Ready to pursue dream

[Swede]

And it's a simple one... to actually fly for fun, when I want, to wherever the urge takes me. After 20+ years of flying for a Boss of one type or another, I want to enjoy flying again.

I am moving into a DFW-area Airpark. 50' X 40' hangar, taxiway access to a very nice grass strip. I have the tools and the motivation to construct an aiplane like an RV or perhaps a composite kit. I have no burning desire to simply go for a $100 burger at 115 knots and 45 degrees of bank max. Whatever I build will have to have one (or more) of the following traits:

1) Go FAST
2) Fly upside down
3) Be colorful / vintage, like a Bipe or a warbird
4) Be capable of soaring (I love soaring; my first flying was solo at 14 in a 2-22)

My problem is that I haven't decided yet on which characteristic to pursue most strongly. Got to be 2 seats, or the wife would beat me. I am leaning towards a tandem RV right now, but I'd really like to get some input on designs that may not be as well known as the RV series. Budget moderate; no 4-seat pressurized jobs. No wood either, I like woodworking but want the durability of aluminum or composites. I have never built an airplane but have machine tools, hand tools, and the skills to put them to use.

Finally, I have NO taildragger experience but plenty of soaring experience where rudder is pretty critical. What would be a recommended way to get comfy with taildraggers?

A lot to ask here but I welcome comments and suggestions. The next 3 months will be spent getting the hangar/shop into shape and doing a bit of research!

 

[Huggyu2]

Nanchang CJ-6.

 

[PIO]

sonex = aerobatic, sorta fast, all metal, two seater, affordable and they have an aerobatic motor glider if you decide do go more towards soaring.

http://www.sonex-ltd.com

 

[EagleRJ]

Steen Skybolt. It'll have at least the first three covered.

 

[Almerick07]

RV-4 (tail wheel)..........a dream to fly; upgrade to the constant speed prop and bigger powerplant, an EFIS system is nice too. Just watch the neg. g's or else oil will pour out on the belly.

 

[Almerick07]

Oh and they are pretty

 

[Almerick07]

dang, I need to group all my thoughts together......

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-4int.htm

go with the 180hp C/S prop.

 

[DustMaker]

Cozy mark 4

fast and inexpensive and EZ to build, i am building 2 of them with 2 buddies

190 knots cruise on 180 hp, 1700 runtan approved planes flying

 

[Swede]

Thanks for the suggestions so far. I've been in hell for the last two weeks moving a decade's accumulation of junk, one flat-bed trailer at a time, into the new home. I have no idea why I am doing it that way, other than being a cheap SOB. About the only things I'm going to need professional help with are my two machine tools, each about a ton.

I'm leaning towards aluminum construction, mainly because that's what I'm used to. Having a hangar, though, will keep the sun off of a composite aircraft. I'm just not sure I have the patience for the finishing stage of a comp. airplane. I'll do some research on the suggestions. Thanks!

 

[DustMaker]

Having a hangar, though, will keep the sun off of a composite aircraft.

no need to worry about the sun - people have stored their fiberglass planes in the arizona desert for 20 years with no ill effect - just make sure it is painted and painted a light color where the sun hits it.

As far as what to build

build what you LOVE - you may finish it (80% do not finish)
build what will be most useful - most experimentals do not get flown much after the first year or two - most get bored with just boring holes in the sky
if you buy a kit - buy it all day one, then if they go out of business - you have what you need
Vapor planes - don't build one that is not flying already
Designers lie - do nor believe what a designer/manufacturer tells you - it WILL not go as fast and it will take longer to build, only believe finished fliers

AND

most importantly

enjoy the build, I am

 

[sstearns2]

Be sure you want a to build an airplane first. It sounds like you want an airplane, not a multi-year project. The CJ-6 is a really fun airplane.

If you want a project then, as a builder of one of the less common kits, I'd highly recommend getting either an RV or a Lancair and get the fast build options. It sounds like you'd be very happy with the RV-8.

Have fun,

Scott

 

[DustMaker]

mmmm multi year - there have been a few that have built their cozies in under 18 months, nights and weekends. depends how motivated you are. oh yeah - they had NO experience. Home builds are funny - most kits take longer than some plans built planes.

the only way to know is to find builders and ask them, on the finishing - some new techniques are substantially reducing the sand/fill/sand/fill routine

but don't believe me - i'm just a cozy builder and my mind is jaded

 

[sstearns2]

Yeah, I hear ya. I know people who built their long-eze's in less than a year, but the RV and lancair kits are so good now that it's hard to reccommend otherwise.

Scott

 

[DustMaker]

for me it is easy to recommend otherwise. the cozy is a 2+2 and is capable of taking 2 with allot of baggage just about anywhere. the plane is also inexpensive - compared to the RV10. the other RV are 2 pas with no room for storage. the 10 also takes a 300 hp to go slower than a cozy on 180 hp. the fuel bill for the extra 120 hp is quite a bit.

you can build a cozy airframe for around 16 to 18 grand, then spend what you want on engine and avionics, they have been completed for 35,000 recently. i am spending about 80 or 90 on mine, but that is by choice.

is the lancair 2 or 4 passenger and how much is the cost? i believe the rv10 starts at about 50,000?? not sure.

but most important - you gotta love it to finish it

 

[banned username 1]

RV-7. Tex has a great RV community and the support you'll have is second to none. It's a great airplane that you'll never lose money on when you go to sell it. Your wife will like the side by side aspect.

Check with Vans, if you want a nosewheel model, you lose only a few knots of airspeed and the tailwheel aspect is gone.

It's really what you're describing in your needs list. You won't be sorry.

Good luck.

 

[DustMaker]

as a builder of one of the less common kits
Scott

Watcha buildin

 

[Swede]

Hmm, looks like some posts were deleted... Must have drifted from the topic.

The more I look at the RV series, the more impressed I am. Other AC may be cheaper, or faster, but I don't think they have the support and the available networking of Van's.

I'm down to the RV7 or RV8. Basically tandem vs side/side seating. I'm trying to talk my wife into tandem, and so be able to enjoy that awesome panoramic view, although not so awesome in the back seat!

There's an excellent forum for RV's:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/index.php

So much info, my head is spinning a bit. This looks to be one of those projects where it is best to start plugging away on the easy stuff (empennage), and absorb by osmosis enough knowledge to make sound decisions on powerplant, airframe mods, and avionics.

 

[DustMaker]

Hmm, looks like some posts were deleted... Must have drifted from the topic.

but I don't think they have the support and the available networking of Van's.

mmmm - know you are set on aluminum, but have to make point where needed - 1700 canards flyin and the support is there, i know, i'm part of that support network

 

[Swede]

mmmm - know you are set on aluminum, but have to make point where needed - 1700 canards flyin and the support is there, i know, i'm part of that support network

I don't disagree. Most of the composite designs out there are works of art. They are lighter and more efficient than aluminum. I've had Lancair lust for years. It's too bad they seem to have evolved into a high-priced, high-powered company. At least from what I've gathered, they dropped their original design. Their "low-end" Legacy uses a lousy IO-550! What happened to the 160 HP Lancairs?

I do like the canards... I just prefer the traditional configuration a bit more.

In the end, my decision is based mostly upon my own background as a metal guy. It's probably like a wood and fabric mechanic from the 1920's being asked to work on newfangled aluminum plane in 1935. There's going to be some resistance! Aluminum is just what I'm used to.

 

[DustMaker]

just correcting info on the support issue - i can see you are an aluminum comfy kinda person

 

[Huggyu2]

RV-7?? Nahhh... he wants a tandem airplane, I'll bet.

 

[jbDC9]

I'm down to the RV7 or RV8. Basically tandem vs side/side seating. I'm trying to talk my wife into tandem, and so be able to enjoy that awesome panoramic view, although not so awesome in the back seat!

Tandem seats rule! Seriously, if you want tandem seats, build what you want, go with an RV-8. How often will your wife be flying with you anyway? Most likely, not much. My wife actually prefers riding in the back on the rare occasion she flies with me in a rental Citabria... seems a bit roomier than a 172 or Cherokee. She hates riding right seat in a spam can, it's just too crowded.

I'm working on a Quick Build RV-8 myself; been at it for a year and a half or so, maybe done next spring? I hope... If you have or can get the extra $8,000 for the QB, I highly recommend it, it was money well spent to have the wings and fuselage structure basically complete. And even with a QB kit, there's still plenty of work to do.

From what I can see, the RV series has the best bang for the buck when compared to a Lancair or Glasair... those glass birds are just waaay too expensive; plus, they're tri-gear with itty bitty wheels, wouldn't do well on grass; side-by-side seats... no thanks. For me, the RV-8 is as perfect as it gets - tandem seat taildragger, goes both fast and slow, aerobatic... my own little fighter plane. Now I just gotta finish it...

 

[MAJIC9]

something that isnt' exactly emphasized as much as it should -- the people (builders). For me, one of the joys of building was meeting all the great folks who are also building or already flying. Everyone I've met so far has been very helpful and great to hang out.

 

[DustMaker]

From what I can see, the RV series has the best bang for the buck when compared to a Lancair or Glasair... those glass birds are just waaay too expensive; plus, they're tri-gear with itty bitty wheels, wouldn't do well on grass;

well - the cozy airframe is 16,000 and 2+2 seating and for my money - way more bang for the buck than any RV - heh heh heh

 

[Swede]

Moved in...

I have worked harder the last few days than I have in a decade. Probably 20 to 30 pickup + flatbed trailer loads. The new owners of our old house were breathing down our necks, so it ended in a 18 hour manual labor marathon. Middle age sucks, my back and legs are killing me!

The new hangar is utterly full of junk right now, and I need a serious industrial-sized air mover (TX heat) but other than that, the worst is over.

Tandem vs. side/side - jbDC9 is right on, just need to convince the wife that even when dual, the view out both sides (and the fact that we won't be bonking elbows) overrules the benefits of side/side. RV8 Quick-build it's probably going to be. There are some very active RV8 builders in the N TX area, and the networking will be fun.

Engine - I'm thinking one of the Lyc or clones, IO-360 or maybe even the IO-390, and one of the new composite CS props, will work well. Van's does have a lead time on some of their kits, so I need to time delivery to allow the kit to arrive when the hangar is cleared out and work is ready to commence.

I really appreciate the input from everyone here. It'll be a few months before things settle down a bit, but I'm looking forward to actually creating things rather than just thinking about it.

 

[jbDC9]

Van's does have a lead time on some of their kits, so I need to time delivery to allow the kit to arrive when the hangar is cleared out and work is ready to commence.

Yep, the lead time on the QB kits can be rather lengthy... so here's a thought: get started on the tail kit. You'll need a roughly $1000 tool kit to get started, and the empennage kit itself costs $1425, but you can build it on a simple work bench in a corner of your hangar; take your time with it while waiting for the QB wings and fuse to show up. No jigs are needed; took me 14 hrs to build the vertical stab. You can have a finished part in one weekend... pretty cool stuff.

 

[DustMaker]

three weeks ago i helped carry quite a bit of an RV from a hangar to the trailer of a new Plane builder. this was the third transfer of this particular kit.

80 or so percent of these birds are not finished - i would search an unfinished kit out to really get a jump start.

 

[Swede]

three weeks ago i helped carry quite a bit of an RV from a hangar to the trailer of a new Plane builder. this was the third transfer of this particular kit.

80 or so percent of these birds are not finished - i would search an unfinished kit out to really get a jump start.

Aren't there 51% - rule issues with kits like these? In other words, will the feds NOT issue a "repairman certificate" for the airframe if I grab a kit that has changed hands (and been worked on) once or twice? To me, half the allure is being able to do my own maintenance and annual inspections.

 

[MAJIC9]

Aren't there 51% - rule issues with kits like these? In other words, will the feds NOT issue a "repairman certificate" for the airframe if I grab a kit that has changed hands (and been worked on) once or twice?

No issues, and yes you can get a repairman's cert. in a situation like that. It's one of more common misunderstandings of the 51% rule.

 

[DustMaker]

I really like the build - but - can understand those that do not or the project appears too intimidating. Also, do not like waste. there is no problem with finishing a plane that others have started and the internet has made the process of finding these uncompleted projects much easier.

one note - it is often polite to take the finished bird back to whom you purchased it and are benefiting from their labor of love and give them a ride in it. often they just had to stop because of medical reasons