Homebuilt with performance similar to Cheetah / Tiger

[Mike Switzer]

The other day I resigned from the club I have been a member of since May of 1996. Several reasons, most of which I don't want to get into here but I figured as maintenance officer I have worked nearly 150 hours this year (and paid monthly dues for the privilege) which was time I could be spending on my business, or on the homebuilt design I have been trying to work on for several years & I don't seem to be making any progress.

Which leaves me without anything to fly. If I buy something to fly near term I would like to buy an experimental so that I can do the maintenance. My question is, is there any readily available homebuilt that comes near to the performance of a Cheetah or Tiger (with comparable 160 or 180 HP) that won't cost an arm and a leg to buy? For that matter something similar in performance to a 172 with the same engines would probably do the trick. I need at least 2 seats plus baggage, or a 2+2, but I really need at least 750lb useful load, over 800 would be better. Also, I am 6'2" with broad shoulders so anything much narrower than a 172 would be tight.

[deej]

Hi Mike,
A Glasair Aviation Sportsman 2+2 might fit your needs. I have a kit for sale if you are interested:
http://deej.net/forsale/
If you don't want to build, you might be able to find some that are already flying for sale. More info on the aircraft can be found at:
http://glasairaviation.com/

-Dj

[Mike Switzer]

Thanks Dj I want to build what I have been trying to work on for several years, so if I buy I want something flying or that is a fairly easy project. That does look like it might work though - most of the 2 seaters only have around a 5-600 lb useful load.

[deej]

You may also consider a Glastar, which is the little brother to the Sportsman. Only two seats versus the four, but you can still carry 250 lbs of baggage. Plenty of flying Glastars on the market for reasonable prices. I ended up buying a Glastar which is why my Sportsman project is for sale. It is "close enough" to the Sportsman capabilities for my needs.

-Dj

[Mike Switzer]

Wikipedia says the Glastar is steel tube frame, is that correct? I was under the impression that both the Glastar & Sportsman were composite.

If their website says anywhere I cant find it

[I_FLY_LOW]

The 2 seat Cougar is in the plans.
http://flypanther.net/

[deej]

Both the Glastar and Sportsman are steel tube frames surrounded by a fiberglass shell, with aluminum wings and tail. The construction on the Glastar and Sportsman are very similar. If you want to see details of how it is put together, you can take a look at my builder's log at http://deej.net/sportsman/

-Dj

[martymayes]

There's a lot of parts.....
http://glasairaviation.com/pdf/GlaStarSportsman%20Tech%20Info%20Kit%20Contents%20 GA%20-%20Revised%20Small.pdf

[Mike Switzer]

That is a long list of parts

[cluttonfred]

Off the top of my head, there are not a lot of aircraft that come to mind to fit your criteria. The closest to a Cheetah/Tiger might be the Van's RV-10, but it's a lot more power than you mention and a lot of money. My suggestion would be the Zenair CH640: http://www.zenair640.info/

3559

[rleffler]

Not sure how much useful load you were looking for, but the RV-14 has a useful load of about 800lbs. It also has the width of a RV-10. This will be about 4" or so wider than a 172 or a Cherokee. The only downside is that there aren't any flying yet but the factory demo units. Your only option would be to build. Think of it as a RV-10 with just two seats. Although it is approved aerobatics, which the RV-10 isn't. I don't know how much your arm and legs cost, so I can't do that comparison. :) Van's is estimating about $90k to get it flying. I suspect that's due to having only one engine option and that is to purchase new from Lycoming. You can build a RV-10 for about $120-$130k depending how you equip the panel and whether you can find a used engine. $150k if you by top end panel and new engine.

[Kyle Boatright]

There is a huge void in the homebuilt market. You go from RV's, Sonexes, and Tailwinds, and jump to the RV-10. The Sportsman is an option, but the performance is nothing to write home about, IMO. I've been looking at Tigers for some time - ready built and a 130 knot real world cruise. An RV-10 would be great, but going from a 130 knot 2+2 airplane to a 160 knot 4 place doubles or triples the up-front cost.

I've had multiple exchanges with Van's staff about stretching the RV-9 into something Tigeresque, but that's been a no-go so far. Maybe yours would be the e-mail or phone call that would break the logjam. ;-)

[Bob Dingley]

Another one that you can look at is the MUSTANG 2. I first saw one about 35 years ago that was built localy. They have a good reputation. Earlier this year, AOPA wrote up an account of a fly-off between one and an RV-7. Mustang 2 was faster, but the RV-7 landed shorter. There are usually one or two in Barnstormers listed in the 30's. The RVs are usually in the 60's plus. 200mph and 80lbs of baggage.


Bob

[Mike Switzer]

Problem with the Mustang II, RV xx, Thorp, whatever 2 place useful load is 500 - 600 which is pretty much useless for anything but a sunday pancake run

[Mike Switzer]

if it wasn't for the maintenance issue (or combination of high priced parts & lack of me being able to work on it without contracting with the right semi retired IA) I would buy a Cheetah

[cluttonfred]

if it wasn't for the maintenance issue (or combination of high priced parts & lack of me being able to work on it without contracting with the right semi retired IA) I would buy a Cheetah

It sounds to me like you are really in the market for a second-hand homebuilt. There were some two/three-seaters among the classic homebuilt designs that might work, the Stits SA-11 Playmate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stits_SA-11A_Playmate), for example. Here's a sharp-looking one for sale on Trade-A-Plane for $19,000.

3560

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/aircraft/Single+Engine+Piston/1970/Stits/SA-11A+Playmate/1724925.html

[martymayes]

if it wasn't for the maintenance issue (or combination of high priced parts & lack of me being able to work on it without contracting with the right semi retired IA) I would buy a Cheetah

Between the Cheetah and Glastar/Sportsman (project or flying) the Cheetah will probably be the lesser expensive of the two. Finding the right IA would make it even more so.

[Sam Buchanan]

Problem with the Mustang II, RV xx, Thorp, whatever 2 place useful load is 500 - 600 which is pretty much useless for anything but a sunday pancake run

Hmmmm.....wonder how all the two-place RVs that are flying to the four corners of the country are managing with their limited useful load? Not to mention the hundreds of RVs that fly to OSH each year.

An RV may be beyond the original poster's budget and may be tight for two truly bubba-sized enthusiasts (RV-14 excepted) but I've found the payload of my 1999 RV-6 (1010 lbs empty) to be very adequate for hauling myself, a passenger, fuel and baggage anywhere we want to go.

Makes for a great breakfast run machine, too. :)

[Mike Switzer]

Between the Cheetah and Glastar/Sportsman (project or flying) the Cheetah will probably be the lesser expensive of the two. Finding the right IA would make it even more so.

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

[Mike Switzer]

I've found the payload of my 1999 RV-6 (1010 lbs empty) to be very adequate for hauling myself, a passenger, fuel and baggage anywhere we want to go.

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.

[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

[Mike Switzer]

I am surprised by that comment. In my experience it took a bit of upper body strength to lift yourself out of a Grumman.

Upper body strength isn't a problem - I have a problem with my left knee & stepping down & into a piper is difficult - same with trying to get up & out

[Mike Switzer]

Beech Sundowner, you can get a well equipped one for around 30k.

I have considered that, but there again parts are expensive. Probably going to be worse now that Textron bought Beech. But from everything I have heard they are comfortable & I like the idea of 2 doors.

[middlebrook04]

Yes if you bend it the parts may cost you but as for normal wear and tare it is the same as any other type in its class. It is hard to beat the strength though. After many hours in 172's and PA-28's, I'm glad I bought the Sundowner. It's way more roomy for us big guy's and great visibility compared to the Cherokee line. Not to say I would not own the others they are well proven and reliable airframes. I do believe if Beech would not have made the mistake of dropping the Musketeer line the could have kept a large share of the small single market.