I called on one of the Evolutions listed on Controller. Sales guy said I could buy it straight up from the seller as is, ready to go.

True or not?

True its used, somebody else build it.

Yes, I believe this is true. Hope you don't buy that before I make my airplane

But that means the guy that built it is forever listed as "Manufacturer" right? What if someone crashes it 5 years down the road?

He's gonna get a phone call.

Liability is one of those fuzzy areas with regard to kit built airplanes. If you can clearly prove that it was a faulty design - the kit manufacturer has liability. If it was due to the negligence of the builder - then the builder is on the hook. Laws exclude manufacturers from liability after 18 years from first delivery.

Some states allow for exculpatory agreements where the buyer expressly assumes all liability. These have to be customized for the aircraft and builder and have to be made as perfectly iron clad as possible. ie a couple of hundred phrases like this:...."Buyer understands that the this aircraft may not have been assembled iaw with manufacturer instructions and that attempting to fly could cause the death or injury of buyer - Buyer assumes that death or injury WILL result if flight is attempted. Buyer understands that he will be committing suicide if he attempts such activity. Buyer or any heirs (get them to sign the document too) agree that they will not pursue any action against seller - and if they do and lose - they will pay quadruple legal expenses incurred......" (etc) Make sure it is notarized twice. Then if you live in a exculpatory state - you might be indemnified.

We're talking law and lawyers here. They don't have to clearly prove anything to haul your rear end into court and wreck your life for five years.

So anybody still wants to buy an homebuilt?

Not me! I think home builts, experimentals, or whatever you want to call them that cost $1 million plus and are highly complex, pressurized, jet powered, etc. are nuts.

In the first place if you can afford to purchase and operate a plane at that price point you've got to have a higher value on your time than wrench twisting. Even if you're retired. So, you hire someone to wrench twist for you. Don't discuss this too much with your lawyer or he'll have you forgetting it. When the SHTF someone is going to climb all over the details of the plane's construction. If you didn't build it in accordance with the regs kiss your net worth good buy.

So, you ignore all that but want to buy an adequate insurance amount. Never mind the cost can you get enough? Don't tell me $1 mil smooth is enough for this kind of plane. It's not. So, now your other butt cheek is hanging in the breeze.

So, you're a wealthy guy with a bunch of cash to put into a fast airplane (you've got to have a bunch of cash because you're not financing this deal - at least not the way, or in the amount, you could finance a typical aircraft). You don't care about the greatly increased potential liabilities (not likely), you didn't call or listen to your attorney but you want to go high, fast, pressurized, turbine. You're the ideal prospect for one of these!

This is why the market is tiny.

Homebuilding is great! I'm an EAA member. Drank the Koolaid. But it's for RV's not 300 KTAS jet powered, six seat airplanes.

The insurance market is extremely tight for turbine experimental aircraft. At present only three total underwriters will look at quoting an Epic - only two if you are a turbine transition pilot (meaning no prior turbine time). The market for the Evo is even smaller. So to Tony's point - if you need liability protection or concerned about insurance - the experimental option is not a good one (meaning generally lower liability is available to exp aircraft and also some of the companies that manufacture the components do not carry manufactured products liability to backstop anything). I say this currently insuring 16 Epic Lt's and 3 Evo's. These comments are not at all a knock on the aircraft itself, the technology or the viability of the product - just the insurance landscape and what you are getting into should you purchase a turbine experimental machine.

We wouldn't be targeting the guy that has a ton of cash. We are targeting the people that can afford a Cirrus or new Bo and hitting relatively the same price point.

A year ago I would have agreed with most of your points, but after having done my research I can firmly say that comments like these are stated in lack of knowledge of the product and what they go through to make it safe. That's why the market is tiny. Oh and the fact that people perpetuate the misinformation about these types of airplanes.

People think that the regulation of the FAA makes you safer? I've seen and flown in airplanes that didn't have 1/5 the structural integrity that the Evo has, and their certified. The only thing that certified guarantees you is a really over priced airplane and very expensive annuals.

Sorry for the rant, but nothing T's me off more when I hear/read comments from someone that has an idea in mind but little facts.

Gerry,

Sorry you don't like what I said but that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

Pressurize airplanes are complex pieces of machinery. That's a fact.

People who can write a check for $1 million for an airplane usually have assets to protect. $1 million smooth doesn't begin to cover the exposure. That's a fact. Now, there may be some who have enough confidence in their asset protection plan to live with that limit. And there may be some who are just bigger risk takers than others. But it's not enough in my opinion and I'm not interested in getting into a forum debate about my opinion on this matter but I assure you it's very well informed.

The guy you're targeting, I guess, is me. I just bought a new Cirrus and in a couple of years I'll be moving to something like what you propose. And I'll be buying a certified airplane that is insurable by a variety of carriers at higher limits, etc. (see Tom's post above), that I can finance readily if I choose, and that has been built in a factory by highly trained people who aren't learning on my airframe. It's not a criticism of your ideas, or of the Evolution or the Epic (which I said earlier I preferred). But it's a fact.

Do I think an FAA certified airplane is safer than an experimental? Yes and No. I agree with you that it's possible to build an experimental that is better and safer than a certified airplane. But that's not how it usually works out. The safety record for that category of aircraft is considerably worse than for certified aircraft. That is also a fact.

I hope your idea works out for you. But if you are looking for guys that might otherwise buy a new Bo or Cirrus, as you say, then I suggest you do a lot more market research before you invest your blood, sweat and money.

Last point. This is a pretty civil place. I hope we can keep it that way. I love debates and freely admit that I'm often wrong. As I said I hope I am in this case. But I don't like the import of your last sentence. Rants are one thing but the fact is that just because we don't see things the same way doesn't mean that I don't possess some facts. Also, I think it was clear I wasn't doing anything more than stating my opinion. As I'm sure you would agree opinions do not require facts.

I apologize if you thought my first sentence was offensive. I certainly didn't mean it that way. I was just responding to Marc's question in his earlier post probably a little too hyperbolically.

I came off way too strong in my response. I firmly believe in the experimental market now. I also think that it is impossible to serve the segment of the market with a quality product (turboprop, pressurized, long range) in the price range that serves the market that has the biggest gap. Going through certification, just like everything else the government gets their hands on, is extremely costly and wasteful on the obscene side.

Think of it this way. What company (experimental or not) would risk producing something that isn't as safe as it could possibly be? If it isn't safe, the market will kick those to the wayside. Lancair has been doing it for 30 years. What makes them so successful if there isn't a market for what they are selling?

Hello Gerry-
There are simply not thousands of experimental "turbine" airplanes flying. You can't broad brush an RV4 or Sonex into the same category as the Epic and Evo - they do not hold the same underwriting appetite with insurers. At present I think there are 26 or 28 Epics flying globally and I'm sure less than that number of Evos. The turbine experimental premium 'pool' is tiny in comparison to certified aircraft - hence the underwriting options are limited. Yes you may pay a bit more insurance premium by comparison to a certified SEL turbine and yes that 'extra' is far less than what the additional acquisition cost might be on a certified vs experimental - but this equation will never change as the number of units entering an insurance underwriters premium pool (read amount to pay claims when they occur) is substantially less in the experimental market vs certified. But your points are well taken and valid on the incremental insurance premium to insure (and what you have banked on a lower acquisition cost).

Not trying to quibble but there are currently 47 or so Evo's flying, and from what I understand they just sold kit #68 recently.

Also, there are about 900 Lancair IV and IV-P's out there. How many are turboprop, I am unsure.