Jump to content

701 Build Plans and Instructions


Recommended Posts

Again, your comments are all probably perfectly correct IN GENERAL, now look at the specifics.

 

1. No one cares if a homebuilt aircraft has factory purchased plans.  It's homebuilt.  Build quality, components and looks will vary whether it's kit or scratch built.  My aircraft has Savannah slats, Savannah undercarriage, Savannah fuel tanks, modified elevator trim,  and a homebuilt cowling that bears no resemblance to the factory ones.  I don't really care if it's called a 701 or not.

 

2. This is not a status symbol like a designer handbag or a Ferrari.  They're not built in factories anyway (see above).  So the question of authenticity is moot.

 

3.  Copyright is not involved.  I purchased the paper plans.  What I do with them after that is my business.  If I choose to give them away I can.  I'm not setting up a factory to punch out aircraft kits based on 701 plans (Savannah already did that).

 

4.  As a homebuilt aircraft, RA-AUS doesn't care if it's from plans purchased from an aircraft factory, second hand plans, or out of your own head.  So the bit in your first post about not being able to register the resulting aircraft is simply not true.

 

 

Anyway I think I've said enough about this - if you want to go on about it then feel free, but as far as I'm concerned the subject is closed.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Walrus, I think you're confusing the differences between a kit-built aircraft and a factory-built aircraft. A kit-built aircraft (I'll avoid the undesirable "home-built" term) is majority constructed by the owner - thus the 51% rule.

 

The ATSB has carried out a study to define recreational aircraft and they found that 33% of kit-builders, carried out major changes to the basic design.

 

This then begs the question - "What does a Brand X kitplane actually look like, when 33% of them are substantially different in build materials and components to the other 67%?"

 

There are four basic Intellectual property rights - Patents, Copyright, Registered Design, and Registered Trademark. Copyright can last for many years after the death of the original holder, Registered Design is usually only good for 6 years, and Registered Trademarks need to be re-registered regularly, if the holder desires to keep the Trademark.

 

Many of the lawsuits and seizures of "fake" brand name products are simply as a result of the non-genuine manufacturer using a registered company trademark without the authority and manufacturing control of the trademark holder.

 

The major companies protect their trademarks, logos and brand names with zeal. The Americans have led this zealous protection of trademarks, logos and brand names since the early 1800's, suing thieves of those products, mercilessly - worldwide.

 

But a kit-built aircraft represents a majority piece of manufacturing work by its owner. It may, or may not, have a registered trademark, registered design parts or components, or a registered brand name applied to it - that would be very dependent on the attitude of the company providing the kit.

 

I'd ask this question. "If a kit-built aircraft crashed, could the kit builder successfully sue the company who provided him with the plans?" 

 

I'd have to say he has a snowflakes chance in hell. They are "experimental" aircraft, and the risk involved in flying them, and flying in them, is made abundantly clear.

 

I would think that the only problem a person building from a "secondhand" set of plans would encounter, is that they would need to be careful to examine where there is any patent, registered design, or registered trademark coverage in the plans, and ensure that they did not infringe said patents, registered designs, or trademarks when they built the aircraft.

 

I know that companies who have produced kit-build plans, have claimed intellectual property rights when selling the plans and design to another company. But that is a completely different scenario to the contractual relationship between a company producing kitplane plans, and the owner-builder who chooses to modify those plans as he sees fit, or to meet his chosen requirements.

 

The boat comparison is not a valid comparison, because you are comparing a 100% factory and company built product, which is 100% backed and guaranteed by the company.

The amateur boat builder simply made a mistake by trying to call his boat an "XYZ 35 boat", he should have called it a "Joe Bloggs Custom 35" and ensured there was no reference to the original company in anything associated with the boat.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even designers, like Hummel , Will take the ' updated ' redesign ( from builders )that incorporates better features than the original design.

The original Hummel bird was as small as the 'WindWagon ', the latest Bird is much larger, has better lines, and is more efficient.

61 mpg / 3.9 Lp 100K @ 105 Mph.

spacesailor

 

Edited by spacesailor
More added
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many plans that were purchased never end up as a completed aircraft??

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JG3 said:

I wonder how many plans that were purchased never end up as a completed aircraft??

 

I have an unused set for a Bedson Resurgam mkII, I then decided to buy a thruster.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, JG3 said:

I wonder how many plans that were purchased never end up as a completed aircraft??

 

I would guess the answer is "a lot". There must be many gathering dust along with a few rivetted assemblies where the intending builder has either given up, passed away or had a change of circumstance. I've seen one or two over the years. Sometimes these abandoned projects come to life again. I am aware of one near me where a widow gave away a thirteen year old kit for an RV (?) something to an acquaintance who is now finishing it. He  has already built and flown his own aircraft  so he knows what he is  getting into with the second one.

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, JG3 said:

I wonder how many plans that were purchased never end up as a completed aircraft??

 

I have two sets of unused plans myself, 701 and Affordaplane. No way I'll build either and no way I'll pass the plans on.

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

WHY

A reasonable question.

If like me you have Things gathering dust & could be ruined by insects or nature.

Isn.t there a swap, sale, or gift, to help another person, that will hopefully Use, whatever is discarded by the recipient. I too have plans & formers for two aircraft, BUT l want a ' friend ' to build and help with mine.  

My ' gifted ' world cruising yacht is now traveling around the world, something. I wanted to do myself.

but couldn,t because of my hip getting too bad to look after that Dream. only 2 1/2 years later, a nice new hip.

PS : I could now use some money that I didn,t ask for, when disposing of that asset.

spacesailor

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Here's an interesting take on the secondhand plans problem - a post on FB by a licenced Australian kit aircraft supplier. He does bring up a couple of important points - both affecting him - and the plans buyer.

Quote

PIRATE PLANS.

It has come to my attention that a group called the BuildandFly Shop is selling pirated plans for many sport aircraft including the Karatoo. This group is based in Russia, and are fleecing both purchasers and companies alike.

While the plans are cheap (they send you PDFs of the plans), it could cost you big time when it comes getting your aircraft registered.

You could well be asked to pay for the full list price of what a set of plans cost, from the original copyright holder (in the case of the Australian Karatoo, this is Serenity Aviation).

You also do NOT RECEIVE ANY SAFETY NOTIFICATIONS IF REQUIRED. An example of this is the Spacewalker Shock Strut failure, and subsequent inspection requirements.

Please only deal with the copyright owners when buying plans. We are the ones who pay out big money for rights to these aircraft.

Best regards and safe flying.

Neale Dunstan
Serenity Aviation Pty Ltd.

 

And the offending site is listed below. It looks good and provides a lot of interesting stuff - but at the end of the day, it's all pirated, there's no support, and the site is liable to disappear overnight.

 

In fact, everything on the site is pirated - the text has been stolen and copied, the photos have been stolen and reposted - all despite the various copyright markings and watermarks. 

 

Of course, there's a huge difference between buying a pirated set of plans from Russian schemers, as compared to buying a set of plans off a local you know, where you can be assured the plans are complete.

 

And many an aircraft owner has been left in the lurch when a manufacturer has folded, and the manufacturer information and support has vanished.

 

But the point about safety notifications (and upgrades, and other manufacturer information) - while the manufacturer is current, and still operating - is well taken.

 

https://buildandfly.shop/product/karatoo-j6/

 

 

 

Edited by onetrack
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...