Has your kit company gone bankrupt?

I am researching an article about builders whose kit supplier has
closed or gone bankrupt. If you have found yourself in this
predicament, I would like to talk with you about how you dealt with it
during the building process. You may contact me directly at

Thanks.
Mary Bernard

It just seems prudent to me to not build a homebuilt that can't be
built from plans.

wrote:
It just seems prudent to me to not build a homebuilt that can't be
built from plans.

You can also buy the whole kit right away and then you have all the
parts to finish even if they dissapear. Thats what I did and finished
my plane. It turned out my kit company is still in business.

There is much better chance of doing the job right with a kit. And kits
can take much less time to finish than plans built. I finished mine in
about 3-1/2 years including the 14 month test phase. I seen people work
15 years finishing their plans built. If you are nearing 60 you may not
have 15 years to finish and enjoy it. If you are younger when you start
a plans built, the chances of abandoning the project after 5 years are
high.
-----------------------------------------
SQ2000 canard: http://www.abri.com/sq2000

On 22 May 2005 15:00:15 -0700, "abripl" wrote:

wrote:
It just seems prudent to me to not build a homebuilt that can't be
built from plans.

You can also buy the whole kit right away and then you have all the
parts to finish even if they dissapear.

Wellll...that depends on whether the company is DELIVERING kits and kit
components quickly. Most companies seem to have a bit of delay between
receiving the order and shipping the kit (an argument for picking it up
yourself, true). Tottering companies sometimes delay shipments of expensive
goodies, like engines, etc. I know a guy who waited eight months for the
off-the-shelf Maule tailwheel assembly that was supposed to come with his kit.

Ron Wanttaja

an argument for picking it up yourself, true....

Yes thats what I did. I phoned them ahead and asked if they have the
pieces ready and then went there and picked it up and paid them on the
spot. Actually they still did not have 100% everything but it all
trickled in within a few months. I did hear of some other scarry
stories - like where a retract gear was paid for in advance and did not
get delivered for five years. Fortunately the builder still did not get
to that stage anyway.

A simple plans built airplane can be built in 2000 hours,assuming you
work halfway efficiently. The problem is many builders have no skills
and also no great amount of time to devote to the project because they
are working a lot of hours. (You'd think they would be therefore
affluent enough to buy an airplane....)

The sad part is kits wind up taking these people almost as much time
as a scratchbuilt airplane would.

The bottom line is you need to become a skilled aircraft mechanic to
build an airplane...is it a skill set you value enough to learn at this
price? (Don't mistake "skilled" for "licensed". They have absolutely
no relation whatsoever to each other.)

Experimental Amateur Built has, to an extent, become a simple and
baldfaced dodge around type certification. When 90% of builders are
building a few types of 49% done kits on a cookie cutter basis, it's
time to re-evaluate "the system". Experimental should be for
experimenters: people like Van Grunsven should be told to get a type
certificate, tool up, and build a finished airplane.

...Experimental should be for experimenters...

Thats somewhat of a misnomer. We often use the term "homebuilt" or
"amateur built" for an aircraft that is essentially cheaper for the
performance and not necessarily building it as an experiment or
pioneering in the field. I built a homebuilt in order to have an IFR
aircraft that cruises about 200mph and seats 4 (and incidentally uses
about 5gal/hr at 120knots) for a fraction of the price of a certified.
Yes. I had fun... but now I enjoy more flying it rather than
"experimenting" with it.

The biggest advantage of plans built is cost. Although too much
"experimenting" even with a plans built can erase that advantage.
The biggest disadvantage is time and the chance that the original
builder will abandon the project - about 90% of the time.

.....A simple plans built airplane can be built in 2000 hours....

Yeah ... too simple....
A comparative plans built aircraft would take me twice as long as my
kit unit did. Most similar plans built units I have noted, took 10-15
years. There isn't a great chance I could finish one to enjoy flying
one at my age.
--------------------------------------------------------------
SQ2000 canard: http://www.abri.com/sq2000

wrote:

Experimental Amateur Built has, to an extent, become a simple and
baldfaced dodge around type certification. When 90% of builders are
building a few types of 49% done kits on a cookie cutter basis, it's
time to re-evaluate "the system". Experimental should be for
experimenters: people like Van Grunsven should be told to get a type
certificate, tool up, and build a finished airplane.

I'm all for it if the price stays the same...

wrote:

Experimental Amateur Built has, to an extent, become a simple and
baldfaced dodge around type certification. When 90% of builders are
building a few types of 49% done kits on a cookie cutter basis, it's
time to re-evaluate "the system". Experimental should be for
experimenters: people like Van Grunsven should be told to get a type
certificate, tool up, and build a finished airplane.

I can't comment on the quick-build kits, but Van's standard kits do
require you to learn how to build an airplane.

As for experimentals being only for experimenters, I guess that's one
opinion. According to the FAA document that you have to provide for
the cert., the builder is building the airplane as an educational
experience. If you get around to finishing said homebuilt, it's most
likely that you got an education. I don't think the FAA should limit
experimentals only to folks who are trying to do something that hasn't
been done before. Many of the folks that do go on to pioneer new
designs, first build someone elses "cookie cutter" homebuilt. Where
are these pioneers supposed to come from?

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

people like Van Grunsven should be told to get a type
certificate, tool up, and build a finished airplane.


What is your beef? Sounds like you have an agenda or some type of beef
with people that build aircraft for "educational and recreational"
purposes. Experimental is not what the homebuilt aircraft is about
although that is certainly a part of it.

Jerry