What's new
Van's Air Force

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

A/P wondering if its worth the trouble to build RVs full-time

josh mclean

I'm New Here
To anyone: im considering ending my contract as an A/P with Boeing to build RV's Full-Time. So i guess my question would be what is the demand for an already assembled/ ready to fly expermental airframe like the RV ? anyone?
 
Yep, the idea is don't try it. I doubt you would ever make a real dime doing it.

Most people say that RV's are currently selling for little more than the sum of the parts.

How is someone gonna make a living doing that?

There are also the legal issues around building RV's as a commercial venture. You might want to dig into that one....
 
Welcome to VAF!

Josh, welcome to VAF.

Your idea of building airplanes for other folks may bump into some legal issues-------I suggest you look into the rules concerning experimental aircraft.

You could do a builder assistance business, lots of them out there.
 
The First Rule of Rock Climbing:

Don't let go of what you've got hold of until you've gotten hold of something else.

If you'd already built an RV and made a profit selling it, enough to support you while you build your next one, you'd have a reasonable chance at it. In any event, assess it like a business, taking account of the start-up costs, the on-going costs, what's recoverable and what isn't.

Look at what would happen if you built, on spec, an otherwise desirable airplane, only to find that the panel features the now-not-cool-last-cycle avionics, because the most wonderful one imaginable was released after you'd bought the not-so-cool thing.

Or if you snag a willing customer who ignores the hired-gun rules (look 'em up) but then has a heart attack. Or maybe everything appears to be going to plan and then you have an illness and get behind schedule and the contract lapses. Or maybee everything appears to be going to plan and then because of the rules against this, you can't get it licensed. Ever.

I'm not saying it can't work. Under certain circumstances it can. But those are very rare, awfully specific, and most unlikely to come around again.

Dave
 
In another life I was taught that the first rule of hang gliding is to never fly higher than you're willing to fall. I don't think hang gliding from 2 feet would be that much fun.
 
To anyone: im considering ending my contract as an A/P with Boeing to build RV's Full-Time. So i guess my question would be what is the demand for an already assembled/ ready to fly expermental airframe like the RV ? anyone?

This is a joke right? :D

A well equiped RV-14 will have a very high resale value for a few years. If you can turn them out fast enough with builder assist??? :eek:
 
Vans sold all 12 - 12's that Synergy Air built and sold them immediately. Lots of interesting conversations about feasibility of doing this if you search for those threads. Just search for Synergy
 
Vans sold all 12 - 12's that Synergy Air built and sold them immediately. Lots of interesting conversations about feasibility of doing this if you search for those threads. Just search for Synergy

Synergy and Vans made a very encouraging start with the first batch, but the question is how will they continue to sell once the initial demand has been satisfied? I hope they make a great success of the venture, but only time will tell.
 
Everyone is beating around the bush on this. Bottom line is Experimental Amateur Built aircraft cannot be commercially built and sold. You would be better off opening a builder assist center but not sure you could make money doing that and it would be in your best interest if you did to have a lot of RV building experience in all the models.
 
Agree, if it could be done legally and at a profit several of us would have already done it. RV aircraft are good investments only if you don't include your time as real cost but as a labor of love. Once your build is complete they are worth about the value of the parts, the 14 may be the exception but only for a short time.

My 2 cents

Pat
 
Million Dollars in Aviaiton

The old saying goes: "To end up with a Million Dollars in Aviation, start with Seven-Million."

The only reason to get into any aviation business is because you LOVE Aviation.
 
The old saying goes: "To end up with a Million Dollars in Aviation, start with Seven-Million, AND LEAVE EARLY!"

The only reason to get into any aviation business is because you LOVE Aviation.

(Added words to comply with posting rules.)
 
There is no profit in building and selling RV's at the prices they are currently fetching. Synergy are selling their RV-12's at $115, but here in Australia, there are currently 3 RV-12's for sale at $75k each. That is less than the cost of the kit plus freight plus tax, no paint. They are selling for considerably less than the build price. The real profit comes when you compare the price/performance of an RV with an equivalent commercial offering (if you can find one). There is also the intangible profit that comes from the fun and satisfaction of building an aircraft yourself. But if you only consider dollars, owing an aircraft makes no sense.
 
In the context presented here (a career), I'd say no way.

However, if you're retired and are just looking for some way to pass the days away, then maybe. You can devalue your "labor cost" to essentially zero, sell the completed airplane for slightly more than the sum of parts, and could technically claim a profit on the endeavor. You would have to "pay" yourself pennies an hour...
 
Accelerators

Finishing airframes may not be the key to unlocking one's dreams, but I bet there are unserved (and legal) oopportunities for an enterprising RVer. How about accelerating certain building tasks through some streamlined serial building techniques?

I wonder how many folks would buy a "plug and play" canopy, cowl, fairings, or firewall forward "QEC" package for their RV 7, 8, 9, or 10 project. Given modern mfg techniques, I've often found it frustrating that Van's kits require so much "reinventing the wheel" in each of those areas. A better way seems imminently possible given the new CAD designed, pre-punched kits and some jigging. The kit manufacturer has little economic incentive to provide these improvements on legacy designs since they already own the market. But improvements in the 14 kit prove the concept.

Given what seems to be looming dominance of Garmin avionics, I bet somebody could come up with an affordable, well-engineered modular panel/avionics/electrical installation that folks would buy in large quantities. That alone could save countless builders hundreds of hours of design and fabrication.

M
 
As an A&P, you might be able to score some bucks by buying a lower priced RV that needs "help" but owner doesn't want to mess with it. For instance, you could buy one that needs an avionics upgrade or an engine overhaul. That way you "might" be buying yourself a job and you could sign it off. Been done before...
 
I know a guy that buys old worn out super cubs. He keeps the fuse skeleton and builds it as new with all the fancy wing mods and the like. They are very simple and quick planes to finish. He works real slow and turns one out around every 8 months and turns about $60K on them. RVs are a much slower build and no commercial operators can use them for anything.
 
Build a set of wings

How about just building wings? You can learn to speed the process up with each set and people will pay to shave off the time.
 
Building?

If I were going to be involved with building RV's for money...... and stay within the rules.... I would build one for myself first and make tons of notes. Then..... and only after I felt comfortable about doing this in my spare time... I would sell the RV (probably would take a loss to sell it) and then the goal would be to assist owners. That is the only way I have seen people make money building aircraft or parts of aircraft to make money.
Best of Luck!!!
Brian
 
The OP's post count still stands at 1 after a week. My guess is that once he found out what he wanted to do wasn't legal (and that completed RV's sell for about the sum of their parts), he moved on.
 
How about just building wings? You can learn to speed the process up with each set and people will pay to shave off the time.


I think you may be onto something. Purchasing standard kits and building them to a quickbuild level may work. Especially if you provide a little something more than Van's does at a cheaper price (such as a completed canopy).

Not sure what the per-hour profit would be though.

I also like the idea of turn-key motor & electronics set up. There may be some value in that.
 
The rule against commercial building is the stumbling block - and that only applies here in the US. If someone were to open up a building shop outside the borders of the US and crank them out for local sale in that country, they might have a shot at it if there is enough demand (and few enough entanglements) in that country.
 
The rule against commercial building is the stumbling block - and that only applies here in the US. If someone were to open up a building shop outside the borders of the US and crank them out for local sale in that country, they might have a shot at it if there is enough demand (and few enough entanglements) in that country.

But keep in mind when considering this; to be imported into the US, you must show compliance with the 51% rule.
Therefore, this type aircraft would not be eligible for amateur-built registration in this country.
 
Thank you everyone for the insight!!!!! Per FAR i believe the rule stands as an license/ approved manufacture is the required party for the 51% build of the aircraft; that leaves 49% to be accomplished by "anyone". Selling the completed airframe shouldnt be a violation of the law once completed. I do realise the complications of the profit margin compaired to resale value. I suppose i should rephrase the question... How many of you experienced RV builders would rather have an professionaly assembled airframe minus powerplant and paint, in hinesight, after tackling such a task ?? Completed airframe includes anything structural..
 
?....I suppose i should rephrase the question... How many of you experienced RV builders would rather have an professionaly assembled airframe minus powerplant and paint, in hinesight, after tackling such a task ?? Completed airframe includes anything structural..

Not me....well that's not entirely true. I would buy a completed RV-10 airframe if it came with a 50% discount.
 
I don't think you understand the rules. To get an A/W certificate the person or persons who did the 51% or more of the work must sign a statement that they did the work for their own education or enjoyment. If you say you did it to make money you will not get an airworthiness certificate. If you say otherwise you can be charged with fraud, if the authorities can prove that your intent was in fact to make money.
 
and would that not be easy to prove as you now have stated your intention on the Internet ? What is the word used in the US ... Plausible Deniability ?? :)
 
Experimental exhibition

License it as experimental exhibition. Slightly more restrictive than EAB'S, but not what it used to be. Lots of top acro planes are built and sold sold this way, MX, Staudaucher, Zivko, Sukhoi, my Extra 230 was, and I flew it pretty much coast to coast for several years.
 
Last edited:
Thank you everyone for the insight!!!!! Per FAR i believe the rule stands as an license/ approved manufacture is the required party for the 51% build of the aircraft; that leaves 49% to be accomplished by "anyone". Selling the completed airframe shouldn't be a violation of the law once completed. I do realize the complications of the profit margin compared to resale value. I suppose i should rephrase the question... How many of you experienced RV builders would rather have an professionally assembled airframe minus power plant and paint, in hindsight, after tackling such a task ?? Completed airframe includes anything structural..

Vans already does pretty much what you are talking about, they call it the "Quick built".

IMHO, you would have to be able to compete with the cost, and level of completion that Vans offers.

And, Vans has provided the necessary documentation to the FAA to prove the work that is done is 49% or less.

All this public discussion aside, the real test of the feasibility of your idea is this; has anyone contacted you off line to request your services???
 
Per FAR i believe the rule stands as an license/ approved manufacture is the required party for the 51% build of the aircraft; that leaves 49% to be accomplished by "anyone". Selling the completed airframe shouldnt be a violation of the law once completed.
I think you misunderstand the 51% rule. Completing 51% of the airframe is what the 51% rule is directed at. A builder/registrant can get as much firewall forward or panel help as they want without running afoul of any regulations. However, they MUST be able to prove that they built 51% of the airframe in order to get their airworthiness certificate in the regular E/AB category. This is why you will see companies advertising to build you a complete panel (which is legitimate) but not see people or companies advertising to build you a complete airframe (which is not legitimate).

Also, related to Mike's comment above, he may already have people who want him to build them an airframe. However, they probably only want him to build them an airframe because they don't realize the problems they will encounter when they go to get the aircraft its airworthiness certificate.
 
Last edited:
I think you misunderstand the 51% rule. Completing 51% of the airframe is what the 51% rule is directed at. A builder/registrant can get as much firewall forward or panel help as they want without running afoul of any regulations...

Referring directly to Title 14 CFR ? 21.191 we see that paragraph (g) doesn't say anything to distinguish aircraft from airframe:

? 21.191 Experimental certificates.

Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes:
...
(g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation.

The FWF, panel, and airframe distinction may be the way it has played out in some FSDO jurisdictions, but it does not look like what is embodied in the actual regulations. So I would be very cautious about depending too much on that particular interpretation.

And, of course, there are no specific references to "51%," that is just what some folks happen to call that rule. That's why I personally call it the "major portion" rule, and why I encourage others to do so as well.

Thanks, Bob K.
 
Referring directly to......we see that paragraph (g) doesn't say anything to distinguish aircraft from airframe:

The FWF, panel, and airframe distinction may be the way it has played out in some FSDO jurisdictions, but it does not look like what is embodied in the actual regulations. So I would be very cautious about depending too much on that particular interpretation.

Here's a some actual FAA interpretation & verbiage:
" Identifying Which Items Can Be Installed Using Commercial Assistance. You may get unlimited commercial assistance for non-checklist items on a kit evaluated by the FAA. A non-checklist item is a task or process that is not listed on the Amateur-Built Aircraft Fabrication and Assembly Checklist (2009). These items also include painting and the installation of interior upholstery or avionics. Such a task or process would not be required to be personally completed by the amateur builder for the aircraft to receive an airworthiness certificate under § 21.191(g). Other non-checklist items include fabrication of engines, propellers, wheels and brake assemblies, and standard aircraft hardware.". Note that there is already a LOT of competition in all of the aformentioned areas.

And, of course, there are no specific references to "51%," that is just what some folks happen to call that rule. That's why I personally call it the "major portion" rule, and why I encourage others to do so as well.

Thanks, Bob K.

Then there is this FAA language along with Many other references scattered around various FAA publications:

"Note: The major portion of the aircraft is defined as more than 50 percent of the fabrication and assembly tasks, commonly referred to as the “51-percent rule.” For example, an amateur-built kit found on the FAA List of Amateur-Built Aircraft Kits has 40 percent of the fabrication/assembly completed by the kit manufacturer. In order to be eligible for an experimental amateur-built airworthiness certificate and per the major portion rule, the fabrication and assembly tasks that may be contracted out (for hire) to another individual (or builder/commercial assistance center) needs to be less than 10 percent".

That said, as others have noted, this entire thread is a slippery slope because it's nowhere near as simple as you think. As someone who's intimately familiar with "commercial assistance" and also happen to have a FAA certified shop I can tell you that your idea has some merit, but not at all as currently stated or planned. To be blunt - First of all, it's not financially feasible; if you want to earn a million dollars in that business, start out with 10! Also, cranking out RV's in other countries is already being done (Brazil) but importing them back also isn't what you think. You can make some money providing ASSISTANCE, but not easily the way you think.

Just my 2 cents as usual...and I'm not trying to burst anyone's bubble, but this is a terribly difficult business and takes years upon years to figure it out enough to scratch out a living at it. There are some who do, but at the moment supply is outstripping demand.

Cheers,
Stein

PS, as noted there are other categories, but EXB, R&D, etc.. are a whole 'nother ball of wax.
 
Last edited:
Stein, thanks for that clarification! Can you please post links or URLs or references back to where you found that information?

Thanks again, Bob K.
 
Back
Top