Aircraft Suggestion

Ron Levy said:
The result is that you can never be as sure that any particular RV-8 will fly as much like any other RV-8 as you can with two PA-28-180's.
Click to expand...

I agree that there are some flight characteristics that are different between birds within the fleet, but that is the same across the board for every model I have flown (certified and experimental). If you flew three different 180hp RV-8's in the same day you would probably experience close to the same amount of variance as you would between three 160hp 172's. Heck, I used to rent from an FBO that had three 172's on the line. Each one had their own quirks and flight characteristics that distinguished themselves. Plane 1 required a little extra trim on take off, Plane 2 had a heavy right wing, Plane 3 like to float on landing, etc. etc.

Now, if you're trying to compare a 200hp constant speed RV8 with a 160hp wood-prop RV8, then yes there will be some fairly abrupt handling differences - but that's the same when comparing a Cherokee 160 to a 200hp Arrow in my book.

I guess with everything you look at, you have to do some investigation and realize that just because it says RV8 doesn't mean all RV8's are the same, just like knowing that not all Cherokees are the same.
 
Henning said:
Nonsense. The roughest back ranch strips and levee roads get used by low wing airplanes all the time. Unless it's a biplane, I haven't seen the wing on top of an Ag plane.

If you want to see some rough service and back country strips come to Australia. The Bonanzas are the mainstay utility and bush delivery planes there. I've said it before, I'll land a Bonanza anywhere you can land a 206.
Click to expand...

Bonanzas are great for back country strips but there are plenty of places where a big tire taildragger (perhaps with STOL) can safely go that would present a big risk for a Bonanza. But maybe your claim would be pretty valid for a stock 206. Even then if someone hogged out a 20 ft wide strip of bare ground in 5ft tall mature corn the Bonanza might get in (while accumulating several dents in the leading edges) but would never get out while a well flown 206 wouldn't have any trouble.
 
CJones said:
I agree that there are some flight characteristics that are different between birds within the fleet, but that is the same across the board for every model I have flown (certified and experimental). If you flew three different 180hp RV-8's in the same day you would probably experience close to the same amount of variance as you would between three 160hp 172's. Heck, I used to rent from an FBO that had three 172's on the line. Each one had their own quirks and flight characteristics that distinguished themselves. Plane 1 required a little extra trim on take off, Plane 2 had a heavy right wing, Plane 3 like to float on landing, etc. etc.

Now, if you're trying to compare a 200hp constant speed RV8 with a 160hp wood-prop RV8, then yes there will be some fairly abrupt handling differences - but that's the same when comparing a Cherokee 160 to a 200hp Arrow in my book.

I guess with everything you look at, you have to do some investigation and realize that just because it says RV8 doesn't mean all RV8's are the same, just like knowing that not all Cherokees are the same.
Click to expand...

I agree with Chris's points. The 172s I've flown have all had different characteristics in how they fly. I've found a good sum of variation there. When you're talking about certified aircraft that are 30+ years old (as most of ours are), you're going to see a lot of variation due to the years and years of dings, abuse, repair, lack of repair, etc. on it. For that matter, the instrument panels on each aircraft are going to have just as much variation as most experimentals out there these days.
 
CJones said:
That's a pretty broad statement. I'm curious what has turned you off to homebuilts so whole-heartedly.
Click to expand...
NTSB accident reports, quality control of the home builder not the same as a certified aircraft, unknown/unauthorized changes from the design, handling can be significantly different than certified aircraft and from different examples of the same type.

I really don't care if everyone decides flying a amateur built aircraft is OK. I won't get in one. Life is too short.
 
Tarheel Pilot said:
Eh, sometimes you feel like just cruising in the sky and not having to deal with ATC, kinda like how you take your sports car on the back roads.
Click to expand...

I don't have to talk to ATC in Class E space, either. And higher altitudes give me more time and distance to resolve some issues that might come up. Just saying...
 
CJones said:
I agree that there are some flight characteristics that are different between birds within the fleet, but that is the same across the board for every model I have flown (certified and experimental). If you flew three different 180hp RV-8's in the same day you would probably experience close to the same amount of variance as you would between three 160hp 172's.
Click to expand...
Well, if you compare a 160HP 172R to a 160 HP 172M, yes, I'd have to agree, as there were significant design changes between the M and R models, but if we're talking about three factory-stock 172P's, no, I would not agree. Cessna just didn't send two 172P's out the door with significantly different dimensions or aerosurface alignments, and you can find such differences on just about any two putatively identical models of E-AB planes, including the kit types.
 
Ghery said:
I don't have to talk to ATC in Class E space, either. And higher altitudes give me more time and distance to resolve some issues that might come up. Just saying...
Click to expand...

That is very true, point taken. :)
 
I have another question. What about LSA aircrafts? I'm looking at the Zenith Zodiac XL right now and it looks like a nice sleek aircraft. It's smaller than the Cherokee but it does look like fun to fly.

I'm one of those people who pack light, when I go on vacation, I can fit everything into a duffel bag. I think the only concern about me flying LSA is the dog. My dog is a Boxer, and he's a puppy right now, I just have to find a way to keep him restrained while in flight.
 
NC Pilot said:
NTSB accident reports, quality control of the home builder not the same as a certified aircraft, unknown/unauthorized changes from the design, handling can be significantly different than certified aircraft and from different examples of the same type.

I really don't care if everyone decides flying a amateur built aircraft is OK. I won't get in one. Life is too short.
Click to expand...

Well, everyone is entitled to their own WRONG opinion.. ;) ;) (just pulling your chain, by the way).

I'm sorry you feel that way, as you're missing out on some potential cool flying opportunities.

When I encounter the argument that someone doesn't trust a homebuilder, I always like to tell the story that my brother-in-law tells. He has flown with me cross-country in the RV. Someone asked him afterwards how he would let himself get into a plane that had been built in someone's garage. His reply is always that he used to be counsel for a firm in Wichita that represented an unnamed aircraft manufacturer there. After a few tours of the plant and seeing the people working on the planes there (plus dealing with legal issues regarding those employees), he is convinced that he is safer flying in an airplane built in a garage by me and my dad than anything that could roll off an assembly line at that place.

As an added note... A homebuilder is building an airplane that he will be trusting HIS (and possibly friends/family lives) with, so he is probably a little more inclined to make sure everything is done safely. An assembly line worker is mostly worried about getting another one down the line day-in and day-out. I would suggeset that the 'certified' requirements are more stringent because the assemblers don't have as much personal investment in the assembly quality as a homebuilder, so the FAA has to set tighter guidelines to make sure everything is done correctly, while the homebuilder uses self-preservation as motivation to maintain safe building practices.
 
CJones said:
Well, everyone is entitled to their own WRONG opinion.. ;) ;) (just pulling your chain, by the way).

I'm sorry you feel that way, as you're missing out on some potential cool flying opportunities.
Click to expand...
Everybody is entitled to their opinions. You have yours and I have mine.

I'll just have to miss those potential cool flying opportunities, but I get enough with my plane thanks very much.

I probably missed out on some pretty cool experiences last time I was in Amsterdam as well, but I can live without those also. :)
 
Last edited:
my first 3 aircraft were experimental amateur builts. I've sort of got my eye on an experimental racing/exhibition although the next one I pay money for will probably be type certified.
 
CJones said:
As an added note... A homebuilder is building an airplane that he will be trusting HIS (and possibly friends/family lives) with, so he is probably a little more inclined to make sure everything is done safely. An assembly line worker is mostly worried about getting another one down the line day-in and day-out. I would suggeset that the 'certified' requirements are more stringent because the assemblers don't have as much personal investment in the assembly quality as a homebuilder, so the FAA has to set tighter guidelines to make sure everything is done correctly, while the homebuilder uses self-preservation as motivation to maintain safe building practices.
Click to expand...
I see what you are saying but I also see what NC Pilot is saying. Unless you know the builder you don't know what his or her attitude was towards various things. The builder might have been someone who pinched pennies or liked interesting improvisations. I know it sounds strange but I've always been someone who would feel more comfortable flying an airplane built by a bunch of strangers than one stranger. Part of this attitude might also be because I would never get into an airplane I built myself. :eek:

Not that I would ever even attempt it...
 
tonycondon said:
my first 3 aircraft were experimental amateur builts. I've sort of got my eye on an experimental racing/exhibition although the next one I pay money for will probably be type certified.
Click to expand...

Funny, I keep on thinking the next one will be experimental. ;)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Funny, I keep on thinking the next one will be experimental. ;)
Click to expand...

well you have to define what sort of performance you want out of the aircraft and then buy that. I'd like a sub 20,000 first generation fiberglass glider with mid to high 30's performance. not to mention it could be competitive in Sports Class and looks beautiful. So I need a Libelle.

You just want to go fast so a Lancair is the answer.
 
whifferdill said:
Thank god for that! :D
Click to expand...
I did enjoy flying an Extra 300 with Phil Hill, but then that was a certified aircraft. He said I should try out aerobatics as I had a lot of natural ability. It's not that I don't like flying in unusual attitudes, it's that I don't trust homebuilts.


...to fly Wichita spam :devil:
Click to expand...
I use my Wichita spam for things that would be really uncomfortable in most homebuilts, like flying from Dallas to NC with full fuel and 800 lbs in the cabin. I have a capable plane for my mission.
 
tonycondon said:
well you have to define what sort of performance you want out of the aircraft and then buy that. I'd like a sub 20,000 first generation fiberglass glider with mid to high 30's performance. not to mention it could be competitive in Sports Class and looks beautiful. So I need a Libelle.

You just want to go fast so a Lancair is the answer.
Click to expand...

Actually I want to go fast and haul lots of puppies. An MU-2 or Turbine Commander is the most practical answer, albeit expensive. Twin Commander 685 is the best piston answer, but has other negatives. A Lear 24 is a surprisingly attractive option, but only if you can find one that either has RVSM or can manage to get above FL410. And you need to be able to get up to those high flight levels quickly. And then you have to be willing to deal with the $800/hr or so fuel bill.

I should just go build my own plane.
 
NC Pilot said:
NTSB accident reports, quality control of the home builder not the same as a certified aircraft, unknown/unauthorized changes from the design, handling can be significantly different than certified aircraft and from different examples of the same type.

I really don't care if everyone decides flying a amateur built aircraft is OK. I won't get in one. Life is too short.
Click to expand...

Most of the issues you mention can be mitigated with the appropriate training, investigation, and expertise. I myself wouldn't hesitate to purchase the right experimental, given the finances. A lot of them are really neat.

Then again, I like to think in my over-inflated opinion of myself that since I have owned aircraft for a decade, I know enough about the various issues to wisely evaluate the experimental market. I imagine anyone else would give even money that I'm full of it in this particular regard.
 
gismo said:
Bonanzas are great for back country strips but there are plenty of places where a big tire taildragger (perhaps with STOL) can safely go that would present a big risk for a Bonanza. But maybe your claim would be pretty valid for a stock 206. Even then if someone hogged out a 20 ft wide strip of bare ground in 5ft tall mature corn the Bonanza might get in (while accumulating several dents in the leading edges) but would never get out while a well flown 206 wouldn't have any trouble.
Click to expand...

First off, who hogs a 20' strip, second off, where is mature corn only 5' tall?
 
steingar said:
Most of the issues you mention can be mitigated with the appropriate training, investigation, and expertise. I myself wouldn't hesitate to purchase the right experimental, given the finances. A lot of them are really neat.

Then again, I like to think in my over-inflated opinion of myself that since I have owned aircraft for a decade, I know enough about the various issues to wisely evaluate the experimental market. I imagine anyone else would give even money that I'm full of it in this particular regard.
Click to expand...
That's great. I'm just expressing my opinion on this subject and like most things there are many opinions on this particular subject.
 
NC Pilot said:
That's great. I'm just expressing my opinion on this subject and like most things there are many opinions on this particular subject.
Click to expand...

True enough. Keep in mind, these contraptions comprise something like a third of the fleet (no doubt someone will unceremoniously chime in with a more accurate composition). If they were all that dangerous they'd be routinely falling out of the sky and onto the innocent denizens below, and the FAA woulda done something. Ron Wattnja, an occasional poster to this site, did a great piece on experimental crashes for Kitplanes. The majority of experimental aircraft accidents resulted from the same stupid pilot tricks that bring down certificated aircraft.

Still, there is one advantage to sticking to the factory built aircraft. The way things are going, they're likely to be cheaper.
 
whifferdill said:
I think this is the image you have in your head: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujU1DjaYfs4&feature=player_embedded :D
Click to expand...
Nope that is not the image that I have, but I won't fly in that either.

This is the image that I have:
http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20010412X00740&key=1

and this one:
http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X21363&key=1

I knew both these pilots. The first was an excellent pilot with many thousands of hours and I really don't buy the probably cause. The second was also a very good pilot and he just got behind the plane and got killed. In addition, both planes were 1st class and well constructed. Don't really know what happened with the 1st one, but the second they had an issue which distracted them from flying the plane and it spun into the ground.

The only two fatalities at this airport I can remember and can't find any others in the NTSB reports (used to be my home base until recently).
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Take a good look, but my experience with LSA's is that they won't have sufficient payload and baggage space to take two adults and significant baggage, or have any good place to put your dog.
Click to expand...

Well I feel like I should break down on how the aircraft will be used.

Local flights (Local fights to me is NC, SC, GA, TN, VA, KY.) Basically any destination that I can fly to and back with no re-fuel or one refuel stop. This will most likely make up 90% of my flights. Unless I'm on vacation, these flights will be either be overnight or same day flights. There's also the just flying around and enjoying the scenery or doing some flights to remain proficient.

Fly ins: So far here are my planned fly ins
AirVenture in Oshkosh WI
Wings BQ
Gastons Fly-Ins.

Depending on what aircraft I get, I'll be attending a gathering of pilots who also own the aircraft that I do. These will make up 10% of my flights.

One of the reason I'm looking at Kit aircrafts is that I can actually design the cabin to accommodate a dog. I'd want my dog to be safe when he's flying with me.

When other people flying with me, it'll most likely be local flights, I'm the only person in my family who's interested in aviation, so my dog will fly with me on vacation flights and fly-ins, but when it comes to same day flights or local flights, he'll stay home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top