Choosing a project

[kmacht]

Just another vote for the Sonex. I am building one from plans and it has been a great experience. If you are willing to go off of factory support there are ways to meet some of your other criteria for it. For fuel capacity some peple have built tanks that fit behind the seat for an extra 5 to 10 gallons. There was even a company at Oshkosh one year that offered tube tanks that fit down the forward wing rib lightening holes of the sonex. I want to say they were something close to an extra 5 gallons per wing. For the engine there are other choices besides the aerovee and jabiru, you just can't get sonex factory tech support for them. The corvair is a pretty popular and the honda Fit engine conversions are staring to take off as well. A rotax will fit on the Sonex. The only reason it isn't recomended is because the cost of the engine is pretty close to the Jabiru. As far as cross country capability just look up the name Aaron Knight on youtube. He has done some awesome cross countries to the bahamas, grand canyon, niagra falls, etc. All were done with two people aboard. The best suggestion I can give you is once you narrow it down to a few choices, go visit some projects in work as well as some owners who are flying them. You will learn alot more about what does and doesn't work for you in those short visits than you will on a message board like this one.

Keith

[I_FLY_LOW]

There is one kit that has piqued my interest, in regards to something more affordable than an RV, yet not the same old mundane Sonex (Not bashing them, I do like them, but prefer a more sporty look).
It goes fast, yet grass strip friendly.
Aerobatic capable.
Folding wings (Bonus...)
It can fit rather large pilots.
Now, this one is a single seater, but a 2 seater, tandem is on the horizon. (Cougar)
http://flywithspa.com/panther.html

[Jim Heffelfinger]

Take a look at this
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catego...its/index.html

Look at the Cadet.
jim

[pacerpilot]

My vote would go to the Soneria as a project just because they look so cool. However, for pure cross country travel ability, roominess, speed, with luggage capacity etc., I'd suggest the Stits Playmate. It's a good size bird, aerobatic and, they're tough for the rough stuff. I've got one (sadly I'm selling it right now) and it's an impressive design. Check out the specs, I'm sure you'll find the design very interesting too.

[hogheadv2]

Iforgot put a detail of "he carries 350 lbs" If he is a big man entry/exit will be a concern.

***Dragonfly is a possible craft to fit all but water. http://www.pilotfriend.com/experimental/acft2/54.htm

[Vision401]

Oh yeah, another design that I've always liked is the Vision: http://pro-composites.com/Vision%20Info.html

I wish it had continued development a little more. It seems to hit a very good design point, in a lot of ways it's like a modern Tailwind. If it had a more simple wing structure, had some more examples flying, and used a more suitable core material I think it would be a very good choice. Any one know of anything else like it?

As a Vision builder, I found it a very good design. I, too wish there were more flying. But with competition in the kit world where everything is handed to you, there are not many willing to make choices and take on design/responsibility. The Vision plans could be more clear. Like the chapter on installing the engine, where there is one sentence: "install engine". As to suitable core material, lastafoam is okay if you learn how to handle it. Fold-a-plane solves much of its brittleness. I, too, didn't like the complex wing structure. Having built a Varieze and am willing to study and analyze structure, I am building my wings with solid core polystyrene like the EZs. And, as used Continentals and Lycomings are an age/money sliding scale, I have committed to building a NEW engine of 120 HP, the Corvair aero engine with help from Falcon Machine and Flycorvair.com.

[Iforgot]

Hoghead, I don't carry 350lb! More like 180. I meant that I'm looking for an airplane design that can carry 350 lbs + fuel.

Vision, thanks for the reply concerning the Vision. I actually own a set of the plans and have considered redesigning the wing to use ps foam. Have you gotten very far in this effort? Where will you put the fuel? I built a few parts of it (h tail, seat, bulkheads), but I decided that I could never be comfortable with the last a foam for long term structural use. It would be easy (and proper imo) to use pvc foam instead, but without doing a fair amount of structural analysis, I'd always wonder if there were any other questionable areas. Good luck with your project! I'd like to see/read more about it, do you have an online build log or anything?

[Victor Bravo]

Sorry for the length of this rant... here were a few important points that did not get fully addressed IMHO:

The cost of the engine and the safety/reliability of the engine is a huge factor. You can find a runout O-200 or O-320 for a few thousand dollars, rebuild it yourself for another few thousand, and have a truly reliable engine that you can bet your life on. Compare this to $20K+ for a Rotax 912, or $25-30K for a new O-200 or O-320. The 65 or 85 Continental is the gold standard of afforability and reliability in aviation. There are reasons for that, and those reasons have been valid for 70 years. Nothing wrong with other and newer engine development, but when you are carrying a family member with you, the game changes.

I have nothing against the VW derivatives, I'd be happy to use one on an appropriate airplane, but I believe you can find a 65 or 85 or O-200 for a competitive price. So by choosing an airframe that is appropriate for the (heavier) Continental engines, you may enjoy a benefit in safety or reliability for the same money.

The cost of fuel and maintenance should be another top priority. These days, there are Beech Bonanzas, and C-210,s and Piper Saratoga's that sit gathering dust because nobody can afford to fill the tank with $6 avgas at 10-15 gallons an hour. The cost of rebuilding or maintaining the engine also has a direct impact on the amount of flying you will do, once you have built and paid for everything else. Choosing an engine that will run well on car gas will result in a significant increase in your flying per dollar.

Before you buy or build ANY airplane, go sit in all of them! If you and your significant other are light and slim, then the Sonex may be fine. But you will be pretty cozy. For larger people like myself... the Sonex is too tight. I have sat in the CH-750 and it is absolutely delightful. More comfort and room than my '56 172. Go sit in, and fly in, ANY aircraft you are considering building.

Also, consider the "sweet spot" of whatever airplane you are considering, and see if it matches the sweet spot for your mission profile. Your actual, realistic, 90% of the time mission profile. For example, the CH-750 has a very well established sweet spot for camping, low altitude sightseeing, off-airport bush flying, and ability to land safely in a short distance (emergency as well as intentional). So if you like camping, fishing and out-doorsy stuff, you would have a lot of fun with one of those. But if aerobatics are your thing, then it's the worst possible choice.

The Sonerai and Sonex both do better in the speed department, but you sacrifice most of the off-road and STOL aspect. The Sonex is approved for moderate acro, as is the Sonerai. With the Sonerai or other tandem seating airplanes, you are not sitting next to your wife in comfort. THAT makes a BIG difference to a lot of wives, by the way, so make DARN sure you are considering her enjoyment of the flight. She will have put up with an awful lot of sh*t and inconvenience during the build process, my friend! This is a very under-valued decision point. You know, divorce and martial squalor is not exactly uncommon around homebuilders and pilots....

There was a recent article in Sport Aviation about the classic Wittman Tailwind. It still represents the best bang for the buck by far, when performance versus cost is considered. If you are frugal, and don't buy the @($*% whiz-bang glass panel avionics, you can build one for 25K. Performance is very good with the O-200 engine,and often spectacular with the O-320... assuming you build clean and pay attention to the aerodynamic details. The airplane has a unique charm all its own. Although not as pretty to the eye as a Lancair, it is quite pretty to the air it is flying through. 140-180 MPH cruise, on 6-8 gallons an hour.

On any of these choices, if you build the airframe and rebuild the engine, you can build in full compatibility with car gas, even with the ethanol crap. Just use the right materials for your hoses and gaskets, and do not raise the compression ratio.

[Iforgot]

Victor Bravo,

Your take on the Tailwind is exactly as mine, and that's why it's high on my list. Its negatives to me are the fabric and it looks like visibility out of it would be not so good. The Vision fixes both those problems and is very similar in size/weight/performance, but it has its own issues. I'd like to find a tailwind to see in person.

Your take on engines is also very similar to mine. It raises some questions: what is a realistic cost for an O200 or O320 like you mentioned? I have a pretty good handle on airframe costs, but no experience with engine and accessory costs. I'd feel pretty comfortable rebuilding it myself, but I have no idea what to budget for that option.