VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > RV General Discussion/News
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-24-2019, 09:26 AM
Outrider Outrider is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Texas
Posts: 15
Default Building From Second-Hand Kits? 7A/9A

I have been organizing my shop and assembling the tools necessary to build an RV kit. Hunting online (using VAF other sites) for used equipment has already netted a significant savings in the tool department. I am not in a hurry to get a build done. What I want to do is enjoy the process of building and, if it takes me longer to build than normal--so be it.

Part of the enjoyment has been hunting for deals. Which has brought me to the idea that I can likely assemble a complete airframe by sourcing pre-owned kits that people couldn't complete for various reasons. I originally wanted an RV-9A because of it's performance with the IO-320, but second-hand 9A kits are not very common. The most common Vans Kit on the second-hand market seems to be the RV-7A wit the IO-360 being the most common powerplant configuration.

SO:

1: What are the pitfalls of building from second-hand kits (I'll be primarily focusing on kits that are either un-touched or have had very little work completed). Are there regulatory compliance problems I need to look out for or factory support problems I might be walking into? I'm sure I am not the first person to try this idea, so what are the headaches I'm walking into if I go that way.

2: If I divert from the 9A to the 7A, the latter of which optimally uses the larger more expensive powerplant, for the sake of second hand kit availability, am I flushing all my potential savings down the drain anyway? I'd anticipate putting my savings from airframe and powerplant back into avionics, but if building a new 9A with IO-320 is going to be the same as a secong-hand 7A with IO-360 I might want to reconsider.

3: Is there really any reason to/not-to fly a 7A with a IO-320?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-24-2019, 09:52 AM
ty1295 ty1295 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Posts: 388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outrider View Post

1: What are the pitfalls of building from second-hand kits (I'll be primarily focusing on kits that are either un-touched or have had very little work completed). Are there regulatory compliance problems I need to look out for or factory support problems I might be walking into? I'm sure I am not the first person to try this idea, so what are the headaches I'm walking into if I go that way.
You need to get a bill of sale and transfer the kit with Van's to your name. Really not a big deal.

The other pitfall would be to just make sure the quality of work completed meets expectation. 90% of the time they will, but obviously some workmanship may not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Outrider View Post

3: Is there really any reason to/not-to fly a 7A with a IO-320?
Its an RV, they all fly just fine and better than almost any other airplane in the sky. I just completed an RV9a from a kit that was just past quick build status. Great way to jump ahead, and I can't complain about the airplane I now have at all. Things do change though and I am not sure I wouldn't prefer a 7a now. They are very similar as you can research the benefits of each. 7's just go upside down, 9's are super stable and easy to fly.
__________________
Jeff Scott
RV9A First Flight 9/30/19
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-24-2019, 10:04 AM
Desert Rat Desert Rat is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: 50-50 Wichita KS & Scottsdale AZ
Posts: 310
Default

Im doing this right now. The potential advantages are obvious: Savings on shipping, taxes, retail, etc.

The downsides as I see them are:

1. Depending on how old the kit is and how much work is completed, you may have a hassle incorporating service bulletins that would be easy to incorporate from scratch.

2. I've rebuilt/replaced a few components because either the original build quality wasn't up to snuff or I discovered things that had been tweaked by living in a garage for the last 10 years. That was after a long search in which I declined to purchase 2 different wing kits that were advertised on here as "build quality excellent." (spoiler- they weren't)

3. I will likely save both time and money over buying new slow build kits, but there have been times that I've wished that I just ordered all new stuff, so any mistakes would have been my own, and not motivation robbing surprises. The most recent example is when I discovered an elevator horn to center bearing hole had been mis-drilled by 3/64" on one of my used elevators.

Also, a couple of legal/paperwork considerations that could come back to bite you, in case you don't already know;

If you buy a used kit, you MUST get a bill of sale from the previous owner of record. Check with Vans to make sure the person selling the kit is the person they have the builder number assigned to. If not, they won't transfer the builder number to you and you will have all kinds of problems getting the airplane registered when it's finished.

Also, every build number can buy one engine &/or prop at the price published in the Van's catalogue. If you're going that route, make sure the previous owner didn't already buy an engine against that number and burn up your discount.

Vans has a white paper document on this on the support page of their website.
__________________
Terry Shortt
AGI, CFI, CFII, MEI, A&P, Janitor
RV7 Empennage & Wing done
Fuselage in process
#72651
https://eaabuilderslog.org/?blprojec...t=all&listcat=
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-24-2019, 11:03 AM
RV10Pilot RV10Pilot is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Medford, NJ USA
Posts: 276
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outrider View Post
3: Is there really any reason to/not-to fly a 7A with a IO-320?
The 7A with an IO-320 will be lighter, have longer range and better fuel. It will be slower and have a longer take off distance. The 360 will have a higher resale value and it will sell faster, all things being equal. The 360 is more desirable, who doesn't want more horsepower, but it is not better. The 320 may be a better fit for your mission.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-24-2019, 03:15 PM
tgmillso tgmillso is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Launceston, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 773
Default

Colby,

A couple of pointers based on my experience of building and RV-7 from a standard build kit and flying a couple.
1. Keep it light. The heavier the aircraft is, the more it cuts into your useable load.
2. On the keep it light theme, the IO-320 isn't such a bad choice, especially if paired with a lightweight propeller (Like a Whirlwind 200RV). The RV-7 with 160Hp and a constant speed prop has plenty of get up (I have a 180hp with Hartzel CS prop so I'm not just trying to sell you what I have). The lighter the aircraft the more fun it is to fly (these things are amazing with one up and half fuel) the shorter the takeoff distances, shorter the landing distances etc. Important to keep the CoG forward also, as the RV-7 is a little renowned for hitting the aft CG limit, but you should be right with the longer 320 engine mount.
3. I see you are aiming at only an A model. Don't discount the tailwheels. The side by side RV's have a really low center of gravity compared to your grandfathers Cessna 180, and because of it they handle amazingly well on the ground. The A models have no nose wheel steering so they require a lot of differential braking to taxi. You basically don't need to touch the brakes on the tailwheel models because they have such effective tailwheel steering. The visibility on the ground is also excellent for a tailwheel aircraft and with the seat set at the correct height you can see over the nose when taxiing. The final benefit of the tailwheel is that with the higher prop clearance it won't pick up as many rocks. Once you discover the capabilities of the RV you will take it into places that normally you wouldn't with most other aircraft and these are likely to be unsealed. I was a 150hr C172 pilot before I finished my RV-7. I had a total of 4hrs tailwheel time, then went and did my transition training with Mike Seager and now with 75hrs on my RV I feel more comfortable in it than any C172.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qpd4hYCVRKg

4. Good call on the IO rather than the O engine. As I tell people here in Tasmania where carby ice is common, the best aircraft insurance is getting a fuel injected engine.
5. Half finished v's new kit: Frankly I'd leave the half finished kits for the repeat offenders. When you build a kit, things progressively get more expensive as you move from the tail forward. You are going to make mistakes. You may as well make them on the empennage rather than the wing, fuselage or finishing kit. Plus the other thing is that if you realize that you don't like building aircraft and that you really just wanted to fly them instead, you've only blown $2k in the tail feathers rather than $30k buying someones half finished kit. I wouldn't want to be the guy trying to sell a half finished airframe he didn't build himself. There's a certain level of satisfaction and reassurance knowing you set every rivet in the aircraft. Ultimately it comes down to the saying if you want to fly, buy, if you want to build, build.

My 02.

Tom
RV-7

Last edited by tgmillso : 11-25-2019 at 03:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-24-2019, 06:49 PM
Outrider Outrider is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Texas
Posts: 15
Default

Thank you all for the responses so far. I?m really learning a lot from all of you.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-25-2019, 03:43 AM
PaulvS's Avatar
PaulvS PaulvS is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 318
Default Costs

The cost of the kit is typically about one third of the finished plane. The other thirds are for the engine/prop, and instruments, fitout paint etc. These figures are indicative and will vary but if you save 30% by buying a used kit then this equates to perhaps 10% overall and maybe not getting exactly what you want i.e. 9A.

It may be a factor where you and the kit are located, for freight costs.

If you buy a used kit then something to check is how it has been stored, so as to avoid corrosion on both steel and aluminium parts. Also the protective film can be difficult to get off if it has been left on a long time. And check carefully that the kit is complete i.e. no parts lost and missing.
__________________
Paul vS (yes I'm also a Van)
Building RV-6A #22320 O-320 FP. Wings and tail complete, working on fuselage
Flying my low-n-slow Aeroprakt A-22 and the aero club's RV-9A while I build
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-25-2019, 04:41 AM
RV10Man RV10Man is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 917
Default

There really are some good deals out there on second-hand kits. I got one.
Airframe was way past quick-build stage, new Lycon IO320, several instruments, and extras.

Just shop around. Ask friends/builders lots of question.
__________________
RV9A under construction--N781DM reserved
Donated
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-26-2019, 01:02 AM
PaulvS's Avatar
PaulvS PaulvS is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 318
Default What about 6A.

Just another thought; if your aim is to enjoy the process and save by buying a non-new kit, and you want to use a '320', then what about a 6A? There will be some good deals on these unfinished kits and a -6/A flies very nicely behind a 320, especially if built light. It will take a bit longer to build than a newer kit but if you are not in a hurry and enjoy building then it may not matter, for the potential saving.
__________________
Paul vS (yes I'm also a Van)
Building RV-6A #22320 O-320 FP. Wings and tail complete, working on fuselage
Flying my low-n-slow Aeroprakt A-22 and the aero club's RV-9A while I build
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-26-2019, 12:51 PM
Outrider Outrider is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Texas
Posts: 15
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulvS View Post
Just another thought; if your aim is to enjoy the process and save by buying a non-new kit, and you want to use a '320', then what about a 6A? There will be some good deals on these unfinished kits and a -6/A flies very nicely behind a 320, especially if built light. It will take a bit longer to build than a newer kit but if you are not in a hurry and enjoy building then it may not matter, for the potential saving.
That?s a good thought. Does the RV-6 require more fixtures such as jigs to build than a 7/9a? The reason I ask is I?ll be building in my garage until hanger space becomes available (which could be a couple years) so I am working with some space restrictions I need to consider if there is going to be more equipment than the 7/9a require.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:15 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.