Kit planes, kit copters and kit cars are often built to be sold so it seems pretty “normal” for a weird item but it being from 2007 and not flown is a big red flag, maintenance has probably been neglected just because they haven’t been using it.
Wild Marketplace
Post your wild Marketplace finds
No there's not a strict format, i just find it easier to post screenshots.
Granted I know nothing about mechanics and aircraft, but if it was say, in a hanger under a tarp, would you still need to do maintenance?
No, maintenance still must be performed. Engines lock up, joints and seals get dry rotted, critters and corrosion etc.
Oh cool, The more you know!
a boat is a hole in the water you pour money into to. a plane or heli are just holes in the sky you pour money into.
well, if you don't want to die when you try to use them.
this is rowboat slander
haha go hang out with the kayak kids and the paddleboard dads
Aircraft repairman here: corrosion is a thing. I've actually encountered more airplanes that were destroyed by improper storage than in-flight accident.
If the engine wasn't preserved it could be hosed, a lot of smaller helicopters use belt drives, the belt is probably dry rotted...
Also it's an ultralight so I'm not touching that.
"To be sold" as in ripping off a bitch or is there a market for janky shit?
For ultralight aircraft? Absolutely.
If the thing weighs less than 250 pounds you don't have to have a pilots license or aircraft registration.
Kit cars can be really nice and I know some of the planes and helicopters are highly sought after due to them having different regulations from mass produced planes and copters. Some people build them as a job, a built kit car Shelby Cobra might cost you 100k but that’s a lot less and a lot easier to get than the million dollar plus real deal.
Check out the stuff from Factory Five
Presumably, they are essentially buying a kit, building, then selling at a higher price in return for their labor. Building a functioning and safe aircraft is a lot of quite skilled labor, so paying for that is reasonable. But at the same time, you arent paying for the stamp of approval or large fees for transport and storage that you would buying from the manufacturer directly. And the manufacturer may only sell kits, since full assembly isnt in their realm of expertise (at least, at the profit margins they are making). So for a hobbyist, this can split the difference between paying tons for a professionally made, fully fledged aircraft, and buying a kit to build yourself.
So, with ultralight aircraft that might be a thing; ultralight aviation is governed by FAR part 103, which is literally a page long. There are basically no safety or certification rules for ultralight vehicles or their components. You can strap a weed eater engine and a tablecloth to a lawn chair all you want.
Once you get up into N-numbered, you need a pilot's license to fly this aircraft, there are two avenues to building your own: E-LSA or EAB. It is illegal to assemble either aircraft with the primary intent to sell them. Even if it wasn't, the operating limitations on E-LSA or EAB aircraft make them kind of undesirable.
Oh, ok. I didn't realize where the labor came in. It sounded like they were just inserting themselves somehow as a middle man.
And, I agree. I wouldn't even want a land vehicle that wasn't put together with skill. Let alone something possibly capable of air travel.
Never flown
I hope they mean it's never been flown and not that they have never been able to get it to fly. The phrasing is ambiguous enough to question it. Helicopter that can't fly is worth way less.
I've got a cousin that built his own helicopter. Took him years, by the time he was done he had a wife and kids, and his wife told him he wasn't going up in that thing.
He was fairly successful and has a very large shop now, and the helicopter is hanging from the rafters in the shop now. Probably the best use for it, looks like a death trap.
To be fair, I've seen one of these before and they're super cool. Terrifying, but cool.
Experimental eh. I wouldn't want to get in an experimental aircraft.
I've flown several.
Let's talk about airworthiness certificates. Every civilian aircraft registered in the United States must have an Airworthiness Certificate. This document is like the birth certificate of the aircraft, it doesn't expire, it states in broad terms what the aircraft is, who made it and what it's allowed to do. Almost all Cessna 172s are issued a Standard Airworthiness Certificate in the Normal and Utility categories. A Boeing 737 is issued a Standard Airworthiness Certificate in the Transport category.
Each category (In terms of certifying aircraft and not airmen) is a set of definitions and rules the airplane must meet. For example, the rules for Normal, Utility, Aerobatic and Commuter classes are found in FAR part 23. The aircraft has to conform to a type certificate. The manufacturer invents a make/model of airplane, they go to the FAA to get it certified, the FAA issues a type certificate which accurately describes that make/model, and now they can manufacture them and certify them as that type.
It gets BITCHY. The airplane must, at time of manufacture and for eternity thereafter, conform to the type certificate. Which means modifying a type certified airplane is a bit of a bitch. Modifications beyond things like paint color have to be done under a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC). A certified mechanic has to do the modification, per the instructions in the STC, and then that STC has to live with the airplane's paperwork forever. There is an STC for a modified sun visor for the Cessna 172. They don't fuck around.
Experimental is for everything that doesn't go through that asspain of paperwork. Yes, it calls up the image of a daring test pilot trying to tear the wings off an X-42, but...also Cessna had to test fly a Cessna 172 for awhile when they switched from Continental to Lycoming engines. That aircraft was flown under an Experimental-R&D airworthiness certificate.
Homebuilt aircraft, including kit-built, are certified under a Special Airworthiness Certificate in the Experimental-Amateur Built category. To get that, the builder of the aircraft has to meet with a Designated Airworthiness Representative who will look at your documentation of the build process, your receipts for materials, perform a detailed inspection of the aircraft itself, and then issue the certificate with its operating limitations. There will be a test flight phase and an operating phase. This aircraft will be prohibited from commercial use and certain other operations, but you don't have to go through the ass pain of all that certification. They also issue the builder of the aircraft a repairman certificate allowing them to perform their own annuals on THAT airplane.
Then there's warbirds. The military has its whole own thing with aircraft, the FAA has issued no airworthiness certificates to F-22s. Yet. It depends on the warbird here: some WWII aircraft were existing civilian models, like the L-4 Grasshopper was an olive drab Piper J-3, or the C-47 Skytrain was a Douglas DC-3 with an extra big door. When those were sold to civilians after the war they were certified as Standard under Normal and Transport categories. For a few military only designs the Limited category was invented, and for weird one-offs like...if you buy a MiG, or that outfit out in Nevada that has a fleet of civilian F-16s, they're operated under either Restricted or Experimental-Exhibition categories.
The last one I'll blabber about is Experimental - Light Sport Aircraft, which are a weird little case where the manufacturers of Special Light Sport Aircraft can sell almost complete kits. Some of them, you roll the plane out of the box, bolt the wings, tail and propeller on, and call the DAR. It has to be identical to an existing SLSA, but doing it as ELSA means you give up the limited commercial uses it has (SLAs can be used for commercial flight training operations) for pilot-owner maintenance.
end infodump
Thanks for all that info! I learned something new today
This may be fake. The reflections in the bottom left and bottom right show the same environment from nearly the same angle, which means either the garage or the white backdrop is edited in. Given the quality of the shadows on the white backdrop, it's likely edited into the garage photo.