AND THE KIS CRUISER ROUNDS THE PYLON...

Actually, the IFR panel for a homebuilt will cost a whole lot less than
one

for

a production aircraft.

Yes, how much does a compass, turn coordinator and one nav/comm cost
anyway? :-)



While that may be the minimum required for IFR, I don't think I would want
to
limit myself to that. The panel will run upwards of $18k for a good IFR
panel.
I could probably build out a panel with the same capabilities of most
available used production aircraft for around $12k. The newer glass panels
and
top of the line avionics will run you closer to $25k. As I said in another
post, the difference is in the details and how much of the work you do
yourself.

Yes, but my point is that an "IFR panel" doesn't mean it has to be a
glass cockpit with every bell and whistle available. Some folks seem to
forget that we were flying IFR long before GPS and glass cockpits ... or
even before VORs for that matter.


Matt


Agreed!


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

I have installed avionics in a previous life, and it was under the
inpretion that the Garmin 400 series, was the best choose for an IFR
package (i mostly installed the GNS-430), from what i understand all u
need is an Encoder and the Garmin GNS-480, found o0n on Spruce.

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalo...rmingns480.php


Well.....you do need a bit more than that but it is a good start.


Matt Whiting wrote:
RobertR237 wrote:
Merry Christmas!


Actually, the IFR panel for a homebuilt will cost a whole lot less
than one

for

a production aircraft.

Yes, how much does a compass, turn coordinator and one nav/comm
cost
anyway? :-)



While that may be the minimum required for IFR, I don't think I
would want to
limit myself to that. The panel will run upwards of $18k for a
good IFR panel.
I could probably build out a panel with the same capabilities of
most
available used production aircraft for around $12k. The newer
glass panels and
top of the line avionics will run you closer to $25k. As I said in
another
post, the difference is in the details and how much of the work you
do
yourself.

Yes, but my point is that an "IFR panel" doesn't mean it has to be a
glass cockpit with every bell and whistle available. Some folks seem
to
forget that we were flying IFR long before GPS and glass cockpits ...
or
even before VORs for that matter.


Matt








Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

ya your right i forgot about the gyro, other then that the unit is
just about as self contained as u can get. When i was installing them
there was talk about a piece of hardware that u placed on 3 parts of
your aircraft, it was like a GPS Gyro, i don't know if it true but that
would deffinenly be something worth looking into, especialy since qyro
are EXSPENCIVE

Bob,

Finally, I must apologize for the tone of my replies to Clyde but it really
does **** me off when people jump into a discussion with comments that are
clearly not based on facts and direct experience. I don't have anything to
gain by trying to convince someone else to build the same plane I am building.

You sure don't need to convince me of that.

In fact, I have been brutally honest in my comments to some potiential builders
over the years. Based on Pauls comments, it appears that he has done his
homework and the mission profile he outlined does fit the Cruiser. I believe

Sure does.

The Velocity is still a serious contender as well - slight change. It's
going to be one of those two, though. I will be getting a demo ride in
a Velocity in the next couple weeks (and I'll report here in depth).

that Cruiser will fit his requirements in every way and I will offer all
possible assistance to him during the construction process. I made the same
offer to Dave Tate and several other KIS builders over the last few years and
several have taken me up of that offer. That is the same offer I am making to
Paul and it has nothing to do with some personal gain.

The facts that you are building a Cruiser and that your site exists
probably increases the odds of me building one by 30% or better. :-)
Your site is truly a wealth of knowledge, and I've seen enough of your
posts over the years to know that you're generous with your time and
have no doubts about you being serious about the offer to help. It's
much appreciated!



Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

I fly a COZY MKIV with a 180 HP O-360. The performance (TO, climb,
landing) should be pretty close to the SE FG, although the COZY will
cruise faster (I plan for 175 KT block speed, and get it). I fly out of

Why is that? (I'm not too familiar with the Cozy - plans building is
over my head.) I can't believe it's cleaner than a Velocity to the tune
of 15 knots.

Fitchburg, MA (KFIT) which has 4500 and 3400 ft. runways, at 350 ft MSL.
Even at gross weight, I rarely take more than 1/2 the long runway to
lift off. I've often flown into 2900 ft. fields, although I wouldn't be
very comfortable trying to get out of there at gross (2155 lb., for my
plane). I can land and stop my plane, at any weight, in less than 2000
ft - usually closer to 1500 ft.

Good to know. Thanks.

Personally, I would say that MWC is more than adequate and safe for 99%
of the flying that most folks do with a 4-seater - how often do you
really load the plane to gross weight? When I'm alone, I'm off the
ground in about 1500 ft, and if it's cold, even less. I think that even
if you were at gross weight, the 4100 ft runway is completely adequate
except on the hottest of days.

No doubt about the 4100 footer, but it's not like I'm going to want to
land with 20 knots of crosswind, right? Could happen. (I've landed
with gusts to 34 knots 30 degrees off the runway in my 152 - we get
windy days in the spring & fall especially.) Thus, really, the 3100 has
got to be adequate as well. After further research, I'm nearly totally
convinced that it is. Thus the Velocity is now a serious contender
again. Fortunately I have as long as 4-5 months yet before I really
want to have my mind made up and the kit ordered.

Also, with respect to cost, I've got $70K in my COZY (IFR legal
w/autopilot), and it's one of the more expensive ones, I'm told - most
build for less.

Well, being a plans-building stud probably helps a bit there. :-)

I fly a COZY MKIV with a 180 HP O-360. The performance (TO, climb,
landing) should be pretty close to the SE FG, although the COZY will
cruise faster (I plan for 175 KT block speed, and get it). I fly out of

Why is that? (I'm not too familiar with the Cozy - plans building is
over my head.) I can't believe it's cleaner than a Velocity to the tune
of 15 knots.

Fitchburg, MA (KFIT) which has 4500 and 3400 ft. runways, at 350 ft MSL.
Even at gross weight, I rarely take more than 1/2 the long runway to
lift off. I've often flown into 2900 ft. fields, although I wouldn't be
very comfortable trying to get out of there at gross (2155 lb., for my
plane). I can land and stop my plane, at any weight, in less than 2000
ft - usually closer to 1500 ft.

Good to know. Thanks.

Personally, I would say that MWC is more than adequate and safe for 99%
of the flying that most folks do with a 4-seater - how often do you
really load the plane to gross weight? When I'm alone, I'm off the
ground in about 1500 ft, and if it's cold, even less. I think that even
if you were at gross weight, the 4100 ft runway is completely adequate
except on the hottest of days.

No doubt about the 4100 footer, but it's not like I'm going to want to
land with 20 knots of crosswind, right? Could happen. (I've landed
with gusts to 34 knots 30 degrees off the runway in my 152 - we get
windy days in the spring & fall especially.) Thus, really, the 3100 has
got to be adequate as well. After further research, I'm nearly totally
convinced that it is. Thus the Velocity is now a serious contender
again. Fortunately I have as long as 4-5 months yet before I really
want to have my mind made up and the kit ordered.

Also, with respect to cost, I've got $70K in my COZY (IFR legal
w/autopilot), and it's one of the more expensive ones, I'm told - most
build for less.

Well, being a plans-building stud probably helps a bit there. :-)


There is a COZY Kit available.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Bob,

Finally, I must apologize for the tone of my replies to Clyde but it really
does **** me off when people jump into a discussion with comments that are
clearly not based on facts and direct experience. I don't have anything to
gain by trying to convince someone else to build the same plane I am
building.

You sure don't need to convince me of that.

In fact, I have been brutally honest in my comments to some potiential
builders
over the years. Based on Pauls comments, it appears that he has done his
homework and the mission profile he outlined does fit the Cruiser. I
believe

Sure does.

The Velocity is still a serious contender as well - slight change. It's
going to be one of those two, though. I will be getting a demo ride in
a Velocity in the next couple weeks (and I'll report here in depth).


The Velocity is without a doubt one of the sexiest aircraft around. I love the
look of the plane and had a large poster of it on my office wall for a long
time. For some strange reason, my wife did NOT agree with my opinion of the
airplane. At the time I was making the decision, the only available Velocity
kit did not have enough baggage room to suit me. The newer Velocity XL kit
solved that problem. I also didn't care for the way the Velocity handled on
takeoff and landing but that was a personal preference.

that Cruiser will fit his requirements in every way and I will offer all
possible assistance to him during the construction process. I made the
same
offer to Dave Tate and several other KIS builders over the last few years
and
several have taken me up of that offer. That is the same offer I am making
to
Paul and it has nothing to do with some personal gain.

The facts that you are building a Cruiser and that your site exists
probably increases the odds of me building one by 30% or better. :-)
Your site is truly a wealth of knowledge, and I've seen enough of your
posts over the years to know that you're generous with your time and
have no doubts about you being serious about the offer to help. It's
much appreciated!


Thanks. Now if I could just get back a small percentage of the time I have
spent on the web site, I might just finish my own plane. BG In fact, that
is the one issue I have NOT seen you post any budget numbers on. You have done
your homework on your mission profile, on the available kits, and the costs but
have you really looked at the cost of time and the effect on your family?
Don't discount that part of the building process and if at all possible, get
the significant others involved in the process. You will need their support if
not directly their help.





Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Paul Folbrecht asks:

Why is that? (I'm not too familiar with the Cozy - plans building is
over my head.) I can't believe it's cleaner than a Velocity to the
tune
of 15 knots.

Well, the FG Velocity leaves the nose gear down (you did say SE FG,
right?) while the COZY retracts it. Also, the COZY has less wing area,
so less drag both ways, and the fuselage is a bit smaller, too. The
Velocity RG is a tiny bit faster than the COZY, and the FG is a bunch
slower.

No doubt about the 4100 footer, but it's not like I'm going to want to
land with 20 knots of crosswind, right?

I have a few times - works OK.

...Thus, really, the 3100 has got to be adequate as well.

For landing, it's no problem. As I think I mentioned, I can land and
stop in less than 2500 ft at gross weight at SL. I landed at Meadowlake
airport (6800 ft MSL) at about 1600 lb (light) in under 2500 ft.

The only issue MIGHT be heavy, hot takeoffs with a crosswind.

....After further research, I'm nearly totally
convinced that it is. Thus the Velocity is now a serious contender
again. Fortunately I have as long as 4-5 months yet before I really
want to have my mind made up and the kit ordered.

Good. The more canards, the better, even if they're from a kit :-).

Also, with respect to cost, I've got $70K in my COZY (IFR legal
w/autopilot), and it's one of the more expensive ones, I'm told -
most
build for less.

Well, being a plans-building stud probably helps a bit there. :-)

Actually, I'm not much of a scrounge at all - I've outspent most folks
considering what I've got to show for it :-).

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2004

My name is Ruben Flores I own a Shipping company in Texas and will give
a cheaper price that no one can match. We can save 50 percent off UPS
and FED-ex prices. We can ship anywhere in the world at anytime. If
you need a quote please feel free to call at 210-364-5333 or e-mail at
. We will need to know the weight, where it is
going and how fast you want it there. We will also donate %5 of
profits to the Tsunami relief in your company name.
If interested please contact me.