Best X/C aircraft besides Vans RV

D

DMD3.

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
474
Location
Tifton, Ga
Display Name
Display name:
DMD3.
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. :D

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.

-
 
So your criteria is 4 cylinder, 2 seats, fixed gear, and relatively cheap?

The Lightning, Pulsar, and Saberwing are going to be smaller and slower than an RV. The Pulsar is essentially a dead kit. The Saberwing is new and an early in-flight breakup might scare away a lot of potential buyers (although it doesn't seem there is anything wrong with the design). The Lightning is a fairly low volume kit, although it is definitely promising.

The Tango is an awesome XC airplane, great speed and range, but it is definitely more like a Glasair or Lancair than an RV. There really aren't a lot of them out there either.

There is a reason there are more RVs out there than anything else, and on average more hours on each RV than anything else. If you are looking to spend $100k on an XC airplane, it's pretty tough to beat an RV.
 
I don't know how much baggage you can stuff into the wing-strakes on a LongEZ. But, I've always wanted to try one out as a budget cross country machine.
 
The velocity is another good experimental to consider for cross country. Fast, and decent useful load. Really the only shortcoming is the landing distance, and that’s not horrible, just not going to do any super short fields.
 
Why the hesitancy with retractable gear? Insurance? I prefer retract. It makes for much easier tire and wheel maintenance.
Speaking as one who has owned a RV, and flys cross country weekly, I would take my Lancair over our RV. The Lancair in my pic is a 235/340 and typically cruises around 185 kts TAS. Yes, it did take a long time to become comfortable flying it, but it sure does excel at going places economically and quickly.
There is a reason the RV is the most prolific experimental though. They will cost more than many alternatives but I suspect they will hold their value and you can recoup your investment when you sell.
 
FORANE said:
Why the hesitancy with retractable gear? Insurance? .
Click to expand...

That and maintenance costs. Perhaps they are nowhere near the cost of certified aircraft, especially if you do your own (I don’t).

One thing I failed to mention is that I wish to do X/C’s for fun, not out of necessity or business. Lancairs/Glasairs are great for getting from one place to another quickly, but they’re not so great for buzzing around & sight seeing, which is something else I’d like to do (fly to Mt. Rushmore, the Statue of Liberty or some other landmark far away, and actually be able to buzz around it when I get there.) :)
 
Last edited:
I fly the cozy 3. It has a 160 hp lycoming. Top speed is 190knots at around 10 gph. Economy cruise is 160 knots at 5gph. It holds 52 gallons. The downsides are it needs long paved runways. It can hold up to 3 people but realistically its 2 people with tons of baggage, well not "tons" but up to 200lbs. The cozy iv is similar but with 4 seats, still usually a 2 seater with baggage. Decent examples can be bought starting at 50k and probably top out at 100k. The long ez would be similar but baggage space is very limited with 2 people.
 
I'm obviously biased, but a Velocity is a great cross country machine. With the RG, 1,110nm range, 4 seats (so-so baggage with all seats filled), 200kts on 13GPH, easy in/out. Fixed gear is a little slower, but will hold more fuel. To me the only downside is the longer runway requirement (and no soft field unless it's really nice... like fairway nice). For me, my minimum is 2,800' of runway. On a good day, I can make the turnoff at 2,000'. But I'm not that good that I would count on it. A couple guys have beta props and they regularly go into runways that are less than 2,000'.
 
DMD3. said:
That and maintenance costs. Perhaps they are nowhere near the cost of certified aircraft, especially if you do your own (I don’t).

One thing I failed to mention is that I wish to do X/C’s for fun, not out of necessity or business. Lancairs/Glasairs are great for getting from one place to another quickly, but they’re not so great for buzzing around & sight seeing, which is something else I’d like to do (fly to Mt. Rushmore, the Statue of Liberty or some other landmark far away, and actually be able to buzz around it when I get there.) :)
Click to expand...
Yes, insurance is high on Lancairs. I hear less so on Glasairs.

Gear maintenance is not bad, not bad at all in my experience with my Lancair. In around 15 years ownership I have had to change a few pressure sensors; they cost around $50 each. They only failed due to the builders failure to install flyback diodes to protect the sensors. I added flyback diodes at around $10 and haven't had a pressure switch failure since. The hydraulic cylinder seals started to leak a little so I had those rebuilt at around $250 for all. The nose gear door has a strut (like on a cars hatchback) to assist in emergency gear extension; I replaced it for around $30.

Sounds like a RV-9a would suit your needs well.
 
I think certificated aircraft make better cross country machines. My airplane isn't quite as fast as an RV, but it gets the job done, and I have enough load and room to take enough stuff to enjoy myself when I get there. Or take a second passenger. And it was way cheaper too.
 
steingar said:
I think certificated aircraft make better cross country machines. My airplane isn't quite as fast as an RV, but it gets the job done, and I have enough load and room to take enough stuff to enjoy myself when I get there. Or take a second passenger. And it was way cheaper too.
Click to expand...
Certified has a useful load and acquisition cost advantage in the 4 or more seat craft, but that's about where the advantages end. Want to add an autopilot (essential for cross country in my view), a very capable autopilot may be added to an experimental for around 2k. Want lower operating and maintenance cost? Want a better climb rate? Want the latest glass?

What's best really depends on a true assessment of needs for the individual. How much gear does one need to haul? How often would the 3rd or more seats really be used?
 
FORANE said:
Certified has a useful load and acquisition cost advantage in the 4 or more seat craft, but that's about where the advantages end. Want to add an autopilot (essential for cross country in my view), a very capable autopilot may be added to an experimental for around 2k. Want lower operating and maintenance cost? Want a better climb rate? Want the latest glass?

What's best really depends on a true assessment of needs for the individual. How much gear does one need to haul? How often would the 3rd or more seats really be used?
Click to expand...
For the cost difference between my aircraft and an RV I could probably put in an autopilot and some serious glass. Had I the wherewithal to build an airplane I'd have it to maintain mine, I bet I could find an A&P who could examine my work and sign off on it. Don't need zoom climbs thank you.
 
FORANE said:
Certified has a useful load and acquisition cost advantage in the 4 or more seat craft, but that's about where the advantages end. Want to add an autopilot (essential for cross country in my view), a very capable autopilot may be added to an experimental for around 2k. Want lower operating and maintenance cost? Want a better climb rate? Want the latest glass?

What's best really depends on a true assessment of needs for the individual. How much gear does one need to haul? How often would the 3rd or more seats really be used?
Click to expand...

I'd argue that the acquisition argument only holds water when comparing used to new. When you compare new to new for like performance, the cost drastically skews towards E-AB (without getting into opportunity costs and all that).
 
DMD3. said:
That and maintenance costs. Perhaps they are nowhere near the cost of certified aircraft, especially if you do your own (I don’t).

One thing I failed to mention is that I wish to do X/C’s for fun, not out of necessity or business.
Click to expand...
So then you'd want the slowest plane, so that the fun lasts longer. ;)
 
tsts4 said:
I'd argue that the acquisition argument only holds water when comparing used to new. When you compare new to new for like performance, the cost drastically skews towards E-AB (without getting into opportunity costs and all that).
Click to expand...
Kinda a dumb thought exercise that eliminates the vast majority of the GA fleet.
 
steingar said:
Kinda a dumb thought exercise that eliminates the vast majority of the GA fleet.
Click to expand...

Not really. It all depends on what you want and are willing to spend. For you, it would seem acquisition cost trumps everything. For others, myself included, a 50 year old airplane simply doesn't cut it and the fact I can buy an old used airplane for half the cost simply isn't the end all be all. IMO there's a reason why the E-AB continues to be the most dynamic segment of the piston GA market. In the end, to each his own as there's a market segment for everyone, but this is the Homebuilt forum after all.
 
I hate to be the guy to bring this up - this is a generalization - newer pilots and newer owners may not be comfortable with experimentals, so certificated may have a larger audience for sale and resale. This has nothing to do with the OP, but since we’re drifting, figured I’d throw out the unstated.

I’ll add that some folks don’t want to fly in 40-50 year old planes, and cost wise, exp may fit the bill (newer, cheaper).
 
FORANE said:
Speaking as one who has owned a RV, and flys cross country weekly, I would take my Lancair over our RV. The Lancair in my pic is a 235/340 and typically cruises around 185 kts TAS. Yes, it did take a long time to become comfortable flying it, but it sure does excel at going places economically and quickly.
Click to expand...

I went RV only because the glide speeds and landing speeds on the Lancair were pretty high ... figured an off-airport best controlled flight all the way "in" at 60 mph was better than 100 mph.
 
donjohnston said:
I'm obviously biased, but a Velocity is a great cross country machine. With the RG, 1,110nm range, 4 seats (so-so baggage with all seats filled), 200kts on 13GPH, easy in/out. Fixed gear is a little slower, but will hold more fuel. To me the only downside is the longer runway requirement (and no soft field unless it's really nice... like fairway nice). For me, my minimum is 2,800' of runway. On a good day, I can make the turnoff at 2,000'. But I'm not that good that I would count on it. A couple guys have beta props and they regularly go into runways that are less than 2,000'.
Click to expand...

A beta mode in a pusher canard must be an amazing combo. Runway requirements have kept me from seriously looking at velocities -- you've just set my afternoon google-fu up. :D thanks!
 
danhagan said:
I went RV only because the glide speeds and landing speeds on the Lancair were pretty high ... figured an off-airport best controlled flight all the way "in" at 60 mph was better than 100 mph.
Click to expand...
Absolutely I agree with your assessment. In the 9a we had I felt that an off field landing would likely be survivable. It was also a plane I could step right into with zero transition training and feel quite confident flying. I felt like I could quit flying for a year and step right back into it with no hesitation. The Lancair is not like the above in any way.
 
Yeah, the guy who was flying off his Phase I hours at the same time I was had one. He was living at a fly-in community with a 2,000' runway. His landings were very impressive. He regularly made the first turnoff from 10 at Sebastain (about 1,500').

Although... After he got to his home field, one day he switched to beta mode on landing and didn't have the RPM low enough (there's an interlock that prevents going into beta unless the RPM's are below a certain point). He added throttle and accelerated! Went off the end of the runway. Fortunately no damage. But a lesson learned.
 
How much retract time do you have?
I didn’t have any and was looking at a Glasair.
I was able to get a quote, but at $8k, it was clear they didn’t want to insure me.
I ended up with an RV-9A (insurance is $950/yr).
It’s an honest 155kts on 8.5 gph, with me, the wife, and 100lbs of bags.
I primarily use it for XC.
It’s just dirt cheap to own and operate.
 
The Sling TSI is pretty quick for what it is.
 
Does a Zenair belong in this conversation? I'm wholly unfamiliar but they seem like a good value, attractive and capable.
 
All these aircraft are good. It depends on your mission, budget and skill level what fits you best. There's no objective BEST which is why there are choices. I have a -9A with an IO-320. 148 kts. LOP in cruise at 6.7 gph is great but, at times I wish I had 2 more seats for friends. Flown from California down the Caribbean, to Baja and loved every minute. I keep eyeballing the Velocity but the insurance costs are not acceptable to me (6000tt, 4700me ATP) as I was quoted $5000+ on several occasions. That blew the deal for me.
 
Kaweeka said:
All these aircraft are good. It depends on your mission, budget and skill level what fits you best. There's no objective BEST which is why there are choices. I have a -9A with an IO-320. 148 kts. LOP in cruise at 6.7 gph is great but, at times I wish I had 2 more seats for friends. Flown from California down the Caribbean, to Baja and loved every minute. I keep eyeballing the Velocity but the insurance costs are not acceptable to me (6000tt, 4700me ATP) as I was quoted $5000+ on several occasions. That blew the deal for me.
Click to expand...

:eek:

That's more than we're quoted for our SR22 G2 with $1 million smooth on the liability. Low pilot in the group has 643 hours and 389 hours in SR22 planes.

What's driving it up so much? Experimental? High liability? Zero time in Velocity planes?
 
Some experimental aircraft are getting very high insurance quotes. Lancair 2 seat variants are similar to the referenced quotes above. The IVPT I am hearing full coverage approaching 50k.
 
Best cross country experimental?
Hard to beat a RV-10 for piston 4 seat.
I would think the Epic LT or Evolution would be worthy contenders.
 
Robert Gee said:
Does a Zenair belong in this conversation? I'm wholly unfamiliar but they seem like a good value, attractive and capable.
Click to expand...

Zenith seems to specialize in slower, STOL aircraft, but their Zenith CH 650 is there cross-country model. They claim around 120 kt cruise, and up to 135 (160 mph) if you climb to over 8,000 feet. I wonder how it would do with a turbocharged engine, such as the Rotax 914 or even the 915 (it’s designed for engines ranging from 80-140 hp, but I imagine one extra horse won’t hurt :D ).
 
M
DMD3. said:
Zenith seems to specialize in slower, STOL aircraft, but their Zenith CH 650 is there cross-country model. They claim around 120 kt cruise, and up to 135 (160 mph) if you climb to over 8,000 feet. I wonder how it would do with a turbocharged engine, such as the Rotax 914 or even the 915 (it’s designed for engines ranging from 80-140 hp, but I imagine one extra horse won’t hurt :D ).
Click to expand...
I was thinking of the 601XL although now I see they are LSA. There is one on TAP withe a Jabiru 110, Sez 139kt cruise. I realize that's optimistic but on the surface it looked like a good candidate.
 
Robert Gee said:
M

I was thinking of the 601XL although now I see they are LSA. There is one on TAP withe a Jabiru 110, Sez 139kt cruise. I realize that's optimistic but on the surface it looked like a good candidate.
Click to expand...

If 120kt can be considered a good cruise speed, there is a lot of good to the zenith aircraft. The airframe builds faster, fewer tools, and sport pilot means zero medicals. But there’s limited cargo space. You get the space right behind the seats and an optional wing locker in the 650.

for me, XC means faster, which means an RV.
 
Yes, I’m not down on RVs. I was just wanted to see if there was anything else similar to their performance and at a lower price.

Another aircraft is the Avocet AV24. It’s not available yet, but the website claims the VH speed is 200 kts at 10k feet with 180 hp. IF the airplane performs like they say, I imagine it could cruise around 180 and not burn too much fuel (180 kts on 8 gph would be a real riot).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top