maintain without building?

[Bob Martin]

Alan,
You aren't the only one that didn't now....
I'd always heard it tooo, but when I bought a RV-6 I searched it out, then forgot it until a homebuilder at my airport challanged my working on my "bought" airplane. I had to prove it to him....seems he had built his EXPERMENTAL because he thought he had to, to be able to work on it himself. Needless to say, he wasn't happy to see he was wrong, although he didn't regret building!
He actually went back to the local FSDO and reminded them that they had told him that he had to build it to work on it. He said they told him "we were confused on that issue for some time" but now agreed with the current thinking.
So don't feel bad, spread the news!
or don't.......maybe we don't want anyone but us real diehards to know about it.
I'm amazed at how much upkeep, upgrading and maintenance there really is.
Regards,
Bob

[joe gremlin]

John,
Considering the modifications you'd like to do, you of all people should build the plane yourself. The moment you deviate from a planes original design you expose yourself to risk. Likewise, using an engine for a profile it was never designed to fill carries extra risk. Knowing that why would want to further increase your risk exposure by starting with an airframe that is almost completely unknown to you?

Did the builder build the plane 100% to plans? Did the builder make any changes or material substitutions along the way because he intended to use an O-3xx engine or for any other reason? You have no way of knowing that.

[Deuskid]

Originally Posted by joe gremlin

John,
Considering the modifications you'd like to do, you of all people should build the plane yourself. The moment you deviate from a planes original design you expose yourself to risk. Likewise, using an engine for a profile it was never designed to fill carries extra risk. Knowing that why would want to further increase your risk exposure by starting with an airframe that is almost completely unknown to you?

Did the builder build the plane 100% to plans? Did the builder make any changes or material substitutions along the way because he intended to use an O-3xx engine or for any other reason? You have no way of knowing that.

Joe, Good points. I hope to buy from the builder and 'pick his/her brain totally clean about their a/c' and find out any anomolies. It probably won't be for 6-9 months [I'm a CPA and I'm going to 'reward' myself for suffering through tax season by starting lessons in late April].

Thanks all, this gives me great comfort in knowing I can do my own maintenance on an experiemental [the thought of paying 5 prices for off the shelf parts [like belts or filters] has been a reason I haven't thought about getting my PPC before now] and if I ever get the itch to try and do something with a diesel I would have that flexibility.

Cheers,

John

[Tom McCutcheon]

John,

To answer your question as to the difference between a -6 and -7 this is what I understand. The -6 was designed by Dick much like his earlier planes. Then he hired some engineers and CAD experts. They took the -6 and made a CAD design and called it the -7. I understand that there are some changes from the -6 to the -7.

My understanding is also that if you bend or break something on a -7 either during construction or later, you can order that part and it will fit. All the holes will match etc. On the -6 however, you will need to try to match whatever the original builder did as far as matching holes etc.

These are both very good planes but if I were to build new I would go with the -7 because of the CAD design and the ability to get it in a quick build as well as matching of replacement parts.

Also, all of Van's planes from the -7 on are CAD designed

[RV8RIVETER]

The -7 is a new larger airframe, not just a CAD version of the -6. The -6 was designed to use an engine range of 150hp-180hp and the -7 150-200hp. The -7 has a 200lb gross weight increase. The -7 and the -9 have the same fuselage, the -7 uses the same wings as the -8.

I am sure there are other differences that -7 builders can point out, but those are the major ones I know.

[gmcjetpilot]

Originally Posted by Deuskid

Hello All...
If I buy a flying RV, may I do my own maintenance? Are there any restrictions to a owner/'not-builder'?

Thanks

John

John I think you got your answer. The short answer is there are very few restrictions, and yes you can do any minor, major maintenance and any minor or major repair with out approval or oversight!!!! Change engines, props, fuel system, go right ahead.

I know I was surprised when I looked into this and was not of the above opinion, but after research and discussion with the FAA I was convinced that few restriction exist. I will show this but an extream example below.


The ONLY thing you CAN'T do (or more correctly sign off) is the CONDITION INSPECTION, which for the lack of a better analogy is equivalent to an annual inspection like a factory plane. Unlike a factory plane any A&P or the person with the repair certificate** for that plane can sign of the "condition inspection". Note a factory planes require an A&I to sign off an annual; an experimental airplane requires only an A&P. Also a condition inspection approval is not a statement of airworthiness like it is with factory planes.


You can do all the work in the condition inspection, I suppose in concert with the person doing the sign off, especially if its an A&P.

I will skip routine maintenance, major maintenance and repair, because you are good to go there. Lets look at major modification. Is there any restriction? NO (It is true)

Can you modify your second hand RV and work on it? Heck Yes, all you want and you can fly it with out any approval (oversight) until the next condition inspection! (Should you is another issue.)

The only thing you MIGHT (may be) need to do with a major modification is coordinate with the FAA and possibly put the plane back into Phase I. This depends on the modification being done. Phase I is a term for flight test with restrictions for a given number of hours. The restriction is usually no passengers and a limited operating area. Phase I applies to new planes and any plane that has a major modification. Check with the FSDO on what constitutes a major modification.

This phase I restriction applies to any major modification regardless who did it, even if you built it and held the repair certificate for that plane, so Believe it or not you could make your newly purchased RV into a twin engine bi-plane and fly it. The FAA will only want to know your operation area, but will not approve or disapprove your mod or work (usually). They only approve you to do the flight test. However I'm sure if its weird (like a twin engine RV) they may want to see it. Most major modes mods might be something like a new constant speed prop, going from carb to fuel injection for example.

The only time your modification will be looked at it when it may be when it comes time for the (annual) condition inspection. The person person signing off the inspection will have to approve the "condition" of your major modification work. Of course you will need to note your work and do the required paper work, like say a new W&B.

So if you can do all the above (Twin biplane) or change engines, props, fuel system, you can do any minor or semi major repair with out approval. The only approval or sign off is the condition inspection, which you can not physically annotate in the log book.

I found all the above hard to believe until I checked it out with the FED's, and it is true. So go buy your RV.

Obviously safety is key and I am sure you would ask for help if dealing with anything you have no experience with or are not sure of. George

[Deuskid]

Wow...

great help and insight... this site is great...

thank you all for your explanations....

I probably will never get around to putting a diesel in an aircraft but one never knows...

anyroad, I do want to do my own maintenance.

the more I visit VAF and learn the more I learn I need to learn.



John

[Dgamble]

Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot

John I think you got your answer. The short answer is there are very few restrictions, and yes you can do any minor, major maintenance and any minor or major repair with out approval or oversight!!!! Change engines, props, fuel system, go right ahead.

I know I was surprised when I looked into this and was not of the above opinion, but after research and discussion with the FAA I was convinced that few restriction exist. I will show this but an extream example below.

One area I'm trying to be careful about is the engine. It still has the Lycoming plate on it, and has been maintained only by A&Ps and has had all ADs applied. My thinking is that this is still a certificated engine, and could be removed from the RV and put into a certificated plane. If I start mucking around with it as a non-A&P, I think it would no longer be a 'legal for certificated use' engine. I'm not 100% sure of this, though.

Thoughts?

[Sam Buchanan]

One area I'm trying to be careful about is the engine. It still has the Lycoming plate on it, and has been maintained only by A&Ps and has had all ADs applied. My thinking is that this is still a certificated engine, and could be removed from the RV and put into a certificated plane. If I start mucking around with it as a non-A&P, I think it would no longer be a 'legal for certificated use' engine. I'm not 100% sure of this, though.

This is a good question and one that receives various answers. But I think we can agree on the following points:

1) Complying with all AD's and previous maintainence by A&Ps may not be necessary for experimental aircraft but is certainly prudent and enhances the actual and perceived value of the engine. (The reason I hedged on this point is that many DARs won't sign off on a "certificated" engine if ADs haven't been complied with....even though the regs are quite hazy in this regard. This doesn't make much sense because they will readily sign off a non-aircraft engine......)

2) If the engine is returned to service in a certificated plane, a log-book endorsement by the installing A&P (and AI?) must be made stating the engine meets all certification and AD requirements.

Here is the rub. How many A&Ps are going to put their careers on the line by endorsing an engine without a teardown inspection that has flown in an experimental aircraft......regardless of the paper trail?

So, technically, the engine could be returned to certificated service simply by bolting it into a plane with standard certification based on the logbooks, but in the real world......it probably ain't gonna happen.

Sam Buchanan

[RatMan]

Originally Posted by Deuskid

Correct me if I'm wrong [I'm often wrong [and I'm often corrected [espcially by my 3 sons...lol]]] but...

it seems to me from my limited research that after the dust settles you can buy a flying Rv for about the same amount that it would cost to build? I love to work with my hands but really don't have the time and especially if the labor is going to be valued at a low amount.

Don't know where you've been shopping but I haven't found this to be true at all. Yes, you can build an "RV" for say, 40 grand and you can buy an "RV" for about the same but you have to compare apples to apples.

A new, nicely built VFR -7 or -8 could be done for ~40-45 but could easily command twice that much the day it takes flight. However, you can't compare these to what you might see on Barnstormers in the same price range. At the end of the day, any airplane is only worth what somone will pay for it, it's all in the details. I suppose it happens but I've never seen a flying RV sell for the same price as it was built for.

I'll have to agree with you though, regardless of price, if you aren't dedicated to building, don't! Way too many builders over-simplify and understate the building process. While it's true, building isn't any more difficult than squeezing a rivet. It's the 17,999 remaining that takes commitment. Also, you made the comment "especially if the labor is going to be valued at a low amount". I would dare say most builders could care less about how much value is placed on their labor. Why? Because building your own airplane is like being a parent you can't put a value on it and the more time you invest the better it will turn out. I think you also mentioned you're a CPA, well you can't create a spreadsheet and include a column that accounts for the emotions you will go through while building and then the the huge payoff when you leave the ground, Microsoft hasn't come up with a program for that yet (but I'm sure they're working on it).

I'm sure you could read a lot of builder's logs and it would say "spent five hours today building my elevator". But what isn't there is "spent another hour tonight admiring it". It's hard to explain but if you really understand why someone would admire a stupid aluminum elevator for an hour you get it. If you can't understand, don't build.

For some it's just easier and smarter to commit themselves to payments either one big one or a bunch of smaller ones. Either way we all win though, you buy and fly a great plane and that has the side affect of driving the value of RV's up.

Rat