Best X/C aircraft besides Vans RV

[bflynn]

I started leaning towards the Mooney 201, then I learned about the Lancair 360.

That's not really an apple to apples comparison, is it? The Lancair is in the 300k+ price range, but you can get a good 201J for the low 100s.

Yes, the 201 is slower, but it's significantly cheaper too. 180kts at 8000 ft is realistic for a 201J and most people would consider that pretty good. But like power, it costs a lot to get just a few more kts. To get the extra 50 kts, you need to double the price.

If we're going to continue that theme, we can keep adding price and keep improving performance until you get to a Citation or a G7.

 

[coma24]

That's not really an apple to apples comparison, is it? The Lancair is in the 300k+ price range, but you can get a good 201J for the low 100s.

Yes, the 201 is slower, but it's significantly cheaper too.

You're confusing different Lancair models. $300k would be a well equipped Lancair IV-P, which is a 280kt platform. I'm talking Lancair 360. 200kts. Mine was $72k.... cheaper than the 201J that you referenced.

 

[steingar]

My 1992 Lancair 360 carries 2 pax and some bags, 600-650nm, doing 202ktas at ~10gph (O360-A1A). Can fly VFR or IFR. Acquisition cost was $72k. What would be a cheaper certified aircraft with comparable performance?

.....I'll wait .

First, it doesn't work the first time you want to take a second passenger or your dog. Second, I doubt strongly you could fit enough in the back of a Lancair for Mrs. Steingar to travel for more than a weekend. I'd be interested in the insurance costs on one of those things, there have been a lot of crashes.

Indeed I'll keep going. I recall Lancairs come in pretty fast. So if the mill quits you're coming in fast with naught but fiberglass to protect you and yours. I have a steel roll cage, if I can keep my airplane under control odds are I'll walk away from a crash.

Don't get me wrong, experimental are spanky things, and I like them just fine. I drool over Lancairs, at least the two-seaters like yours. They're fast and efficient as all get out. They re not, as I've said, a panacea.

 

[coma24]

Now THAT is making more sense For hauling 3 ppl, it's a non-starter. However, for 2 ppl of moderate size and below, it can hold 50lbs of bags in the bag (CG limitations). 360's stall at around 60, so final app speed is around 80. Best glide is 100kts with a 14:1 ratio if you have oil pressure to pull the prop back. My insurance is $1890/yr for $72k hull, $1MM liability.

It's not for everyone, I'm with you there, but I disagree with the notion that there are cheaper certified XC platforms with similar performance.

 

[caverjamie]

Rans S21 maybe? That’s what I built, with the O-320 I can cruise at 120kt. The airframe can support faster cruise with the the Titan X340 or an IO-360 which have been installed in other S21s.

For my limited cross country experience - I think given the choice between speed and autopilot, I want the autopilot. I mean both would be better, but it’s so nice having the plane hold altitude and track the flight plan in the gps - it’s like having another pilot along - more time to check weather, comms, traffic avoidance, etc. Of course with something like an RV you can have both, but I can also cruise along the river low and slow with the door open if I want.

 

[Crashnburn]

Look at Revolution Aircraft. They have a 4 and a 2 seater. You can add extra tanks to the 4 seater to extend the range well past your bladder endurance.

 

[skier]

Team Rocket F1 (theres one on Barnstormers now $220k)
Sequoia Falco
Witman Tailwind (one currently on Barnstormers for $38k)
KR2, but it's in the same category as the Lancair.
Long EZ
Questair Venture
Titan T51

 

[Tantalum]

..I keep thinking some day I'll build a twin RV.. maybe by the time I'm ready that elusive 6 pax version will be available.. the one they've been teasing on their site for years

it's true what's posted here.. the certified world is expensive and from a performance perspective underwhelming, compared to what EA gives you; nevermind the regulatory freedom you get with experimentals

However, selling a 172/182/PA-whatever must be orders of magnitude easier than selling a home built, but that would be worth it to me. Just buy (or build!) your forever plane up front

 

[pfarber]

Why does he need the logbooks? A simple entry on a piece of paper meets the requirements.

For one a renter or owner or even a mechanic doesn't need a "legit calibration program in place." Perhaps you might read up on the requirements before posting.

Since you have all the answers... Out of compliance with what?

Please see FAR 43.9: "shall make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment containing the following information:"

So no, a scrap of paper in your glove box is not gonna cut it. Please show me why you think it ever would.

Please explain how you could sign off a tire change I/A/W when you don't have a copy of the manual or tools to torque the fasteners? 'In accordance with' is pretty simple verbiage. Do rando's change a tire without the proper tools/process/knowledge? I'm sure they do... but the right way is the what we are talking about.

 

[Bell206]

Please see FAR 43.9: "shall make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment containing the following information:" So no, a scrap of paper in your glove box is not gonna cut it. Please show me why you think it ever would.

Why not? Perhaps you can provide a specific reference why that scrap of paper with the maintenance signed off won’t cut it? Your 43.9 reference only states a “record” not what that record physically consists of. I have references that will support my “paper scrap” or what ever the owner/operator chooses to use as that maintenance record. However, it does get old when I spend time to post a references you choose to ignore then simply disappear when it doesn't go as you planned.

Please explain how you could sign off a tire change I/A/W when you don't have a copy of the manual or tools to torque the fasteners?

Where did I state they are signing off mx without the necessary tools or following the requirements per Part 43.13? As far as I recall YOU are the only one who believes they don't have the tools, experience, etc. back in Post 63.

Do rando's change a tire without the proper tools/process/knowledge?

What’s a “rando”?

 

[kyleb]

However, selling a 172/182/PA-whatever must be orders of magnitude easier than selling a home built, but that would be worth it to me.

"Mainstream" experimentals (e.g. RV's) sell like hotcakes as long as the build quality is decent. Same thing (right now) for anything in the STOL category - that's really hot these days. If you build something that isn't center cut (say a Wheeler Express or an obscure canard), it may take a while to sell and you probably won't make any money on it. Same thing with low and slow (Pietenpols, Hatzes, Fly Babies) - that's never been a niche to easily get your money back.

 

[Clip4]

Vans RVs are good for x-country’s in that they can have the engine of a 4-seat Cessna or Piper (160/180 hp), yet they rival the speed of a Centurion or Bonanza, and in some cases may even exceed it, depending on the engine, empty weight, etc. AND they do so on a fixed gear. I fit right in with a lot of people in that this makes them a desirable aircraft for someone who wants to be able to travel around.

While I’ve become very familiar with the RV lineup, I’ve not given much thought to any other experimentals that may do just as well. I know there are Lancairs & Glasairs which will cruise faster, but these are generally expensive and unforgiving to fly, not to mention most of them are retracts. But there are some I’ve looked up which include:

-Arion Lightning XS: According to a Google quicksearch, these are (supposedly) the easiest kits to build. A Lightning with an XP-320 (160 hp) Wii cruise 150 kts, whereas one with a Titan (180 hp) will cruise 165 kts. Slightly slower than a Vans (excluding the 12 and maybe the lower powered 9’s), but if the build is easier/quicker and it is more affordable, then this makes this aircraft a viable option.

Revolution RAI-1 Tango- Another 2-seat fixed gear aircraft. According to the website, it will cruise at 180 kts (207 mph) on 180 hp, and will hold 86 gallons of fuel. I don’t know if they’re as trustworthy as Vans with their published performance, but this seems fantastic for x/c’s, and I’m surprised it’s not more popular. Perhaps it hasn’t been around that long. I believe I saw in an older thread where someone crashed due to an engine failure after takeoff, and someone posted there was very little headroom, even though they were only 5’10”.

Saberwing (Azalea Aviation)- Don’t know much about these, other than Mojogrip’s review on them. The owner claims 150 mph with a 100 hp with aCorvair engine, and 170 mph with a 120 hp turbocharged Corvair. He also says a 160 o320 could be mounted. I’m wondering how a Rotax 915 would do at higher altitudes.

And then there’s the Pulsar aircraft I posted about in another thread.

Edit: There’s also the Avocet AV24, but it’s not available yet (and may also be too expensive).

What is everyone’s opinion on the aircraft I just named? And what are some other aircraft that I did not name? I’m 95% sure I’d rather buy one that’s already flying, but I’m not opposed to building if the kit is simplistic and fast enough for a non-gear head like myself to consider building. I’d prefer the manufacturer were still around due to availability of parts, transition training, and quickbuild assist, ect.

-

Not much on that list would interest me as an XC airplane.

 

[pfarber]

Why not? Perhaps you can provide a specific reference why that scrap of paper with the maintenance signed off won’t cut it? Your 43.9 reference only states a “record” not what that record physically consists of. I have references that will support my “paper scrap” or what ever the owner/operator chooses to use as that maintenance record. However, it does get old when I spend time to post a references you choose to ignore then simply disappear when it doesn't go as you planned.

Where did I state they are signing off mx without the necessary tools or following the requirements per Part 43.13? As far as I recall YOU are the only one who believes they don't have the tools, experience, etc. back in Post 63.

What’s a “rando”?

You're good for a laugh but not much else. No mx is writing return to service entries on random scraps of paper.

Thanks for the chuckle... I know exactly what level of weight to give your posts... Zero.

 

[Salty]

You're good for a laugh but not much else. No mx is writing return to service entries on random scraps of paper.

Thanks for the chuckle... I know exactly what level of weight to give your posts... Zero.

You've posted nothing that makes me respect your opinion yet. Bell on the other hand has done so for years. I don't always agree with him, but he's about the most balanced AP that posts on here IMO, and more often than not, he actually posts useful information, which many others don't ever do.

 

[tsts4]

...I know exactly what level of weight to give your posts... Zero.

Funny that pretty much sums up my assessment of your posts to date.

 

[FastEddieB]

You're good for a laugh but not much else. No mx is writing return to service entries on random scraps of paper.

Maybe not exactly "random scraps of paper", but I have routinely had shops simply hand or mail me logbook entries on adhesive labels when work was done away from home base with logbooks unavailable.

So there's that.

 

[Bell206]

No mx is writing return to service entries on random scraps of paper.

Ha! The only zero around here is your knowledge of aviation maintenance. You know... in some circles I could get arrested for abuse of the challenged.

Here is one of the latest guidance docs on maintenance records. Note the "separate piece of paper" statements. It's whatever the owner wants not the mechanic. There are other guidance docs dating back decades on this. But what do you care about facts.
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...erps/2017/Morey_2017_Legal_Interpretation.pdf



And here is the 2008 LOI mentioned for those interested...
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...erps/2008/Busch_2008_Legal_Interpretation.pdf

 

[steingar]

My mx guys give me stickers all the time. Don't see the big whip.

 

[wayne]

Maybe not exactly "random scraps of paper", but I have routinely had shops simply hand or mail me logbook entries on adhesive labels when work was done away from home base with logbooks unavailable.

So there's that.

My mx guys give me stickers all the time. Don't see the big whip.

I've seen these in logs. It's nice as pretty much all of the stickers I've seen were printed out from a computer. Far more legible than most people's handwriting; certainly would be world's better than mine. It looks like they have standard language ready in the computer too. Makes it easier for the mechanic to get the verbiage right and quicker than writing it all out.

Plus, waiting for a logbook when getting repairs on a trip would be a huge hassle. I had an alternator replaced in Lexington years ago on a trip. Got a sticker, we put it in the logbook after getting back.

 

[tsts4]

I use computer printed stickers (I have a repairmans certificate for my plane) because my handwriting is atrocious. But I agree with Bell206- the key is the mnx/activity is captured by any means. The reg nor the FAA care how it's recorded, just that it is. A purpose made log book is convenient (I use them myself with the afore mentioned stickers) but not necessary as any method will do as long as it works to capture the information. That's really what the log is, a collection of records, not the book or whatever captures/retains the info.

 

[Stan Cooper]

I do my own maintenance and condition inspections and print the required information on an Avery label which I stick on a page in the appropriate (airframe, engine, propeller) logbook. When I had my C172 and assisted my A&P/IA with the annuals, he always used Avery labels which he printed and stuck on the next empty page in the appropriate log.

@Bell206 thanks for that copy of the legal interpretation!

 

[Racerx]

My mx guys give me stickers all the time. Don't see the big whip.

As long as they're not signing it in crayon...I prefer stickers. I can't read those squiggly lines in the logs from the 60's.

 

[JAWS]

Avery labels are great. Makes logging mx so much easier. I always keep a copy of my entries with the work order, for quick and easy reference.

 

[pfarber]

Ha! The only zero around here is your knowledge of aviation maintenance. You know... in some circles I could get arrested for abuse of the challenged.

Here is one of the latest guidance docs on maintenance records. Note the "separate piece of paper" statements. It's whatever the owner wants not the mechanic. There are other guidance docs dating back decades on this. But what do you care about facts.
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...erps/2017/Morey_2017_Legal_Interpretation.pdf

View attachment 101964

And here is the 2008 LOI mentioned for those interested...
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...erps/2008/Busch_2008_Legal_Interpretation.pdf

A PRINTED and legible avery sticker is a lot different than a random scrap of paper. If you read my previous posts you would see that i would only accept preprinted entries as no mx is ever getting my logs.

Its sad that you randomly google things that prove my point yet still blather on about how right you thonk you are.

Even a list of descrepencies should be neatly typed put will all the pertinent information.

You must be a pretty slobenly mx is your chicken scratch is littering owners records. And we've all see examples of that kind of chicken scratch in owners logs.

I dread reading 30-60 year old cursive AD entires.

 

[Bell206]

Its sad that you randomly google things that prove my point yet still blather on about how right you thonk you are.

No google required. I keep certain reference materials in my maintenance library to assist individuals as yourself who do not understand how the system works. Just like your post in another thread stating painting is a major alteration. It’s not. If you want that reference, I can get it for you as well.

But what’s really sad is your continued posting of misinformed opinions where you could easily save that embarrassment by simply googling the topic yourself before posting.