New to experimental aircraft

[Ryan S]

Hi, I'm new to the experimental and home built aircraft market (but not to flying), and as such I have a few questions.

I'm currently looking at two different types of aircraft, but am wondering if I'm missing other suitable aircraft altogether. I'd like an aircraft to fly cross-country, IFR capable, at a good speed and low fuel burn. I'm primarily looking at Lancair 235/320/360s, and Cozy Mk IV. I'm leaning towards the Lancair, but would really like the ability to carry four people. Are there other aircraft that are in this range of performance, for the price point? And along that line of thought, would it be better to purchase an aircraft already IFR certified, or to get one that is currently VFR certified (at a lower price of course) and then put in whichever avionics you choose? If you had the opportunity to start over again, how would you go about it?

Any other info or areas of interest that I should be looking into, and maybe haven't considered, would also be helpful. Also, if this is in the wrong section just let me know and I'll gladly move it. Thank you in advance!

[FlyingRon]

As you've realized, four place homebuilts are hard to come by. Frankly, I'd seriously reconsider flying real IFR in a plastic aircraft. While a lot of the discussion centers around lightning (which is bad news in any light aircraft), the bigger issue is that flying in precip or even near convective activity can cause some interesting internal effects due to the non conductive nature of the fuselage.

As with just about any aircraft, it's better to buy it the way you want it than have to convert something else as far as cost is concerned. Of course, finding full up nice IFR experimentals isn't going to be easy. You'll probably need to convert things. The good news is that most operating limitations say you can fly IFR with the ship as long as you equip it according to 91.205. This allows you to put in your choice of instrumentation and navigational equipment which might not be available to you in a certificated bird.

Seriously, if i could find one, I'd be looking for an SX-300. However, they're just aren't that many around and they aren't going to be cheap if they are.

[Sam Buchanan]

I'm surprised you didn't include the RV-10 in your list. It is probably the most widely flown 4-place experimental at this point in time and is a tremendous value when compared to Cirrus, etc.

Also, there is no such thing as "IFR certified" in regard to aircraft with an experimental airworthiness certificate. The Operating Limitations of each experimental aircraft usually allow flight in IMC if the pilot has determined the aircraft is properly equipped for that particular flight. The burden of proof is on the pilot, not the aircraft certification.

Welcome to the experimental aircraft universe! The lack of regulation compared to certificated aircraft can be intimidating to the newcomer but it offers great flexibility in how we can equip our toys.

[rleffler]

Sam beat me to the punch. I'm a RV-10 pilot/builder. It's a great IFR capable aircraft if the builder so equipped. Feel free to ask me specific questions.

bob

[Ryan S]

Thanks for the warm welcome!

Yes, I guess I mis-spoke when I mentioned IFR certified. I simply meant an aircraft that has IFR equipment installed on it, and IFR capable. And I suppose I could have specified the purpose of this aircraft instead of simply listing what I have been looking at and asking for anything comparable. Basically I'm looking for an economical cross country aircraft, which will usually seat two people but have the capability of taking a long a couple of friends as well. FlyingRon, flying through precip has never concerned me before, but I've never done it in a 'plastic' airplane. Any articles with good information that I should research? And I don't intend to fly in or near storms. I simply don't want a cloud deck to stop me from getting from point A to point B. as far as navigation equipment is concerned, a VOR, LOC/ILS, and a GPS capable of LNAV approaches would be fine by me. That should get me to pretty much anywhere I plan on going.

As for the RV-10, it looks like a mighty fine aircraft. However, each one I see is two to three times the price of what I'm looking for, and about half as economical (in fuel burn costs per mile) as the Lancairs or Cozys I've been looking at. Are there other two or four seat aircraft that are similar?

Thank you again!

[FlyingRon]

I don't have issues flying through precip either, but I have a metal plane. Ask around on the various forums for the types of composite aircraft you are interested in. In addition to static problems messing with the radios, the parts inside that ARE metal can develop pretty nasty charges on them when flying through static-inducing situations. You don't need to be in a cell to experience this.

The RV's are not bad platforms for this and are certainly ubiquitous. Here's a story from one such composite flyer that...

I recently flew my Glasair from LA to Boston and back, in the process
picking up 14 hours of actual. (I had about 700 hours at that time, with
about 100 hours TIT.) I have one comment: If you are going to fly IFR in
a composite airplane, do not fly anywhere near a thunderstorm. A level 3
cell does not mean be cautious in a glass airplane, it means find a hotel.
I picked up some static electricity over Cleveland that was extremely
severe and quite painful. Since the fuselage is not conductive, the charge
flows where ever it can, with a preference for sharp points and edges....
in my case every switch on the panel as well as the prop and throttle cables.
All the avionics went out, and the charge actually started arcing across the
cabin. Note that I while I was in the clouds, I was not even very close to
the actual cell. It was no fun being blind and deaf in the soup and getting
shocked every time I touched anything. (I got the radios back after a few
minutes and was able to land safely.) Icing however, is not a real problem
at all, as long as you stay away from anywhere known to be severe. I flew
right through an are where the 4 planes ahead of me had reported rime without
even a trace. It takes alot to ice up a composite airframe.

[rleffler]

As for the RV-10, it looks like a mighty fine aircraft. However, each one I see is two to three times the price of what I'm looking for, and about half as economical (in fuel burn costs per mile) as the Lancairs or Cozys I've been looking at. Are there other two or four seat aircraft that are similar?

I don't believe that you are doing an apples to apples comparison. I use a Cherokee as an example, since I have more direct knowledge of them.

Both the Cherokee and RV-10 have four seats
The RV-10 has 200-300lbs more useful load
The RV-10 has significantly longer range.
The Cherokee at 9-10 gal/hr goes 110-120kts
The RV-10 at 10 gal/hr (LOP) goes about 157 kts, push it up to 14-15 gal/hr to get 165-170kts. I usually fly it slower at LOP, since the fuel savings outweighs getting there slightly faster.

Yes, the RV-10 cost me about 2.5 times more than my Cherokee 180 did, but.......

It goes faster, carries more load, larger cabin, and has much more sophisticated avionics.

It's also cost me about a third of what a comparable Cirrus or Cessna would cost.


I'm not really trying to convince you the RV-10 is right for you. But you should understand that the smaller four seaters, usually can't carry full fuel and four passengers. When you take into consideration the amount of fuel to offload to carry four passengers, your range is greatly diminished, especially if you are flying cross country IFR.

[Sam Buchanan]

As for the RV-10, it looks like a mighty fine aircraft. However, each one I see is two to three times the price of what I'm looking for, and about half as economical (in fuel burn costs per mile) as the Lancairs or Cozys I've been looking at. Are there other two or four seat aircraft that are similar?

Thank you again!

You are really complicating your research when you don't make a distinction between two or four seats. These are two very different mission profiles. You can't compare a four-seater to a two-seater, you need to decide which configuration best suits your needs.

If you decide two seats will fit your needs, you will be forced to look at the entire RV line of two seaters. They are widely recognized as the best combination of speed, economy, performance, reliability and support available to the experimental community.

But as long as you delay the decision concerning the number of seats....your research will be frustrating....and confusing.

[Ryan S]

I apologize for the delay in response, but I've been doing some research and determining what I really want. So let's say that I'm going to focus on a 4 seat aircraft. I've been looking at the Velocity line of aircraft, and they look enticing for a four place aircraft. Useful load in the neighborhood of 1,000 lbs. Yes, if I load it up with 4 people then range will be diminished. However, most of the travel I plan on doing will require an intermediate stop for fuel anyway.

Example: My wife and I live in Texas. Each year we fly to Florida, and then on to Ohio, and then back to Texas. This is every year for the holidays over 1.5 to 2 week period. I would plan on a fuel stop on each leg. This means each leg probably won't be more than approx. 600 to 700 nm. Doing some quick math, if I fill the tanks with ~70 gal that is about 420 lbs of fuel. This leaves 680 lbs of people and cargo. This is well within the realm of possibilities for us. With four people, lets say my wife and I plus two friends, let's say approx 650 lbs of people. Assume 100 lbs of baggage for a week long trip, this means 250 lbs of fuel (or approx 42 gallons). For the typical fuel burn I've seen advertised for a Velocity SE/XL/RG/Etc, with a 45 minute reserve, I'd have a range of about 550+ miles per leg. For most trips that I would be planning with some friends this is acceptable. Especially if I were to plan a fuel stop and keep going to the destination. For me, one fuel stop enroute to the destination per day is acceptable (especially for non aviation minded friends), especially if the aircraft gets somewhere between 16 mpg (for a loaded four-seater) and 25 mpg (for an efficient two-seater).

As for the static electricity bit, what about static wicks? Is this not a common practice in home-built aircraft? Would it be much of a process in order to install several static wicks to a composite aircraft (that is already built) in order to mitigate the risk of IFR flight? Just an initial thought.

Thank you again for all the information and insight regarding experimental & home built aircraft. I'm very excited about this field of aviation, I just don't know much about it.

Cheers,

Ryan.

[martymayes]

Ryan, simply adding static dischargers to a composite airplane won't provide much benefit. The structure has to provide an electrical path and as we know, plastic is an insulator. A metal conductive material would have to be imbedded into the surface with all the parts electrically bonded together. Then the placement of static dischargers is not random. There is extensive testing to determine where they need to be placed and how many are needed.

Another point to consider is if you're going to lay down big bucks for an airplane, it really should be something that you will enjoy flying. There's more to it than just throwing theoretical performance numbers around (which are sometimes grossly optimistic). While it might be difficult to arrange, I suggest taking a flight in the type airplane you are considering. Then a flight in something else. Hate to sound like a wet blanket but I had a student that bought the kind of plane you are considering. He had similar plans, needed a speedy cross country airplane. Spent big bucks getting a new engine installed, new interior, I flew the plane with him twice and he never flew it again.