On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 07:00:46 -0800, Richard Riley
wrote:

On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 23:49:15 -0600, "Montblack"
wrote:

("John Halpenny" wrote)
Has there ever been a single seat, low cost high performance aircraft that
has been successful? I won't count the Mini 500:-)


...define high performance :-)

http://flight.cz/cricri/english/cri-...eos-movies.php
The Cri-Cri

RV-3 - but it has room for some baggage. And the moment the RV-4
became available, sales for the 3 evaporated. Same for the Midget
Mustang.

Have to define "successful," and "low-cost," too. The Polen Special probably
cost no more to build than an RV-3 yet performed better, the AR-5 achieved high
performance using a comparatively inexpensive engine.

Yet neither design was even offered to the public...if one's definition of
"successful" includes a certain number of examples built, both flunk.

Aircraft that are built with one overwhelming design goal usually aren't
accepted as the type of aircraft the general flying public want to own. There
are various aircraft that have vied for the "smallest airplane" crown. There
are others that have tried for the "lowest cost" trophy, or the "most
non-conventional material" moniker . There are any number of high-speed
contenders vieing for the blue riband. And Vishnu knows all the competitors for
the "most exciting and unusual design" tag.

And yet...40% of new homebuilts are of a type that features completely
conventional design layout, a generously-sized classic aluminum structure
carrying two people and baggage, an expensive certified engine yet a fairly
low-cost airframe, and neither the fastest nor the shortest-landing airplane on
the block. The RV line is not the best at any one thing...but Dick VanGrunsven
seems to have made the design compromises the way most airplane owners prefer
them.

Ron Wanttaja