Any plans-built "RV equivalents" out there?

"Morgans" wrote in message
...
Slap an autopilot in it, for less than $2000, and it would be "real"
stable.
--
Jim in NC

I've heard that the factory support for such a move would be less than nil -
no
modifications allowed (or even discussed)!

Sure, you could do such a thing - but you'd be burned at the stake if caught
8-)...

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

"Netgeek" wrote


I've heard that the factory support for such a move would be less than
nil -
no
modifications allowed (or even discussed)!

Sure, you could do such a thing - but you'd be burned at the stake if
caught
8-)...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

That's why there is an "X" in esperimental! g

I can't imagine even Sonex complaining about an autopilot.
--
Jim in NC

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!).

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

"Netgeek" wrote in message
...
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)

Too bad your "requirements" are so specific. There are a couple of
well-proven designs made from "nature's" composite (wood) which are so close
to the RV-6/7/9 plan form that they are usually mistaken for RV's by Oshkosh
controllers. Their cruise speed doesn't quite measure up to the RV's but
they are plans-built and feature a total cost of less than half that of an
RV slow-build kit.

Build time can be as long as you want - if you futz around. But if you're
serious about wanting to fly it before you start collecting social security,
you can figure 3,500 - 4,000 hrs. That's 20 hrs/week for four years. It took
me 3 yrs. 8 mos. from first wood cut to first flight.

For pictures and specs, here's some links:

http://asia.groups.yahoo.com/group/Emerauders/ (Gotta sign up to view the
files, but it's free)

http://www.avions-piel.com/index.php (If you speak French)

http://www.homebuilt.org/kits/littner/littner.html (For plans & specs)

http://www.cis.strath.ac.uk/~if/aviation/emeraude/ (An Aussie's plane)

http://www.emeraude.de/ (A German group)

http://www.corvetteforum.net/c4/elwo...p/harvey5a.jpg (A picture of my
bird, taken from an RV-4! )

http://www.southernaviationservice.c...ts/Diamant.htm (A series of
pictures showing the construction of the 4 place model) He flew it for the
first time a couple of weeks ago.

If you want to drop me an email off-list (make the obvious changes to my
address), I would be happy to discuss the pros and cons of these designs as
well as send you some better pictures and specifications than you can find
on the web.

I have an interesting account of the restoration and flight of one plane
written by a retired USAF Col. who learned to fly in Stearmans, flew P-51's
in the ETO, F-80's in Korea, B-47's during the cold war and "Executive"
transports during 'Nam. He considers the Emeraude to be the finest flying
aircraft he has ever flown. I have to agree with him, though I have much
less range of experience to call on.

Let me know if I can help.

Rich S.

"AINut" wrote in message
...
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-).


Do you really believe the MII can be built as quickly as Van's current kits,
which are all pre-punched (OK, except for the -3 and -4)? I'd think the
self jigging feature of Van's kits would save you 500 hours worth of time on
airframe alignment and locating where to drill the holes. I know I spent
plenty of hours on my -6 making darned sure that everything was plumb, and
making sure I drilled holes in the right places, as opposed to the wrong
places (usually separated by 1/4" or so)...

As a data point, a local fellow who completed an MII said that if he had it
to do over again, he'd go with Van's, simply because of the better
engineered kits. This guy finished his MII something like 2 years ago.

KB

Netgeek wrote:
"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.................


You can get started for about $1k plus tools. After that it's about
$4k-$5k per subkit. The upside is there's very little left to buy except
the engine & prop to make the plane fly.

BTW, you can add the autopilot without concern. I'd bet that over 80% of
current kits have autopilots going in them. Here's the link to the ones
you can buy through Van's accessory catalog:

http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/...&action=search

or if the link 'wraps', go to vansaircraft.com & search the accessory
catalog for 'autopilot'.

If you place the order for the tail kit, mention my name. :-)

Charlie England
-7 wings (can you say 'finder's fee'?

("Charlie" wrote)

http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/...&action=search

or if the link 'wraps', go to vansaircraft.com & search the accessory
catalog for 'autopilot'.


http://makeashorterlink.com/?I4C1422AA
(same link as above with Make a Shorter Link)

http://tinyurl.com/4lk8m
(same link with TinyURL)


Montblack

Morgans wrote...

I can't imagine even Sonex complaining about an autopilot.


Modifications, even sensible ones, (or even the discussion thereof)
have gotten Sonex builders banned from the company mailing lists, a
declaration of being an "enemy", a revocation of the right to call
their planes Sonexes, threats of physical harm, an end to all builder
support, and omission or removal from the publicized list of
completions. Exceptions are made for such things as seat cushions.

Daniel