A lot of good feedback so far, so I'll try to answer/comment on what was said. I've grouped similar comments so they all get answered at once.
How is the RV-10 "too much"? What does your budget, mission, and builder profile look like?
Not something that requires 10+years to build and 250-300k for a light IFR machine. One of the goals of this build would be to show aspiring owners that for the price of their time and some money (120k-ish before paint and interior) you could build something that more than one person can enjoy. I'd like something that is comparable to a high end 172/182 or PA28. Fixed gear/prop, modest avionics, no need for three flat panel displays and two GTN750s, all fed by two alternators and three batteries. Practical without breaking the bank. Extra knots demand $^2.
Buy one already built--seriously if you really want E-AB and are more interested in flying than building.
The best value in aviation is a well maintained airplane about 1/2 way into its first or second overhaul.
What’s reasonable? Best bang for the buck is to buy a used legacy 4-seater.
I looked carefully at building a 4 seater about a decade ago. I found that I couldn't build a plane as cheaply as I could buy one, and buying would get me in air air MUCH faster.
I already own a legacy 4-seater. While this was the definitive answer a decade ago, with the hikes in parts costs, lack of availability, engine overhaul costs and the fact that every piece of avionics ends up costing double+ the purchase price by the time it gets installed, it is time to think outside of the legacy bubble. Buying a pre-built E-AB means no repairman certificate, and that is something I'd like to have.
Sling tsi looks attractive if the size works for you. Probably faster to build than the -10.
That seems to be the closest to what I'm looking for. I'd prefer the kit to be a bit cheaper (again, one of the motives is demonstrating there is an affordable entry point in the 4-seat market), and I'd be curious if they'd support a builder that would consider a different powerplant with a fixed pitch prop. I've dealt with a few kit makers out there that won't even talk to you if you mention that you'd like to install a different powerplant than the one they have on their prototype. I think their engine/prop combination ends up costing almost as much as the airframe kit. Not sure the extra performance is worth the price penalty.
Velocity if you like fiberglass work..
Not really - but they are good looking planes.
Bearhawk probably the fastest to build? Seem like good planes. Not as fast, more of a backcountry plane, but not kitfox slow either.
Not my cup of tea.
There’s a heck of a lot more work than what meets the eye. If you can’t reasonably budget for 5yrs build time, I’d suggest buying one either already built, or nearly finished.
5 years is reasonable, 10 isn't. I've also seen what can happen when you buy someone's half-baked build. By the time they decide to sell it, they've already given up and the build quality suffers. Mis-drilled stringers, requiring drilling out the rivets on half the fuselage to replace, wing fittings drilled incorrectly, requiring the wings to be scrapped and a new set built, stuff like that.
Zenith 801 is a four seat, but slow.
Too boxy for my taste, but I do like Zenith's approach to building. A lot easier to deal with a pneumatic rivet puller than a rivet gun and a bucking bar.
If they still had the 4-seat CH640 available, I'd probably consider it. Too bad they did such a poor job marketing it, and then pulled the plug on it because "there was no demand". Most people never heard of it.
One other nice thing about Zenith, they don't really care what powerplant you want to install, as long as it meets certain weight and power requirements. That's a lot more in the true spirit of E-AB compared with some other kit makers out there.
Building E-AB based on economy is what leads to unfinished kits for sale.
E-AB is a long-term game. Cheaper to buy a 1970s bird in the short run, but a new build could be more economical in the long run, especially in the current GA climate.
already looking at something faster and I like the BD4C
I like the BD4 fuselage build method, with the bolted angles and glued on skin. Also the honeycomb ribs glued to the spar and using the space as a fuel tank is neat. Not a big fan of the tubular spar (heavier than it could be otherwise), and it means no easy way to add dihedral (if trying that solution on a low wing). Also, no wing washout, so stall characteristics might be a bit sporty.
I've always thought of Bede as being kind of sketchy....or was that only the jet?
Yes to both questions. They haven't been too good at delivering kits that were paid in full, and the jet was definitely not the safest thing out there.
