On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 03:40:45 GMT, "Capt.Doug"
wrote:

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message To me performance is paramount.
I'm building the G-III to go as fast as possible. Long haul and some
serious play.

What influenced your decision to go with the G-III as opposed to another
fast type like Lancair, Venture, or SX300?

Wellll...When I started the G-III Lancair was relatively new, but I'd
still choose the G-III due to the aerobatic capability. It's a much
more rugged design, but I have to admit the IV, IV-P, and Legacy are
the prettiest go places airplanes built.

Venture was a great plane even if they did look a bit like a tadpole
but they weren't around long. The SX 300 is also a good traveling
plane, but as I recall the tail is a bit small. I'm even going with an
extended rudder and ventral fin for better low speed control and less
tail wag and high speed and altitude. (IF I ever get it done)

The G-III is heavy for its size and it is over engineered. I like
that. I never flew a Venture or an SX 300 but I liked the control
harmony and feel of the G-III the best. I also liked the response and
vertical penetration. I also liked the idea if I want down in a hurry
I can just roll inverted and pull. :-)) Depending on my location...

What I don't like about the older G-III kits is the amount of labor
involved. They take as much or more labor than some plans built
planes which probably makes it one of the most labor intensive kits on
the market. OTOH getting what they call a "jump start" kit which
removes a lot of hours also removes a lot of money from the budget.



D.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com