What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Salvaging RV-6a

dwschaefer

Active Member
I should have posted this several years ago ... but couldn't bring myself to do so. Then COVID etc. etc. I'm going to be 'salvaging' out my RV6A and selling off the major parts sans airframe. So basically engine, prop and avionics etc.

The engine / prop have not been run for several years and should be overhauled. Wondering if I should find an engine shop to sell them to? Not sure how to go about this.

Additionally, I have all the tools and lots of hardware that needs to go to.

Thoughts on how to accomplish this in some orderly fashion will be appreciated.

Thanks...

DWS
 
Just a thought...
Many who consider salvaging their amateur-built aircraft do so in some belief that it's a good way to avoid future liability claims. I won't comment on this way of thinking but I will offer a viable alternative.

The USA is very litigious in general. Selling the aircraft outside the USA, and specifically selling it to be imported to Canada, takes advantage of airworthiness reciprocity between two federal governments and very substantially mitigates any risk of on-going liability.

I mention this because an amateur-built aircraft coming into Canada is de-registered in the USA, re-registered in Canada, and subjected to an import inspection. Part of that import inspection is an annual inspection conducted by the new owner or the new owner's agents. In short, the new owner takes over responsibility for airworthiness of the aircraft.

The remaining significant liability exposure to the US builder-seller of the aircraft is if that individual substantially mis-represented the state of the aircraft at the time of advertising it for sale. If it is sold with a contract which explicitly states the item is not warranted to be fit for any intended purpose, that is in an "as is, where is" state, this potential liability is effectively killed off.

Why destroy a perfectly good, flying airplane for fear of liability, when there is an excellent way to destroy the liability while the airplane, the fruit of your labors, can continue to fly another day?
 
Just a thought...
Many who consider salvaging their amateur-built aircraft do so in some belief that it's a good way to avoid future liability claims. I won't comment on this way of thinking but I will offer a viable alternative.

The USA is very litigious in general. Selling the aircraft outside the USA, and specifically selling it to be imported to Canada, takes advantage of airworthiness reciprocity between two federal governments and very substantially mitigates any risk of on-going liability.

I mention this because an amateur-built aircraft coming into Canada is de-registered in the USA, re-registered in Canada, and subjected to an import inspection. Part of that import inspection is an annual inspection conducted by the new owner or the new owner's agents. In short, the new owner takes over responsibility for airworthiness of the aircraft.

The remaining significant liability exposure to the US builder-seller of the aircraft is if that individual substantially mis-represented the state of the aircraft at the time of advertising it for sale. If it is sold with a contract which explicitly states the item is not warranted to be fit for any intended purpose, that is in an "as is, where is" state, this potential liability is effectively killed off.

Why destroy a perfectly good, flying airplane for fear of liability, when there is an excellent way to destroy the liability while the airplane, the fruit of your labors, can continue to fly another day?

Make perfect and common sense.
 
I'd like to have the cockpit section from firewall to baggage bulkhead, including canopy and seats and the bare instrument panel. Don't want landing gear.

Would make a great ground-based demonstrator for my upcoming PlaneKool A/C system.
 
A real question is that most people including me, will want to know is where on the planet is this RV-6A at?
Thanks Art

I am interested if it is close enough to Colorado.

Thanks

An old intel from VAF archives indicates that DWS was in Kansas City in 2005 :)

#9 Report Post
Old 05-23-2005, 08:23 PM


Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 70
Default Great Fly-in
What a great time! Flew in from Kansas City and had a wonderful time meeting everyone, many of whom I?ve ?talked? with via email for several years while building ?Geek One?. The food was great (and we know Barbeque in KC!) and the hospitality was terrific; Cam, the airport manager was kind enough to run me into town to pick up a rental car. Can?t wait until next year. And YES, Texas was hot!
 
His signature from a post from 2012 shows his 6A as N142DS, which is still registered in Kansas City, MO, and last flight was 4 years ago, which was local out of MKC.
 
Not Fun

I disassembled an RV for friends with health problems. Their attorney got hold of them and insisted they destroy the airframe and sell off the engine, avionics, all that. It was a nice airplane and parting it out was a lot more work than I anticipated. Two other things I didn’t see coming were the debate and unhappy comments here on VAF, but the worst part was that it felt a little like killing a healthy, happy puppy. I hope I never have to do that again.
 
Any Lawsuits?

Has anyone ever been successfully sued after they have sold their amateur-built airplane?

Since a large percentage of RV aircraft are owned by second or third owners who did not build the plane (myself included), if this were a problem it seems to me that it would be Headline News on VAF.

Anyone have hard data?
 
Last edited:
Still have to defend yourself

Has anyone ever been successfully sued after they have sold their amateur-built airplane?

Since a large percentage of RV aircraft are owned by second or third owners who did not build the plane (myself included), if this were a problem it seems to me that it would be Headline News on VAF.

Anyone have hard data?

Since one can sue "a ham sandwich", the better question is it worth the risk of being sued?

You might ask Van's how much money they spent defending themselves even if the suit wasn't "successful".

https://www.kitplanes.com/vans-aircraft-sued-for-35-million-over-rv-10-crash/
 
Returning to topic....

....selling off the major parts sans airframe. So basically engine, prop and avionics etc.
Thoughts on how to accomplish this in some orderly fashion will be appreciated.

Post a detailed list of available components, after disassembly. Be ready to ship immediately. Post the list to VAF's Classified section and manage it at least daily.

You've chosen to be relatively anonymous here, so be aware some readers will hesitate to send money. When you post the component list, consider the idea that folks really want to know who they are dealing with.
 
Why don't you?

remove the wings only and sell parts, as is?
A smart buyer might be able to acquire the wings and fuselage and decide to make it an airworthy plane.
What the buyer does with the parts is certainly not your responsibility.
 
.....Two other things I didn’t see coming were the debate and unhappy comments here on VAF.....

I've been disappointed over the years by critical comments by VAFers directed at owners who have decided to retire their RV. No doubt the decision to retire an RV was made only after careful consideration of the owner's particular financial and family situation. The Monday-morning quarterbacking by commenters who know nothing about that situation is....disappointing. We respect other's prerogative to install whatever avionics or engine they wish but that tolerance sometimes disappears when the owner decides the final destination of their aircraft.
 
Just a thought...
Many who consider salvaging their amateur-built aircraft do so in some belief that it's a good way to avoid future liability claims. I won't comment on this way of thinking but I will offer a viable alternative.

The USA is very litigious in general. Selling the aircraft outside the USA, and specifically selling it to be imported to Canada, takes advantage of airworthiness reciprocity between two federal governments and very substantially mitigates any risk of on-going liability.

I mention this because an amateur-built aircraft coming into Canada is de-registered in the USA, re-registered in Canada, and subjected to an import inspection. Part of that import inspection is an annual inspection conducted by the new owner or the new owner's agents. In short, the new owner takes over responsibility for airworthiness of the aircraft.

The remaining significant liability exposure to the US builder-seller of the aircraft is if that individual substantially mis-represented the state of the aircraft at the time of advertising it for sale. If it is sold with a contract which explicitly states the item is not warranted to be fit for any intended purpose, that is in an "as is, where is" state, this potential liability is effectively killed off.

Why destroy a perfectly good, flying airplane for fear of liability, when there is an excellent way to destroy the liability while the airplane, the fruit of your labors, can continue to fly another day?

If only liability protection were that easy. Cessna gets sued every year for 60 year old airplanes that have been signed off by countless gov't regulated A&P's that have assured their airworthiness.

Your idea has merit, as I am pretty confident that a US builder would not get sued by a canadian estate, however, if the plane gets sold back to a US pilot, the same risk returns. I suspect that the courts would not allow the evidence about the canadian inspections or anything else that harms the plantiffs case. Down here in our arguable questionable legal system, if cessna gets sued, the judge typically rules that the NTSB report showing fuel exhaustion as the cause of the crash is in-admissable in court. The Cessna folks usually don't stand a chance in these cases.

Larry
 
Has anyone ever been successfully sued after they have sold their amateur-built airplane?

Since a large percentage of RV aircraft are owned by second or third owners who did not build the plane (myself included), if this were a problem it seems to me that it would be Headline News on VAF.

Anyone have hard data?

The EAA tells us that no EAB builder has LOST a suit. However, that doesn't account for settlements and I am not sure there is any real way to collect that data. The story that I have heard is the the builder in the John Denver case paid out a handsome sum in a settlement. These details are not recorded in the public record.

It is my belief that most EAB builders don't have the assets to make these suits worthwhile and the primary reason we see so little litigation activity. These types of cases are almost universally done on a contingency basis. Before taking a case, the attorney will research the assets of the defendant and decide whether or not they can get paid. If the defendant doesn't have $1M or more in accessible assets (primary homes and official retirement funds, such as IRA's, are inaccessible to the plaintiff in most states) I don't believe that most attorneys would take the case.

If a builder has accessible assets in excess of $1M, I don't think they should take great comfort in the EAA's statistics. Granted, the plantiff's attorneys have a steep hill to climb, as they have to defend against "Hey you bought an airplane that was built in some guys garage and has a warning label that it doesn't meet standards." However, tougher hills have been climbed by above average attorneys. If one doesn't have a large nest egg of cash, I believe that the risk of getting sued is quite low.

Larry
 
Last edited:
Destroying an airplane

My thinking is if one is nervous about the liability issue and have 10 million or more assets in the bank/market, what is destroying a $60-90,000.00 airplane a problem.
It may let them sleep better at night.
I don't even want to get into the ambulance chasing lawyers. Been sued for stupid reasons, not my fault etc. And the accuser got paid. Am I upset/mad about it? You better believe it.
Have a friend who owned an insulation installation company that got sued, Two unlicensed, uninsured drivers got in an accident in his parking lot. And only one of them actually owned the car he was driving.
The judge said, HE (his insurance) had to pay because he was the only one who was insured. STUPID JUDGE!!!!!
WHAT the ^^&^^7986- is that about
Would I drive one of my bulldozers over my plane? If I was worried YES.
Oh course I would sell the good stuff first. And them let Willy do the driving.
My three cents worth Art
 
New thread please. If we are going to debate whether it is safe to sell our EAB plane or not, etc. etc. We already made the point to the original poster so lets stop cluttering up and diverting off the original question.

To make my contribution to the original question - many builders would love to find a good core engine for their project. No need to try to sell it to an engine shop.
 
My thinking is if one is nervous about the liability issue and have 10 million or more assets in the bank/market, what is destroying a $60-90,000.00 airplane a problem.
It may let them sleep better at night....

Would I drive one of my bulldozers over my plane? If I was worried YES.
Oh course I would sell the good stuff first. And them let Willy do the driving.
My three cents worth Art

Would sadly look forward to that YouTube! Be sure to announce it!
 
Last edited:
If it were me

If I was in your position with these concerns I think I would remove the engine and prop and sell them as a package.

Remove the wings and sell the remaining as a rebuild project. I've seen listings like this all over Barnstormers mostly on Lancairs. I see this as the least amount of work and best way to walk away from liability. Maybe even remove the elevators and rudder that way the buyer would have to assemble all the control surfaces. The aircraft would need to reassembled to the point that the buyer would have little recourse.

I'm not a lawyer and could be totally wrong, consult a legal advisor and see if this covers you, if so..... Keep It SIMPLE.
 
Here’s What We Did

If I was in your position with these concerns I think I would remove the engine and prop and sell them as a package.

Remove the wings and sell the remaining as a rebuild project. I've seen listings like this all over Barnstormers mostly on Lancairs. I see this as the least amount of work and best way to walk away from liability. Maybe even remove the elevators and rudder that way the buyer would have to assemble all the control surfaces. The aircraft would need to reassembled to the point that the buyer would have little recourse.

I'm not a lawyer and could be totally wrong, consult a legal advisor and see if this covers you, if so..... Keep It SIMPLE.

Attorneys advising the owners of the airplane we parted out said to scrap the bits the builders built, which seemed to mean all the sheet metal bits… the airframe. We advertised on Barnstormers and here on VAF. I got inquiries about airframe components but of course could not sell those. We actually did sell the engine and propeller together to a builder who’d installed and flown an auto engine conversion but wanted to go to an airplane engine. Avionics, wheels, brakes, autopilot, lighting, engine mount all went off in different directions. There was a lot of photographing, describing, communicating, packing, shipping and moving $ around. I learned it’s a bit dodgy selling used parts. And it took over a year to get everything sold. The airframe ended up donated to the National Disaster Search Dog Foundation to use in training dogs for airplane crashes but was melted to a puddle of slag in a brushfire before any if that happened. Not a fun job. I did get a bit of terse communications from folks who told me that builders of experimental airplanes had never been successfully sued. I’ve actually tried to get real information about all that. EAA has no specific info. There’s a LOT of rumor and guesses but I could not find any case law at all, win, lose or draw. An attorney told me it happens all the time, then ran off before I could ask more questions. One source I respect tells me that there are many suits, but they settle before they go to trial, which takes them out of the data pool. I don’t know what to think. Insufficient data, Captain.
 
Last edited:
I may be interested in a core engine. I currently have a timed O-360A1F6D, and I think I'd rather build something more basic.
 
Back
Top