What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

maintain without building?

Deuskid

Well Known Member
Hello All...

I want to fly but at 50 and owning my own business don't have the time to build so buying makes the most sense to me.

I have mechanical aptitude and work on cars, homes ... whatever.

I'd like the 'flexibility' to do much of my own maintenance and I have a keen interest to do some experimenting with diesel engines after I develop into a seasoned pilot. I am thinking either a 7 or a 9 [or maybe a six, I'm still trying to learn how much different a 6 is than a 7].

If I buy a flying RV, may I do my own maintenance? Are there any restrictions to a owner/'not-builder'?

Thanks

John
 
Repairmans certificate

With an Experimental aircraft, you have to be issued the "repairmans certificate" in order to perform any experiments, etc. In effect, its the equivalent to an A&P, but for *that* specific airplane. They are not transferable as it relates to *who* manufactures the aircraft.

Bottom line, if you buy someone else flying airplane, you won't *legally* be able to anything more than "routine standard maint - oil changes, lightbulb changes, etc". You'd have to find a licenced A&P that would be willing to work on your airplane in order to do anything other than routine maint, this includes the annual, etc. That becomes difficult, as most don't want the liablity of signing off changes that they don't understand or didn't do.

Alan
 
Deuskid said:
Hello All...

I want to fly but at 50 and owning my own business don't have the time to build so buying makes the most sense to me.

I have mechanical aptitude and work on cars, homes ... whatever.

I'd like the 'flexibility' to do much of my own maintenance and I have a keen interest to do some experimenting with diesel engines after I develop into a seasoned pilot. I am thinking either a 7 or a 9 [or maybe a six, I'm still trying to learn how much different a 6 is than a 7].

If I buy a flying RV, may I do my own maintenance? Are there any restrictions to a owner/'not-builder'?

Thanks

John

You sound like the ideal candidate for a quickbuild.
 
You can do it!

John,
I am in the same life situation as you and I chose to buy an RV-6...and Love it!
The good news is......
You can do anything you want too, to your expermental airplane as the owner!
The main thing you have to HIRE out is the annual and you surely can assist on that as well. Other than any transponder or static system certs.
And the annual inspection only has to be signed off by an A&P.
That is the way I read the regs.
Good Luck shopping
Bob Martin
RV-6
 
Hmm..

While I'm no expert, and I didnt stay at a holiday inn express last night. You might want to check that comment a bit further.

Any modification, adding a radio, changing an antenna, fixing corrosion, fixing a rivet, etc. Can only be signed off by either a licences A&P, or the original "repairmans certificate holder" (it could be done by you as the owner, but would require that "over the shoulder" approval and signoff). While I might be wrong, even to change the vacuum filter, if you didn't build the airplane, would require either an A&P do it, or at least and "over the shoulder" signoff by a licensed A&P. And unless you find one that is willing to deal with an "experimental" or has an RV, they are hard to get to work on an experimental. Hence why having a "repairmans certificate" for a given airplane is so valuable.

Now, I'll set back and learn, and go read the regs, but that is the way I understand it.

Alan
 
aadamson said:
Bottom line, if you buy someone else flying airplane, you won't *legally* be able to anything more than "routine standard maint - oil changes, lightbulb changes, etc". You'd have to find a licenced A&P that would be willing to work on your airplane in order to do anything other than routine maint, this includes the annual, etc.
Alan

bob martin said:
You can do anything you want too, to your expermental airplane as the owner!

Hmmm... now I'm confused... maybe we can get a consensus going?

thanks,

John
 
jcoloccia said:
You sound like the ideal candidate for a quickbuild.

Correct me if I'm wrong [I'm often wrong [and I'm often corrected [espcially by my 3 sons...lol]]] but...

it seems to me from my limited research that after the dust settles you can buy a flying Rv for about the same amount that it would cost to build? I love to work with my hands but really don't have the time and especially if the labor is going to be valued at a low amount.

Further, I am not even a pilot yet. As much as I like working with my hands I'd rather be flying during those hours.

Further, since I'm not experienced, I like the idea of buying someone's baby that has been tested and used by a very interested/more experienced party in the aircraft. Assuming it has 'some hours on it' its airworthness will be known.

My reasonings for buy v/ build.

Having said that I'm still interested in my own maintenance and possibly experimentation [more like beta testing as I have a friend that is about ready to start testing a toyota D4D engine on a 'swamp boat' as a beginning to putting one on his canard.

Cheers,

John
 
Owner maintenance

John,

The owner of any aircraft can do a lot under the category "preventive maintenance" - FAR 43.3 (g) says: "The holder of a pilot certificate issued under Part 61 may perform preventive maintenance on any aircraft owned or operated by that pilot which is not used under Part 121, 127, 129, or 135." . . . I would assume you would be given additional latitude with an "Experimental Aircraft".

This may not be as far as you would like to go but you can do "preventive maintenance" which is at best a vague?

You can also do work under the supervision of an A&P . . . . and/or have an IA sign off your work when you are done (depending on what it was)

It's kind of odd . . . you can build anything you want . . . and fly it once someone has signed it off . . . if you follow reasonable practices you will probably be OK. I any case the owner appears to have some latitude?

Good Luck,
Bob

Deuskid said:
Hello All...

I want to fly but at 50 and owning my own business don't have the time to build so buying makes the most sense to me.

I have mechanical aptitude and work on cars, homes ... whatever.

I'd like the 'flexibility' to do much of my own maintenance and I have a keen interest to do some experimenting with diesel engines after I develop into a seasoned pilot. I am thinking either a 7 or a 9 [or maybe a six, I'm still trying to learn how much different a 6 is than a 7].

If I buy a flying RV, may I do my own maintenance? Are there any restrictions to a owner/'not-builder'?

Thanks

John
 
From EAA website:

From EAA website:

"Non-builder Maintenance Frequently Asked Questions
I am going to buy a used homebuilt, what work can I perform myself?

FAR Part 43 specifically states that the rules of that part do not apply to experimental, amateur-built aircraft. Therefore, any work (not just maintenance) on an experimental aircraft can be performed virtually by anyone regardless of credentials. (This does not apply to the condition inspection). Let common sense be your guide as to what maintenance you conduct yourself."

"Since I don't have a Repairman Certificate, who must perform the Condition Inspection?
The inspection can be performed by any licensed A&P mechanic, an FAA Approved Repair Station, or by the original builder of the airplane provided the builder has a "Repairman Certificate" for that aircraft from the FAA. Note that unlike an annual for a type certificated aircraft, the A&P mechanic does NOT have to have his/her "Inspection Authorization". Sometimes, if you are lucky, you can include as part of the purchase that the builder will continue to perform the condition inspections."


I know there is some confusion on this topic but I hope the above clears it up!
Bob Martin
RV-6
 
Thanks!

Bob,

I stand corrected. Certainly goes against what I've been told over the years, but I've never spent the time to search and read about it. Thanks for the post, that cleared up a bunch.

Alan - learning as I go :)
 
Good to know

Alan,
You aren't the only one that didn't now....
I'd always heard it tooo, but when I bought a RV-6 I searched it out, then forgot it until a homebuilder at my airport challanged my working on my "bought" airplane. I had to prove it to him....seems he had built his EXPERMENTAL because he thought he had to, to be able to work on it himself. Needless to say, he wasn't happy to see he was wrong, although he didn't regret building!
He actually went back to the local FSDO and reminded them that they had told him that he had to build it to work on it. He said they told him "we were confused on that issue for some time" but now agreed with the current thinking.
So don't feel bad, spread the news!
or don't.......maybe we don't want anyone but us real diehards to know about it.
I'm amazed at how much upkeep, upgrading and maintenance there really is.
Regards,
Bob
 
John,
Considering the modifications you'd like to do, you of all people should build the plane yourself. The moment you deviate from a planes original design you expose yourself to risk. Likewise, using an engine for a profile it was never designed to fill carries extra risk. Knowing that why would want to further increase your risk exposure by starting with an airframe that is almost completely unknown to you?

Did the builder build the plane 100% to plans? Did the builder make any changes or material substitutions along the way because he intended to use an O-3xx engine or for any other reason? You have no way of knowing that.
 
joe gremlin said:
John,
Considering the modifications you'd like to do, you of all people should build the plane yourself. The moment you deviate from a planes original design you expose yourself to risk. Likewise, using an engine for a profile it was never designed to fill carries extra risk. Knowing that why would want to further increase your risk exposure by starting with an airframe that is almost completely unknown to you?

Did the builder build the plane 100% to plans? Did the builder make any changes or material substitutions along the way because he intended to use an O-3xx engine or for any other reason? You have no way of knowing that.

Joe, Good points. I hope to buy from the builder and 'pick his/her brain totally clean about their a/c' and find out any anomolies. It probably won't be for 6-9 months [I'm a CPA and I'm going to 'reward' myself for suffering through tax season by starting lessons in late April].

Thanks all, this gives me great comfort in knowing I can do my own maintenance on an experiemental [the thought of paying 5 prices for off the shelf parts [like belts or filters] has been a reason I haven't thought about getting my PPC before now] and if I ever get the itch to try and do something with a diesel I would have that flexibility.

Cheers,

John
 
John,

To answer your question as to the difference between a -6 and -7 this is what I understand. The -6 was designed by Dick much like his earlier planes. Then he hired some engineers and CAD experts. They took the -6 and made a CAD design and called it the -7. I understand that there are some changes from the -6 to the -7.

My understanding is also that if you bend or break something on a -7 either during construction or later, you can order that part and it will fit. All the holes will match etc. On the -6 however, you will need to try to match whatever the original builder did as far as matching holes etc.

These are both very good planes but if I were to build new I would go with the -7 because of the CAD design and the ability to get it in a quick build as well as matching of replacement parts.

Also, all of Van's planes from the -7 on are CAD designed
 
-6/-7 difference

The -7 is a new larger airframe, not just a CAD version of the -6. The -6 was designed to use an engine range of 150hp-180hp and the -7 150-200hp. The -7 has a 200lb gross weight increase. The -7 and the -9 have the same fuselage, the -7 uses the same wings as the -8.

I am sure there are other differences that -7 builders can point out, but those are the major ones I know.
 
A twin engine Bi-plane RV if you want

Deuskid said:
Hello All...
If I buy a flying RV, may I do my own maintenance? Are there any restrictions to a owner/'not-builder'?

Thanks

John
John I think you got your answer. The short answer is there are very few restrictions, and yes you can do any minor, major maintenance and any minor or major repair with out approval or oversight!!!! :eek: Change engines, props, fuel system, go right ahead.

I know I was surprised when I looked into this and was not of the above opinion, but after research and discussion with the FAA I was convinced that few restriction exist. I will show this but an extream example below.


The ONLY thing you CAN'T do (or more correctly sign off) is the CONDITION INSPECTION, which for the lack of a better analogy is equivalent to an annual inspection like a factory plane. Unlike a factory plane any A&P or the person with the repair certificate** for that plane can sign of the "condition inspection". Note a factory planes require an A&I to sign off an annual; an experimental airplane requires only an A&P. Also a condition inspection approval is not a statement of airworthiness like it is with factory planes.


You can do all the work in the condition inspection, I suppose in concert with the person doing the sign off, especially if its an A&P.

I will skip routine maintenance, major maintenance and repair, because you are good to go there. Lets look at major modification. Is there any restriction? NO (It is true)

Can you modify your second hand RV and work on it? Heck Yes, all you want and you can fly it with out any approval (oversight) until the next condition inspection! (Should you is another issue.)

The only thing you MIGHT (may be) need to do with a major modification is coordinate with the FAA and possibly put the plane back into Phase I. This depends on the modification being done. Phase I is a term for flight test with restrictions for a given number of hours. The restriction is usually no passengers and a limited operating area. Phase I applies to new planes and any plane that has a major modification. Check with the FSDO on what constitutes a major modification.

This phase I restriction applies to any major modification regardless who did it, even if you built it and held the repair certificate for that plane, so Believe it or not you could make your newly purchased RV into a twin engine bi-plane and fly it. The FAA will only want to know your operation area, but will not approve or disapprove your mod or work (usually). They only approve you to do the flight test. However I'm sure if its weird (like a twin engine RV) they may want to see it. Most major modes mods might be something like a new constant speed prop, going from carb to fuel injection for example.

The only time your modification will be looked at it when it may be when it comes time for the (annual) condition inspection. The person person signing off the inspection will have to approve the "condition" of your major modification work. Of course you will need to note your work and do the required paper work, like say a new W&B.

So if you can do all the above (Twin biplane) or change engines, props, fuel system, you can do any minor or semi major repair with out approval. The only approval or sign off is the condition inspection, which you can not physically annotate in the log book.

I found all the above hard to believe until I checked it out with the FED's, and it is true. So go buy your RV. :D

Obviously safety is key and I am sure you would ask for help if dealing with anything you have no experience with or are not sure of. George
 
Last edited:
Wow...

great help and insight... this site is great...

thank you all for your explanations....

I probably will never get around to putting a diesel in an aircraft but one never knows...

anyroad, I do want to do my own maintenance.

the more I visit VAF and learn the more I learn I need to learn.

:D

John
 
Engine maint?

gmcjetpilot said:
John I think you got your answer. The short answer is there are very few restrictions, and yes you can do any minor, major maintenance and any minor or major repair with out approval or oversight!!!! :eek: Change engines, props, fuel system, go right ahead.

I know I was surprised when I looked into this and was not of the above opinion, but after research and discussion with the FAA I was convinced that few restriction exist. I will show this but an extream example below.

One area I'm trying to be careful about is the engine. It still has the Lycoming plate on it, and has been maintained only by A&Ps and has had all ADs applied. My thinking is that this is still a certificated engine, and could be removed from the RV and put into a certificated plane. If I start mucking around with it as a non-A&P, I think it would no longer be a 'legal for certificated use' engine. I'm not 100% sure of this, though.

Thoughts?
 
certificated engine?

One area I'm trying to be careful about is the engine. It still has the Lycoming plate on it, and has been maintained only by A&Ps and has had all ADs applied. My thinking is that this is still a certificated engine, and could be removed from the RV and put into a certificated plane. If I start mucking around with it as a non-A&P, I think it would no longer be a 'legal for certificated use' engine. I'm not 100% sure of this, though.

This is a good question and one that receives various answers. But I think we can agree on the following points:

1) Complying with all AD's and previous maintainence by A&Ps may not be necessary for experimental aircraft but is certainly prudent and enhances the actual and perceived value of the engine. (The reason I hedged on this point is that many DARs won't sign off on a "certificated" engine if ADs haven't been complied with....even though the regs are quite hazy in this regard. This doesn't make much sense because they will readily sign off a non-aircraft engine......)

2) If the engine is returned to service in a certificated plane, a log-book endorsement by the installing A&P (and AI?) must be made stating the engine meets all certification and AD requirements.

Here is the rub. How many A&Ps are going to put their careers on the line by endorsing an engine without a teardown inspection that has flown in an experimental aircraft......regardless of the paper trail?

So, technically, the engine could be returned to certificated service simply by bolting it into a plane with standard certification based on the logbooks, but in the real world......it probably ain't gonna happen. :)

Sam Buchanan
 
Build VS buy cost.

Deuskid said:
Correct me if I'm wrong [I'm often wrong [and I'm often corrected [espcially by my 3 sons...lol]]] but...

it seems to me from my limited research that after the dust settles you can buy a flying Rv for about the same amount that it would cost to build? I love to work with my hands but really don't have the time and especially if the labor is going to be valued at a low amount.

Don't know where you've been shopping but I haven't found this to be true at all. Yes, you can build an "RV" for say, 40 grand and you can buy an "RV" for about the same but you have to compare apples to apples.

A new, nicely built VFR -7 or -8 could be done for ~40-45 but could easily command twice that much the day it takes flight. However, you can't compare these to what you might see on Barnstormers in the same price range. At the end of the day, any airplane is only worth what somone will pay for it, it's all in the details. I suppose it happens but I've never seen a flying RV sell for the same price as it was built for.

I'll have to agree with you though, regardless of price, if you aren't dedicated to building, don't! Way too many builders over-simplify and understate the building process. While it's true, building isn't any more difficult than squeezing a rivet. It's the 17,999 remaining that takes commitment. Also, you made the comment "especially if the labor is going to be valued at a low amount". I would dare say most builders could care less about how much value is placed on their labor. Why? Because building your own airplane is like being a parent you can't put a value on it and the more time you invest the better it will turn out. I think you also mentioned you're a CPA, well you can't create a spreadsheet and include a column that accounts for the emotions you will go through while building and then the the huge payoff when you leave the ground, Microsoft hasn't come up with a program for that yet (but I'm sure they're working on it).

I'm sure you could read a lot of builder's logs and it would say "spent five hours today building my elevator". But what isn't there is "spent another hour tonight admiring it". It's hard to explain but if you really understand why someone would admire a stupid aluminum elevator for an hour you get it. If you can't understand, don't build.

For some it's just easier and smarter to commit themselves to payments either one big one or a bunch of smaller ones. Either way we all win though, you buy and fly a great plane and that has the side affect of driving the value of RV's up.

Rat
 
Last edited:
joe gremlin said:
The moment you deviate from a planes original design you expose yourself to risk.

:confused:

Joe, I'm very interested in why you feel this way. Could you please explain?

Thanks,
Rat
 
RV8RIVETER said:
The -7 is a new larger airframe, not just a CAD version of the -6. The -6 was designed to use an engine range of 150hp-180hp and the -7 150-200hp. The -7 has a 200lb gross weight increase. The -7 and the -9 have the same fuselage, the -7 uses the same wings as the -8.

I am sure there are other differences that -7 builders can point out, but those are the major ones I know.

The RV-7 also has a higher aerobatic gross weight so you can put two people in with chutes and actually be in limits whereas the RV-6 would usually be over the aerobatic gross weight with two people in it.

From: http://vansaircraft.com/public/rv-7int.htm

"The RV-7/7A is designed for much the same mission as the RV-6/6A. However, it will accept Lycoming engines from 150-200 horsepower, giving the builder more options. It uses many parts in common with the RV-8/8A and RV-9A, which keeps production and inventory costs down. Legroom, headroom, and useful load are all greater than the RV-6/6A. The span and area of the wing has been increased. The Vne (never exceed speed) has been increased to 230 mph. Fuel capacity went from 38 gallons to 42.

But the biggest difference is the kit..............................
pre-fabricated wing spars are standard, canopy frames are stiffer and more accurate, internal structure has been simplified................

We estimate the construction time for the RV-7/7A kit at about 13-1400 hours, or about 30% less than an RV-6/6A."
 
RatMan said:
:confused:

Joe, I'm very interested in why you feel this way. Could you please explain?

Thanks,
Rat

My statement was probably much more broad than it should have been. I was actually speaking from the standpoint of installing an auto engine that no one has ever installed in an airplane and all the potential pitfalls associated with that. I think that even small design deviations can have some risk though depending on who's doing the deviation.
 
RatMan said:
Don't know where you've been shopping but I haven't found this to be true at all. Yes, you can build an "RV" for say, 40 grand and you can buy an "RV" for about the same but you have to compare apples to apples.

A new, nicely built VFR -7 or -8 could be done for ~40-45 but could easily command twice that much the day it takes flight. However, you can't compare these to what you might see on Barnstormers in the same price range. At the end of the day, any airplane is only worth what somone will pay for it, it's all in the details. I suppose it happens but I've never seen a flying RV sell for the same price as it was built for.

I'll have to agree with you though, regardless of price, if you aren't dedicated to building, don't! Way too many builders over-simplify and understate the building process. While it's true, building isn't any more difficult than squeezing a rivet. It's the 17,999 remaining that takes commitment. Also, you made the comment "especially if the labor is going to be valued at a low amount". I would dare say most builders could care less about how much value is placed on their labor. Why? Because building your own airplane is like being a parent you can't put a value on it and the more time you invest the better it will turn out. I think you also mentioned you're a CPA, well you can't create a spreadsheet and include a column that accounts for the emotions you will go through while building and then the the huge payoff when you leave the ground, Microsoft hasn't come up with a program for that yet (but I'm sure they're working on it).

I'm sure you could read a lot of builder's logs and it would say "spent five hours today building my elevator". But what isn't there is "spent another hour tonight admiring it". It's hard to explain but if you really understand why someone would admire a stupid aluminum elevator for an hour you get it. If you can't understand, don't build.

For some it's just easier and smarter to commit themselves to payments either one big one or a bunch of smaller ones. Either way we all win though, you buy and fly a great plane and that has the side affect of driving the value of RV's up.

Rat

Very well said - thank you.

It isn't that I can't appreciate the build process - to the contrary I'd LOVE to build. Like all things, it is a trade off. A prioritization. Flying is more important than building. If I build [and I meet other obligations in my life] I cannot fly. The purpose of building is flying. Building is desired but secondary. I wouldn't build a plane and not fly it BUT to build it will consume the time I have [and reason I have] to fly.

Btw, love your nick, my oldest son's nick since grade school has been 'rat'...

again, ty.

John
 
Non Builder Repairs and Alterations to Experimetal A/C

With very few exceptions, the answer is yes you can, if you know how, except for the annual condition inspection, which requires an A&P mechanic. See www.EAA.org site for where this specific question is answered. Surprising that there is so much confusion on this subject.......
 
rv6pilot737 said:
With very few exceptions, the answer is yes you can, if you know how, except for the annual condition inspection, which requires an A&P mechanic. See www.EAA.org site for where this specific question is answered. Surprising that there is so much confusion on this subject.......

I heard a recommendation [on another forum?] if you buy from the builder request they do the annual as part of the purchase. I thought that was an innovative suggestion :D

John
 
Back
Top