Choosing a project

[Iforgot]

Hello everyone,

I've been wanting to build a plane for quite a while and am at a point where I'd like to get a start this winter. I'm trying to make my decision and was hoping for some advice for my particular requirements and questions.

What I am looking for in a project is:

1. A project. I enjoy building things and this is my first requirement.
A. Any material except wood.
B. Needs to be kind of quiet as I am living in a duplex (no hammering rivets).
C. Need to be able to do a lot of the work in a large 1-car garage. Major assembly will obviously have to be done somewhere else
D. Plans or kit is fine as long as it meets other requirements (plans helps a lot with #2)

2. Something I can afford. I'm thinking that ~35k completed is my upper limit.

3. Something I will enjoy when it's done. It needs to do at least this.
A. 2 seats
B. Enclosed cockpit
C. Capable of at least minimalist x-country (faster than 100mph TAS, 350+ lbs full fuel payload)
D. Resale. (Would be nice to not have a total loss if I want to sell it to fund the next project)

4. Some things I would like (these are not all required, but various attributes I would like, individually or in combination)
A. Fast (150+mph)
B. Aerobatic (I've never done this, but it looks fun)
C. Off-airport landings
D. Capable of floats later on
E. Larger useful load
F. Great visibility

Now, the main designs that I'm considering:

Sonex
Likes:
Construction (pulled rivets should be quiet enough), speed, mild aerobatic capability, grass runways ok, good fuel mileage

Dislikes:
Looks (though not that important), marginal 2 place, small fuel capacity, engine choices (I'm not completely comfortable with the idea of a VW, and the large Jabiru is kind of pricey)

Zenith CH 750 Cruzer
Likes:
Construction, Visibility, good useful load, can use many engines, could add floats or heavy duty gear for off-airport, lands short enough for me

Dislikes:
Looks, wish it was a little faster, only the factory plane for a data point, might be boring to fly (will it feel like a C150?), bad fuel mileage

Zenith CH 650B
Looks like a good mix of the Sonex and CH 750 strengths, but maybe not enough faster than the 750 Cruzer to make up for losing the option of off-airport landings

Wittman Tailwind
Likes:
Speed, x-country ability, construction with the metal wing

Dislikes:
Fabric means it needs to be in a hanger?, might be difficult to get much done in a small garage.

I also like the Kitfox, Just Aircraft, and others, but they are only available as quickbuild kits which blows my budget.

OK, any advice for how these designs fit into my requirements/desirements? Any designs that I have overlooked?

Thanks in advance.

[CarlOrton]

Hi, Iforgot; (you really need a better first name!)

I'm hoping you've already searched this particular forum for similar threads- there's a bunch of 'em.

I know others will chime in, so I'll just touch briefly on things.

I built a Sonex, so I'm partial.

The looks of the Sonex are something you just get used to. Everyone in aviation knows it's a Sonex, but if you pull up in something else, they'll be squinting and trying to figure out *what* kind of plane it is (well, unless you go with the cruzer). Let's just say that when you pull up at your local pancake breakfast, you'll win the dead grass award.

Regarding low fuel capacity, the Sonex will outlast your bladder. With the AeroVee engine, if you cruise at less than WOT, you'll see fuel burns in the 3-4 gals / hr range. Trust me, in ANY small plane, your LEGS and BUTT will be screaming for you to get out of the plane after about 2.5 hrs max.

The power of the AeroVee is sufficient. It's a thrill with just the pilot, and just a tad short of C-172 performance at gross weight. Would I like a Jab? Heck yeah, but I like the (?) $14,000 money I saved by going with the VW.

I sat in the Cruzer at Oskhosh, and I loved it. Roomy, easy to get into, lot's of panel space, etc. I don't know if they're offering a plans-only version, but I find it hard to believe that you could build it for anywhere near $35K. Not saying you can't, but just with the kit cost and avionics, you're not going to have much if any left over for the engine. Nice plane though.

I looked at fabric planes as well before I bought the Sonex. Sorry, fabric's just not for me. I did the fabric workshop as well just to see if I'd like it. I admire the folks who can do it, but I'm not one of them! I recognize my limitations.

Back to the cost issue, I built my Sonex for about $33K. That includes a color MGL Enigma EFIS and MicroAir comm/transponder pair. I live under the DFW Mode C veil, so a transponder was a must. I also wanted a clean-looking panel, and had the $$$ available from selling my Cessna, so I went with MicroAir. They're expensive compared to some others, but like I said, it's a clean installation, and both units talk to the Enigma, so I have frequency transfer, built-in alt encoder, etc.

Lastly, consider the type/level of support you'll need. I'll stick my hand in the garbage disposal and assert that the Sonex community as a whole (factory & builders) are every bit as responsive as the Van's bunch. Maybe not as many of them as Van's, but just as passionate. You can call the factory or email them. I've never waited more than 18 hrs for a factory response email. I've never waited more than 1/2hr to get thru to them on the phone (and that was not waiting - they tell you if they're talking to someone else and to just call back). But if you post on the Yahoo support groups or sonexbuilders.net, you'll get an answer pronto.

Ooops, the real lastly, again on the looks. When I was first looking for a kit, I said no way, no how on the Sonex. Ugly, small panel, etc. But when you start to look at the real data behind your questions, it's the work of a genius. The whole fuselage is a lifting body. 6+ g's? you won't find that in the lower price ranges. These birds are built tough as a tank. Find a local builder and go visit them - regardless of make/model. You can find Sonex builders on the sonexaircraft.com website under "Find a Builder."

Good luck!

[I_FLY_LOW]

Well, a Piper Pacer PA-22-20-150 or 160 would fit the bill in all respects.
Find a Tri-Pacer, with a 150 or 160 Lyc in it, do a univair tail dragger conversion, and build it clean.
Or find one that needs to be fixed up.
It'll do 150 mph, they can be modified for floats, haul 4 people and fuel comfortably, can do off airport work.
Only thing lacking, is aerobatic.

[Iforgot]

Carl, thanks for the tips. I agree that the Sonex makes a lot of sense. I think it's ugly, but that doesn't really matter. I actually like the Waiex version quite a bit, but I pretty much intend to build from plans, so that isn't an option. It is good to hear that the aerovee provides acceptable performance, but I'm not sure that I'd feel comfortable flying with it, there's not a lot of options for a forced landing around here. As for the two Zenith designs, would they be any more expensive than the Sonex when plans building and equal avionics?


That brings up another thing I've been wondering about. What can I expect for engine cost? The Zenith can use several of the traditional aircraft engines, what could one expect to spend on a used O-200 or similar?


As for the pacer idea,I have considered buying something like that. It would fullfill my flying needs nicely, but misses my #1 requirement - I don't get to build it.


Thanks again!

[Jim Heffelfinger]

Great topic. And one that needs to be opened from time to time. It allows all of us in the build process to air our individuality.
Plans building may not be less expensive than a kit - based on time and the sadly frequent "rework" when you make a mistake and have to get another sheet of stock.
Using matched holes and lots of factory prefab the modern metal kit is quite rapid a build. Plans building will triple (or more) the build times listed for kits and unless the builder is VERY dedicated more likely to languish in the hangar for many years.
I ask the question - why is wood off your list? It's the easiest to work with medium.
The Viking Engine is reaching maturity and is going through R&D for a turbo. It will not break the bank. A friend, Ken Robbers, has Sonex with a Viking and it does level flight at 180 TAS @ WOT.
A o-200 new is over 30K, used - down to a few thousand.
The 100-130 hp range engines are a sweet spot for many aircraft. The list of engines is actually pretty long compared to a 200hp engine.
Perhaps more importantly - what are your family obligations? It REALLY matters. Projects are both time and money suckers. Not every relationship can cope with both being in short supply - for a toy.
others will add their own truth.
jim

[Jim Heffelfinger]

Something I forgot to ask... are you already a pilot and/or taking flight lessons? I ask as some of your criteria are a bit at odds with each other. Off airport and fast are usually a bit in conflict. I work in the sailing industry and find lots of dreamers wanting an off shore boat but in reality they just want to day sail once they get their feet wet during the first year.

[Iforgot]

Jim, thanks for the tips. I am just a few hours away from my check ride. Hopefully will have my PPL by the end of the year. Sorry that my original post was a bit long and confusing. I intended to list a few hard requirements, and then a list of "nice to haves" with the realization that some of the nice to haves were at odds with each other but not my hard requirements. I.e.: carry 350 lbs and either go fast, or land on a lake, not both.

[cluttonfred]

As I am sure you know, some of your criteria are contradictory, especially the fast cross-country speed combined with off-airport operations. You might also take a look at John Monnett's earlier design, the Sonerai II (http://www.greatplainsas.com/sonindex.html). Mid- or low-wing, taildragger or trike gear, standard or stretched fuselage, all metal wings with pulled rivets and a welded steel tube fuselage and tail covered in fabric. It's a well proven design and quite fast for the power--about 140 mph cruise on a 2180cc VW. I think the original mid-wing looks the best and probably has the best performance but the low-wing, stretch model has a larger cockpit and higher gross weight and would probably suit your needs. A Sonerai with an Aerovee would be even cheaper than a Sonex and faster on the same power.

3334 3333 3335

[Iforgot]

Hey everyone,

Some good things being mentioned here, thanks for the advice.

As far as why not wood: I enjoy working with wood, but I don't see it as something I want to build an airplane out of. Doesn't quite have the sense of durability that metal or fiberglass has to me. Perhaps that's an unfounded prejudice on my part, and I would be willing to reconsider if there was a design with many advantages.

Jim, you mentioned cost of a new O-200 of ~$30k, while the used cost is a few thousand. Any more definitive idea on the used cost? I am thinking for a non-new, but has enough life left. Can it get down to the cost of the Aerovee ($7k)? This is one area that I have not researched much and I don't have a feel for used engine prices. If a usable O-200 or similar can be had for aerovee prices, that is a big advantage for either of the Zeniths.

Cluttonfred, I did list conflicting requirements, there are multiple missions that I would be satisfied with. I'm trying to decide between the sportscar and the SUV, I know they are mutually exclusive. One of the things I'm trying to figure out is if the Sonex is better at sporty than the Zenith is at utility. The Sonerai has always been a favorite, one of the planes that had me dreaming of building my own years ago. I had kind of decided that it's not as suitable for a new pilot. The small fat wing probably doesn't give much of a glide ratio, and I've read that it can have pretty quick handling. Any thoughts on that?

Carl, you make a pretty good case for the Sonex. How many hours do you have on your aerovee? Any unexpected maintenance on it? How does it do on those hot TX days?

Thanks again everyone!

[Iforgot]

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?

[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
http://flywithspa.com/images/482_DSC_0644.JPG

[Jim Heffelfinger]

Take a look at this
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/categories/building_materials/bm/menus/kits/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.http://eaaforums.org/images/icons/goggles.gif

[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.