AND THE KIS CRUISER ROUNDS THE PYLON...

Merry Christmas to all RAHers!!

For no particular reason, I've decided to give a little "brain dump" of
where I am right now in my kitplane choosing process.

A little background. I'd been dreaming of a two-place kitplane for a
number of years, leaning heavily towards an RV-9A for a long time, after
looking closely also at Pulsars and the Zenith 601XL. Over the last
numbers of months, though, I've decided that I simply can't build
anything less than a four-seater, which pretty much had me starting over
in the research.

Few quick words about my flying background: I started training seriously
for my PPL in September of '03 and got my ticket in January (of this
year) at about 65 hours. I bought a 152 a short time later and start
racking up the hours - passed 200 last month. Yes, I fly a lot. Partly
because I've been working on the instrument rating since August, which I
should have within a couple months.

My Mission:

- Real 4-place aircraft that can carry 4 adults with baggage and 3-hours
fuel.

- Cruise at least 150 KTAS at altitude.

- Must be a decent IFR platform - stable enough to fly hands-off in the
clouds for a few seconds at a time. Not a "fly it all the time" type
aircraft.

That's really it for the 'must-haves'. A few more 'want-to-haves' which
will come out below.

So, back to the kit choice. I started out with a heavy bias towards
Van's due to a lot of reasons: I really like(d) the idea of metalworking
vs. composites, the great popularity of the designs (# flying, builder
support), the sheer sexiness, the performance - well, all the reasons
they're the #1 kitplane producer. So, I took a long and hard look at
the RV-10 (so long and hard, actually, that the airplane began to get a
bit uncomfortable, I sensed). Suberb aircraft, no doubt. It's a
scaled-up RV - how could it not be?? But what has turned me off is the
sticker-shock. It'll just cost too much to build (by MY standards),
partly because a constant speed prop is NECESSARY (factory told me this)
and partly because, of course, it needs a big honkin Lyc or Cont up
front - it HAS to be a 6-cyl, for w&b reasons (also from the factory).
Because I also want a full IFR panel that'll probably cost $20K, this
pushes up the completed cost of the aircraft to over $100K, which is
just too much for me - my goal is $85K.

(My current experience with my littler Lyc has really disuaded me from
wanting one with two MORE cylinders to buy/feed/maintain. I recently
had a bit of topend work done - HEY, LYCOMING - $250+ FOR AN EXHAUST
VALVE??? HELLO???? WHAT ARE YOU THINKING???)

So, for reasons of initial/OH cost, maintenance, and fuel burn, I want
an aircraft that gives good performance with a 4-cylinder traditional
aircraft engine, OR one of these babies:

http://deltahawkengines.com

More on that later.

(Any sort of auto-conversion is NOT an option for me. No sir. Not if
it was free. And please nobody bogart my thread to flame me for this
comment.)

I'm going to try to shorten this up now. After I threw out the 10 I
started reading more about DeltaHawk - for one thing these guys are
based very near me and I was once present for some static testing they
were doing on their 172 testbed. Their engines look awesome on paper,
in theory, seem to run great, and are wonderfully smooth. I've been
intrigued for awhile, and now they're finally nearing shipping
production engines.

Anyway, they've got a Velocity testbed, and are partnering with
Velocity, which is actually what got me to taking a very close look at
the Velocity SE FG. There is a lot to like the

1) Looks. Mean nothing - except to me, and everyone else. They just
look so darn cool.

2) Excellent cruise performance on only 180hp (or even 160).

3) Big enough for 4 adults (a little cramped, and no real baggage room).

4) Partnering with DeltaHawk on a FWF kit. Big plus.

5) Solid company - good sales, good record.

6) Kit is quite reasonably priced at $27K!

There's only one real negative, to me, but unfortunately it is likely
just too big of a negative - the high 'min' speed and the resulting long
takeoff roll, high approach speed, and long landing roll.

I've read a lot about the aerodynamic differences of canards vs.
conventional, some of it here, and I don't think it needs to be rehashed
again. We all know why these things are true of canards (if you don't,
you can find out). Bottom line is that it seems you need a lot more
runway to operate one than you do a conventional airplane with similar
gross weight & cruise performance.

I am based at MWC, which has runways of 3100' and 4100'. What I'm
waiting to find out is whether or not 3100 is a REASONABLE AND SAFE
runway length for a Velocity SE at gross on an average day with 160hp or
180hp. I have due a demo ride in DeltaHawk's velocity (can't wait)
which should do a lot to answer questions like that. But, from all I've
read, my current conclusion is that 3100' is most likely pushing it, and
that would just eliminate too many of the airports I'm fond of flying
to, some of which have single runways around 2500 ft or so - hell, that
probably eliminates 30%-40% of the GA airports in the country.

(A Long EZ crashed on takeoff at MWC a few years ago due to a much too
long takeoff roll, but I understand he was over gross.)

So - finally on to the posted subject he the KIS Cruiser! Currently
my front-runner (but who knows). Things I like:

- TRUE 4-place with lots of room!

- Flies just fine on 180hp. A 180 DH might be an option, or I'd be
happy with an experimental Lyc 360 (Superior).

- Has a purty mouth, and other parts too.

- Has a reasonable history - a couple dozen flying, I believe, nothing
but positive reports on performance and stability.

- Kit is reasonably priced at $35K, making my $85K flying cost doable.

Things I still want more info on:

- Exactly how hard is construction? I know jigs are needed - bummer.
I've been spoiled by thoughts of a nice, matched-hole metal RV kit.

- State of the company? I've heard they're for sale. You don't hear
much about Pulsar in general. Their 2-seaters do not seem to be
terribly popular.

That's about it. I figure that I know enough about how a Cruiser flies
without actually flying one, and after I've sampled the Velocity I'll
likely have enough info to make up my mind. I'm currently waiting for a
house to be completed (May) and would like to have whatever kit I decide
on to be arriving within a few weeks of move-in (giving me time to set
up shop).

Any thoughts are quite welcome. Thanks for reading.

~Paul Folbrecht
~PP-SEL
~C152 N89795
~MWC

Have you had a look at the Zenith CH-801. Great plane, easy to built and
cheap compared to the RV's.
Just an opinion

Jean-Paul
"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
...
Merry Christmas to all RAHers!!

For no particular reason, I've decided to give a little "brain dump" of
where I am right now in my kitplane choosing process.

A little background. I'd been dreaming of a two-place kitplane for a
number of years, leaning heavily towards an RV-9A for a long time, after
looking closely also at Pulsars and the Zenith 601XL. Over the last
numbers of months, though, I've decided that I simply can't build
anything less than a four-seater, which pretty much had me starting over
in the research.

Few quick words about my flying background: I started training seriously
for my PPL in September of '03 and got my ticket in January (of this
year) at about 65 hours. I bought a 152 a short time later and start
racking up the hours - passed 200 last month. Yes, I fly a lot. Partly
because I've been working on the instrument rating since August, which I
should have within a couple months.

My Mission:

- Real 4-place aircraft that can carry 4 adults with baggage and 3-hours
fuel.

- Cruise at least 150 KTAS at altitude.

- Must be a decent IFR platform - stable enough to fly hands-off in the
clouds for a few seconds at a time. Not a "fly it all the time" type
aircraft.

That's really it for the 'must-haves'. A few more 'want-to-haves' which
will come out below.

So, back to the kit choice. I started out with a heavy bias towards
Van's due to a lot of reasons: I really like(d) the idea of metalworking
vs. composites, the great popularity of the designs (# flying, builder
support), the sheer sexiness, the performance - well, all the reasons
they're the #1 kitplane producer. So, I took a long and hard look at
the RV-10 (so long and hard, actually, that the airplane began to get a
bit uncomfortable, I sensed). Suberb aircraft, no doubt. It's a
scaled-up RV - how could it not be?? But what has turned me off is the
sticker-shock. It'll just cost too much to build (by MY standards),
partly because a constant speed prop is NECESSARY (factory told me this)
and partly because, of course, it needs a big honkin Lyc or Cont up
front - it HAS to be a 6-cyl, for w&b reasons (also from the factory).
Because I also want a full IFR panel that'll probably cost $20K, this
pushes up the completed cost of the aircraft to over $100K, which is
just too much for me - my goal is $85K.

(My current experience with my littler Lyc has really disuaded me from
wanting one with two MORE cylinders to buy/feed/maintain. I recently
had a bit of topend work done - HEY, LYCOMING - $250+ FOR AN EXHAUST
VALVE??? HELLO???? WHAT ARE YOU THINKING???)

So, for reasons of initial/OH cost, maintenance, and fuel burn, I want
an aircraft that gives good performance with a 4-cylinder traditional
aircraft engine, OR one of these babies:

http://deltahawkengines.com

More on that later.

(Any sort of auto-conversion is NOT an option for me. No sir. Not if
it was free. And please nobody bogart my thread to flame me for this
comment.)

I'm going to try to shorten this up now. After I threw out the 10 I
started reading more about DeltaHawk - for one thing these guys are
based very near me and I was once present for some static testing they
were doing on their 172 testbed. Their engines look awesome on paper,
in theory, seem to run great, and are wonderfully smooth. I've been
intrigued for awhile, and now they're finally nearing shipping
production engines.

Anyway, they've got a Velocity testbed, and are partnering with
Velocity, which is actually what got me to taking a very close look at
the Velocity SE FG. There is a lot to like the

1) Looks. Mean nothing - except to me, and everyone else. They just
look so darn cool.

2) Excellent cruise performance on only 180hp (or even 160).

3) Big enough for 4 adults (a little cramped, and no real baggage room).

4) Partnering with DeltaHawk on a FWF kit. Big plus.

5) Solid company - good sales, good record.

6) Kit is quite reasonably priced at $27K!

There's only one real negative, to me, but unfortunately it is likely
just too big of a negative - the high 'min' speed and the resulting long
takeoff roll, high approach speed, and long landing roll.

I've read a lot about the aerodynamic differences of canards vs.
conventional, some of it here, and I don't think it needs to be rehashed
again. We all know why these things are true of canards (if you don't,
you can find out). Bottom line is that it seems you need a lot more
runway to operate one than you do a conventional airplane with similar
gross weight & cruise performance.

I am based at MWC, which has runways of 3100' and 4100'. What I'm
waiting to find out is whether or not 3100 is a REASONABLE AND SAFE
runway length for a Velocity SE at gross on an average day with 160hp or
180hp. I have due a demo ride in DeltaHawk's velocity (can't wait)
which should do a lot to answer questions like that. But, from all I've
read, my current conclusion is that 3100' is most likely pushing it, and
that would just eliminate too many of the airports I'm fond of flying
to, some of which have single runways around 2500 ft or so - hell, that
probably eliminates 30%-40% of the GA airports in the country.

(A Long EZ crashed on takeoff at MWC a few years ago due to a much too
long takeoff roll, but I understand he was over gross.)

So - finally on to the posted subject he the KIS Cruiser! Currently
my front-runner (but who knows). Things I like:

- TRUE 4-place with lots of room!

- Flies just fine on 180hp. A 180 DH might be an option, or I'd be
happy with an experimental Lyc 360 (Superior).

- Has a purty mouth, and other parts too.

- Has a reasonable history - a couple dozen flying, I believe, nothing
but positive reports on performance and stability.

- Kit is reasonably priced at $35K, making my $85K flying cost doable.

Things I still want more info on:

- Exactly how hard is construction? I know jigs are needed - bummer.
I've been spoiled by thoughts of a nice, matched-hole metal RV kit.

- State of the company? I've heard they're for sale. You don't hear
much about Pulsar in general. Their 2-seaters do not seem to be
terribly popular
That's about it. I figure that

So - finally on to the posted subject he the KIS Cruiser! Currently
my front-runner (but who knows). Things I like:

- TRUE 4-place with lots of room!

- Flies just fine on 180hp. A 180 DH might be an option, or I'd be
happy with an experimental Lyc 360 (Superior).

- Has a purty mouth, and other parts too.

- Has a reasonable history - a couple dozen flying, I believe, nothing
but positive reports on performance and stability.

- Kit is reasonably priced at $35K, making my $85K flying cost doable.

Things I still want more info on:

- Exactly how hard is construction? I know jigs are needed - bummer.
I've been spoiled by thoughts of a nice, matched-hole metal RV kit.

- State of the company? I've heard they're for sale. You don't hear
much about Pulsar in general. Their 2-seaters do not seem to be
terribly popular.

That's about it. I figure that I know enough about how a Cruiser flies
without actually flying one, and after I've sampled the Velocity I'll
likely have enough info to make up my mind. I'm currently waiting for a
house to be completed (May) and would like to have whatever kit I decide
on to be arriving within a few weeks of move-in (giving me time to set
up shop).

Any thoughts are quite welcome. Thanks for reading.

~Paul Folbrecht
~PP-SEL
~C152 N89795
~MWC

Paul,

Based on the analysis you have done, I believe the KIS would be a great choice.
There are a number of changes going on at Pulsar (KIS supplier) which makes it
a lot easier for me to give a recommendation as well. I am building (off and
on) a KIS Cruiser as well and have the unofficial builders web site. You can
get on the KISBUILDERS newsgroup and get all the help you need as well.

Check out my website and contact me direct ) if you have any
questions. The web site has hundreds of photos and lots of tips from multiple
builders. We would welcome you to the group and might even have a couple of
builders in your area. If there are any completed aircraft in your area you
might even be able to catch a ride with one of the proud owners.


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)

The only jig needed is for the wing. The upper and lower wing skins provided
with the kit already have the proper contour so its just a matter of making
a simple cradle by cutting a half dozen or so ribs from plywood with a
scroll saw to support the preformed skins. No riveting, drilling or bending
of metal. Just slather on some epoxy resin, pile on some sandbags to hold
things in place and go take a nap till the epoxy hardens.

See Bob Reed's message about Pulsar. There has been abominable factory
support in the past but they seem to be in the process of reorganizing.

There are a few of us that have completed a KIS Cruiser and love them. The
closest to MCW are probably mine in the Cleveland, OH area and a real beauty
in Mankato, MN. Neither of us needs much excuse to show you how it flies.

Dave Tate (KIS Cruiser with Lycoming O-360 and 260 hrs tt)


----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Folbrecht"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 11:58 AM
Subject: AND THE KIS CRUISER ROUNDS THE PYLON...


Things I still want more info on:

- Exactly how hard is construction? I know jigs are needed - bummer.
I've been spoiled by thoughts of a nice, matched-hole metal RV kit.

- State of the company? I've heard they're for sale. You don't hear
much about Pulsar in general. Their 2-seaters do not seem to be
terribly popular.

That's about it. I figure that I know enough about how a Cruiser flies
without actually flying one, and after I've sampled the Velocity I'll
likely have enough info to make up my mind. I'm currently waiting for a
house to be completed (May) and would like to have whatever kit I decide
on to be arriving within a few weeks of move-in (giving me time to set
up shop).

Any thoughts are quite welcome. Thanks for reading.

~Paul Folbrecht
~PP-SEL
~C152 N89795
~MWC

"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
...
My Mission:

- Real 4-place aircraft that can carry 4 adults with baggage and 3-hours
fuel.

- Cruise at least 150 KTAS at altitude.

- Must be a decent IFR platform - stable enough to fly hands-off in the
clouds for a few seconds at a time. Not a "fly it all the time" type
aircraft.

- Kit is reasonably priced at $35K, making my $85K flying cost doable.

- Has a reasonable history - a couple dozen flying, I believe, nothing
but positive reports on performance and stability.

You are sadly mistaken if you think that there is a four seater IFR platform
with 3 hours (really almost 4) of fuel flying 150 KTAS out there. Just
mentioning an airplane like the KIS Cruiser will make guys jump in and start
trying to sell you on it regardless of whether it can meet your needs or
not. Their objective, just like the others, is to get you to go with what
they are building. Later on you will find out that it really doesn't meet
your mission profile. In fact, your mission profile doesn't meet your
objectives above, especially the $85K sticker shock. If you are worried
about the cost of an exhaust valve on a 152, then you need to stick to RC
model airplanes, much less a non-existent four seater.

There are many guys out there that started building airplanes with good
intentions and found out that they just couldn't afford one or had the time
to build it. They are the vast majority in fact. You either need to face
reality now or get ready to face it in a few years when you're selling off
your uncompleted project.

BTW, a decent IFR platform isn't just a stable airplane that can be flown
hands off for a few seconds. It involves an instrument package that is
going to cost you more than you think.

Clyde Torres

You are sadly mistaken if you think that there is a four seater IFR platform
with 3 hours (really almost 4) of fuel flying 150 KTAS out there. Just

Well, I suppose, then, that the RV-10 and Velocity XL do not actually
exist. Or that their designers GREATLY exaggerate their performance
figures. Or that, based on your definition of an IFR platform (I can
only imagine), they don't qualify.

mentioning an airplane like the KIS Cruiser will make guys jump in and start
trying to sell you on it regardless of whether it can meet your needs or
not. Their objective, just like the others, is to get you to go with what
they are building. Later on you will find out that it really doesn't meet
your mission profile. In fact, your mission profile doesn't meet your

A devious, devious, bunch, to be sure. I hear many of them sell their
own children to finance their aircraft.

objectives above, especially the $85K sticker shock. If you are worried
about the cost of an exhaust valve on a 152, then you need to stick to RC
model airplanes, much less a non-existent four seater.

You think it makes sense that an exhaust valve costs $250? You think
that is perfectly reasonable and logical?

Having to replace all the valves, unexpectedly, isn't something I
relished, but most certainly something I was capable of covering. Yes,
that's aviation. Actually, I fly much _less_ airplane than I can afford.

There are many guys out there that started building airplanes with good
intentions and found out that they just couldn't afford one or had the time
to build it. They are the vast majority in fact. You either need to face
reality now or get ready to face it in a few years when you're selling off
your uncompleted project.

You need to see a therapist and get to the bottom of your pessimistic,
antisocial attitude. You live for this type of thing, don't you?

BTW, a decent IFR platform isn't just a stable airplane that can be flown
hands off for a few seconds. It involves an instrument package that is
going to cost you more than you think.

Oh, yes, you're right, I have not an inkling. I've done no research
whatsoever. The figure of $20,000 for a decent panel that I mentioned
is completely off the wall. Even though the entirely usable, real-world
IFR panel I have in my Cessna 152 (dual King nav/coms, one with GS,
Garmin 340 w/markers, VFR GPS), right now, cost half of that.

Merry Christmas!

Bob,

Thanks. I'm already familiar with your excellent site. Makes up for
the lack of other builder's KIS sites, to be sure.

Paul,

Based on the analysis you have done, I believe the KIS would be a great choice.
There are a number of changes going on at Pulsar (KIS supplier) which makes it
a lot easier for me to give a recommendation as well. I am building (off and
on) a KIS Cruiser as well and have the unofficial builders web site. You can
get on the KISBUILDERS newsgroup and get all the help you need as well.

Check out my website and contact me direct ) if you have any
questions. The web site has hundreds of photos and lots of tips from multiple
builders. We would welcome you to the group and might even have a couple of
builders in your area. If there are any completed aircraft in your area you
might even be able to catch a ride with one of the proud owners.


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)

Jean-Paul,

Really just not what I'm looking for. I'm not looking for a STOL
aircraft. The 801 is too slow.

Have you had a look at the Zenith CH-801. Great plane, easy to built and
cheap compared to the RV's.
Just an opinion

"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
...
You are sadly mistaken if you think that there is a four seater IFR
platform
with 3 hours (really almost 4) of fuel flying 150 KTAS out there. Just

Well, I suppose, then, that the RV-10 and Velocity XL do not actually
exist. Or that their designers GREATLY exaggerate their performance
figures. Or that, based on your definition of an IFR platform (I can
only imagine), they don't qualify.

For $85K you are dreaming.

Clyde Torres

Paul Folbrecht wrote:

I am based at MWC, which has runways of 3100' and 4100'. What I'm
waiting to find out is whether or not 3100 is a REASONABLE AND SAFE
runway length for a Velocity SE at gross on an average day with 160hp
or
180hp. ...... But, from all I've
read, my current conclusion is that 3100' is most likely pushing
it.......

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
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.

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.

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.

Contact me directly if you like for more detailed info.

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