Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 52

Thread: The best hombuilt ?

  1. #21
    seagull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Maraetai Beach, New Zealand
    Posts
    11
    Hey Bill,

    How come we are now debating WWII fighters on the 'Homebuilders Corner' thread? Or have we accidently jumped into the big iron territory? So who says the 'best' has to be an allied fighter? Given a reliability of supply chain, logistical support, quality spares and well-trained pilots - (not to mention capable and sane 'senior management') the Messerschmitt 262 gets my vote. Thank our lucky stars that their 'senior management' was incapable, not to mention crazy, or we would have had an impossibly uphill task to win the conflict. On the British side the little-known Martin-Baker MB5 was arguably the best prop fighter but it would have been impossible to change over and re-equip the squadrons given their supply commitment to the later mark Spitfires and Tempests that became their focus from 1943 onwards. (The MB5 prototype also ran rings around the P51 but I'm not supposed to let any Yanks know about that - Sorry).

    Back to the thread - let's return the focus on to homebuilts again. The RV series would get my vote but for one important difference. That is kit-set versus scratch built. Its very attractive to embark on a fast build using prefabricated kitset and off-the-shelf components and/or sub-assemblies. It is also true that there is a lot more 'mana' to building everything off a set of plans, although it takes a lot longer. Put this another way - the scratch-builder has a larger set of 'Cojones' (to scratch?). I've never really cared one way or the other. I just find it healthy for our sport/pastime/interest/hobby/passion - call it what you will that there's a Heck of a lot of people around the world just doing it for fun. And that's what really matters to me.

    Yours Truly - (a scratch builder with a big set)

    (of plans)

    Barry
    Last edited by seagull; 03-29-2012 at 11:58 PM.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Ft Lost in the Woods MO
    Posts
    57
    Hmmmm, have to wonder how the RV's would do in a acrobatic competition...
    Or possibly at Valdez?

    Point I'm trying to make is- there is no "best" homebuilt- just one thats "best" for YOUR needs and wants...

  3. #23
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Giger View Post

    @ Steve - anyone who pilots their plane to where they can't see the ground really deserves the view.
    You can see the ground from FL200. Actually, you can see a lot more of it to be correct.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  4. #24
    Dana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    927
    Bill, you misunderstand me. You didn't ask, "which homebuilt is best for me?", in which case the answer may well be an RV, you simply said, "which homebuilt is best?", a general question to which there is no general answer. It wouldn't be "best" for me, as I'm more interested in other types of flying. It wouldn't be "best" for a family of four, or for a pilot with an 800' grass strip. It depends on what you want.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,575
    Barry unless one of us has lost our memory, it was you who brought up the subject of which WWII fighter was best, so I commented on that. <br>
    Along that line, the Martin Baker M-5 was only a prtotype, never became a combat fighter, while Spits were of course well tested and proven. The M-5, by running a Griffon very hard, was fast, at 460 mph was 16 mph faster than a Spit Mk XIV, and a bit faster than Spit 22. But the Spit Outclimbed it by 1200 fpm at 5000fpm to only 3800 and the Spit had a higher ceiling. The M B was much heavier than the Spitfire. Spit XIV did shoot down not only 109s and 190s but also some Me 262 jets. The Spitfires did it, the MB only might have done it . Note that the M B was not produced and used after 1944 as the Spit was. And if you are looking at high power and high speed, even more than the Spit 22 series there is the Spiteful, perhpaps the ultimate and fastest piston prop fighter ever, at 492 mph, ,and it was an operational fighter, ( though rare) and not just a design or prototype.( even as Seafang version).
    Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 03-30-2012 at 10:23 AM.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,575
    Mark, aka Dirty Harry, I never even thought of a Puffenpull. Good idea. I didn't know they had been around 82 years. Now they are not too fast, I think they might be able to pass a Bleriot, and you could probably get to Oshkosh faster via Greyhound. But they are well proven, and cute. So while not in first place in front of the RV , maybe they deserve a place on the list. I assume they are not too hard to build.

  7. #27
    Flyfalcons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Bonney Lake, WA
    Posts
    197
    I think the RV makes an excellent jack of all (well, many) trades, though master of none. That's why I'm building one. A "good" airplane needs to be a usable one, and the RV has proven to be a useful design.

    Though I've only ridden in one once, I think the Kitfox series is easily in the top three or four homebuilt designs, as a capable light backcountry plane that is within the reach of many builder's budgets, skills, and piloting ability.
    Ryan Winslow
    EAA 525529
    Stinson 108-1 "Big Red", RV-7 under construction

  8. #28
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood View Post
    I never even thought of a Puffenpull.
    Didn't Hugh Grant get arrested for trying to buy one of those? LOL
    Last edited by steveinindy; 03-30-2012 at 11:30 AM.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,575
    Ryan, good for you. Just as a guess if it takes 850 hours to build an R V, and you work 2 days or 7 hours a week then it can be done in about 2!/2 years. Keep us posted on yours. And thanks for your reply within the spirit if my topic.

    I have not flown a Kitfox. My impression was that after an intitial burst of interest, they might have leveled off some. I think I have heard that their handling is a bit strange, not sure about that. You should be able to build one fairly easily. I don't think a Kitfox is quite good enough all around to make this list. Not so good for cross country and no acro at all.

  10. #30
    Hangar10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Owasso, Oklahoma
    Posts
    185
    Bill, aka... well, nevermind.

    The puffenpull, huh? You mean that Mr. Pietenpol, the father of the homebuilt airplane doesn't deserve a little more respect than that? Speed is a relative term... compared to all things that fly, all the aircraft that we are discussing here are very slow. I'm personally not in a hurry get anywhere, in fact, my primary purpose is to learn about airplane building, enjoy flying and hopefully teach these skills to my son. Would I like a fast airplane? Sure, at times it would be great, but as a younger guy with a young family, the Pietenpol project suits our purpose just fine. As for it being "not too hard" to build... another relative term, and you assume wrong. While I have not built any other aircraft, I have been exposed to some of the "insert tab A into slot B and squeeze rivet C" type builds, I can assure that a Pietenpol project it is not what you think. Actually, I'm pretty sure that you have no idea what you are talking about whatsoever. There is a ton of work involved in a scratch build project... the research on materials and processes alone happen to be a huge percentage of the building process with a project like this... not to mention that it does not include a detailed step-by-step illustration.

    By the way, that is Inspector Callahan to you.

    @Ryan... good one! I really like the looks of the Kitfox airplanes. I've not flown one, but a new member of our chapter has a couple and they sure look fun!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •