CT and Remos question.

[s0ldier93]

Hello all-

I have been looking into a few options in getting a small aircraft for serious touring, and timebuiling. I ran across the two models. Does anyone here have any experience with either of these?

http://www.flightdesignusa.com/
http://www.rlsa.us/remos.htm

Avionics aside, the CT model has a wider cabin than the Liberty XL2 and looks to be about the same speed. The kicker is that it's range is (stated to be) double. Any thoughts?

 

[avbug]

How much "serious touring" could you possibly do in either one?

If it's time building you're after, save yourself the money. Falsify your logbook, and get your career started by fraudulent means. It's cheaper than building time, and it all looks the same in your logbook.

If you're interested in bettering yourself, build experience. Same hours, same aircraft, but entirely different focus. Experience makes you a better pilot, where building hours just gives you a thicker logbook.

Time is worthless. Experience is priceless.

 

[s0ldier93]

avbug-

The "serious touring" thing does look silly now that I look at it. Due to the relatively low operating cost, it would be flown on many $100 hamburger trips. Also, between MCN and MSY on weekends for family visits (spouse delivery system).

I'll only log actual flight hours for now. I don't like not being able to fly more. But I'll do it the long way.

 

[Vector4fun]

For the same, or even much less money, you could buy your own Skyhawk or Warrior, already equipped with avionics and certified for instrument flight. For $75K, even a decent, older Skylane. While the fuel burn might be higher, a Skylane is a muuucchh more comfortable spousal delivery machine. Meanwhile, earn your instrument rating.

Just my advice.....

 

[s0ldier93]

Vector4fun-

Thank you. The more i look at these two aircraft, the cooler I think they are. I also think that I will probably go for something a bit more practical. As you mentioned, 4 seats for the same or less money.

I do think that when that can get those little planes down to under $50k they may have something.

 

[Flylo]

Problem Solved!!

sOldier,

Since this IS the Experimental Forum , check out the Bearhawk for a serious "go anywhere" homebuilt machine.

49% kits are around $29K with most of the goodies. Add avionics, engine, paint, trim and accessories and you're flying a brand new airplane that you can land on a sandbar or ORD (maybe) for around $80K. You can also put it on floats like a lot of the Alaskan builders are doing. Save $15K to $25K by building it all yourself and buying good used equipment. You can also buy new component assemblies from Avipro by themselves (wings, fuselage, spars, tanks, etc.)

Over 800 sets of plans sold and 50 kits to date; somewhere around 20 flying with everything from auto engines to 540's pulling them around.

For info, call Budd Davisson (kits) or Bob Barrows (designer and plans) check out the Avipro website for details:

http://www.bearhawkaircraft.com/index.html


and, some of the builder websites:


http://www.qnet.com/~erbman/bearhawkcd.htm

http://mybearhawk.com/


Run a search for "Bearhawk" and you'll come up with many more.

I have NOTHING to do with Avipro or Bob Barrows; just an admirer of the airplane and the people that are involved with it.

Unless you're rich or have no spare time and you're in an awful hurry, think long and hard before you put out $75 K for a 30 year old "Spam Can". There are many excellent articles about choosing an airplane for your particular "mission" on the EAA site.

Good luck.
.

 

[Vector4fun]

In the interest of objectivity, I'm obliged to make a few comments...

49% kits are around $29K with most of the goodies. Add avionics, engine, paint, trim and accessories and you're flying a brand new airplane that you can land on a sandbar or ORD (maybe) for around $80K.

Lessee, $29K for a 49% kit, $25K for a rebuilt O-540, $6K for a prop, $20K for instruments and avionics, another $10K for a nice interior and paint. (equivalent to a factory aircraft) plus some odds and ends the kit never includes and assorted shop tools and supplies, plus having a suitable shop to build an airplane this size in. You'd have to be a pretty shrewd shopper to come in at less than $90K were you to do a really professional job.

Now factor in that most folks have never built an aircraft, nor have extensive experience in working on one. While the structure itself may in fact be pretty simple, the time consuming details are in the plumbing, wiring, controls and finishing. I don't know if you've ever built an aircraft, but I've helped build several from plans and a stack of 4130 and spruce. By yourself, you could spend 8 years building one. With a "50%" kit, at least 4 years by yourself and without any prior experience. Many take longer. And at the end of those four long years, you have what? A new airplane true, but one that really doesn't out-perform a 30 yr old Skylane except in short-field performance and adaptability to skis and floats. Also on the plus side, you should be able to do all your own maintenance on the aircraft.

On the minus side, you have an airplane that is likely to depreciate over the next ten years (should you decide to sell) rather than appreciate as Skylanes always have. Also, check with your insurance agent for a quote on a $90K taildragger homebuilt vs that 30 yr old tricycle-gear "spam-can" with the superb safety record and availability of spares. Especially if you don't have 200 hrs of similar taildragger experience. Then tell the insurance guy you plane to put it on floats and skis as the seasons change. Make sure you're sitting down. Oh, and if you'd simply plunked down $75K for a Skylane, lets mention that you could have been flying (not building) and gaining ratings and experience for those four years.


I have nothing at all against homebuilts. I would like to build another some day. And it will likely be an expensive toy, not a cost-effective replacement for a factory aircraft.

All the good folks who market kits ARE in fact, in the business of SELLING something. They naturally are always going to put their kits and the homebuilding process in the most favorable light, and minimize the pains and costs associated with same.

 

[Flylo]

Get off'a my cloud!!

LOL

My my my, it's good to know that the EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT POLICE are making sure that we're all aware of the worst possible scenarios for an EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT right here on the EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT FORUM. Remind me to thank them for attempting to take any joy out of our lives.

Let's see just how "objective" we can be.

What's really funny, right off the bat, is that the Bearhawk in my avatar was built by an air traffic controller and his wife, who had NEVER built a airplane before. They built it in their garage, FROM SCRATCH, no kit or kit components. It took them about six years working part time and, oh, by the way, it won best of show at Copperstate in 2003.

If, as the EAP says, he is an experienced homebuilder, he must know that almost everybody involved with Experimental Aircraft from the EAA to the kit sellers themselves (at least the Bearhawk kit sellers) will tell you that you have to enjoy the building process in itself or you will never complete a project of this magnitude. If he would bother to read the EAA articles I referred to as well as postings on the Bearhawk and other EA forums, instead of reflexively (read: knee-jerk) recommending "spam can heaven", he will find this to be the case.

I said "around" $80K, and the EAP says $90K; BIG DEAL, you could probably spend $115K or a whole lot more if you like to seriously throw your money around on things like ermine ceiling liners or, you might get by for $70K if you really know your stuff and had the right connections. One thing I did state incorrectly was that you would have a "brand new"airplane when finished; I should have qualified that by saying, "brand new air frame", most homebuilders really shine in picking up bargains, sometimes used, in avionics and engines. $20K on avionics is a lot for an airplane whose mission in life is a roomy, go anywhere, smooth handling workhorse, NOT a "shoehorn yourself in" IFR speed demon. And if you want an interior like a "spam can" buy a spam can, by all means. Most of the Bearhawk builders are spending their money on making sure the seats are well built and comfortable and on attractive but utilitarian interiors. This airplane is for family outings with the kids and all their baggage or to take off on an elk hunt, trout fishing or going where almost nobody else can go when the mood strikes, so why waste your money on velour when it's gonna' get pretty nasty from time to time. Every ounce of plush carpet is one more ounce of golf clubs or moose meat you can't carry.

As for how long it takes you to build, it does depend on commitment and experience. Although it took the ATC guy and his wife 6 years starting from scratch with no experience, one of the guys whose website I gave above is an experienced builder and he's already completed his wings (the most work) and the fuselage in a year and a half, he'll most likely be flying in 3 years FROM SCRATCH. And tell the guy who owns the other website I posted above, how he'll have to get a "suitable shop" before he can start building. He built his wings in a one car garage while on active duty with the Air Force. Don't believe me? Look at the pictures. The folks at the Bearhawk Builder's Center in Florida are turning the kits into flying airplanes in about a year. Of course, they do know their stuff pretty well and they'll charge you for the knowledge but if you're in a real big hurry, that's another option.

To further our journey into objectivity, yeah, you can buy a "used" Skylane for $75K and start flying right away; MAYBE, if you didn't get screwed on the purchase and have to spend $10 or $20K or more, to get it into safe flying condition. By the way, that will be a 60's or early 70's model for just $75K with 4,000+ hours on it and no telling how many "drop-ins" from 20 feet or spins at 20 knots past Vne. Do they hold their value? You tell me. A new one is $350K. The only reason a 30 to 40 year old Skylane is worth anywhere near $75K is that it's previous owners have spent a blue-balled billion dollars on it over the years (you hope). As for me, "MY" airplane is going to be new for a least the first flight and I'll know exactly what kind of damage is put on it. In the meantime, I'm perfectly happy renting the "spam cans" and letting someone else worry about whether or not the wings need to be replaced after my last landing. One more thing, that short field performance difference is pretty spectacular in the Bearhawk as is it's crosswind capabilities; that deserves more than just a fleeting reference.

Unfortunately, the EAP is probably right about the insurance. Let's see, low time pilot, minimum taildragger time, skis and floats, experimental airplane.....yep, that's gonna' cost ya', what a surprise! But not as much as you might think. The guys in that situation are getting quoted around $2,700 annually right now after 40 hours, the experienced pilots are getting all kinds of quotes for a lot less, depending on who their company and agent is. The good news is that as your experience increases, your rate decreases. Imagine that, just like a Skylane.

Yes, the kit makers are in the business to make money but the kits save the builder thousands of hours of work, it's a trade off. Nobody is getting rich at this point making Bearhawk kits. I hope they do, they deserve it for taking the risks and providing the service. This ain't North Korea yet, it's still ok to make a profit isn't it? Do you suppose those guys that sell Skylanes are making a profit??

And last but not least....

I love this quote from the EAP post:

"I have nothing at all against homebuilts. I would like to build another some day. And it will likely be an expensive toy, not a cost-effective replacement for a factory aircraft."

Ha, what in the cathair does the EAP think a Skylane (or most GA aircraft for that matter) is, if not an expensive toy??

Give us a break, take your black cloud of gloom and doom to the hot air forum.

 

[Vector4fun]

My my my, I certainly raised somebody's hackles didn't I? Let's review a bit here before I begin.

The originator of this thread is (by his profile) a Private pilot with a bit over 100 hours in Skyhawks and Warriors. He's interested in building hours and ferrying the spouse from Macon GA to New Orleans. I may have missed it, but I didn't see any reference to hauling moose quarters out of a gravel sand bar in Alaska.

My my my, it's good to know that the EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT POLICE are making sure that we're all aware of the worst possible scenarios for an EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT right here on the EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT FORUM. Remind me to thank them for attempting to take any joy out of our lives.

I made no attempt to take any joy out of any homebuilder. Just tried to show how tough it can really be. Please, Oh Keeper Of All Things Sacred For Homebuilders, tell us all what percentage of homebuilts are actually finished by the original purchaser of the plans/kits? I made no mention whatsoever of the worst case scenarios, such as selling the partially completed kit after four years wasted and $40K invested for about $0.30 on the dollar.

Let's see just how "objective" we can be.

OK

What's really funny, right off the bat, is that the Bearhawk in my avatar was built by an air traffic controller and his wife, who had NEVER built a airplane before.

Wonderful, goes to show what talented people us controllers are, doesn't it?

They built it in their garage, FROM SCRATCH, no kit or kit components. It took them about six years working part time and, oh, by the way, it won best of show at Copperstate in 2003.

Well, I fail to see any disagreement here. I said eight years by yourself, and this couple took six working together. Seems we agree. Obviously, and experienced builder can do it much quicker. Nothing in the originator's thread indicated he was an experienced homebuilder, and if he were, I wouldn't have bothered replying in the first place.

everybody involved with Experimental Aircraft from the EAA to the kit sellers themselves (at least the Bearhawk kit sellers) will tell you that you have to enjoy the building process in itself or you will never complete a project of this magnitude.

Exactly, we agree again. And if anything *I* said in my earlier post discouraged someone from building an airplane, then I doubt they'd finish a six year project.

$20K on avionics is a lot for an airplane whose mission in life is a roomy, go anywhere, smooth handling workhorse, NOT a "shoehorn yourself in" IFR speed demon. And if you want an interior like a "spam can" buy a spam can, by all means. Most of the Bearhawk builders are spending their money on making sure the seats are well built and comfortable and on attractive but utilitarian interiors.

$20K isn't much at all if you're interested in building an aircraft with the capabilities of a "spam can" you dismiss so easily. My "spam can" has a color panel mount GPS, RNAV, DME, dual digital coms, ILS, three light marker beacon, ADF and intercom. And I have WAY less invested in my "spam can" than the typical Bearhawk builder will have invested in a completed aircraft. You're probably correct that most Bearhawk builders won't spend much on interiors. Not much insulation nor soundproofing either.

"Shoehorn" myself? Well I went to the Bearhawk web site, (which, BTW, I've visited several times long before this thread) and it says;

Cockpit dimensions are slightly larger than the much-loved Cessna 172 and include a large cargo area a back seat with its own access.

Hmmm, slightly larger than a 172, would that be sorta like the Skylane I mentioned? Granted, the Bearhawk has larger cargo access. The Bearhawk site also states the cabin is 42" wide and 9' 8" long (116"). The dimensions for a newer model Skylane, (don't have figures for a '60s model) are,

(drumroll)

42" wide and 134" long.

This airplane is for family outings with the kids and all their baggage or to take off on an elk hunt, trout fishing or going where almost nobody else can go when the mood strikes, so why waste your money on velour when it's gonna' get pretty nasty from time to time. Every ounce of plush carpet is one more ounce of golf clubs or moose meat you can't carry.

I will grant that the Bearhawk probably makes an excellent bush plane. In fact, that's really what it's designed to do. Now refer again to the thread starter's stated mission. Build hours and fly from GA. to LA. Not build airplanes and hunt elk in Wyoming or Alaska.

To further our journey into objectivity, yeah, you can buy a "used" Skylane for $75K and start flying right away; MAYBE, if you didn't get screwed on the purchase and have to spend $10 or $20K or more, to get it into safe flying condition. By the way, that will be a 60's or early 70's model for just $75K with 4,000+ hours on it and no telling how many "drop-ins" from 20 feet or spins at 20 knots past Vne.

My "spam can" Skyhawk is 33 years old, still has the original paint and interior, a little over 3100TT, all the original logs, NDH, all the avionics I mentioned, was never a trainer, and we have a bit over $50K invested. My first owner assisted annual, (last year) with a half page of squawks to fix btw, cost around $700 including parts. True, you can get very burned buying a used Cessna or a used car for that matter. But a discriminating, patient shopper can find a very nice, well cared for example too. And it's worth 3 times what it originally sold for.

Unfortunately, the EAP is probably right about the insurance. Let's see, low time pilot, minimum taildragger time, skis and floats, experimental airplane.....yep, that's gonna' cost ya', what a surprise! But not as much as you might think. The guys in that situation are getting quoted around $2,700 annually right now after 40 hours, the experienced pilots are getting all kinds of quotes for a lot less, depending on who their company and agent is. The good news is that as your experience increases, your rate decreases. Imagine that, just like a Skylane.

Insurance on my "spam can" is $800 per year. I asked about adding my wife should she decide to earn her Private. (she's thinking about it) Adding her as a single, named student pilot to the insurance costs an extra $250 per year. I was actually amazed. And $800 for a $50K hull value is actually cheaper than my car insurance as a percentage of what my vehicles are worth.

I love this quote from the EAP post:

"I have nothing at all against homebuilts. I would like to build another some day. And it will likely be an expensive toy, not a cost-effective replacement for a factory aircraft."

Ha, what in the cathair does the EAP think a Skylane (or most GA aircraft for that matter) is, if not an expensive toy??

Ummm, maybe easy and ready-to-fly, IFR certified transportation and time buider for flights between GA and LA? You know, the stated mission?

One more thing, if you were interested, you might find that among the various "spam can" owners associations, there are a number of folks who are as enthusiastic, knowledgeable, dedicated and creative as any EAAer. While I can't post any links, (requires membership), I was just looking at photos of a 25 yr old Skylane with a new panel worthy of any new production aircraft or homebuilt award winner, including:

PMA 7000B audio panel, the MX20 showing WSI, traffic, terrain and charts, CNX80, STEC 55X, SL-30 Nav/Com, and Garmin GTX 330.

But it's still a 25 yr old "spam can", and wouldn't do well on a gravel river bar, and who in their right mind would put a bloody elk carcass in back, right?

 

[Flylo]

Where do I get the nerve?

How in the world could anybody have the nerve to tout a homebuilt airplane over a spam can right here on the Experimental/ Homebuilding EAA'ers forum??

Let's review a bit here before I begin.

Yes, let's.


The originator of this thread is (by his profile) a Private pilot with a bit over 100 hours in Skyhawks and Warriors. He's interested in building hours and ferrying the spouse from Macon GA to New Orleans.


Did you happen to notice that he was asking about homebuilt airplanes, OH KEEPER OF THE SACRED SKYLANE??



"Shoehorn" myself? Well I went to the Bearhawk web site, (which, BTW, I've visited several times long before this thread)


Hmmm, why in the world would anybody that owns a Skylane visit the lowly Bearhawk site? Wonder what Freud would have to say about that??




My "spam can" Skyhawk is 33 years old, still has the original paint and interior, a little over 3100TT, all the original logs, NDH, all the avionics I mentioned, was never a trainer, and we have a bit over $50K invested. My first owner assisted annual, (last year) with a half page of squawks to fix btw, cost around $700 including parts. True, you can get very burned buying a used Cessna or a used car for that matter. But a discriminating, patient shopper can find a very nice, well cared for example too. And it's worth 3 times what it originally sold for.



Great, you went to the old age home and got your poor old Uncle (or some other resident) who's eat up with Alzheimer's, to put their X on a bill of sale. You should be ashamed.




Guess the only thing for me to do is gather up all my little pieces of aluminum and take 'em to the recyclers. I'll start saving for the "Spam Can of the Month" since I don't have an Uncle in the diaper den.

WAIT A MINUTE....... by the time I save up $75K.... I can build a brand new Bearhawk........ never mind.

.