The best hombuilt ?

[Bill Greenwood]

I was looikng at a Sport Aviation ariticle about rebuilding a RV-1, Richard's first airplane. I got to thinking and it dawned on me WHICH IS THE BEST HOMEBUILT? and I think the anwere is the RVs. Not just one RV, but the total of them. Now before you go off the deep end and tell me how stupid I am and how great some exotic product of a discontented and demented another would- be engineer is, stop and think. Sure everyone might have their personal favorite, there's no accounting for taste, some might say some weird looking Rutan design is best, or whatever is the fastest at Reno, or which runs on electricity.

But if we accept sort of a general category for judging homebuilts: that the design needs to result in a real airplane, one that actually has been built by many if not most people,and really flies and does so with a reasonable degree of safety and usefulness, and maybe retains some major part of it's value if and when the owner is ready to sell it.

I think the RV s have done this better than anyone, there are about 6500 flying. I am not really a homebuilt expert, so what do you guys think? And if the RV is first, as I feel it is, then what are the next 3 0r 4 best? Perhaps Lancair, high performance, good looks, but harder to build and fly. Glassair the same. And I think some Pitts were homebuilt, were they not, so those would be up there since there are a lot of them and it is such a foundation of acro. There's all the gorgeous baby fighters. but often hard to build and not easy to fly. Of course, everyone drooled over and admired the Hughes H-1 racer, but it would not fit any of the broader crtiereia.

I 'd like to hear others ideas, but please stay in the spirit of the premise, not as far out on a limb as you can go. And I am only asking about homebuilts, either from kit or plans, that are actually flying, not the next wonder whiz desgn.

[steveinindy]

I would agree with you on the RV series, even though I've never had the chance to get behind the controls of one. I think they are quite neat little planes and their success is a testament to the utility of the design and relative ease of the build. Like anything else, there's room for improvement but for what they are, they are probably the best design currently on the market. Now once I start selling plans for my KA-1 Vireo, we'll see about that...... ;)

[Eric Witherspoon]

No doubt the RV series has the most sold / most built at this point, but consider every model except the -12 was available before LSA entered into the picture. Of course, being the leader before a new "class" is developed is arguably the best position to be in to be able to capture that new / expanded market.

But I would say, hold on, give it some time -there's some LSA-compliant designs that are pretty popular. And the determination of "best" might need to include a couple more criteria aside from "market leader", especially given the creation of the LSA category, the aging of the pilot population, the increasing costs to build an RV, the decline of the economy in general (and resulting reluctance of the flying population to 1) make as many flights 2) have so much resource tied up in an airplane) - so as time goes on, LSA-compliant designs may become the market leader. In terms of type-certified deliveries over the past few years, this is already most certainly the case.

However, it is interesting to note that the RV's were available before the Rutan Revolution and ensuing flood of composite-based airframes entered (and largely departed) the market. So I'd say, in the big, long run that metal designs are the overall winner for all time. In addition, the additional skills to cut tubes, weld metal, and apply fabric, though I believe these can result in more weight-efficient airframes in the 1 to 2-seat size range, keep a lot of people from pursuing those build methods.

As such, not only are metal designs the all-time winner, but riveted metal rather than tube-and-fabric are the overall winner.

As far as RV's creating a market for related businesses (custom seat makers, an RV-specific kit delivery service, panel makers/designers, aftermarket parts suppliers, RV-centric tool companies, etc.), the impact can not be denied. There is no other line of aircraft that has created such an economic force behind it. Oh, and don't forget RV-specific transition training. Probably no other design offers so many with the LODA (permission) to hire out their homebuilts for transition training.

So right now, today, I'd say RV falls into categories of most out there, most influential, most economic impact. But longer term, keep an eye on those LSA-compliant designs, in particular those working in riveted Aluminum. More specifically, blind riveted aluminum. Why? Because not only are there going to be a LOT of pilots in the future either "working their way up" by way of a Sport Pilot certificate, but also a LOT of pilots "easing their way down" by way of Sport Pilot operating privileges. Why do the LSA-compliant designs use blind rivets rather than driven? In no small part, because the performance of the aircraft doesn't justify countersunk driven rivets. But a BIG additional benefit of this type of construction is speed, tooling, and skills. No bucking skills necessary. No rivet guns, rivet sets, or bucking bars to buy and learn how to use. And blind rivets are quick. Sure, driven rivets can be quick as well - so speed may not be such an advantage.

But blind riveting is a MUCH QUIETER activity - leading these to be easily built in a garage without disturbing the rest of the house (ok, there's still air compressor noise, but there's ways to make that work). Also, blind riveting does not require a second person for either bucking or driving - it's all single-sided, easy for one person to handle alone.

So, which design(s) fit the above? I'd say product from Sonex is a leader, though the Zenith line also is right up there. Ok, I'm biased (see the avatar photo), but another thing to consider with the Sonex product line (since I'm familiar with it) is completion percentage. Their completion percentage is EXCELLENT by homebuilt standards. I believe the CW on this is roughly 10% of a design eventually flies. Well, Sonex is already over 20% flying, and they are still actively selling many more, so it will be many years before that percentage rises - though as time goes on, and more and more partial completions, sets of plans, or unfinished kit builds find their way to the owners that complete them, maybe looking at completion percentage for a given (older) serial number range might be more informative. On the plus side, Sonex openly presents all this information on their website. It would take some digging to put together, but they list every completion (that is reported to them). So when they say 350 flying - there's names, locations, serial numbers, dates, and where provided, photos. It's not a made-up number like so many other designs that list in what's-their-names annual buyers' guide.

What this speaks to is ability / skills / tools / resources required to complete. Sonex has done a great job in minimizing the special tools and skills required to complete their airplanes. I say this having plans-built two airframes (one to completion). Actually, the tools/skills required to plans build one of these is roughly the same as what's required to kit-build one, there's just more layout, cutting, and drilling involved.

So I'd say, come back to this question in 10 years. It may very well come down to - those with a lot of money still build RV's. Those who can't / won't put as much $ into it will continue success of the Sonex designs. In addition, there are several interesting new power plants in the 80-120hp range on the horizon / just starting sales / entering the picture - that could lead to more weight-efficient LSA designs that we haven't even seen yet (or seen with these engines), which may deliver more performance for the money. And the possibility of no medical under 180 hp (which might also act to effectively work around the LSA speed limit) would likely result in some designs of RV-ish performance at significantly lower costs.

"Best" could also be thought of in some simpler ways:
1. Airplane meeting your personal mission requirements, which may not be anywhere close to what RV's excel at.
2. The airplane that you currently have to build / work on (whether you chose it or it came to you some other way).
3. The airplane that you were able to complete and get flying (whether your first try / first choice or not).

[Dana]

I don't think you can meaningfully talk about what is the "best" homebuilt, since what is "best" for one pilot might be totally unsuitable for another. A Pitts is not a cross country traveling machine, an RV is not a STOL bush plane, a Lancair isn't affordable like a Volksplane, no faster plane can give you the low and slow experience of an ultralight, etc.

That said, the RV series is probably the most successful series of homebuilt designs ever produced.

[steveinindy]

1. Airplane meeting your personal mission requirements, which may not be anywhere close to what RV's excel at.

Not enough range, speed or payload are the major drawbacks to the RVs in my book. Lack of a pressurized cockpit is another one but that might not be as much of a concern to those who are into "hardcore VFR" flying.

[Bill Greenwood]

Eric, you have some interesting things to say. Ist, the idea that, SOME DAY, GIVEN TIME, some LSA may take RV s place is really not part of my question. It's kind of like saying is "Who's the best NBA guy of all time, M J ,and you come back and say, let's wait 10 years and some Chinese guy may come along who is better, maybe even with new nutrition. And the idea that some new design may be use a quiter method of riveting seems vital to you, but I don't think that is tops in most pilots mind.
I am not surprised that you or any EAA guy wants to go to another dimension, after all it is the EXPERIMENTAL group and that goes even to answers.

I think the RV is the leader not just because it is the most done and flying, but all around it is a pretty good and useful airplane once done. It can go up for a local flight, do acro, or go L A to Osh in 2 days, even night or IFR, can take 2 people and some baggage.

Now your Sonex is, seems to me a pretty good answer, not to beat the R V but to be one of the top few. Seems easy to build. I don't know how the completion rate compares with R V and what the performance is and is it acro rated or capable. And what is the resale market for Sonex?

[steveinindy]

no faster plane can give you the low and slow experience of an ultralight
Yup....nothing says "flying" like picking one of these....: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cicada_Chicago_USA.JPG
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cicada_Chicago_USA.JPG)
...out of your teeth on short final. That experience kind of ruined open cockpit flying for me....

[steveinindy]

It can go up for a local flight, do acro, or go L A to Osh in 2 days,

So can a car with two or more drivers switching out. Even having cut my teeth in the UL community, taking two days to go about 2,000 miles doesn't seem all that great of performance for a standard aircraft.

[Bill Greenwood]

Dana, and Steve, as I expectected you have told me how my choic of the R V is wrong, but you haven't given another choice. What is the homebuilt airplane, actually flying other than on Steve's computer, that you think is better than a RV and why?
And by the way, Dana what % of pilots do you think really need a bush plane, or Steve says a pressuized plane?

[Kyle Boatright]

Bill, the market says the RV's have hit the sweet spot. 200 mph, decent interior room and baggage capability, good range, and excellent flying qualities. In the same size and cost platform you can go faster, farther, use a shorter field, or have a more robust aerobatic platform. But at that point, you've switched from a do everything well design (the RV's) to designs optimized for a relatively narrow mission.

[steveinindy]

What is the homebuilt airplane, actually flying other than on Steve's computer that you think is better than a RV and why?

I don't think there is a "better" one out there for what it is intended to do. I'm just saying that it's not right for me because of the factors I listed.


Steve says a pressuized plane?

Anyone who doesn't want to fly below 10,000 feet all the time but also doesn't want to risk a nosebleed from wearing a nasal cannula?

Honestly, I don't care what anyone else wants so far as my pressurized designs are concerned. I design this stuff for myself with the exception of the LSA which is just an academic exercise turned into something that might help fund building more practical aircraft. It's also been a good chance to learn and get experience designing in multiple construction techniques (wood and fabric, metal and fabric, all metal and composite; I basically designed the "same" aircraft in each technique just for the experience. I am debating which version to actually build to test).

[Frank Giger]

I would have thought there were more Cub clones than RV's....especially since folks have been building them since the 1950's.

@ Steve - anyone who pilots their plane to where they can't see the ground really deserves the view.

[martymayes]

But if we accept sort of a general category for judging homebuilts:

.....then you'll never come up with a clear-cut winner.

[seagull]

Bill,

You might have had a possibly easier answer if you had asked the question "What is the meaning of life?". I think light aircraft (for that read the ones that people can own for their recreation and enjoyment) are of such a variety that it all comes down to personal taste and preferred mission or speciality you intend to use the aircraft for. Similarly when you look at the vast list of factory-builts (including antique and warbirds) the answer is like solving a riddle. A riddle where the goalposts keep moving as the discussion audience widens.

Look at the huge variety of different homebuilt designs, and try to come up with an all-time-best "Champion" of homebuilts you run into exactly the same problems - that of personal taste, opinion and judging criteria. To select the 'best' objectively you would need to get everyone to agree on these criteria and as it is difficult to try and "please all of the people all of the time", you will likely end up with a very long list of points to judge the designs on.

As you probably know a frequent question on 'Warbirds' sites is "What is the best WWII fighter of all time"?. Most people might nominate the P51, but this would be challenged by the English who would then add 'defensive fighter' to the criteria and choose the Spitfire (taking the spotlight away from its lack of effective range while trying to manage a 'hurt national pride emotion'). My point is you need to really nail down your judging or selection criteria or you will continue moving in ever decreasing circles (with the obvious conclusion to this manoeuvre).

Many of us are fans of wood as the preferred construction medium so why can't we include Claude Piel's delightful designs which number in the many thousands that are still flying worldwide since the 1950's? Sure the RV's and Burt Rutan's creations have an impressive track record - but so does the Emeraude and all of its wooden brothers and cousins. Perhaps more so because a couple of Claude Piel's designs have been given full type certification for factory built examples which adds many hundred more to the list produced.

Maybe you should split your "Champion" award into three categories - Best Wood, Best Metal and Best Composite. And maybe you should use only one judging criteria as a common-ground that might be accepted by all of us (Yeah - Pigs might fly too!). If we accept that the EAA and the worldwide homebuilding movement should never lose sight of its 'grass-roots', and accept that an organisation has to remain focussed on the basics and HAS to keep attracting new members, - then a simple statement is probably all you need to decide the answer to this Grand Question. "What proven type of homebuilt aircraft attracts more budding builders/pilots as a safe and easy entry to the pleasures of the sport"?

That's my ten cents worth,

Barry - EAA #144680

[Bill Greenwood]

Barry, I think some of the other folks on this site most like to argue about minutia. They can barely install a roll of toilet paper without stopping to debate whether it should go clockwise or counterclockwise. They remind me of a lawyer without much of a case, but who is billing for his time.
I think the general criteria I gave is reasonable. Your idea that some might like to work in wood, or as Dana said a quieter rivet is a point. So maybe how easy or pleasant the mode of consruction is should be a factor; however if the end result is not a pretty good all around plane, then I think an R V probably beats it.
I was hoping that guys might come up with some types that are 2, 3, 4 after the RV rather than just debating the idea.
As for the best fighter, see my next post.

[BushCaddy]

RV's are the best. Not what I wanted or built but they're the best. I've seen several of the kits, have friends who have built them and are flying them, extreme high quality and also great support. The numbers prove it...no other homebuilt kit is even close.

[Bill Greenwood]

Barry, as to your post about best WW II fighter, I don't think it is that hard. First question, do you mean the whole war, or just the last year and a half, after the Nazi advance and offense had been limited by RAF fighters? The Mustang, superb as they were, did not arrive at combat zone until Dec. 1943. And it wasn't until they got the Rolls engine like a Spitfire that the 51 could hold its own above 16,000 feet against the 109 or 190. They weren't part of the Battle of Britain or Malta or the Western Desert, nor of the early island fighting in the Pacific. The Spitfire, for a number of reasons( climb, ceiling, turning, max dive speed, cannons), was the best air to air defensive interceptor and fighter., AS LONG AS THE MISSION WAS ONLY ABOUT 300 MILES OR SO.

Now to decide what was the best fighter of the last part of the war, when the allies whet on the offensive, you only have to ask how long or far the mission was. If range was a big factor or the factor, like the long escort missions in the Pacific, then the P-51 was in a class on it's own, although the unarmed photo recon Spits were very long range planes themselves. The P-38 was probably a pretty good long range escort, but as an air to air fighter had gotten mauled by 109s in Europe.

[Racegunz]

I'll throw in with the RV's. I just said to my wife the other day as I was lamenting the lack of a flying airplane (3 projects now) and I told her " If I had known starting out what I have learned I would have ordered an RV kit and would be done and have everything I wanted in one plane that I'm trying to get with 2 or three." I would have saved money and it would be worth more than it cost to build. I can't say that about my current projects. RV's are still inovating with the 12 model and I bet there's more to come. My rag and tube buddies disagree but they never fly their airplanes anyway.:P

[martymayes]

If you leave popularity out of the contest, an Eagle II (both Christen and Aviat) meets all the criteria and certainly is in the running for "the best homebuilt."

There is no argument which brand is more popular but I think in a contest for which is best that shouldn't matter.

[Hangar10]

If we are talking about actual building, and homebuilts that have stood the test of time, you can't ignore the good ol no frills Pietenpol Air Camper. With a solid 83 year track record the Air Camper continues to be a popular choice among scratch builders... there are currently over one hundred active builders and fliers on the Pietenpol forum, and I'm sure there are others out there that don't frequent the web forums. The numbers may not be comparable to the RV series (I have no idea how many of either have been built), but again, when debating what is the "best" there are many factors to consider. I know several Pietenpol builders that say if they could only keep one airplane, it would be the Piet. One of those has also built an RV-4 and is currently building an RV-10.

Fast? No. A great x-country machine? No. A joy to fly? From what I hear, Yes! People talk of the RV grin... I've seen many wearing the Pietenpol grin.

[seagull]

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

[David Darnell]

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...

[steveinindy]

@ 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. ;)

[Dana]

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.

[Bill Greenwood]

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).

[Bill Greenwood]

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.

[Flyfalcons]

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.

[steveinindy]

I never even thought of a Puffenpull.

Didn't Hugh Grant get arrested for trying to buy one of those? LOL

[Bill Greenwood]

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.

[Hangar10]

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!

[steveinindy]

Speed is a relative term... compared to all things that fly, all the aircraft that we are discussing here are very slow.

There's a line at which one crosses between "slow" and "ponderous".

[Hangar10]

There's a line at which one crosses between "slow" and "ponderous".

Could be, but again, everyone's refernce and purpose is different.

I'm not trying to take anything away from the success of the RV line of airplanes... they obviously make an excellent product, and several of my friends fly them. It is just a difficult question to answer without considering all of the variables. For me, an RV is not practical at the moment, nor will it be in the near future. If I had my choice, would I build an RV? Probably not as there are several other options that I like so much better... i.e. Kitfox 5, Rans S-7, Zenith 701. Then again, if one were to venture away from the snap-together models, there are a lot of options. I personally like the Steve Wittman designs.

[Bill Greenwood]

Mark, aka Wyatt, I certainly don't know much about building a Pitenbul. I assumed that as an older design that it was meant to be simple and affordable to build. I have only built one airplane, as a minor partner, which was a modern design Starlite, not much in common with the Pit. I'll take your word for it, and if as you say it is difficult to build, then that is another strike against it being very high on the list. To me being easy or relatively quick to build is an asset, if your time is no object there are cool things like a Falco or a Jurca that can result in a beautiful and high performance plane. I think an Rv is around 1000 hours for a first timer and maybe 800 for an experienced guy.

[martymayes]

I can hardly wait for the "what's the best headset" thread....

[Hangar10]

Bill... aka Barney Frank... I'm not saying that they are hard to build... I'm simply pointing out that it is another relative issue. What is at times hard for me, might be easy for another builder. For me personally, I started out my project with two workbenches and an empty hangar, so not only have I had to acquire all the tooling (much of which wasn't absolutely necessary), but I've had to learn the skills necessary to fabricate and assemble my project... something I continue to do. Learning isn't always easy, but it is rewarding. Others have started with better tooling, skills, scrounging experience, etc. Again, all these things have different meaning to differnet people when evaluating the "best" of something. Am I saying that the Piet is overall the best? No, but as an individual asnswering a completly open ended question, this project obviously makes sense to me and based on longevity, basic dimensions, fun factor, etc... it has to be mentioned whe speaking of homebuilts.

Scratch builds are not for the instant gratification types. So if your attention span is somewhere around the tip if your nose, yeah, probably not for you.

As for the best headsets... no contest... Zulu. :)

How about an oil thread?

[Bill Greenwood]

Marty, a topic of "Best Headset" might be interesting, but then Steve would come along and tell us that whatever brand I selected, no matter whether it was Bose or David Clark, was not for everyone and would not be best for Vincent van Gogh,and therefore there was no such thing as best. And Mark would tell us that only a headset that he builds from plans is good,and most of all he wants a "delay" circuit in it, so that incoming signals are held up for a few moments, unlike all those simpletons that want "instant gratification".

[seagull]

Bill & Mark,
This is a highly entertaining conversation - please keep it up. How about a thread for "Best Phrase on a thread"?

Your Pal,

BG

[Hangar10]

And... this one has run it's course...

I fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never try to reason with a psychopath as it just makes you look like a fool."

Hey Bill... medication time!

[Hangar10]

Sorry to disappoint BG... I have come to realize (again) that Bill's primary purpose is to disagree with everyone.... boring. His wife probably never lets him talk.

Feel free to pick up where I'm leaving off!

[steveinindy]

Could be, but again, everyone's refernce and purpose is different.

Right and I accidentally submitted that previous comment from my phone without finishing the thought which was to say more or less what you did.


I personally like the Steve Wittman designs.

I like most airplanes as long as they are not just aesthetically offensive. However, liking an airplane and wanting to own and/or fly it are two separate things in my book. I love the WWII L-birds but I don't have much use for one.

[steveinindy]

then Steve would come along and tell us that whatever brand I selected, no matter whether it was Bose or David Clark, was not for everyone and would not be best for Vincent van Gogh,and therefore there was no such thing as best.

I would do no such thing since I really don't pay much attention to the brand. I find that they all tend to work just about the same so long as they are not abused. :P

[seagull]

Mark/Steve,

Fun while it lasted. As for me - I think it is healthy to have a radical viewpoint from time to time, even some of the 'urban-thread-terrorists' that sometimes populate these pages. It would be a Heck of a boring old world if everyone had the same conformity and 'grey' ideas. It has even been known for the off-the-wall brigade to actually stimulate the thinking in a positive manner!

As for the original premise of the thread - I think we've ended up stating the obvious. "Is there a best design?" - "Answer - its different 'strokes' for different folks! - or beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Which to bring it down to a level that even I can understand - "It doesn't matter a s--t what anyone else thinks - I reckon its great - and it suits me!"

[turbo]

4,000 hrs later, i'll vote for the RV. wouldn't have it any other way! thanks van!
1788

[mokiach]

Speaking from my research only in trying to decide formyself on which is the best homebuilt/ Experimental (which means not LSArestricted to 138mph), personally thus far I am leaning toward the BushbyMustang II over the RVs. I might add to the list of desirable criteria is thefolding wings for smaller hanger space. The comparable RV with folding wings isthe RV-12 which is speed-restricted LSA so that knocks that out; and there isalso a Glasair Sportsman with folding wings but the performance (speed, fuelefficiency & distance) is not as good as the Mustang either, plus it's moreexpensive. The Mustang can be built with 64 gallon tanks for about a 1,200 milerange which beats all RVs. It is aerobatic, can cruise at 215mph with a topspeed of 230mph (depending on which engine you put in it), and can land/ takeoff with 550' runway with the 360 engine. It is side-by-side seating for betterrelating to your passenger for those 5-hour trips. I think they have threeparts that are quickbuild for the person who wants to get the plane done inless than one year in their part-time and still meets the 51% rule. There is noother plane that has folding wings, is as high-performance with speed, bestdistance, and fuel-efficiency, side-by-side, aerobatic, can be geared up withIFR panels, and can be put together in under a year all for a comparable priceas the RVs, so I say the Bushby Mustang II is the best plane. And the firstflight was in 1966 so it has 47 years of experience, safety development, andimprovement development under its belt.

[Todd copeland]

I would offer my Glastar but too slow. I would then offer my glasair 3, but there are too many drawbacks for most people both in the slow and complicated build and some of the flight characteristics which make it undesirable to some pilots. For my though, the two together fill the bill nicely. So to answer the question best home built ever? Depends on the persons desires....

[Frank Giger]

Anything Aerodrome Airplanes puts out as a design.


http://vimeo.com/32382093

My Nieuport 11 has everything going for it - inexpensive to build, fun to fly, wheels in the right place, and a gun over the top wing.

Ain't never seen some pre-punched RV kit with a gun on it.

[WLIU]

The best homebuilt is the one that YOU built. There is not greater satisfaction than pushing the throttle forward and leaving the runway in a machine that your hands spent hundreds or thousands of hours crafting.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78041

[Zack Baughman]

The best homebuilt is the one that YOU built.

Debate over. Wes wins! :cool:

[Auburntsts]

Debate over. Wes wins! :cool:Agreed -- IBTL!!

[Bob Dingley]

My favorite is the Thorp T-18. Everyone knows what a genius John Thorp was. An early 60's all metal sport plane designed to be easily built using the plentiful (then) O-290G and match holed tooling using the "flip-flop" rivet layout. The design made max use of 4 X 12 sheets with minimum waste. The building manual was printed in about 12 issues of Sport Aviation 1n 1964. ACS wasn't even a lumber yard then.
It was designed with an open cockpit. The first two to fly used 180 hp lycs and they had to quickly come up with a canopy because pilots were being almost sucked out of the cockpits. A lot were built with 125 hp and did better than 150. 180 hp gave almost 200. Someone flew one around the world in the mid 60's. Original cockpit was only 38 in wide. There is a "fat boy"option available plus a folding wing. They handle like a baby carriage. Used push rods for pitch and roll. A Teleflex cable turning a small screw jack operated pitch trim. Roll trim was done by a knob that made minute change to the flap up-stops. It had a stabilator much like Pipers.

[Anymouse]

The best homebuilt is the one that YOU built. There is not greater satisfaction than pushing the throttle forward and leaving the runway in a machine that your hands spent hundreds or thousands of hours crafting.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78041

This!!

I'm too lazy to read all the posts going back to last March, but "Best homebuilt" is REALLY subjective. It really depends on your mission and what you want to do with the plane. For some, the Bearhawk is the best homebuilt out there. For me, the Tango is the best homebuilt. Yet other people might think the Maverick jet is the best.

It goes beyond the actual aircraft mission though. The type of material that you want to build with can play a huge part. In my case, I specifically wanted a composite bird. Others prefer aluminum or wood. Not sure if anyone out there is building with concrete, but if that's what they want and they can get it to fly, it may be the best homebuilt to them.

Don't forget about the construction process too. Complete kit, materials only kit, 100% scratch built, 100% self designed, etc.

[Cobrajock24]

I agree with the previous posts regarding selecting an aircraft that meets your desired use, etc. That being said:

I am half-way through my Kitfox build... I will be starting the fabric covering the first of April. With a great kit, great factory suport, and the forum (http://www.teamkitfox.com/Forums/) among the best.... I am EXTREMELY PLEASED. :D

(Also a huge thanks to the EAA for scheduling a "Fabric Covering Course" in Watsonville, CA March 23 & 24, 2013. Yes, I am enrolled! Timely to say the least!!!)