Any plans-built "RV equivalents" out there?

If you can afford it, write vans the check. You won't be sorry.

John Oliveira
N909RV reserved.
All flying surfaces done, working on Fuselage


"AINut" wrote in message
...
Look at the Mustang II, like we have. URL for the company he
http://www.mustangaero.com/

Kits or plans.



Netgeek wrote:
I've been searching quite a bit for something equivalent or similar to an
RV-9 but
available as a plans-built. So far - no luck (seems that Van has done
too
good a
job 8-)...

Basic requirements are - well - same as an RV-9: Metal, 2-seat (not
tandem),
power from O-200/O-235/IO-240/O-320 - minimum cruise around 150-175mph,
range approximately 500-600 NM+, very stable (non-aerobatic)

Anybody here know of such a thing - or is it time to write Van a check
8-)...?

Thanks for any input.
Bill

"John Oliveira" wrote in message
...
If you can afford it, write vans the check. You won't be sorry.

John Oliveira

"AINut" wrote in message
...
Look at the Mustang II, like we have. URL for the company he
http://www.mustangaero.com/

Kits or plans.

The Mustang looks really interesting - more than I need in terms of
performance
and looks like it would take a LONG time to build - but that's okay. Seems
anything worthwhile WILL take forever.

I wish Vans had something more of a "mixed" approach - i.e. fabricate what
you
want and buy the rest "ala carte" - but if that doesn't fit their business
model, so be
it - I can understand that.

I'll keep thinking it over - but it would be good therapy if I could at
least bend up
some used beer cans in the meantime 8-)...

Actually, the "perfect" solution (to keep the wife happy) would probably be
a
Canadair CRJ-200 converted for private use with a "tastefully redone
interior".

Meanwhile, I'll start bending some parts soon (likely for the Mustang) just
to keep
busy....

Thanks for all the input!









Netgeek wrote:
I've been searching quite a bit for something equivalent or similar to
an
RV-9 but
available as a plans-built. So far - no luck (seems that Van has done
too
good a
job 8-)...

Basic requirements are - well - same as an RV-9: Metal, 2-seat (not
tandem),
power from O-200/O-235/IO-240/O-320 - minimum cruise around 150-175mph,
range approximately 500-600 NM+, very stable (non-aerobatic)

Anybody here know of such a thing - or is it time to write Van a check
8-)...?

Thanks for any input.
Bill

Netgeek wrote:
"John Oliveira" wrote in message
...

If you can afford it, write vans the check. You won't be sorry.

John Oliveira


"AINut" wrote in message
...

Look at the Mustang II, like we have. URL for the company he
http://www.mustangaero.com/

Kits or plans.


The Mustang looks really interesting - more than I need in terms of
performance
and looks like it would take a LONG time to build - but that's okay. Seems
anything worthwhile WILL take forever.

I wish Vans had something more of a "mixed" approach - i.e. fabricate what
you
want and buy the rest "ala carte" - but if that doesn't fit their business
model, so be
it - I can understand that.

I'll keep thinking it over - but it would be good therapy if I could at
least bend up
some used beer cans in the meantime 8-)...

Actually, the "perfect" solution (to keep the wife happy) would probably be
a
Canadair CRJ-200 converted for private use with a "tastefully redone
interior".

Meanwhile, I'll start bending some parts soon (likely for the Mustang) just
to keep
busy....

Thanks for all the input!


Apologies for the convoluted order of posts....

If your requirements include non-acro/very stable, the M-II really ain't
your plane.

I haven't flown a -9, but I have flown several -4's (currently own one),
-6's & an -8. I've also flown several M-II's & Thorps. All have more or
less neutral stability. They are all great flying planes but aren't
designed for your mission.

The -9A was designed from the beginning for pilots with no tailwheel
time & limited experience in trainers like C-150's Pipers, etc. It's
reported to be much more stable than the other RV's & rumor in the RV
world is that all the Van's employees take the -9A on trips if they get
to pick.

How about the long winged Sonex? (But you really should just write that
check to Van's. Unless you are a consummate scrounger, you'll likely
spend very nearly as much for a scratch built plane before you are done
& believe me, there's plenty left to do with a kit.)

Charlie

Netgeek wrote:

I've been searching quite a bit for something equivalent or similar to

an

RV-9 but
available as a plans-built. So far - no luck (seems that Van has done
too
good a
job 8-)...

Basic requirements are - well - same as an RV-9: Metal, 2-seat (not
tandem),
power from O-200/O-235/IO-240/O-320 - minimum cruise around 150-175mph,
range approximately 500-600 NM+, very stable (non-aerobatic)

Anybody here know of such a thing - or is it time to write Van a check
8-)...?

Thanks for any input.
Bill

"Charlie" wrote in message
.. .
Apologies for the convoluted order of posts....

If your requirements include non-acro/very stable, the M-II really ain't
your plane.

I haven't flown a -9, but I have flown several -4's (currently own one),
-6's & an -8. I've also flown several M-II's & Thorps. All have more or
less neutral stability. They are all great flying planes but aren't
designed for your mission.

The -9A was designed from the beginning for pilots with no tailwheel
time & limited experience in trainers like C-150's Pipers, etc. It's
reported to be much more stable than the other RV's & rumor in the RV
world is that all the Van's employees take the -9A on trips if they get
to pick.

How about the long winged Sonex? (But you really should just write that
check to Van's. Unless you are a consummate scrounger, you'll likely
spend very nearly as much for a scratch built plane before you are done
& believe me, there's plenty left to do with a kit.)


Well, I certainly appreciate all the input from you guys! Looks like
we're back to square one. By that I mean - in looking around, the
RV9 seemed like the perfect plane for what I'd like to do and the
mission - was hoping I could find a plans-built equivalent that would
allow me to "sneak up on it" and start small (and cheap). The Sonex
was tempting - but realistically is meant for something else. The M-II
is probably more slippery, higher performance, and with a longer build
time than I'd hoped (but what a great plane!).

So, I'm back where I started - the RV-9 looks like the right plane
for my needs (and lack of talent - in both piloting and building 8-)...

I guess Van is going to get a check after all. I did read somewhere
exactly what Charlie said - the RV9 is the most stable platform that
Van has offered, great for IFR (even though that's not my intent for
now). So, time to bite the bullet, fatten up the piggy-bank and face
the inevitable - although that's not too onerous 8-)...

Thanks again!

Bill - Probably a future RV9 builder.................

Netgeek wrote...

So, I'm back where I started - the RV-9 looks like the right plane
for my needs (and lack of talent - in both piloting and building 8-)...

As has been posted already, the -9 plans might be sufficient for
scratch-building one. The -4 plans are (or were when I got mine).
If you think you lack building skills, however, be advised that
scratch building one requires alot more skill than building
from a kit. The initial parts cost is less, but you'll almost
certainly screw up more parts, and it's going to take a LOT
longer.

Dave 'my kit took long enough' Hyde

RV-4 N416RV, first flight 21 Jan 04.

"Dave Hyde" wrote in message
...
As has been posted already, the -9 plans might be sufficient for
scratch-building one. The -4 plans are (or were when I got mine).
If you think you lack building skills, however, be advised that
scratch building one requires alot more skill than building
from a kit. The initial parts cost is less, but you'll almost
certainly screw up more parts, and it's going to take a LOT
longer.

I think the decision has been pretty much made - to build an
RV9 from a kit. My delusions about building from plans have been
pretty well shattered for now - maybe next time (in a different life).
Even so - I'll bet a few beers that it will take me longer than most
others and I'll figure out how to to screw it up better than most 8-).

Time will tell - fortunately I've got lots of time (I think - and hope!).

Netgeek wrote...

There's some pretty stiff competition for you out there :-)

I'll bet a few beers that it will take me longer than most
others...

Took me 11 years to finish a -4 from a kit. I know of others
that took longer.

and I'll figure out how to to screw it up better than most 8-).

....and you probably won't make a mistake that someone else hasn't
already. The airplanes are pretty solid and fault-tolerant.
One of the hardest things I had to learn was what's acceptable
and what's really screwed up.

Check out http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
and sign up for some of the RV-lists. Really helpful.

Dave 'storming and norming' Hyde

I bet if you look again, the Mustang II kit will be significantly less
costly than the other brand. About the same build time. And there
aren't thousands of them flying, so you would be unique on your block 8-).



Netgeek wrote:
"Dave Hyde" wrote in message
...

As has been posted already, the -9 plans might be sufficient for

scratch-building one. The -4 plans are (or were when I got mine).
If you think you lack building skills, however, be advised that
scratch building one requires alot more skill than building
from a kit. The initial parts cost is less, but you'll almost
certainly screw up more parts, and it's going to take a LOT
longer.


I think the decision has been pretty much made - to build an
RV9 from a kit. My delusions about building from plans have been
pretty well shattered for now - maybe next time (in a different life).
Even so - I'll bet a few beers that it will take me longer than most
others and I'll figure out how to to screw it up better than most 8-).

Time will tell - fortunately I've got lots of time (I think - and hope!).

"Netgeek" wrote in message
...

"Dave Hyde" wrote in message
...
As has been posted already, the -9 plans might be sufficient for
scratch-building one. The -4 plans are (or were when I got mine).
If you think you lack building skills, however, be advised that
scratch building one requires alot more skill than building
from a kit. The initial parts cost is less, but you'll almost
certainly screw up more parts, and it's going to take a LOT
longer.

I think the decision has been pretty much made - to build an
RV9 from a kit. My delusions about building from plans have been
pretty well shattered for now - maybe next time (in a different life).
Even so - I'll bet a few beers that it will take me longer than most
others and I'll figure out how to to screw it up better than most 8-).

Time will tell - fortunately I've got lots of time (I think - and hope!).



May I suggest that you hook up with a local EAA chapter? The
one I below to (www.eaa326.org) is VERY RV oriented, and
lots of people to give you advice, encouragement, and help
along the way.

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 23:07:12 -0500, "Netgeek"
wrote:

Well, I certainly appreciate all the input from you guys! Looks like
we're back to square one. By that I mean - in looking around, the
RV9 seemed like the perfect plane for what I'd like to do and the
mission - was hoping I could find a plans-built equivalent that would
allow me to "sneak up on it" and start small (and cheap). The Sonex
was tempting - but realistically is meant for something else. The M-II
is probably more slippery, higher performance, and with a longer build
time than I'd hoped (but what a great plane!).

So, I'm back where I started - the RV-9 looks like the right plane
for my needs (and lack of talent - in both piloting and building 8-)...

If you're looking for speed and efficiency and scratch building, you
might want to take a look at the Wittman Tailwind. It's not metal,
but it is inexpensive to build, cruises at a relatively high speed and
has "excellent natural dynamic stability qualities".

See: http://www.chlassociates.com/Aviation/tailwind.htm

Corky Scott