Aircraft price seems to low...

No it's a 235 and you'll be crammed in it. Unless you like gray it'll need to be painted. Besides the panel, the interior doesn't seem to be complete. So you're looking at 7-10 grand to get that stuff done. Even at 66 grand it's a good price. Of course you could get a nice AA-5 Cheetah or C-172 Skyhawk and have room for kids and luggage.
 
and you will get hosed on insurance :nonod:
 
Velocity173 said:
No it's a 235 and you'll be crammed in it. Unless you like gray it'll need to be painted. Besides the panel, the interior doesn't seem to be complete. So you're looking at 7-10 grand to get that stuff done. Even at 66 grand it's a good price. Of course you could get a nice AA-5 Cheetah or C-172 Skyhawk and have room for kids and luggage.
Click to expand...

Make up your mind :p

Velocity173 said:
Other option would be to get a Lancair 320/360. They are generally faster than the Glasair II with retracts. Owners report pushing 200 kt speeds. However The Lancairs do have some draw backs as well. The aircraft has had a checkered past with control harmony/stability issues. The FAA has specifically addressed the issue in a memo. It would be highly encouraged to get at least 10 hrs in type before soloing. I imagine your insurance company would require this in a Lancair. Unlike Glasairs and most RVs, Lancairs aren't aerobatic. Although I imagine the airframe is quite capable of handling the Gs, Lance didn't want to deal with liability issues in approving them for aerobatics. Since you didn't list that as a requirement I take it wouldn't be important to you anyway. Also if you were to get a Lancair, most 320/360 are above your 65 grand requirement. I suppose there are some out there but they definitely won't be a show bird. Generally the Glasair IIs are a little cheaper but even then you'd be pushing it to get a nice one under 65 grand, especially if you want an IFR equiped one.
Click to expand...

Your the reason I am looking at them in the first place :)
 
That's about right. A few years ago, the prices were even better and you could get a Lancair 360 for $30-60k in similar shape.

Personally, I'd want a 360.
 
Mafoo said:
Make up your mind :p



Your the reason I am looking at them in the first place :)
Click to expand...


Ha! Ha! Sorry man I don't want to get you confused but you have to evaluate all aspects of an aircraft. It really comes down to a mission choice. For instance my mission:

1. Speed and range
2. Looks (homebuilts just look like they were made to fly)
3. Avionics. A lot of times (like this case) you can get glass panels at a fraction of certified glass.
4. Ease of maintenance. I use an A&P but you can do it all as the owner. Cheaper too.
5. Aerobatics. while this 235 isn't approved for acro my Glasair and many RVs are. Just a plain kick in the pants.

Now all that sounds great but there are sacrifices.

1. In order to get speed on little horsepower you have to reduce wetted area. The 235 is a tiny plane. While it's cabin is advertised as wide as a Bonanza don't believe it until you sit in it. I sat in my friends 320 and it was just barely bigger than my Glasair 1. It's like sitting in a C-150 but reclined and with less headroom. I'm only 5'6" and my head is about 2 inches from the Glasair canopy. Of course baggage area in something like a 235 would be about C-150 size as well. Mine is listed as 10 cubic ft and 80 lbs.

2. Handling. While a blast to fly it can be overwhelming for some. You can find an FAA document online that describes the peculiar handling of early Lancairs because of the small tail. Now looking at this 235 it apppears he's modified it with a belly strake that goes to the tail. This one might have pretty good slow speed handling but you really need to research that.

3. Approach speed and stall speed. As we've talked about this before you know it's pretty high. Of course that increases chances of injury in an engine out forced landing. Also you're approach speed in this thing would be around 80 kts. You want at least a 3,000 ft runway with that. I go through brake pads once a year at the condition inspection. With that speed and these itty bitty tires, a grass strip is out of the question.

4. Insurance. The Glasair for me (4,600 hrs) is $1,000 per year for full coverage. Not bad but my old AA-5 was only $800 when I sold it. A lancair will be even worse because of it's accident record/handling issues. RVs are much more reasonable in the insurance area.

So when it comes down to it it's about your mission. Are you a two place kind of guy who doesn't mind strapping an aircraft on and go blazing across the country side? Or are you a family guy who likes to sit upright in an airy cockpit with two small kids in the back traveling so slow you have bug hits on the trailing egde of the wing?

Like I said before, you really need to go up in a homebuilt before you decide on anything. Find someone in your area that has a homebuilt and go up. You can't go wrong with the RVs, Glasairs, or even Lancairs as far as construction. Just need to find out if you can fit in it and you can feel comfortable with how it handles. Oh by the way, I used to live up in your area. Dad worked LEB FSS a long time ago. :)
 
Last edited:
Lancairs can be flying deathtraps.... everything happens very quickly in one. A lot of folks have died in them. You have to stay ahead of the airplane at all times, and that is much more difficult in such a slippery airframe, way more than in a spamcan. If you've got the skills, then a Lancair can be a very fast X-C traveling machine, but they are also very small, and quite cramped inside. I got to check out one at my local airport, and said "no thanks" and bought an RV-6 instead. If you don't have the skills to fly a Lancair, you have no business flying one... they're very demanding of your undivided attention at all times. My humble opinion anyway....
 
Last edited:
The price seems about right. The interior is rough but liveable. I have flown the Legacy, and a production model 400. They actually seemed very well behaved and once you got used to the flatter than normal landing attitude were no tougher to land than a Comanche or a Bonanza. Not for a beginner, but if you are a medium to small frame it would be a fun runabout. I lacked head room in both the models I flew. (I'm 6' 2") The one downfall I saw is the useful load.
 
I saw one the other day I think. It was either that, or a glasair. it was very small, but I did not get a chance to sit in it.

I would love to go up on a RV6/7, Glasair, or Lancair some time, to see what it's all about.

The only aircraft I have flown in my training so far, is a C150, and a C172. If they are like a C150 with respect to space, I am ok with that.

I am 5"8, and I don't have any kids.

I just want something I can take on a long XC, that's not going to cost a ton to fly, and I am not a fan of Canards. Aside from the ones I listed here, I don't know what else to look at.

Speed is nice, but not everything. With this aircraft, it looks like something between 25-30 mpg is what I can achieve. If it went slower, and got the same mpg, I would be happy.

Just cheap I guess :)
 
Well it sounds like a homebuilt 2 seater is the plane for you. Now just decide metal or composite. Of course you got tail dragger vs trike. The Liberty XL is a good 2 seater if you want to stay flying production. Got 15 hrs in one and thought it was a solid plane.
 
Velocity173 said:
Well it sounds like a homebuilt 2 seater is the plane for you. Now just decide metal or composite. Of course you got tail dragger vs trike. The Liberty XL is a good 2 seater if you want to stay flying production. Got 15 hrs in one and thought it was a solid plane.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Quick question. How often in a home built, do people run engines past major overhaul?

Right now there is an RV6 relatively cheap, with an engine at 1800 SMOH. That's pretty much run out.

Is it safe if you have an A&P taking care of an engine to fly them past the recommended overhaul period?
 
Mafoo said:
Quick question. How often in a home built, do people run engines past major overhaul?
Click to expand...
That really isn't a homebuilt/experimental vs. certified question. Unless you're flying under Part 135, you're perfectly okay flying either past the manufacturer's recommended TBO. And I don't think you'll ever be flying a homebuilt on part 135, because, IIRC, they're prohibited from commercial service.
 
Mafoo said:
Thanks.

Quick question. How often in a home built, do people run engines past major overhaul?

Right now there is an RV6 relatively cheap, with an engine at 1800 SMOH. That's pretty much run out.

Is it safe if you have an A&P taking care of an engine to fly them past the recommended overhaul period?
Click to expand...

Nah nothing wrong with 1800 hrs. I ran my io-320 til 2,200 before I got it overhauled. Only did it because one of the cylinders was at 58/80. If the compressions are good, oil tests good them you should be good to go. If the engine was operated on a regular basis then it shouldn't be a problem. Don't want one that sat for a while. Should be overhauled every 12 yrs. not sure many people stuck to that though. Anyway you'll hear the o320s and o360s are bullet proof and if they're run on a regular basis and not abused, they can easily go past TBO.
 
You're right. There's no attitude indicator. That's because RV pilots are too busy doing overhead breaks or flying upside down that they're only interested in airspeed, not attitude. Actually, I have no freakin idea why they didn't include one. You say this is seen on numerous RVs?
 
Mafoo said:
cool, thanks guys for talking this through with me. Another question :)

This is the aircraft I was talking about with the 1800 hours.

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_626138_2005+RV-6+Slider.html

I notice that there is no attitude indicator on that instrument panel. That kind of is my goto instrument. I have seen other RV's without this as well.

Why?
Click to expand...

OK, I would bet lunch that empty hole in the middle had one of these in it:

http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/D10A_intro.html

He just pulled it before sale.
 
Ron Wattanja wrote a great piece on the accident statistics for experimentals. Fast glass homebuilts get a page of their own, as do the Lanceairs. They have a reputation for being unforgiving, and at those speeds I can see why.

When I first started flying Certificated aircraft were enormously expensive, and experimentals inexpensive and quite a bit faster. Had I not won my aircraft I would have likely been in that market. Prices on certificated aircraft have come way down, making the experimentals just another option, rather than the only thing for a rational pilot.

I myself tend to counsel others that a first aircraft purchase should perhaps not be an experimental. I base this on a number of factors, the biggest being the issues of ownership, finding a mechanic, hangar space, and learning to fly the aircraft. To my mind having your first ownership experience be an aircraft that may be unusual or rare and have peculiar flying characteristics seems like a lot to add to the burden.

Not to say that experimental aircraft aren't really, really fine. There are many that will do things that the most expensive certificated aircraft can't, you can do anything to them you like and use all manner of non certificated avionics.
 
steingar said:
Ron Wattanja wrote a great piece on the accident statistics for experimentals. Fast glass homebuilts get a page of their own, as do the Lanceairs. They have a reputation for being unforgiving, and at those speeds I can see why.

When I first started flying Certificated aircraft were enormously expensive, and experimentals inexpensive and quite a bit faster. Had I not won my aircraft I would have likely been in that market. Prices on certificated aircraft have come way down, making the experimentals just another option, rather than the only thing for a rational pilot.

I myself tend to counsel others that a first aircraft purchase should perhaps not be an experimental. I base this on a number of factors, the biggest being the issues of ownership, finding a mechanic, hangar space, and learning to fly the aircraft. To my mind having your first ownership experience be an aircraft that may be unusual or rare and have peculiar flying characteristics seems like a lot to add to the burden.

Not to say that experimental aircraft aren't really, really fine. There are many that will do things that the most expensive certificated aircraft can't, you can do anything to them you like and use all manner of non certificated avionics.
Click to expand...

Yea, I tend to agree with your first line. Going to back away from a 250 mph plane.

However the Van's line seems very well tested as an airframe, and being it's all metal, the variances between each example should be far less.

I keep looking at other aircraft, and I keep coming back to the RV 6/7
 
Mafoo said:
cool, thanks guys for talking this through with me. Another question :)

This is the aircraft I was talking about with the 1800 hours.

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_626138_2005+RV-6+Slider.html

I notice that there is no attitude indicator on that instrument panel. That kind of is my goto instrument. I have seen other RV's without this as well.

Why?
Click to expand...

It doesn't have one because this guy made it bare bones VFR. 20 grand more and you could get an IFR RV with way less engine time. That new Dynon would definitely have to go in this for an emergency backup. Plus you're looking at a tail dragger. Going from a spam can to a homebuilt is hard enough, now you're adding the more difficult handling of a tailwheel. Obviously it can be done but for a first aircraft I'd stick to a trike. Insurance will be lower as well. Also unless it's an antique tailwheels just don't look good. :D
 
A RV6/7 are great airplanes for a low time pilot. The 7 series have more consistent flying qualities because of the matched hole tooling. The taiwheel RVs are as docile as can be and only require a short transition. I have flown around 25 different RVs and only ran accross two 6s that flew poorly. Insurance will be high however until you reach the 100 hr mark. Lancairs and Glassairs can be all over the place on empty weights and construction quality that you can't see. These airplanes are not good IFR platforms for a rookie instrument pilot so why pay for a loaded panel. You can fly anywhere with basic instruments and radios with any of the modern handheld GPSs. My RV7 had a Dynon 100/120 panel with a comm, transponder and 396 GPS and I routinely flew into Denver, Salt Lake and LAX airspace with no problems. I never really paid much attention to the Dynon except for airspeed and altimeter. I have flown more cross country hours in airplanes older than me with very basic panels and no navigation equipment than with. Don
 
steingar said:
I myself tend to counsel others that a first aircraft purchase should perhaps not be an experimental. I base this on a number of factors, the biggest being the issues of ownership, finding a mechanic, hangar space, and learning to fly the aircraft. To my mind having your first ownership experience be an aircraft that may be unusual or rare and have peculiar flying characteristics seems like a lot to add to the burden.
Click to expand...
As big of a homebuilt fan as I am, I agree with you 100%. Owning a homebuilt has the same challenges as a type-certificated airplane, PLUS the difficulties in pre-buy inspections, finding a willing A&P for the annuals, and the occasional need to fabricate your own parts.

Owning a TC'd plane first...where almost all problems can be solved with the application of money...trains you in the realities of airplane ownership without the heartbreak of having an unservicable airplane with no idea how to get it fixed.

I'm currently about two months* into exhaust system repairs/modification on my Fly Baby...taking parts in for repair, having flanges replaced, grinding down the sides of the new flanges to make it possible to install the headers, etc. I can't *imagine* a first-time plane owner having to go through this. Better to have a Champ or a 150, where you can just ship the parts off to the Repair Station.

* Including one month when the operator of the one-man welding shop was in the hospital, with my parts lying idle on his workbench.

Ron Wanttaja
 
I would add that the faster aircraft also need IFR. Going faster usually means going farther. If you go farther, you will hit weather, it is nearly unavoidable. Thus the need for IR. I can imagine doing IFR approaches in a stable spam can at 90knots, doing one in a twitchy hotrod at 100 knots seems far more difficult.

I love RVs as well. I've only flown in two, but both left a pretty big smile on my face. But again, a raft of issues, including build quality, not an easy thing to address if you've never owned an aircraft (or even if you have).

The other thing is most experimentals are limited in mission. Two seats and not a lot of baggage means your aren't taking Mrs. You for a long trip. You might try owning a spam can for awhile and seeing if the experimental really meets your mission. If it does good for you, you'll like it. But if you're doing long multi day trips with others a certificated aircraft might be better.

The last thing is I read about all sorts of pilots and the missions they think they'll be flying. Then reality sets in, and often the real mission is very different from the perceived one.
 
steingar said:
The last thing is I read about all sorts of pilots and the missions they think they'll be flying. Then reality sets in, and often the real mission is very different from the perceived one.
Click to expand...

I am fairly confident what my normal mission will be. 200 miles or less, 2-3 weekends a month.

I can by anything and accomplish that. The issue is my father lives in Albuquerque, my mother lives in Daytona, my Wife's family lives in Minnesota, and I have to go back to Minnesota for work 4-6 times a year.

So something with range would be very nice. However, I could fly to a larger airport, and then go comercial when I wanted to fly far, and then rent something local if I want to take my family somewhere around the area.

The 40 grand less that would cost would be a lot of comercial travel.

So I have so many options, it's just hard to figure out the best one :)
 
steingar said:
By yourself? With Mrs. Mafoo? With Mafoo Jr.? Does Mrs. Mafoo like to pack?
Click to expand...

Just my wife and I, and we did two weeks in New Zealand with each of us only having a carry on. (well, I had half a carry on :))
 
Velocity173 said:
Also unless it's an antique tailwheels just don't look good. :D
Click to expand...

We're going to have to disagree there:
1548698.jpg

rv-7a_50_web.jpg


Plus that nosewheel can do this:
1225773.jpg

1242940.jpg
 
it's a 235 airframe with a lyco 320. i'd say it's priced about right to a bit high. If it was a 320/320 I'd say it was priced low. To be clear, the 235 airframe is visibly smaller in every dimension than the 320/360 airframe (which are identical sans the engine of course)...
 
Mafoo said:
Just my wife and I, and we did two weeks in New Zealand with each of us only having a carry on. (well, I had half a carry on :))
Click to expand...

If Mrs. Mafoo really does that all the time, heck you should have her bronzed for posterity. And yeah, your experimental will work just fine. That is an awfully big IF. Packing for a week in the city and a week in the outback are very different processes.
 
Mafoo said:
OK, I would bet lunch that empty hole in the middle had one of these in it:

http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/D10A_intro.html

He just pulled it before sale.
Click to expand...

Wanna buy me lunch? I'd like BBQ at KSEP :yes:

I know the owner of that RV-6 personally, and it's never had a Dynon in it. It's just a most basic,simple, honest, plain vanilla, spartan day-vfr RV-6. It's built really well, and is the very first RV-6 that I ever flew left seat! It had the empty instrument hole in the panel when Dave bought it and no evidence of any wiring for anything in that instrument hole either. I think the original builder intended to put a gyro there but never did before he sold it to Dave. Amazingly this plane has very nice Oregon Aero seats in it.... very out-of-place for such a plain-jane RV-6 and they are very comfortable. If you want a plain, basic RV-6 cheap. This one is alright.
 
When a Lancair Legacy went too low on approach and snatched power wires at a local field E80 in March, the largest piece remaining was a chunk of rear fuselage, the next largest was the seat cushion, the rest scattered into pieces about the size of a man's palm (not counting the engine). Even empenage and wings disintegrated into little shards. I know that wires kill people in Mooneys and Cessnas too, but this was way too dramatic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top