VariEze N220EZ For Sale

[Marc Zeitlin]

39 minutes ago, zolotiyeruki said:

Marc Zeitlin has reservations about aircraft built or refurbished by Dave Hanson (the green one is one of these as well), but I haven't been able to find any specific concerns beyond the quality of workmanship. @Marc Zeitlin can you point me in the direction of where you've detailed your concerns about Dave Hanson's work?

Using the word "reservations" about aircraft that Mr. Hanson has touched is being extremely kind to Mr. Hanson. I have said this many times before, both on this forum and in others - Mr. Hanson's work is (in my opinion) extremely substandard both from a structural and systems standpoint. My interactions with customers of his, or owners of planes on which he's worked lead me to believe that his documentation and ethics are also extremely substandard.

Here's a list of issues on a SQ2000 which Mr. Hanson built and sold, without disclosing the issues:

1. Loose center firewall belcrank 
2. Wing TE thickness & separation
3. Friction in elevator
4. Heavy wings (120 lb each)
5. Cut center spar near bolt holes - almost 1/2 missing
6. Rudder cable rub on push rod
7. Terrible workmanship 
8. Baffling wrong direction
9. Door fit - don’t
10. Winglet TE separation
11. NG-6 not captured
12. Bolts / nuts wrong and wrong length
13. Brake Master Cylinders cantilevered 
14. Canard glassed in
15. Fuel vent inside cabin
16. Very heavy - 1460 lb
17. Logs thin (and almost certainly misleading on purpose)

I've highlighted the obvious safety issues. This was not a fixable plane.

A Varieze Mr. Hanson worked on that I examined had obvious bad repairs of the landing gear mounting system, but was billed as being in great shape.

I know of another VE which is not the plane it claims to be, as I was informed that Mr. Hanson merely took the dataplate off of a wrecked VE and moved it to another project plane. A respected canard repair station became involved in a long, drawn out legal issue many years ago regarding this plane and their refusal to continue working on it after they discovered what had been done.

I have a list of 8 other canardians who've had experiences with Mr. Hanson and/or his work who will attest to the nature of his work and business practices.

Search for my previous messages here and elsewhere. I really don't need to write the same thing over and over again.

[Ratdog]

Here is another confusing anomaly about the David Hansen listed aircraft 220ez .  It was in a crash with "substantial damage" due to fuel tank contamination during the building process according to NTSB".  https://longezpilot.com/PG10 Last Flight of N220EZ.htm , https://www.aviation-safety.net/wikibase/293108 Supposedly this aircraft was then  'rebuilt from scratch' .   I was thinking of buying this aircraft in the above barnstormer ad.  Its hard to know the truth about all this and thats the problem with variezes .  I looked at another one for sale in  idaho  that it has had 7 previous owners and has been for sale for 2 years at a pretty low price.  Why 7 owners and why doesnt it sell.  You have to be a detective to figure out what the truth is.  Im not saying there is anything wrong with any of these aircraft maybe the owners have made them right.  I just dont know these are the facts that i have uncovered . 

Edited May 17, 2023 by Ratdog

[Red Rocket]

Hi Marc

  Do you remember implying to me about my engine and the workmanship was something I did not need to worry about? I can try and post your emails to me. This was with the company that had you listed as an employee on their website. This was also at a company that was not an engine shop but a composite shop. How many 0-200 do you think they ever rebuilt.   Please find attached. Seems like some serious workmanship issues. 

 I own 220EZ and I am very proud of the Aircraft. The plane has been taken apart 2 different expert composite shops. Almost every part has been inspected. 25k in parts and labor. Most parts are new. I do have proof of all inspections and receipts. I had multiple A&P and Varieze experts inspect the plane that do this for a living. I wanted a plane as close to a Cert airplane as I could get. I have accomplished this. 

[Red Rocket]

Hi Marc 

 Here are some more items found when I took my aircraft after not signing my life away with a liability waiver. I believe they had  reason they did not won't to be held liable for their work. 

[Red Rocket]

I will provide you proof on the 2 cracked pistons as soon as I get it or I can give you the phone number of the mechanic shop in you call and ask him yourself.

 Marc

"Without any indication of what you asked FFC to do, and what they promised to do, this means nothing."

  

[Red Rocket]

On 5/17/2023 at 9:02 AM, Ratdog said:

Here is another confusing anomaly about the David Hansen listed aircraft 220ez .  It was in a crash with "substantial damage" due to fuel tank contamination during the building process according to NTSB".  https://longezpilot.com/PG10 Last Flight of N220EZ.htm , https://www.aviation-safety.net/wikibase/293108 Supposedly this aircraft was then  'rebuilt from scratch' .   I was thinking of buying this aircraft in the above barnstormer ad.  Its hard to know the truth about all this and thats the problem with variezes .  I looked at another one for sale in  idaho  that it has had 7 previous owners and has been for sale for 2 years at a pretty low price.  Why 7 owners and why doesnt it sell.  You have to be a detective to figure out what the truth is.  Im not saying there is anything wrong with any of these aircraft maybe the owners have made them right.  I just dont know these are the facts that i have uncovered . 

Hi Ratdog

 I own this aircraft. You have any anomaly questions, you can ask me. Yes it was completely rebuilt. Yes I called the FAA and Check the legally of it all. Yes its legal. I have 25k in inspection and parts on this aircraft that now has no damage history. Yes I have all receipts and proof. Yes this is one of the best Varieze possible. Yes anyone can inspect it. No made up story with no proof that I am seeing in this forum. Want any proof I can provide it.

[Midengineracer]

27 minutes ago, Red Rocket said:

Hi Ratdog

 I own this aircraft. You have any anomaly questions, you can ask me. Yes it was completely rebuilt. Yes I called the FAA and Check the legally of it all. Yes its legal. I have 25k in inspection and parts on this aircraft that now has no damage history. Yes I have all receipts and proof. Yes this is one of the best Varieze possible. Yes anyone can inspect it. No made up story with no proof that I am seeing in this forum. Want any proof I can provide it.

220ez has substantial damage, spelled out with the FAA. So, it has damage history. 

Facts. 4 September, 2005, recorded with the FAA and NTSB. 

[Red Rocket]

On 5/20/2023 at 6:44 PM, Midengineracer said:

220ez has substantial damage, spelled out with the FAA. So, it has damage history. 

Facts. 4 September, 2005, recorded with the FAA and NTSB. 

Actually it's been rebuilt from scratch so it does not have any damage history. The tail number does the aircraft does not. I called the FAA the regulation is it can be rebuilt but must be exactly like it was. Or they said I can just change the tail number.  It's seems this is the place to make up stories without any proof.

[Red Rocket]

On 5/20/2023 at 6:44 PM, Midengineracer said:

220ez has substantial damage, spelled out with the FAA. So, it has damage history. 

Facts. 4 September, 2005, recorded with the FAA and NTSB. 

https://www.longezpilot.com/PG10 Last Flight of N220EZ.htm

In your mind, after seeing the pictures you think that is the same plane? Pictures don't lie but everyone thinks they are a expert. 

Edited May 31, 2023 by Red Rocket

[mquinn6]

The tail number is NOT what designates the aircraft.  It is the manufacturer and the serial number.   Aircraft change tail numbers all the time.  (I have heard unscrupulous builders take name plates from salvaged aircraft and stick them on their aircraft to avoid needing to go thru the silly AW (which you can request a copy from FAA) and 40hr fly off time....) - and chain of custody is just a scribble on a piece of paper and sent in...)

[Red Rocket]

None off this changes the fact that the plane being rebuilt from scratch has no damage history now.

I have called the FAA and it is legal. 

This plane being inspected by multiple experts and new parts is one of the best Varieze possible. 25k in receipts. 

Even if you want to you can't change the facts.

[Red Rocket]

I have been told not worry about work being done on the plane because of  canard experts and it could have cost me my life. 

This is why it's a good idea to get it checked twice. 

Edited May 31, 2023 by Red Rocket

[mquinn6]

assuming after "plane being rebuilt from scratch has no damage history now" the FAA provided provisions to return to service (flight testing).  Sorry for all the costs that you must have incurred!  I agree, not taking shortcuts on safety is paramount.  (that red one is not N220EZ - or that repair list would be a BIT longer....)

 

<<we should move this to another thread to keep this one on the topic of "sales-ive-seen">>

 

 

Edited May 31, 2023 by mquinn6

[Red Rocket]

1 minute ago, mquinn6 said:

assuming after "plane being rebuilt from scratch has no damage history now" the FAA provided provisions to return to service (flight testing).  Sorry for all the costs that you must have incurred!  I agree, not taking shortcuts on safety is paramount.  (that red one is not N220EZ - or that repair list would be a BIT longer....)

 

Believe it or not the cost was well worth it because I am alive and now own one of the best Varieze available.

The red one is N220EZ. You don't need to make up stories because then you just look silly.

It's nice when you have actual proof makes you look good.

Like I said I called the FAA and its legal.

[Midengineracer]

The FAA and the NTSB didn't like what they found post accident, it's in their reports. 

David Hanson was the builder and operator during that accident and was called out specifically for doing a bad job. NTSB citing inadequate inspection by the builder during construction. 

If it is truly a completely rebuilt plane, awesome, good for you, but since it uses the same serial number AND N-number, any buyer is going to see an aircraft with damage history. I would not use the same serial number as a previously DEMOLISHED (FAA statement) plane if I built a new one from scratch, it would just leave me with an airplane with damage history. 

When do your operating specs show signed off? When was the phase 1 completed? 

[Red Rocket]

6 minutes ago, Midengineracer said:

The FAA and the NTSB didn't like what they found post accident, it's in their reports. 

David Hanson was the builder and operator during that accident and was called out specifically for doing a bad job. NTSB citing inadequate inspection by the builder during construction. 

If it is truly a completely rebuilt plane, awesome, good for you, but since it uses the same serial number AND N-number, any buyer is going to see an aircraft with damage history. I would not use the same serial number as a previously DEMOLISHED (FAA statement) plane if I built a new one from scratch, it would just leave me with an airplane with damage history. 

When do your operating specs show signed off? When was the phase 1 completed? 

Maybe call the FAA like I did. They could help answer your questions since they make the rules.

Like I said I have multiple inspections by experts on the Varieze. It's been inspected part by part. I doubt that a Varieze had been inspected and signed off on as many times as this plane(Experts with a A&P). Most parts are new. 

No matter how hard you try it's not going to change the this fact this is one of the safest Varieze ever built because of those inspections.

Edited May 31, 2023 by Red Rocket

[Red Rocket]

If you like, I can take your names down here.

I can then send to the FAA and to the many experts that signed off on the work on the plane and tell them that you know better about my plane and they are all wrong. 

[DanK]

39 minutes ago, Red Rocket said:

If you like, I can take your names down here.

I can then send to the FAA and to the many experts that signed off on the work on the plane and tell them that you know better about my plane and they are all wrong. 

Am I suppose to ask the FAA if an aircraft (identified by manufacturer and serial number) with damage history is considered to have damage history after a complete rebuild? Is that the question you asked?

Right now, you are arguing that your aircraft has no damage history, it just had to be rebuilt completely… which is odd. Why would you “rebuild” an experimental when you could just “build” one and get a new serial number for it? This is just weird. 

[Red Rocket]

4 minutes ago, DanK said:

10 minutes ago, DanK said:

Am I suppose to ask the FAA if an aircraft (identified by manufacturer and serial number) with damage history is considered to have damage history after a complete rebuild? Is that the question you asked?

Right now, you are arguing that your aircraft has no damage history, it just had to be rebuilt completely… which is odd. Why would you “rebuild” an experimental when you could just “build” one and get a new serial number for it? This is just weird. 

Hi Dan

 If you like, I can take your name down here.

I can then send to the FAA and to the many experts that signed off on the work on the plane and tell them that you know better about my plane and they are all wrong. 

[Midengineracer]

34 minutes ago, DanK said:

Right now, you are arguing that your aircraft has no damage history, it just had to be rebuilt completely… which is odd. Why would you “rebuild” an experimental when you could just “build” one and get a new serial number for it? This is just weird. 

So, further, the link red rocket provided has Hanson asking for another VariEZ airframe (doesn't sound like he decided to "rebuild from scratch") and then saying the airplane was surely sabotaged after the accident, while in a secure field. 

Does the airframe logbook require substantial airframe repairs/modifications to be documented? Since it's the same serial number, seems that would be a requirement (although, we are experimental, does that exempt us?) 

[DanK]

46 minutes ago, Red Rocket said:

Hi Dan

 If you like, I can take your name down here.

I can then send to the FAA and to the many experts that signed off on the work on the plane and tell them that you know better about my plane and they are all wrong. 

What exactly do you think that would achieve?

I did not say that they are “wrong” about your plane. I don’t even know what they would be “wrong” about.

[Red Rocket]

3 hours ago, Jon Matcho said:

I split out the sidebar on VariEze N220EZ to its own thread so not to take this thread hostage: 

 

Why does everyone want to make up stories in this forum? It's almost every 3rd post is some made up stories. 

What proof do you have that Mr. Hanson did any work on this engine? 

I have proof on who did the work on that engine and it was not Mr. Hanson.

 Obviously with the multiple made up stories you have an agenda. That agenda is not about safety. If had anything to do about safety someone would have ask who did the work that would have cost me my life.

Why the need to make stuff up. I don't need to be in this kind of forum.

Yes I can prove who did the work.  

Shady 

Good luck with the story telling

[Midengineracer]

38 minutes ago, DanK said:

What exactly do you think that would achieve?

I did not say that they are “wrong” about your plane. I don’t even know what they would be “wrong” about.

He replied to something else, still in the sales section. 

I think reading comprehension isn't the guy's priority, but defending something that sounds, second hand from him, like a bad purchase. 

[Marc Zeitlin]

2 hours ago, Midengineracer said:

So, further, the link red rocket provided has Hanson asking for another VariEZ airframe (doesn't sound like he decided to "rebuild from scratch") and then saying the airplane was surely sabotaged after the accident, while in a secure field. 

Does the airframe logbook require substantial airframe repairs/modifications to be documented? Since it's the same serial number, seems that would be a requirement (although, we are experimental, does that exempt us?) 

Not specifically N220EZ related, (because however much I tend to wrestle with pigs, and I do, regularly, I've done enough of it on this thread) but to answer your questions, if one completely rebuilt (or did a major rebuild) of a plane underneath a particular dataplate, that is legal, and it happens all the time, particularly with classic aircraft - there might be a part or two that are original, but almost all of the rest get fabricated from new, and the airplane is still considered the original airplane. This is the "Ship of Theseus" paradox:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

Now, if one took an already existing airplane that had been registered (whether de-registered or not - it's still already an airplane, and not a bunch of parts) and swapped it under a different dataplate, that is NOT legal, although it will be, in most cases, be extremely difficult to prove that that's what happened.

With respect to logbook entries - while E-AB aircraft are NOT subject to the requirements of 14 CFR Part 43 with respect to maintenance (or anything else, for that matter), as Part 43.1 clearly states, E-AB aircraft most certainly ARE subject to 14 CFR Part 91, and part 91.417 is very clear that maintenance records MUST be kept. However, it only requires that some records be kept for one year, and others essentially for the life of the plane. Repairs and alterations are only required to be kept for one year. So logbooks may or may not indicate everything that happened to the plane, depending upon the whims (and ethics) of the builder or owner.

[Midengineracer]

That is what I suspected, concerning documentation and was thinking about how that could really be a nasty surprise for people down the road.