Best X/C aircraft besides Vans RV

Mustang 2, thorp T18

A lancair can do 180kts on 6.5 gph. I am sure there are others that can also but they are likely low drag high stall speed too.
 
FORANE said:
Mustang 2, thorp T18

A lancair can do 180kts on 6.5 gph. I am sure there are others that can also but they are likely low drag high stall speed too.
Click to expand...

True, but the Avocet is fixed gear. o_O
 
DMD3. said:
True, but the Avocet is fixed gear. o_O
Click to expand...
Ha, ok.
The mustang and thorp are fixed also.
Not sure if they can do 180 it's but both are likely comparable with RV's except less expensive.
 
Interesting! I’ve never heard of Thorp before now, and apparently you can still order a kit. Pricing looks inexpensive, but the site doesn’t really give a build time estimate. I watched a YT video, and they said it’s both inexpensive and easy to build.
 
Not available yet and a wild claim= vaporware. Sort of like book speeds. Never see them.

One that caught my eye that I had never heard of was Veloce. Or is it Volato? I've seen both names. Looks nice, but lots of red flags. First one being I had never heard of them..either name that's used. Then comparing to a Cirrus, but getting the specs from the Cirrus wrong. Among other things
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
steingar said:
I think certificated aircraft make better cross country machines.
Click to expand...

I think that’s a gross generalization with nothing to support it.

If something goes wrong with an Experimental on a cross country, anyone with tools and a modicum of mechanical ability may be able to resolve the problem. “Certified” at a remote field may require an A&P being shuttled in to make otherwise simple repairs that would be illegal for an owner to do. Probably not a decisive factor, but one worth considering.
 
Randomskylane said:
Are any of these made for 6’6” 300# types?
Click to expand...
One of the advantages of experimental is that repairs, maintenance and modifications may by made by anyone. This allows for accommodation of 6’6” 300# types.
 
tsts4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would of really liked to build an RV-10. Would want the four seats. Now that I am retired, I have the time to build, but would rather spend the time flying. Catch 22. LOL
 
Rcmutz said:
I would of really liked to build an RV-10. Would want the four seats. Now that I am retired, I have the time to build, but would rather spend the time flying. Catch 22. LOL
Click to expand...

Catch-22 is right. Until a few years ago, the mantra has always been if you want to build, build, but if you want to fly, buy. Now I’m not so sure. The problem is, for the RV-10 market, used prices have skyrocketed. 10’s have always been a hot commodity with few on the market at any given time and those that got listed sold within days. Now, nice, decked out 10s are selling for over $300K.
 
Rcmutz said:
I would of really liked to build an RV-10. Would want the four seats. Now that I am retired, I have the time to build, but would rather spend the time flying. Catch 22. LOL
Click to expand...

Fly during the day, build in the evenings and on crap weather days.
 
FastEddieB said:
I think that’s a gross generalization with nothing to support it.

If something goes wrong with an Experimental on a cross country, anyone with tools and a modicum of mechanical ability may be able to resolve the problem. “Certified” at a remote field may require an A&P being shuttled in to make otherwise simple repairs that would be illegal for an owner to do. Probably not a decisive factor, but one worth considering.
Click to expand...
I have first-hand experience with this.
Field wiring on my alternator broke on an XC.
Landed at closest field.
Rode with the mechanic to the hardware store, got some spade connectors, crimped them on and was back in the air in an hour.
Those parts wouldn’t have been allowed in a certified aircraft, and I would have been grounded until parts were procured.
Was grateful in that scenario.
 
FastEddieB said:
I think that’s a gross generalization with nothing to support it.

If something goes wrong with an Experimental on a cross country, anyone with tools and a modicum of mechanical ability may be able to resolve the problem. “Certified” at a remote field may require an A&P being shuttled in to make otherwise simple repairs that would be illegal for an owner to do. Probably not a decisive factor, but one worth considering.
Click to expand...

Yup! QFT.
 
Rcmutz said:
I would of really liked to build an RV-10. Would want the four seats. Now that I am retired, I have the time to build, but would rather spend the time flying. Catch 22. LOL
Click to expand...
It rains and you’re in Ohio so there’s winter. You’ve got plenty of time to do both.
 
DMD3. said:
Interesting! I’ve never heard of Thorp before now, and apparently you can still order a kit. Pricing looks inexpensive, but the site doesn’t really give a build time estimate. I watched a YT video, and they said it’s both inexpensive and easy to build.
Click to expand...
My airplane partner is selling a nice Thorpe T-18 in NY. If you want one.
 
Adam Weiss said:
I have first-hand experience with this.
Field wiring on my alternator broke on an XC.
Landed at closest field.
Rode with the mechanic to the hardware store, got some spade connectors, crimped them on and was back in the air in an hour.
Those parts wouldn’t have been allowed in a certified aircraft, and I would have been grounded until parts were procured.
Was grateful in that scenario.
Click to expand...
How would spade connectors not be allowed on a certified airplane? You still may have “needed” the AP sign off to have a legal repair, but there are no specific requirements about a spade connector that would prevent even a generic one from being used. Point me to the regulation that governs specific spade connectors and prevents a mechanic from using a suitable replacement.
 
2 place Witman Tailwind
True 4 place the only real option is Bede BD-4C

The BD-4C is a true 4 place and cruises at 150mph+ depending on the motor.

You can get into one for less than $100k with a new engine and glass and fast build kit.
 
Adam Weiss said:
Rode with the mechanic to the hardware store, got some spade connectors,
Click to expand...
Adam Weiss said:
Those parts wouldn’t have been allowed in a certified aircraft,
Click to expand...
That is not correct. Misc electrical connectors fall under Standard Parts and can be sourced from a multitude of places to include hardware stores.

What I always find interesting with these E/AB vs TC discussions is that current TC aircraft owners perform less than 10% of the legally available maintenance tasks with the most common task being oil changes. Yet when those same owners switch to an E/AB aircraft they will miraculously become A-Z wrench-turning fools over night and save the big bucks. FYI: one gets into E/AB because they want to, not because of the mx cost savings.
 
Bell206 said:
That is not correct. Misc electrical connectors fall under Standard Parts and can be sourced from a multitude of places to include hardware stores.

What I always find interesting with these E/AB vs TC discussions is that current TC aircraft owners perform less than 10% of the legally available maintenance tasks with the most common task being oil changes. Yet when those same owners switch to an E/AB aircraft they will miraculously become A-Z wrench-turning fools over night and save the big bucks. FYI: one gets into E/AB because they want to, not because of the mx cost savings.
Click to expand...

Close but no cigar.

Owners can do preventative maintenance but 99% of certified AC owners don't have the tools, manuals or skills to perform said preventative maintenance.

Also, the FAA has never clarified the 'operator' definition. Can a rental pilot do preventative maintenance? Does he have the manuals/logs/tools? Without access to the logs, how can he ensure he is complying with ICAs?
 
Last edited:
pfarber said:
Owners can do preventative maintenance but 99% of certified AC owners don't have the tools, manuals or skills to perform said preventative maintenance.
Click to expand...
Ha. At this rate you’re going to need a longer handle on that shovel you’re using to dig the hole around your maintenance experience. Don’t know what circles you run in but that 99% statement is not true by a long shot. The owners/pilots who WANT to perform preventative maintenance have the tools and manuals. In some cases they even have more tools/manuals than me… and all Snap-On. And if short on skills they will seek out those who can teach them. I spent many an hour over the years teaching many owners and providing owner-assisted mx. You obviously have not, which matches most of your previous experience/comments.
pfarber said:
Also, the FAA has never clarified the 'operator' definition.
Click to expand...
How so? Which part is not clear per the Part 1 definition of operate? Looks pretty clear to me.
upload_2021-9-13_12-12-15.png
pfarber said:
Can a rental pilot do preventative maintenance?
Click to expand...
Yes. However, most rental agreements I’m familiar with have clauses prohibiting the renter to perform prevent mx on rental aircraft. So your point?
pfarber said:
Does he have the manuals/logs/tools? Without access to the logs, how can he ensure he is complying with ICAs?
Click to expand...
Again don’t quite follow your point. Pretty much aircraft mx 101. Without manuals, tools, or if needed the logs, you can’t meet the Part 43 performance requirements. Keep digging.
 
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...

My 360 stalls in the landing config at 60kts. That's ~70mph.

My condition inspections typically net around $1200. Acquisition cost was $72k. The retracts have cost very little extra in maintenance. 190-200ktas on 9.5gph makes them a cross country animal.

RV's are wonderful, no question, but I think there are some posts in this thread which imply some facts not in evidence regarding Lancairs.
 
You want a Grumman Tiger. Also known as the “RV for grownups”.
 
FastEddieB said:
I think that’s a gross generalization with nothing to support it.
Click to expand...
I think not. Most of us fly aircraft in good repair that don't break everywhere we go, so this just isn't that big a concern. I will repeat, experimentals like RVs are expensive to procure compared to legacy certificated aircraft. If you're traveling with someone you've limited room for whatever baggage or toys you want to bring. And unless you're an adroit mechanic (some of us aren't) you can be just a s stuck in a broken experimental as a broken certificated aircraft.

I bought a legacy complex aircraft for less than most of you pay for cars. I don't go at RV speeds, but I scoot along. I can take a couple extra people if I really want, sometimes I do. Where the RVs got me beat hands down is the aerobatics. My airplane is rock stable in the air, which is what I want for a cross country machine.

RV's are great things, but they're not a panacea.
 
I think the market is ripe for new 4 and 6 seat experimental designs. Single and twin engine variants too.
 
Last edited:
Rein Hart said:
I think the market is ripe for new 4 and 6 seat experimental designs. Single and twin engine variants too.
Click to expand...

The problem is developing enough market share to make any design viable regardless of how good it is. Vans' marketing doesn't sell kits, not now any ways. The 10000+ that are flying do.
 
steingar said:
I will repeat, experimentals like RVs are expensive to procure compared to legacy certificated aircraft.
Click to expand...

Pick an experimental. Then find a comparable certificated aircraft of roughly the same age. And you're saying the experimental is more expensive???
 
Bell206 said:
Yes. However, most rental agreements I’m familiar with have clauses prohibiting the renter to perform prevent mx on rental aircraft. So your point?
Click to expand...

What renter is getting the logs to make the appropriate return to service entries? You cannot fly (legally) until that entry is signed.

Also what renter (or even owner) has a legit calibration program in place? Or has the abilty to access the specific acs CAI requirements?

Show me an owner thats doing his own maintenance and im 90% sure i can show hes out of complaince before he walks out to the hanger.
 
donjohnston said:
Pick an experimental. Then find a comparable certificated aircraft of roughly the same age. And you're saying the experimental is more expensive???
Click to expand...
A good point, but the legacy aircraft can still fly just fine. Might not be spanky brand new, but it still gets you there. Again, at a fraction of the cost of an experimental.
 
pfarber said:
What renter is getting the logs to make the appropriate return to service entries?
Click to expand...
Why does he need the logbooks? A simple entry on a piece of paper meets the requirements.:rolleyes:
pfarber said:
Also what renter (or even owner) has a legit calibration program in place?
Click to expand...
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.;)
pfarber said:
im 90% sure i can show hes out of complaince before he walks out to the hanger.
Click to expand...
Since you have all the answers... Out of compliance with what?
 
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...

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 :)

While I'm waiting, I'll even do some of the research for you. The closest that I know of would be a Mooney 201, which carries 2 adults and 2 circus freaks at 165ktas with the same fuel burn. Nowhere near as fun to fly, either, and sure as hell not going to be 1992 or newer.

FWIW, I was originally looking for a DA-40, then I realized I couldn't justify the $$ given the performance. So, the Grumman Tiger was my next candidate. Then I started leaning towards the Mooney 201, then I learned about the Lancair 360. It was game over. I have been flying XC's with it for nearly 15 years, including a coast to coast trip and back. It carries plenty for a 2 seater.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top