wrote:
I'm still getting LOTS of messages from guys who just Don't Get It.

So let me try it again.

It is NOT a question of an RV vs a Falco. The most basic factor is
COST which means we can rule out such high-priced examples. Right now
I've been making comparisons between the VP-I as the 'all wood'
example and Calvin Parker's 'Teenie Two' as the all-metal example.
That will change in the IMMEDIATE FUTURE as more Thatcher CX4's and
Bruce King's BK-1.3 come flying out the door of garages across the
country.


In the way of "for what it's worth", I'll drop two cents here...

Bruce's airplanes fly well. and they are very straight forward easy to build
machines.

His Hummel was way too heavy with the full VW and the tiny Hummel wing.
He had one wing stall on takeoff one day early in the game- horsing it off.
He said he saw the runway 90 degrees to where is should be - and only 10 feet
away. Scared him pretty good. But he got back on it and rode it again - all
the way to Sun-N-Fun and back, and to Oshkosh and back.
This is, to my mind, one of the most successful VW airplanes ever.
But it turned out it was not for kids (or ham handed low time pilots!)

The BK-1 was a bit weak kneed - gear nearly collapsed on landing one day.
But I'm sure he has addressed that since then. I suspect that's what the
1.3 is all about.

Do *not* use the simple and inexpensive flat wrap canopy!
Too much buffeting around the windshield - could possibly affect the stab.
The bubble was something like $600, but it's money well spent.

I can't evaluate the CX4, as I've never seen one in the flesh.
But they say if it looks good it will fly good.
(not great grammar , but you get the gist of it?)
It's a beauty all right!



The VP-1 does *NOT* fly well at all, being way too heavy and light on power.
Besides that the control harmony sucks. Ailerons are too heavy, pitch too
light. The two I am familiar with have a service ceiling of 600 feet.
This is not something I'd even consider. Nor recommend to anyone else.



The Teeny Too flies some better - at least from the aspect of handling.
But lands at damned near 65 mph(!) - and the nose gear is not really
up to anything but a smooth runway. (and it NEEDS runway for takeoff).
Controls are very light - really easy to over control.
It would cost about the same as a BK, take about as long to build, and
not perform or handle as well.



Of the examples you are discussing, the only one I'd consider is the King.

The CX4 may prove capable. I'd like to fly one and see!






Richard