Why own your own airplane when you can just rent one?
The cost of owning vs. renting is often the first topic brought up in these discussions. I've not yet owned an aircraft myself, so I won't pretend to fully understand the economics involved. From what I've seen, the general consensus seems to be that unless you are flying 100+ hours per year you’ll save very little money by owning the aircraft you fly instead of renting it. If you can't hit somewhere around the 100 hour mark, the fixed costs of owning (insurance, hangar rental, inspections and scheduled maintenance, etc.) will probably make your hourly operating cost much higher than if you were to just rent from your local flight school.
From what I can see, the benefit of having your own personal airplane is not spending less money to fly – it’s having an aircraft that is customizable and available.
Flight school aircraft come as-is, and in most cases renters are stuck with whatever equipment is already installed in the aircraft. If your mission is IFR cross countries but the aircraft you have access to has little more than a single Nav/Com and a VFR GPS, you're going to be severly limited in your ability to fly certain procedures. Sure, you can request that flight school put in a Garmin 430, but are they really going to put $6000+ into a single airplane just so you can do RNAV approaches?
Even if your flight school has a well-equipped aircraft, there's a good chance that it's already been booked. At my flight school the Cessna 172s are in such high demand that they're typically booked 2+ weeks in advance. If an opportunity to fly presents itself and you need quick access to a specific aircraft, it may be impossible to get it on short notice. Many flight schools also have restrictions on taking aircraft overnight, usually in the form of having you pay for a minimum of X hours per day that you have the aircraft. You may have a difficult time flying into AirVenture for the week unless you can afford paying the equivalent of 21 hours of rental time. If you want to go on a trip around the country? Forget it.
Having your own airplane means that you can add almost whatever you want to it, whether it be new avionics, an updated interior, or a new coat of paint. You'll have access to your plane 24/7 so you can take it with a few minutes' notice if you want to. Plus, you can take your aircraft anywhere you want for as long as you want. You might save money if you fly often enough, but the convenience is worth more than that.
Why build an airplane when you can just buy one?
Building an airplane is a unique experience. Since I was little I've enjoyed putting things together, whether it be building blocks, Legos, or IKEA furniture. I know that an building an airplane is a whole different challenge, but it's a challenge I'm excited to undertake since I know I'll enjoy the building process.
I've seen many stories of would-be builders that start these airplane projects but end up quitting because they didn't enjoy the building process as much as they enjoyed the idea of the complete aircraft. It seems easy for someone to start the build, only to soon realize that what they really want is a complete, ready-to-fly aircraft instead of a pile of parts that will take literally a couple thousand hours to turn into an actual plane.
If you love an airplane, but you don't love the idea of building it, you will probably be able to buy one for about the same cost you'd spend building it.
Speaking of cost...
How much will this cost? Are experimental airplanes really cheaper?
Simply put, building is one of the cheapest ways to acquire a brand-new airplane aside from stealing one.
First, experimental aircraft don't have to deal with the time-consuming and costly process of Part 23 certification that accounts for much of the high prices of new aircraft today. This is why a factory-new Skyhawk costs $350K while you can build or buy a far more capable RV-10 for less than $200K.
The catch? When you build an airplane, you're paying for it with time rather than money. Depending on the kit, you may spend anywhere from 500 to 2000 hours or more to get that pile of parts into a flyable state. It's a lot of time to commit, but in the end you'll be left with a new airplane that is completely customized to your tastes.
The nice thing about paying for a homebuilt aircraft is that you can pay for the airplane one kit at a time instead of all at once. When buying a complete aircraft you typically make a down payment and then take out an interest-laden loan to cover the rest of the cost. With homebuilts, you simply pay anywhere from $2K-10K at a time for each section of the airplane you're currently working on. While you're working on one kit, save up for the next one and buy it once you're ready. Assuming you don't have to get a loan for the engine or avionics (the two most expensive parts of the build) your airplane could be completely paid off by the first time you fly it.
Maintenance, too, is more affordable for homebuilt aircraft. As the builder of the aircraft, you'll be listed as the aircraft's manufacturer and can perform your own annual condition inspections rather than being forced to pay a mechanic to do it. Most of the money you save will be from not having to pay for labor, but you'll save a lot on parts as well thanks to the lack of any requirement to have them certified. That $200 bolt you need to get for your Bonanza? It probably costs $20 for an experimental aircraft.
Finally, adding airframe and avionics modifications to your aircraft is a much cheaper and easier process when dealing with experimental aircraft. Experimentals aren't required to get FAA approval in the form of an STC or a 337 when installing new equipment, greatly reducing time and cost. You can do almost anything you want to your aircraft, and no one can tell you otherwise as long as it remains a safe and flyable aircraft.
The lack of certification also allows experimental aircraft to have more advanced technologies far before certified aircraft. Electronic ignition, for example, is a relatively new feature on some certified aircraft while it's been commonplace in experimentals for years. Avionics for experimental aircraft are also typically more capable than their certified counterparts while also being less expensive. The Garmin G3X touch, a touchscreen EFIS made for experimental aircraft, was announced in 2014 and the 10" model currently retails for $3895. Its certified equivalent, the G500 TXi, was only just released in 2017 and starts at $9589 for the 10" model. The story is similar for the Garmin G5. The experimental version starts at $1199, but the certified version (which was introduced much later and is much more limited in features) costs $2149. Homebuilders get the good stuff sooner, and at a cheaper price.
Which airplane should I choose?
When deciding which aircraft to own or build (whether it be certified or experimental), the very first step should always be defining one's mission rather than falling in love with a specific airplane or an aircraft model and trying to build your mission around that.
Like a lot of private pilots, the image of aircraft ownership I had in my head at first was the Cirrus SR22: four seats, sleek and modern design, fast, and IFR equipped for long cross countries. That's perfect if you regularly carry 2 or 3 other people and go on a lot of long trips in less-than-ideal weather. However, if most of what you'll actually be doing is local flights with the occasional $100 hamburger run (likely closer to $200 or $300 in the SR22 honestly) and you only rarely go on long cross country trips, then you'll probably be left dissatisfied with the SR22's relatively high cost of operation and maintenence.
Similarly, pilots looking at the Van's models often zero in on the RV-10 first, and I was no different. The -10 looked like the kit version of the SR22 with its claimed cruise speed of around 175 knots, four seats, and ability to install any amount of advanced, glass panel, experimental avionics as one could dream. All for around 1/3 the cost of a brand-new SR22.
I salivated over the RV-10 for a while, but after doing some more research on aircraft ownership I came across some of the best advice I can give to anyone looking to own a plane – the 80% rule.
The 80% rule is as follows:
Buy the airplane that fits 80% of the flights you take, and rent for the other 20%.
Defining one's mission can take a little soul-searching, but listing what you already do is a good start. For me, most of the flights I take when I'm not instructing are local, usually solo but with the occasional passenger. Two seats are all I need. I do sometimes go on cross countries with more than one other person, but it's very easy for me to rent either a fixed-gear 182 or a faster R182 Skylane RG from my flight school.
I'm a CFII, and most of the instruction I give is related to instrument flying. IFR capability is important to me and I'm also a bit of a techie, so having advanced IFR avionics is a must. I've also been enamored with tailwheel aircraft ever since I took my first flight in a Piper Cub. I'm lucky enough to be instructing in that same Cub now, and it has never gotten any less fun. I can say with certainty that the first airplane I own is probably going to be a taildragger.
The second, trickier part of defining your mission is figuring out what you want to do that the aircraft you curently have access to won't allow. It's easy to go overboard when daydreaming about this, so it's important to stay grounded in reality. In my case, none of the aircraft I can rent right now are capable of even light aerobatics. Wanting to own an aerobatic plane would be a stretch if I had never done aerobatics before, but I do have some experience already. I went through around 6 hours of an upset recovery course which was basically an introduction to aerobatic maneuvers, including loops, rolls, spins, split-s('s?), Immelmans, half-cuban eights, and hammerheads. It wasn't competition aerobatics, and I have no intention of ever doing anything at quite that level, but it was enjoyable enough for me to want to be able to do aerobatics from time to time in my own airplane.
Of course, cost is going to be a consideration as well. On a flight instructor's salary it will probably be dificult for me to feed and maintain anything more than a four-cylinder engine. I'm not too keen on paying for more than 12 gallons per hour, and 6-cylinder engines seem to typically cost at least $10,000 more than 4-cylinder models to purchase or overhaul. 160-180 horsepower will probably give me the best balance of performance and economy. Regardless of the model, I'd like the option for auto fuel (91 unleaded) to reduce my hourly fuel cost.
With all this in mind, my mission is:
Based on my mission, my ideal aircraft would likely be:
Choosing a manufacturer depends on, among other factors, the kinds of aircraft available to purchase and what materials you want to work with. If you're looking for a fast composite aircraft, Velocity Aircraft and Lancair are good places to start. If you're into backcountry flying and you'd like the performance of a Super Cub in a tube-and-fabric aircraft, CubCrafters is for you. Those looking for a light-sport aircraft (LSA) have a lot of options from manufacturers such as Van's Aircraft, Glasair, Zenith, and more.
When I first started learning about homebuilt airplanes, the one manufacturer that kept coming up was, unsurprisingly, Van’s Aircraft. Van’s now has over 10,000 completed kits to its name, making it without a doubt the most popular homebuilt kit manufacturer in the world. It’s easy to see why. Van’s has a variety of aluminum aircraft ranging from tailwheel, aerobatic sport planes (RV-3, -4, -7, -8, -14) to a four-seat cross country cruiser (RV-10) to even a light-sport aircraft that is now one of the most popular LSAs out there (RV-12). Van’s has it all, and even more than that, they have a huge network of suppliers and builders that have an enormous amount of experience with these aircraft.
Van’s Air Force was another big factor in choosing a manufacturer. VAF is an online forum hosting hundreds of active RV builders, pilots, and suppliers that discuss everything from building tips and techniques to recent trips taken in their aircraft. Van’s has its own builder support department, but the community over at VAF has proven to be a huge source of wisdom that some have said is even more valuable. For someone who’s never done any kind of metalworking before, it’s easy for me to see why an RV is such a good choice when there is such a great network of builders that can back me up and check my work.
Choosing among the RV models is not much different from choosing among other aircraft – you need to select one based on your mission.
I prefer a tailwheel to a nosewheel and I'm interested in aerobatics, so my options are the RV-3, -4, -7, -8, and -14. I do want two seats though, so the RV-3 is out.
Next choice is tandem vs. side-by-side seating. As much as I like the look of the tandem RV-4 and the RV-8, I prefer the wider cockpit of the RV-7 and RV-14. The wider cabin allows more room to stretch out on longer flights and allows a greater capacity of avionics in the panel as well. IFR and glass cockpit avionics are a must for me, and the wider panel will allow me to install a lot more pretty glass screens than the narrow RV-4 and RV-8 panels.
That leaves the RV-7 and the RV-14. The final choice came down to a few more factors.
Difficulty/time to build:
Most of the RVs are going to be similar in terms of difficulty to build. With the exception of the older RV-3 and RV-4 kits, most parts are already fabricated and have prepunched holes which only need to be match drilled and deburred. This greatly reduces the amount of measuring and drilling that builders of older kits must undergo while increasing the precision and quality of construction. All RVs (except the RV-12 which uses pop rivets almost exclusively) require dimpling, countersinking, and bucking or squeezing flush rivets.
The real differences in difficulty and build time are due to the size of the aircraft (the larger, 4-seat RV-10 will probably take longer to complete than the smaller, 2-seat RV-9), the format of the plans, and the method of fabricating the parts at the factory.
The RV-14 is a much newer kit having been introduced back in 2012 and it has a number of improvements over older Van's kits. Starting with the RV-10 and the RV-12, Van's changed the format of their plans so that the text instructions and the diagrams were on the same page rather than being split onto two different pages like in older kits. This change has been popular with builders, the majority of whom say that the new format is far easier to understand. The RV-14 plans are in this new format.
The newer RV-12 and RV-14 kits also have "matched-hole construction", meaning the prepunched holes are punched to final size at the factory rather than having the builder drill them to final size. Since the holes are made with a super sharp punch instead of a drill bit, there's also no need to deburr the holes to nearly the same degree as on the older kits. The RV-12 and RV-14 kits greatly reduce the time-consuming task of drilling and deburring the thousands of holes found in an airplane kit. These kits also have very few parts that need to be fabricated by the builder, with most of the parts being made at the factory. These improvements make it likely that even a new builder could complete these kits in far less time than older kits.
The RV-7 was introduced in 2001 and has the old style of plans, but I've looked over the preview plans and I had little trouble understanding them. The holes are prepunched but are required to be drilled to final size and then deburred. Thus the RV-7 will likely take longer to build, but that doesn't bother me all that much. This is going to be my dream airplane and I've got a lot of time left before I'll have to stop flying, so I don't really have any incentive to rush to get it completed. It will take however long it takes, and I'm okay with that.
Size:
The RV-14 is slightly larger than the RV-7. It's about midway between the RV-7 and the RV-10 in almost every dimension, and what builders really praise is the greater width and height of the RV-14's cabin.
That said, I've sat in both the -7 and the -14 and didn't have a preference between the two. I'm pretty average height and weight at 5'11" and around 170 pounds, so I have no issue with the slightly smaller interior of the -7. While I was at AirVenture, I took a demo ride in the factory demonstrator RV-7A so I could see how the airplane feels in flight. I didn't notice a lack of interior space, so the larger size of the -14 probably isn't something I need.
Performance:
The RV-14 and RV-7 are very close to each other in terms of performance. The -14 performs only slightly worse than the RV-7 in every area except range, the reason being that the -14 has 50 gallon tanks while the -7 has a maximum capacity of 42 gallons. This gives the -14 anywhere from 60 to 155 NM more range over the -7. Considering my primary mission doesn't involve a lot of cross country flying, and also considering I can make up the difference by adding extended-range tanks to the -7, I lean toward the RV-7.
The other factor at play is the fact that in order to get performance similar to the RV-7, it's recommended that RV-14 builders install at least a 200 HP engine. I know that I can throttle back to save fuel at the expense of speed, but paying more to buy an engine that burns more fuel only to get slightly worse performance doesn't sound very cost-effective to me.
Speaking of...
Cost:
All of the improvements to the RV-14 come at a premium. The airframe alone for the RV-14 costs around $10,000 more than that of the RV-7. Add this to the cost of feeding a thirstier 200-210 HP engine and the RV-14 is an all-around more expensive airplane than the RV-7 for a multitude of features I don't necessarily need.
Customization:
Not only is the -7 less expensive to build with its cheaper airframe and engine choices, it also has a lot more modifications available. Everything from tailwheels to canopy latches to full interiors to pre-molded panels are available for the -7, but not yet for the -14. Customization is one of the reasons I decided to build in the first place, and the RV-7 will give me far more options than the -14.
Therefore, my final choice is the RV-7. But the real question is, what will yours be?
What's my mission?
Defining one's mission can take a little soul-searching, but listing what you already do is a good start. For me, most of the flights I take when I'm not instructing are local, usually solo but with the occasional passenger. Two seats are all I need. I do sometimes go on cross countries with more than one other person, but it's very easy for me to rent either a fixed-gear 182 or a faster R182 Skylane RG from my flight school.
I'm a CFII, and most of the instruction I give is related to instrument flying. IFR capability is important to me and I'm also a bit of a techie, so having advanced IFR avionics is a must. I've also been enamored with tailwheel aircraft ever since I took my first flight in a Piper Cub. I'm lucky enough to be instructing in that same Cub now, and it has never gotten any less fun. I can say with certainty that the first airplane I own is probably going to be a taildragger.
The second, trickier part of defining your mission is figuring out what you want to do that the aircraft you curently have access to won't allow. It's easy to go overboard when daydreaming about this, so it's important to stay grounded in reality. In my case, none of the aircraft I can rent right now are capable of even light aerobatics. Wanting to own an aerobatic plane would be a stretch if I had never done aerobatics before, but I do have some experience already. I went through around 6 hours of an upset recovery course which was basically an introduction to aerobatic maneuvers, including loops, rolls, spins, split-s('s?), Immelmans, half-cuban eights, and hammerheads. It wasn't competition aerobatics, and I have no intention of ever doing anything at quite that level, but it was enjoyable enough for me to want to be able to do aerobatics from time to time in my own airplane.
Of course, cost is going to be a consideration as well. On a flight instructor's salary it will probably be dificult for me to feed and maintain anything more than a four-cylinder engine. I'm not too keen on paying for more than 12 gallons per hour, and 6-cylinder engines seem to typically cost at least $10,000 more than 4-cylinder models to purchase or overhaul. 160-180 horsepower will probably give me the best balance of performance and economy. Regardless of the model, I'd like the option for auto fuel (91 unleaded) to reduce my hourly fuel cost.
With all this in mind, my mission is:
- Tailwheel aircraft
- Mostly solo, with one other person occasionally
- Mostly local flights
- Some IFR cross countries
- Light aerobatics
- Economic operation
Based on my mission, my ideal aircraft would likely be:
- Tailwheel
- Two-seater
- IFR-equipped
- Aerobatic
- 160-180 HP, with option for auto fuel
Which kit manufacturer should I choose?
Choosing a manufacturer depends on, among other factors, the kinds of aircraft available to purchase and what materials you want to work with. If you're looking for a fast composite aircraft, Velocity Aircraft and Lancair are good places to start. If you're into backcountry flying and you'd like the performance of a Super Cub in a tube-and-fabric aircraft, CubCrafters is for you. Those looking for a light-sport aircraft (LSA) have a lot of options from manufacturers such as Van's Aircraft, Glasair, Zenith, and more.
When I first started learning about homebuilt airplanes, the one manufacturer that kept coming up was, unsurprisingly, Van’s Aircraft. Van’s now has over 10,000 completed kits to its name, making it without a doubt the most popular homebuilt kit manufacturer in the world. It’s easy to see why. Van’s has a variety of aluminum aircraft ranging from tailwheel, aerobatic sport planes (RV-3, -4, -7, -8, -14) to a four-seat cross country cruiser (RV-10) to even a light-sport aircraft that is now one of the most popular LSAs out there (RV-12). Van’s has it all, and even more than that, they have a huge network of suppliers and builders that have an enormous amount of experience with these aircraft.
Van’s Air Force was another big factor in choosing a manufacturer. VAF is an online forum hosting hundreds of active RV builders, pilots, and suppliers that discuss everything from building tips and techniques to recent trips taken in their aircraft. Van’s has its own builder support department, but the community over at VAF has proven to be a huge source of wisdom that some have said is even more valuable. For someone who’s never done any kind of metalworking before, it’s easy for me to see why an RV is such a good choice when there is such a great network of builders that can back me up and check my work.
Which RV should I build?
Choosing among the RV models is not much different from choosing among other aircraft – you need to select one based on your mission.
I prefer a tailwheel to a nosewheel and I'm interested in aerobatics, so my options are the RV-3, -4, -7, -8, and -14. I do want two seats though, so the RV-3 is out.
Next choice is tandem vs. side-by-side seating. As much as I like the look of the tandem RV-4 and the RV-8, I prefer the wider cockpit of the RV-7 and RV-14. The wider cabin allows more room to stretch out on longer flights and allows a greater capacity of avionics in the panel as well. IFR and glass cockpit avionics are a must for me, and the wider panel will allow me to install a lot more pretty glass screens than the narrow RV-4 and RV-8 panels.
That leaves the RV-7 and the RV-14. The final choice came down to a few more factors.
Difficulty/time to build:
Most of the RVs are going to be similar in terms of difficulty to build. With the exception of the older RV-3 and RV-4 kits, most parts are already fabricated and have prepunched holes which only need to be match drilled and deburred. This greatly reduces the amount of measuring and drilling that builders of older kits must undergo while increasing the precision and quality of construction. All RVs (except the RV-12 which uses pop rivets almost exclusively) require dimpling, countersinking, and bucking or squeezing flush rivets.
The real differences in difficulty and build time are due to the size of the aircraft (the larger, 4-seat RV-10 will probably take longer to complete than the smaller, 2-seat RV-9), the format of the plans, and the method of fabricating the parts at the factory.
The RV-14 is a much newer kit having been introduced back in 2012 and it has a number of improvements over older Van's kits. Starting with the RV-10 and the RV-12, Van's changed the format of their plans so that the text instructions and the diagrams were on the same page rather than being split onto two different pages like in older kits. This change has been popular with builders, the majority of whom say that the new format is far easier to understand. The RV-14 plans are in this new format.
The newer RV-12 and RV-14 kits also have "matched-hole construction", meaning the prepunched holes are punched to final size at the factory rather than having the builder drill them to final size. Since the holes are made with a super sharp punch instead of a drill bit, there's also no need to deburr the holes to nearly the same degree as on the older kits. The RV-12 and RV-14 kits greatly reduce the time-consuming task of drilling and deburring the thousands of holes found in an airplane kit. These kits also have very few parts that need to be fabricated by the builder, with most of the parts being made at the factory. These improvements make it likely that even a new builder could complete these kits in far less time than older kits.
The RV-7 was introduced in 2001 and has the old style of plans, but I've looked over the preview plans and I had little trouble understanding them. The holes are prepunched but are required to be drilled to final size and then deburred. Thus the RV-7 will likely take longer to build, but that doesn't bother me all that much. This is going to be my dream airplane and I've got a lot of time left before I'll have to stop flying, so I don't really have any incentive to rush to get it completed. It will take however long it takes, and I'm okay with that.
Size:
The RV-14 is slightly larger than the RV-7. It's about midway between the RV-7 and the RV-10 in almost every dimension, and what builders really praise is the greater width and height of the RV-14's cabin.
That said, I've sat in both the -7 and the -14 and didn't have a preference between the two. I'm pretty average height and weight at 5'11" and around 170 pounds, so I have no issue with the slightly smaller interior of the -7. While I was at AirVenture, I took a demo ride in the factory demonstrator RV-7A so I could see how the airplane feels in flight. I didn't notice a lack of interior space, so the larger size of the -14 probably isn't something I need.
Performance:
The RV-14 and RV-7 are very close to each other in terms of performance. The -14 performs only slightly worse than the RV-7 in every area except range, the reason being that the -14 has 50 gallon tanks while the -7 has a maximum capacity of 42 gallons. This gives the -14 anywhere from 60 to 155 NM more range over the -7. Considering my primary mission doesn't involve a lot of cross country flying, and also considering I can make up the difference by adding extended-range tanks to the -7, I lean toward the RV-7.
The other factor at play is the fact that in order to get performance similar to the RV-7, it's recommended that RV-14 builders install at least a 200 HP engine. I know that I can throttle back to save fuel at the expense of speed, but paying more to buy an engine that burns more fuel only to get slightly worse performance doesn't sound very cost-effective to me.
Speaking of...
Cost:
All of the improvements to the RV-14 come at a premium. The airframe alone for the RV-14 costs around $10,000 more than that of the RV-7. Add this to the cost of feeding a thirstier 200-210 HP engine and the RV-14 is an all-around more expensive airplane than the RV-7 for a multitude of features I don't necessarily need.
Customization:
Not only is the -7 less expensive to build with its cheaper airframe and engine choices, it also has a lot more modifications available. Everything from tailwheels to canopy latches to full interiors to pre-molded panels are available for the -7, but not yet for the -14. Customization is one of the reasons I decided to build in the first place, and the RV-7 will give me far more options than the -14.
Therefore, my final choice is the RV-7. But the real question is, what will yours be?
