Homebuilt with performance similar to Cheetah / Tiger

[Mike Switzer]

That Stits playmate is interesting. Still not the useful load I would like, but it is interesting.

[Sam Buchanan]

Gross weight is 1650, correct? That means it only has 640lb useful load, which is better than most but still around 100 lb less than what I need.

Gross weight is whatever the original builder decided he wanted it to be when the airworthiness certificate was issued. You will find two-place RV GW ranging from 1600 to 1800. The later versions, RV-7, etc, often have GW stated ~1800.

I flew my RV-6 near 1800lb (tired 150hp at the time), I don't particularly like it at that weight, but it flew me, passenger and full baggage compartment from Alabama to Arizona and back at that weight:

http://thervjournal.com/west_trip.html

[martymayes]

Yea, with the right IA it could be fairly cheap, as long as you didn't need an airframe specific part.

Being out of production, it won't be like purchasing something from Pie-pr, Beach or Cezzna. I can't think of any single airframe item that would give me a heart attack.

[Mike Switzer]

Being out of production, it won't be like purchasing something from Pie-pr, Beach or Cezzna. I can't think of any single airframe item that would give me a heart attack.

Well, the AA-5 series is definitely on my list. Of what is available right now (AA-5, AA-5A, & AA-5B) there is a pretty wide range of pricing & condition.

As far as experimentals (keeping to 2 seaters here) it looks like the Mustang II & Tango 2 both have around 750 - 800 lb useful load, so either would haul me, my brother & overnite bags with enough fuel to get where we need to go.

[Victor Bravo]

Well Mike, sorry to hear you had a bad experience with an aviation club. Sounds like being a Private may be more rewarding than being a Colonel. My suggestion is that you make an apples to apples comparison of what a certified airplane will cost you, versus an equivalent homebuilt. You may find that a used Cheetah or Tiger, plus the cost of "certified" maintenance, plus the cost of insurance, is lower than the cost of an equivalent homebuilt, un-certified maintenance, and un-certified insurance. I hate to say that, because I love homebuilts, but I've owned both and must admit sometimes a used factory airplane is less costly. Sometimes not.

In your case, removing the rear seat from a Cheetah, doing the DMA and LoPresti cleanup mods, and making sure your engine is performing in a "healthy" manner... will get you fairly close to many RV-6A's in performance. Perhaps a bit more shoulder room too? Strong advice: Take a flight or two in anything and everything you are considering.

Also, take a strong, honest look at your mission. If you are going to go into 1500 foot strips, the RV-6 or even the 6a will be safer and much more usable than a 150HP Cheetah. If you are going to be flying IFR, then the RV may not be as good of an instrument platform. If there are trees or terrain at the approach end of your home strip, you might take a look at the real-world effectiveness of the Grumman's flaps and just how effective they are (not). if you are going to be crossing the Rockies or Sierra Nevada in winter winds, the RV-7 with its shorter wingspan and massive main wing spar caps will bring you home in turbulence that will fold the Grumman's tube spar/fuel tank in half. (That is an environment where you should not be flying anyway, but if you are then stack the odds in your favor)

[Mike Switzer]

I don't know that I would go so far as to say I had a bad experience, the biggest reason was time - I have home & business projects I started in 2007 before I became maintenance officer that still aren't done because I was spending all my spare time out at the airport. But things change. Most of the guys that were active in the club when I joined are either dead or had to quit for medical reasons, and things just aren't like they were. If I spend that amount of time on something in the future I want it to be mine so I don't have to worry about someone wanting to take it away in the future.

The shortest strip I would be going into would be maybe 2500' - and we have some pretty big runways here, so that isn't really an issue. It looks like the mission would be getting me & my brother (both over 6' & around 220lb if we are eating right) and overnight bags to my niece's basketball games quickly, probably within 200 miles.

[Victor Bravo]

For that mission, perhaps look into the older "straight tail" 172. I have a 1956 model, and other than the unfortunate lack of "cool factor" it is a really really good flying machine. With the rear seat removed it has plenty of room for oveernight bags. Taller pilots are in pretty good shape because of Cessna's long-travel seat adjustment. Visibility is the best of all high wing Cessnas. A 200 mile flight is short enough that the low cruise speed will not hurt you too bad. The O-300 engine is solid, reliable, very smooth, and can be STC'd for car gas. Makes an ideal airplane for flying Young Eagles. Makes a good instrument platform if necessary in bad weeather. In mountain-free Illinois, you will be able to put the rear seat in and fly with two (smaller) passengers when necessary, with an acceptable level of performance. You can find a really nice one for about $25K, or a safe but ugly one for under 20. Pretty hard to lose money on one. As for fixing the "cool factor", I'm working on that too. I took over a tailwheel conversion STC, and am in the process of certifying and manufacturing a PMA parts kit to go with the STC. With the tailwheel upgrade, the old 172 becomes a pretty nifty and affordable light duty bush plane.

[Mike Switzer]

I have considered that but for most of the time I was in the club all it had was Cessnas - nothing wrong with them (other than high priced factory parts) but I thought about looking at other things.

Now a 170 or a converted 172 might be an option. I'd really like a 180 but I cant justify the extra maintenance & fuel expense for the mission.

Similarly, there are some fairly cheap Cherokees out there - a long time ago we had a Warrior that I loved, a few years back we got an Arrow & I just wasn't comfortable in it, getting older, bad knees & such. That is part of why I was looking at the Grummans, all you have to do is stand up & get out.

[deej]

That is part of why I was looking at the Grummans, all you have to do is stand up & get out.

I am surprised by that comment. In my experience it took a bit of upper body strength to lift yourself out of a Grumman. Simply standing was not an option since there is no way to get your legs under you until you get your body lifted a bit. Having a side door that you can just open and slide out is much easier, for me at least, which was one of the reasons for picking the Glastar.

-Dj

[middlebrook04]

Beech Sundowner, you can get a well equipped one for around 30k. Will haul you, your brother and 80 lbs luggage with 60 gallons of fuel. Two doors with the cabin width of a BO and you sit above the wings not below like the P's. They are very stable and comfortable planes. Don't believe all the negative hype that will follow this post. If you want the truth go to www.beechaeroclub.org


Good luck
Donald