What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-10 Transition for a Noob

otownfit

Member
I have been in love with the RV-10 since I first knew it existed. I feel it fits my mission the best. I live/work in Orlando, but have aging parents in Pensacola, which is about an 8 hour drive. I need something fast enough to get me there and back same day if needed. I am 2 months away from earning my PPL. I should have around 50 hours when completed. I am thinking about starting the build process now, and by the time its done I should have between 75-100 hours total. I have no issues hiring a transition instructor. My concern is will I be able to handle the difference in speed, and will it close to as forgiving as the 172 I am flying? Should I purchase a 182 instead, and build up time? I have seen 10 year old RV's sell for what it would cost to build one new. I have reached out to Saint Aviation, and for their builder assist program, Airframe, Avionics, Engine, Leather Interior, and Paint is $285k. So why buy a 40 year old airplane that could potentially have high maintenance costs, when I could have brand new? All comments are welcome. Thank you.
 
Insurance availability and cost for a low-time pilot flying a 4 place E-AB is something to investigate.

Perhaps the more relevant consideration is the ability to commit to a 3-5 year building process. What are you going to fly in the meantime?



..
 
Last edited:
Transitioning to the extra speed is no issue, even for an early time pilot, with proper training. If you don't need four seats, look at a 6A, 7A, or 9A. Much less expensive, just as fast and will be easier to get insurance for.

Larry
 
Perhaps the more relevant consideration is the ability to commit to a 3-5 year building process. What are you going to fly in the meantime?
..

More important is WHEN are you going to have time to fly? Building a -10 is no small task.

-Marc
 
More important is WHEN are you going to have time to fly? Building a -10 is no small task.

-Marc

This. And it applies to any project, just more so for the 10. It’s really hard to fly or do much else if you are focusing on building and aren’t retired. It can be done but it will draw out your project build time. I know that for a fact — 9 yr build for me and I got my instrument during that time but basically did little flying otherwise. It’s a zero sum game so to add here you have to decrease there.

That said the RV-10 has great manners and will present no issues with the transition from a skills perspective. Insurance, on the other hand......
 
Welcome to VAF

Aaron, welcome aboard the good ship VAF:D

I have built/flown the 10 and it is quite a step up from the 172----but it is doable for sure.

I have a buddy who went from getting his PPL in the 172 and directly to the 10 with transition training from Mike Seager. His only prior flying was taking the training in the 172.

Good luck, the 10 is a fantastic ride.
 
Insurance availability and cost for a low-time pilot flying a 4 place E-AB is something to investigate.

Perhaps the more relevant consideration is the ability to commit to a 3-5 year building process. What are you going to fly in the meantime?



..

Saint Aviation has a Rapid Builder program that claims can build the plane in 3-4 weeks. I plan on visiting their shop tomorrow to get the full details. Depending on what they actually require for me, I assume with my schedule it would take a little longer. It will take me about a year to get 4 weeks off of work. In the meantime I can rent from my school, and keep flying the 172.
 
Transitioning to the extra speed is no issue, even for an early time pilot, with proper training. If you don't need four seats, look at a 6A, 7A, or 9A. Much less expensive, just as fast and will be easier to get insurance for.

Larry

I do need 4 seats. My fiancé of course wants kids, and we have dogs. Other than Pensacola, we are looking forward to taking friends to the Keys and Bahamas. Not too far from us.
 
This. And it applies to any project, just more so for the 10. It’s really hard to fly or do much else if you are focusing on building and aren’t retired. It can be done but it will draw out your project build time. I know that for a fact — 9 yr build for me and I got my instrument during that time but basically did little flying otherwise. It’s a zero sum game so to add here you have to decrease there.

That said the RV-10 has great manners and will present no issues with the transition from a skills perspective. Insurance, on the other hand......

Saint Aviation states their builder assist time is 3-4 weeks. It would take me a year to commit to 4 weeks off work. In that time I do plan on getting my instrument.
 
Aaron, welcome aboard the good ship VAF:D

I have built/flown the 10 and it is quite a step up from the 172----but it is doable for sure.

I have a buddy who went from getting his PPL in the 172 and directly to the 10 with transition training from Mike Seager. His only prior flying was taking the training in the 172.

Good luck, the 10 is a fantastic ride.

Thank you, and that is good to know. I will look him up for sure!
 
I highly doubt that you will build an RV-10 in 3-4 weeks even if you had a full factory of people working on it. I suspect that builder assist time quote would be for the Empennage only as that would make more sense.
 
build

I have over 3000 hours of build time in my -10.

You are misunderstanding the builder assist statement...no way to build a -10 in 3 - 4 weeks...
 
Saint Aviation has a Rapid Builder program that claims can build the plane in 3-4 weeks. I plan on visiting their shop tomorrow to get the full details. Depending on what they actually require for me, I assume with my schedule it would take a little longer. It will take me about a year to get 4 weeks off of work. In the meantime I can rent from my school, and keep flying the 172.

No clue how their build program works, or what it costs, but Jesse Saint is, by reputation, a class act.

His father is Steve Saint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Saint. Detailed in the book and movie "End of the Spear".
 
I see that fishing is one of your interests. There are airplanes other than RV-10s which might be better-suited for that aspect of your mission. If flying to fishing spots is important, consider that some of them are located in very rural areas, often mountainous, and the only facilities might be a grass strip which will appear short to you at your experience level. These fields might be a bit tight for an RV-10.

Not saying you can't make it work - going in light will surely help - but it could be a non-optimum vehicle for that.

The first RVs I saw were at a back-country airport in Idaho, so it can be done.

Just another thing to balance in your decision.

Dave
 
So why buy a 40 year old airplane that could potentially have high maintenance costs, when I could have brand new? All comments are welcome. Thank you.

Saint Aviation has a Rapid Builder program that claims can build the plane in 3-4 weeks.

If the latter is indeed true, that's disappointing (but a whole different issue). Regardless though, if you have someone build the airplane for you, then I think you will be surprised about the maintenance costs. At least for labor costs you will not save much because you will not have the skills to maintain it yourself. Absent an A&P program, those skills really only come from you putting in the time and assuming the steep learning curve that (genuinely) building requires. There's no free lunch.
 
The owner-not-builder of an E-AB doesn't have to maintain or fix the airplane himself. He can hire an A&P/IA to do it just as with certificated planes. I'm no airplane mechanic, and in decades as a pilot it has been only rarely that I've as much as taken a wrench to an airplane. But since acquiring this RV-9A, I have saved myself a LOT of money by doing the menial tasks and the grunt work for my A&P.
 
Saint Aviation has a Rapid Builder program that claims can build the plane in 3-4 weeks. I plan on visiting their shop tomorrow to get the full details. Depending on what they actually require for me, I assume with my schedule it would take a little longer. It will take me about a year to get 4 weeks off of work. In the meantime I can rent from my school, and keep flying the 172.

Let's assume 2000 hours for a standard build (and many people on this site would argue it really is 3000 or 4000 hours, but Van's says 2000).

Assume 1500 hours for a QB (again, reports dispute that).

3-4 weeks of 50 hours a week is, at most, 200 hours of labor.

Under the best of circumstances, it would take 7.5 people working 50 hours a week at the same time to finish a QB plane in 4 weeks. And that assumes that you have every single part on hand to start the build, you have completely thought out every part of all the complex systems like wiring and piping where you have lots of options to do it your own way, and that you never make a mistake that requires replacement parts.

And it assumes that 7.5 people could actually work on the plane at the exact same time. Lots of stuff requires one domino to fall before the next can start to tip. Even if you had a team of people where person 1 drills, person 2 deburs, person 3 dimples, and person 4 rivets in a perfect dance, what are people 5, 6, 7, and 7.5 going to be doing?

AND, even if you could work out all of the above, do you now run into a problem where you didn't build 51% of the plane since people 2-7.5 are hired guns in a factory, which I think runs afoul of the rules. They can ASSIST or guide or teach, but they can't build the plane for you.
 
Last edited:
Consider that the Glastar (or whatever they call it now) can be "Legally" done in the two weeks to taxi program, methinks the four week for the 10 is possible.

Not making a judgement here, just tossing out a data point.

But--------the cost is pretty much up there for the TWTT program.
 
The Saint Aviation website does say it's 3 to 4 weeks for a full RV10 build where the builder is somehow still qualified to obtain the repairman certificate.

https://www.saintaviation.com/newrv.html

It does add around $100k onto the price of a standard build RV10, give or take, depending on how fancy you want it.

Perhaps they start with a quick build, but then maybe that would make it more difficult for the builder to qualify for the repairman certificate.

Also, even if it only takes 3 to 4 weeks for them to finish the RV 10, you might still have more time on your hands than you think. Unless Saint Aviation has a supply of RV10 kits on hand, you'll still have to wait for Van's lead time on the RV10 kits which currently range from 6 weeks for just the emp to 12+ months for the full quickbuild.
 
I see that fishing is one of your interests. There are airplanes other than RV-10s which might be better-suited for that aspect of your mission. If flying to fishing spots is important, consider that some of them are located in very rural areas, often mountainous, and the only facilities might be a grass strip which will appear short to you at your experience level. These fields might be a bit tight for an RV-10.

Not saying you can't make it work - going in light will surely help - but it could be a non-optimum vehicle for that.

The first RVs I saw were at a back-country airport in Idaho, so it can be done.

Just another thing to balance in your decision.

Dave

I am not sure I plan on going to that remote of a place. I do have family in Colorado. Would love to fly it there one day. I bet your views are amazing!
 
I take issue with the idea that a 40 year old certified airplane necessarily has high maintenance costs. Don't include in that things that are FAA mandated like ADS-B because you'll need those in an RV-10, too. And things that need periodic maintenance like engines or prop will apply to both.

The maintenance cost per year for my 66 year old certified airplane is typically under $1k a year, and most of that goes to things like tires, oil, filters, pitot-static recert and so on. Don't know how you'd escape those costs with an RV-10. I do pay an AI for the annual, and frankly it's worth it to have another pair of eyes examining the plane.

Dave
 
Hopefully, the OP will be able clarify Saint’s build program for us after he visits them. Sounds like a great option for someone who wants a new/newish RV-10 but doesnt want to build and doesn’t want to do all his own maintenance or condition inspections.
 
If the latter is indeed true, that's disappointing (but a whole different issue). Regardless though, if you have someone build the airplane for you, then I think you will be surprised about the maintenance costs. At least for labor costs you will not save much because you will not have the skills to maintain it yourself. Absent an A&P program, those skills really only come from you putting in the time and assuming the steep learning curve that (genuinely) building requires. There's no free lunch.

http://saintaviation.com/newrv.html
This is their advertising. I am visiting them tomorrow to get the real story. I completely understand there will be continuous maintenance costs, however insignificant to having to rebuild engines, props, or major work due to shear age or use. In my grand scheme of things, doing my own maintenance or the cost of maintenance is not my major concern. I like knowing it will be awhile before I need to fork $40k for a rebuild though.
 
The owner-not-builder of an E-AB doesn't have to maintain or fix the airplane himself. He can hire an A&P/IA to do it just as with certificated planes. I'm no airplane mechanic, and in decades as a pilot it has been only rarely that I've as much as taken a wrench to an airplane. But since acquiring this RV-9A, I have saved myself a LOT of money by doing the menial tasks and the grunt work for my A&P.

I can see where the savings can be, but honestly I would much rather leave that to the pros. I just want to fly it, and when something breaks or needs repair pass it off. However, I do believe since I will be the original owner, even if using builder assist, I am still considered the builder and could do the work myself?
 
Let's assume 2000 hours for a standard build (and many people on this site would argue it really is 3000 or 4000 hours, but Van's says 2000).

Assume 1500 hours for a QB (again, reports dispute that).

3-4 weeks of 50 hours a week is, at most, 200 hours of labor.

Under the best of circumstances, it would take 7.5 people working 50 hours a week at the same time to finish a QB plane in 4 weeks. And that assumes that you have every single part on hand to start the build, you have completely thought out every part of all the complex systems like wiring and piping where you have lots of options to do it your own way, and that you never make a mistake that requires replacement parts.

And it assumes that 7.5 people could actually work on the plane at the exact same time. Lots of stuff requires one domino to fall before the next can start to tip. Even if you had a team of people where person 1 drills, person 2 deburs, person 3 dimples, and person 4 rivets in a perfect dance, what are people 5, 6, 7, and 7.5 going to be doing?

AND, even if you could work out all of the above, do you now run into a problem where you didn't build 51% of the plane since people 2-7.5 are hired guns in a factory, which I think runs afoul of the rules. They can ASSIST or guide or teach, but they can't build the plane for you.

Based on their website its a 3-4 week process. I had assumed everyone may have known of this place. I will give everyone an update tomorrow to see what the reality is.
http://saintaviation.com/newrv.html
 
I’d still bet a significant chunk of money that you can’t build an RV-10 in 3-4 weeks. I don’t believe it’s ever been done. The absolute fastest, bone stock 10s I’ve heard of were still at least a year.

It’d be great to be proven wrong, but I’m at a tad over three years on mine with hopefully 12-18 months to go working reasonably steady. I think if I could have worked the equivalent of a full time job on it, it still likely would have taken 18-24 months.

The RV-12 at Oshkosh took a week with an army of people working on it, and it is astronomically less complex than the 10.
 
The Saint Aviation website does say it's 3 to 4 weeks for a full RV10 build where the builder is somehow still qualified to obtain the repairman certificate.

https://www.saintaviation.com/newrv.html

It does add around $100k onto the price of a standard build RV10, give or take, depending on how fancy you want it.

Perhaps they start with a quick build, but then maybe that would make it more difficult for the builder to qualify for the repairman certificate.

Also, even if it only takes 3 to 4 weeks for them to finish the RV 10, you might still have more time on your hands than you think. Unless Saint Aviation has a supply of RV10 kits on hand, you'll still have to wait for Van's lead time on the RV10 kits which currently range from 6 weeks for just the emp to 12+ months for the full quickbuild.

Yes, that is what I read and verified through email. Will be meeting them tomorrow and all good points to ask about the lead time to get the full kit.
 
OK guys.........

On the whole 3-4 week 'build assist program':

I am certain that the 3-4 weeks is the time needed for the builder/aircraft owner to be present during the build. The builder shows up and is present for a 3-4 week time period of their time doing tasks that check off the most 'points' for the FAA's 51% rule. While the builder isn't at the facility, plenty of work is being done on the aircraft that won't significantly contribute to the builder's (51% rule) points count. The entire aircraft doesn't go from box to completion in 3-4 weeks total, and I'm sure the builder's 3-4 week portion is/can be spread over a period of time ~12-18 months?

CubCrafters mastered this concept. You can build a Carbon Cub FX3 'Build Assist' at the factory and walk out with an EAB registered Carbon Cub and only be there for 7 days. Yes, in 56 hours worth of your time, you fly away an EAB Carbon Cub. They do this by involving the owner in the parts manufacturing process. Because of that - it checks the right/most boxes for the owner to get the required 'points' for their 51%.

otownfit - Good luck with your project, whichever route you go. RV10 is fantastic! Can't wait to see mine come to completion someday.
 
Last edited:
My wife was able to transition to our RV-10 in just a few hours after receiving her PPL in a 172. Obtaining true comfort took longer. She had a lot of experience in the back of our RV-8a, but no landings or unassisted takeoffs.

Insurance wasn't terrible. We made sure she had a lot of (cross-country) time with me in the plane prior to getting a quote. In other words, she built low value time for insurance reasons prior to building useful time in terms of actual training.
 
I can see where the savings can be, but honestly I would much rather leave that to the pros. I just want to fly it, and when something breaks or needs repair pass it off. However, I do believe since I will be the original owner, even if using builder assist, I am still considered the builder and could do the work myself?
Yeah, that’s me too. ZERO interest in building an airplane. I am a flyer not a builder. If your process comes off as advertised, sounds like a great solution for you (and for me).

According to the “rules”, you ( or anyone) can do all the repairs or maintenance on your E-AB airplane that you want. Or, you can have it done by an A&P. The only thing that requires an A&P or a builder’s certificate is the annual condition inspection. Whether not you should do that work, especially if you didn’t build it, is another story…

Almost all of the work I have done, I’ve had checked over by an A&P/IA. I don’t have to, but given my level of expertise, it’s a smart thing to do.
 
Last edited:
On the whole 3-4 week 'build assist program':

I am certain that the 3-4 weeks is the time needed for the builder/aircraft owner to be present during the build. The builder shows up and is present for a 3-4 week time period of their time doing tasks that check off the most 'points' for the FAA's 51% rule. While the builder isn't at the facility, plenty of work is being done on the aircraft that won't significantly contribute to the builder's (51% rule) points count. The entire aircraft doesn't go from box to completion in 3-4 weeks total, and I'm sure the builder's 3-4 week portion is/can be spread over a period of time ~12-18 months?

CubCrafters mastered this concept. You can build a Carbon Cub FX3 'Build Assist' at the factory and walk out with an EAB registered Carbon Cub and only be there for 7 days. Yes, in 56 hours worth of your time, you fly away an EAB Carbon Cub. They do this by involving the owner in the parts manufacturing process. Because of that - it checks the right/most boxes for the owner to get the required 'points' for their 51%.

otownfit - Good luck with your project, whichever route you go. RV10 is fantastic! Can't wait to see mine come to completion someday.

That makes a whole lot more sense
 
I suggest you call Jenny or Leah at Gallagher insurance agency (you can search for them on this forum), and have a heart to heart talk about insurance. As a student or low time pilot, be sure you’re sitting down to hear the bad news.
I also suggest you look up the relevant FAA regs that allow for experimental, amateur built aircraft, and read them yourself. Anyone with a lick of common sense will see that ‘two weeks to taxi’ programs do not meet the spirit of law. But a few lawyers, combined with one or more morons at a local FSDO, got the program approved, using funny accounting where 0.1 + 0.2=51%, and now the FAA doesn’t know how to backtrack without facing millions of dollars in lawsuits. But ask yourself: Can I sleep at night, knowing that if the FAA ever gets an administrator with a backbone, my quarter million dollar aircraft might become a useless pile of aluminum? If insurance costs are acceptable, I’d suggest you get a knowledgeable mechanic and shop for a legitimate used RV. Accept a less than perfect paint and interior, look for a well built airplane. It will meet your needs for less than a quarter million dollars.
 
I also suggest you look up the relevant FAA regs that allow for experimental, amateur built aircraft, and read them yourself. Anyone with a lick of common sense will see that ‘two weeks to taxi’ programs do not meet the spirit of law. But a few lawyers, combined with one or more morons at a local FSDO, got the program approved, using funny accounting where 0.1 + 0.2=51%, and now the FAA doesn’t know how to backtrack without facing millions of dollars in lawsuits. But ask yourself: Can I sleep at night, knowing that if the FAA ever gets an administrator with a backbone, my quarter million dollar aircraft might become a useless pile of aluminum? If insurance costs are acceptable, I’d suggest you get a knowledgeable mechanic and shop for a legitimate used RV. Accept a less than perfect paint and interior, look for a well built airplane. It will meet your needs for less than a quarter million dollars.
I'm confused by this post.

The RV-10 that Saint Aviation builds isn't a "legitimate" RV-10? It looks pretty good on paper, and by reputation.

As to an administrator with a backbone "if they ever get one"...how does that make the OP's new RV-10 a "useless pile of aluminum"? It just means that the OP's repairman's certificate might be in jeopardy, right? If he's not doing much, if any, of the maintenance, why would the lack of a repairman's certificate affect the value of the airplane?
 
I'm confused by this post.

The RV-10 that Saint Aviation builds isn't a "legitimate" RV-10? It looks pretty good on paper, and by reputation.

As to an administrator with a backbone "if they ever get one"...how does that make the OP's new RV-10 a "useless pile of aluminum"? It just means that the OP's repairman's certificate might be in jeopardy, right? If he's not doing much, if any, of the maintenance, why would the lack of a repairman's certificate affect the value of the airplane?

I will try to un-confuse you. If the FAA ever gets an administrator who says that the FSDO’s interpretation of the FARs was incorrect - that what the law says is what was meant, that EAB aircraft have to have more than half the labor done by unpaid ‘amateurs’ - then he will revoke all the airworthiness certificates that were issued on aircraft that did not actually meet the EAB law. While draconian, it is not without precedent. Recently the FAA decided that one of its DPEs had been ‘pencil whipping’ flight tests. They issued an emergency revocation of every single pilot certificate that DPE had ever issued, 10 years worth. Everyone had to have a re-test.
So I am not a lawyer. But I read and understand English, and I cannot fathom how anyone can say, with a straight face, that aircraft coming out of ‘two weeks to taxi’ or similar meet the EAB regulations.
 
Last edited:
Reminds me of an old friend of mine...Dan, who wanted badly to get his RV-10 done and flying. He did. But that was where the story got interesting, and came to a quick end. He was a 100 hour pilot. I'm not too interested in hearing people talk about being in a rush anymore. There is an NTSB report about it, which was the first fatal RV-10 crash.
 
Last edited:
I will try to un-confuse you. If the FAA ever gets an administrator who says that the FSDO’s interpretation of the FARs was incorrect - that what the law says is what was meant, that EAB aircraft have to have more than half the labor done by unpaid ‘amateurs’ - then he will revoke all the airworthiness certificates that were issued on aircraft that did not actually meet the EAB law. While draconian, it is not without precedent. Recently the FAA decided that one of its DPEs had been ‘pencil whipping’ flight tests. They issued an emergency revocation of every single pilot certificate that DPE had ever issued, 10 years worth. Everyone had to have a re-test.
So I am not a lawyer. But I read and understand English, and I cannot fathom how anyone can say, with a straight face, that aircraft coming out of ‘two weeks to taxi’ or similar meet the EAB regulations.

Hmm...an interesting scenario, but seems like there might be at least a couple of cognitive leaps there. I guess I'll wait to hear what the OP has to say after his visit. Maybe we all can get a clearer understanding of what Saint Aviation's building program entails.
 
Thanks Bob, you beat me to it. Programs like this fly in the face of experimental aviation and put our community at risk. I worry that when the day comes that the FAA realizes what is going on here, the backlash will be much larger than pulling certificates from factory built kits like this, and might negatively affect those of us playing by the rules.
 
To the OP - The most sound advice you will find repeated over and over by those with experience in this game is that if you want to build an airplane, build an airplane. If you just want an airplane - buy one. Having one built to your specifications and then having your name put on it as the “builder” is downright illegal - so why take a chance? Tehre are lots of RV-10’s out there to look at that will come up for sale between now and the end of the year. Get a good pre-buy mechanic and go shopping for the one that is right for you.

The reality anyway is that lead times on kits and components in the industry right now is such that I would wager there is no way you are going to start an airplane project (or even have one started for you...) any time soon and have it done by the end of the year.

And yeah....there is the whole insurance thing on a high performance airplane for a low-time pilot....that is something to seriously look in to before you go to far.

Paul
 
Thanks Bob, you beat me to it. Programs like this fly in the face of experimental aviation and put our community at risk. I worry that when the day comes that the FAA realizes what is going on here, the backlash will be much larger than pulling certificates from factory built kits like this, and might negatively affect those of us playing by the rules.

That is possible, but I think the more likely scenario is that there will be explicit approval for "factory built" kit planes in the MOSAIC rewrite that is being considered - or at least allowance for a lot more build assistance.

I think the FAA is pretty aware that airplanes built with professional assistance are in many cases (not all) much better constructed than those built purely by amateurs.
 
That is possible, but I think the more likely scenario is that there will be explicit approval for "factory built" kit planes in the MOSAIC rewrite that is being considered - or at least allowance for a lot more build assistance.

I think the FAA is pretty aware that airplanes built with professional assistance are in many cases (not all) much better constructed than those built purely by amateurs.

The thing to remember is that MOSAIC has been conceptual and under review for quite awhile now, and floats with the political winds and will. It is my hope that we will see it succeed and that yes, people can build “custom airplanes” which will be better than one-offs. But that’s all undetermined at this time.

I recommend that everyone getting into a project goes with the rules that exist, not with ones they HOPE will exist.

Paul
 
I just had my inspection a few weeks ago and I can tell you as far as the FAA is concerned if you complete 51% of the 170ish items on their checklist your are the builder. I contrubuted 80% of the hours to my plane and ended up with 60% according to the FAA checklist calculation (QB wings/fuselage). I can totally see how with manipulating/careful selection which items the "builder" completes you can meet the FAA requirements. Would this make someone qualified for a Repairman certificate? Not in my mind. But that is a different process and the "builder" is unlikely to convince the inspector unless they outright lie. In regards to build hours, with a prebuilt panel and QB kits I bet an experiences builder could finish a plane in 800 hours. Still not 3-4 weeks but probably a couple months with two experienced guys.
 
I suggest you call Jenny or Leah at Gallagher insurance agency (you can search for them on this forum), and have a heart to heart talk about insurance. As a student or low time pilot, be sure you’re sitting down to hear the bad news.
I also suggest you look up the relevant FAA regs that allow for experimental, amateur built aircraft, and read them yourself. Anyone with a lick of common sense will see that ‘two weeks to taxi’ programs do not meet the spirit of law. But a few lawyers, combined with one or more morons at a local FSDO, got the program approved, using funny accounting where 0.1 + 0.2=51%, and now the FAA doesn’t know how to backtrack without facing millions of dollars in lawsuits. But ask yourself: Can I sleep at night, knowing that if the FAA ever gets an administrator with a backbone, my quarter million dollar aircraft might become a useless pile of aluminum? If insurance costs are acceptable, I’d suggest you get a knowledgeable mechanic and shop for a legitimate used RV. Accept a less than perfect paint and interior, look for a well built airplane. It will meet your needs for less than a quarter million dollars.

IMO, if I can get it insured and my bank will finance it, I think I could sleep well. Saint Aviation is a pretty established company down here in Florida and I found them listed on Vans official website as an authorized Builder assist company. If the FAA pulled the airworthy certificate than I would have a pretty compelling case against Saint, and Vans for the referral.
 
Reminds me of an old friend of mine...Dan, who wanted badly to get his RV-10 done and flying. He did. But that was where the story got interesting, and came to a quick end. He was a 100 hour pilot. I'm not too interested in hearing people talk about being in a rush anymore.

Tim, are you referring to his inability to handle the high performance part of the airplane or was the build inadequate? I am not in a hurry by any means. My main question is about the transitioning to the RV-10. I can easily get a 182 with no issues. I do not have the ability to spend 2000-3000 hours to build an RV10, I also do not need one next month. I think out of most of the aircraft it does what I need it to do best, plus I love the way they look. I want to go straight into instrument when done, and assumingly will have a plane ready to fly by end of the year. The company advertises 3-4 weeks, but that is not my draw. I see used ones selling for upper $200's that are up to 10 years old. If I can buy new, get my color scheme, and setup the way I like for the same price, why wouldn't I? I would trust Saint, as they come recommended by Vans factory as their Builder Assist company in Florida. It is about an hour from where I live.
 
If the FAA pulled the airworthy certificate than I would have a pretty compelling case against Saint, and Vans for the referral.

No you wouldn’t because they wouldn’t have misrepresented anything since at the time it would have been legal for builder assist therefore you can’t argue they “harmed” you through fraud because the government changed the law. That said I don’t see the FAA invalidating AWCs issued to aircraft built at builder assist centers if they change the regs. My reasoning is unlike the DPE where no kidding malfeasance was involved, the build centers are totally legal.

Don’t forget the purpose and intent of E-AB certification is recreation and education. Builder assist programs are danger close to skirting this in order to provide customers a short cut to certification. This is the crux of the issue which could eventually draw the ire of the FAA like the hired guns did over a decade ago.
 
Last edited:
There is currently one insurance company in the marketplace insuring -10s for pilots less than 250 hrs. $18,000. Search for my posts on it a couple months ago.
 
I spent most of my career with brand C and they know a thing or two about building airplanes. In my experience, you can only throw so many bodies on something, and the smaller the airframe the fewer bodies can fit while actually accomplishing anything. That doesn't even consider the things that have to take place consecutively because it's physically impossible to accomplish them concurrently.

I understand the concept of 4 weeks of builder "on site" to get enough tasks in to get 51% of the points. I'm not going to offer an opinion on whether it's a good idea or not, but hope the OP comes back with details of what this looks like in actual calendar days.

I'm going guess its a crew of maybe 4 people working in two shifts for a couple of months or 2-3 people working 1 shift for 3-4 months. That would also assume a pick and pull system that never had you waiting on parts, and stuff like wire loom boards and other fixtures already made up before you need them. If it was me, I would also want a DER or some kind of MRB process so you could get repair dispositions on the fly for the invariable goofs.
 
Where exactly?

IMO, if I can get it insured and my bank will finance it, I think I could sleep well. Saint Aviation is a pretty established company down here in Florida and I found them listed on Vans official website as an authorized Builder assist company. If the FAA pulled the airworthy certificate than I would have a pretty compelling case against Saint, and Vans for the referral.

Interesting comment. I had no idea that Van’s “authorized” build assistance facilities. I thought they simply built kits and the S-LSA RV-12’s. Where exactly on their website did you find the list of “authorized Builder Assist” companies?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top