder how many of us would be queueing up to order a nice new Lancair, Vans, Pulsar (or even a Kitfox for that matter) if we knew it had a nose to tail warranty and the build quality that the clubs Arrow has.

I know I would.

Views?

[dublinpilot]

Isn't there something about the manufacturer only being allowed to do less than 50% of the work, for it to be still treated as an "experimental"?

Having said that, I too think it would be a great idea. Some of those "kitplanes" look really good, but I don't have the skills, space or time to make one. Not sure I'd trust one, that Joe built in his garage either.

Now one built my the manufacture, who's building one each day....now that's a different story.....

Suspect the CofA class manufacturers might object though.

dp

[Microheavy]

Couldn't agree more with you Mono, indeed I've aften thought all that myself.

What ya need is an IKEA flatpack specialist kind of bloke. We've loads of them here in Ireland. Blokes that come to your house and assemble all that awful furniture that came in a box because you just know you'll balls it up and run out of Elaso Plast by the time its done.

The law says that 51% of a kit plane "must not" be factory built but it doesn't say the owner has to do it. It's a great business opportunity for someone who knows what they're doing and at say £10,000 a plane for an average 500 hour build time not bad money. Certainly a good retirement fund for an ex engineer and a damn good hobby if you're into that sort of thing.

[Genghis the Engineer]

The law says that 51% of a kit plane "must not" be factory built but it doesn't say the owner has to do it.

Negative, the law (as interpreted in CAP 733 in the UK, EASA Annex II in Europe, and somewhere else for the US) is quite clear on the fact that 51%+ of the construction must be done by the owner.


I hate the phrase "kitplane". It gives me the impression of poorly finished fibreglass edges, badly fitting canopies and bolts that work their way loose really easily.
Then don't use it, the legal term in the UK is "amateur built", and in the US is "experimental".



Personally I do think the current situation is not good, but not necessarily for the reasons others have said. There are people out there building aircraft kits to order - in some cases they are BMAA or PFA inspectors who are also signing their own work off - a very poor state of affairs.

The fact is that "cottage building", like prostitution - inevitably goes on and is impossible to stamp out. So, the powers that be really should be regulating it and keeping it under proper control - I've heard several proposals to do so over the years but each has been shot down in flames by various vested interests. Shortsighted in my opinion, because those vested interests were probably best placed to make money from any such scheme.

G

[ChrisVJ]

Well, for a start, lots of those planes can come in "fastbuild" kits. Wings and fuselage pretty well done, still leaves about 800 hrs (instead of about 2000)

Second, My reckoning a half decent RV7 is going to set me back about $70K US. Yup, I know the kit is 27K but the engine, at least a decent one, is going to be another $25K min. Instruments another $7 to 10. Painting. Unless you are good that'll be another 5K and if there is one thing I see all the time on the RV forums it is how many iddy biddy little bits people are buying all the time. Say another $2 to 3. ( I reckon I spent $2K on iddy's for my Searey and it is a lot less complicated than an RV. Oh yes. I reckon another 2K for tools.

Then there is shipping and taxes.

Yes, a few go for a small premium but it is probably not as much as it looks.

Of course most of the kit companies are salivating, no make that drooling, at the prospect of being allowed to sell complete planes under the Sportplane initiative. Personally I think they're mad. The requirements for a Sport Plane licence are considerably lower than for a PPL and, again personally, I think they are more difficult to fly, they are far more affected by turbulence and because of their low mass they don't carry any momentum. How do these companies think they are going to avoid the fate of Piper et Al when they can't fall back on "Well he built it himself" As far as I know there are no plans to change liability laws.

[slim_slag]

Can you transfer the 'repairman certificate' when you sell an amateur built plane in the UK?

As ChrisVJ says, the kit is only part of the cost, it's said half the cost is front of the firewall, half aft. Vans Cost Estimator (http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/compcost.htm)

[Genghis the Engineer]

There's no such thing as a repairman certificate in the UK - the owner can do the maintenance, subject to PFA/BMAA rules and a second check for certain things by their friendly neighbourhood inspector.

G

[Mariner9]

I'm currently building an Alpi Pioneer 300 (http://www.pioneeraviation.co.uk/products.htm)

All the important structural bits come ready built from the factory and comply with JAR standards. It's basically just a big meccano kit - I don't think Mr Piper or Mr Cessna could secure a nut and bolt any better than I could. In my view therefore, build quality is at least equal to certified types. As nothing I have flown in the certified GA fleet comes anywhere close to the performance or running costs of the Pioneer, the choice for me was simple.

The Alpi factory also offers Pioneers ready-built. This is acceptable for most of Europe, including Germany, who of course have stringent safety regulations. However, by some strange act of reasoning, the CAA take the view that this is unacceptable for the UK, amateur home building is required.

Can't see the logic behind that, but the build process is enjoyable, and you certainly do learn a lot about your aircraft in the process.

[bar shaker]

Whilst I agree that an independant inspector should be signing off the stage inspections, I think I would rather buy a kit built by someone that had built seven, than someone who had only built one.

[Rod1]

As someone who is 80%+ of the way through building a plastic fantastic kitplane I would like to make a few comments.

Firstly, forget £30k, in reality you will spend £40k - £55k depending on the amount of instruments and the prop.

Secondly, quick build to an ordinary mortal like me is about 1000h excluding painting, which I am paying someone else to do.

So, what do you get?

The first thing is a brand new aircraft. I would not be able to get a similar aircraft new for three times the purchase cost plus three times the running cost.

The performance of my MCR 01 will be 130k cruse, two people, 4-hour endurance plus reserve, 50 lb baggage. The handling, looks and equipment are 30 years ahead of the GA fleet. Would you drive a 30-year-old car?

Build quality. I think my machine is much better than a factory built, particularly a 35-year-old one. The mass production, build down to a price, 35 year old tec verses a hand made, no time spared, modern kitplane is very much in favour of the kit. In 800 hours flying all my big scares have been due to bad maintenance. I will not take mine up unless I KNOW it is ok

Lastly, my fuel burn will be £12 an hour; my AA5B uses £41 per hour, for less speed. That alone will save me £3000 a year! My total running costs will be about £8000 per year less.

Rod1

[Andy_R]

Unfortunately the nearest we seem to be able to get to pre-built planes are microlights, which is a shame. One company that is doing it's hardest to push this forward is Eurocub (http://www.eurocub.com) but they do acknowledge that the model they intend as having a gross weight of 600kg for, will probably only be certified for a homebuild. However the microlight version (450kg) is a rather attractive "toy" at £24,950 fully built, ready to go, and yes, that is including engine, instruments and so on.

If only we could persuade the PFA/CAA to certify the 600kg version :rolleyes:

[Rod1]

To be fair to the PFA it is beyond their remit to allow factory built aircraft. I am sure if the CAA would grant them such a right they would jump at the chance. Some discussion was going on to allow the PFA to support some factory built microlights, but I am not aware of any plan for the heavy end.

Rod1

[Feck]

Rod1, agreed on all your points. However, C of A aircraft will always have one HUGE pro over Permit aircraft in their IFR potential, which has to be a biggy in our green and pleasant land. So, for more money, you have a more practical aircraft.

[slim_slag]

Yes ****, but that's only because the UK regulations forbid IFR in homebuilts. IFR is permitted in experimentals in the US and becoming quite common, there is no technical reason why this cannot be done in the UK too. Admittedly quite a lot of experimentals don't make good overall IFR platforms, but at least you can use them to shoot an approach if there is a bit of cloud around.

[bar shaker]

Factory built microlights are currently supported by the BMAA, who make a very good job of it. I'm not aware of any that are under the PFA wing. If the CAA did give the PFA permission to look after factory built microlights, I would hope that they would also give the BMAA permission to look after GpA kits.

Cloud, the Eurostar (http://www.evektor.cz/at/en/eurostar-popis-en.html) is available as a factory built microlight, a microlight kit or a GpA kit. As most of it is pre-assembled at the manufacturers (it comes as an advanced kit), I believe build time is around 250 hours. Certainly not a toy, whether GA or microlight.

[Rod1]

The IFR side is an annoyance. However 50% of my flying is in French airspace, and with no IR the problem would be the same with a dinosaur as my MCR01. The kit route is not perfect, but it is much better than most of the alternatives, unless you have 200,000 to spend.

The biggest problem is most people think homebuilt, VP1 or similar and expect similar performance. Things have moved on hugely in the last five years. Cruse at 80-100k is also much cheaper than 130k

Rod1