Don't hate me for this (a "what plane" post)

LoLPilot

LoLPilot

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jun 30, 2018
Messages
626
Location
St. Louis, MO
Display Name
Display name:
LoLPilot
Apologies in advance. I'm about halfway through my IR and I'm doing my XC work right now. After I finish I am tossing around the idea of buying an inexpensive plane. My end goal is not the airlines. I want to get a commercial certificate so that I can go for a CFI just to instruct, and to maybe do fun-ish side jobs like tow banners. If I buy it will certainly be E-AB and I want a taildragger. That last part is what keeps me from joining a club.

Based on my criteria I've sort of narrowed the field down to three planes that have nothing in common, and so I'd just like to kick the ball around with a bunch of guys and gals that know these machines better than I do.

1) Wag Aero Cub clone - attractive because of low purchase cost, probably low insurance cost (for a tailwheel), the funky fun factor of a Cub, and simplicity (low maintenance cost). Downside is it is slow and has no electrical system.

2) Steen Skybolt - a few weeks ago I posted an ad about a blue Skybolt for sale asking why it hadn't sold. This shares nothing in common with the Cub except that when it's cold outside you're cold, and vice versa. I'm aware that insurance would be astronomical and until I flew off my first hundred hours or so I'd be probably looking at liability only. Also, if a Continental 470 or Lycoming 540 bit the dust I would be screwed for the time being. That being said, the thought of taxiing out with a shaking, straight-piped six cylinder is alluring.

3) Vans RV-4 - highest purchase price from what I've seen, but an economical machine to travel in should I decide to go somewhere in it. Also down the road I could make it light IFR capable.

Any one of these I'd do similar things with. I would try to travel with them in much the same way one travels with a motorcycle or classic sports car. I realize that none of these are great cross country vacation machines and require dedication to the journey rather than the destination. I would also like to take some basic aerobatics lessons and if I enjoyed it any one of those planes would be subjected to an aileron roll and a loop. I have seen enough videos of Cubs doing this to know that while dumb it is possible. So considering that I want to build time while flying for fun with no intention to do this as a career, what are your thoughts on those three? Or is there a model I'm missing? My basic desires are: tailwheel, two place with a strong preference for tandem, with an actual aircraft engine, and E/AB airworthiness.
 
Vans RV-4.. I would say it's the most capable of the ones listed.. and likely fun

**by the way, I find in these situations there is usually one that you're leaning towards.. and hoping the group either talks you into or, or raises some serious red flags about it.. ultimately though, aviation is 90% romance driven so just buy the plane you feel most pulled towards
 
1 and 2 probably fit the same bill. Fun for buzzing around the patch and sightseeing. #3 gives you the option to go somewhere, and actually is a great travel machine. I know a guy that had one as his business aircraft.
 
1) very small front cockpit and not many of them on the market unless you plan to build. If that's the case you can add all the electronics you want.

2) Good all around airplane for sport flying and moderate cross countries if you can afford the fuel.

3) Expensive and everyone has one but for good reason

My suggestion is look at Thorp T18 or Mustang II's. Similar performance to a Vans but less expensive. tighter cockpit though if that's an issue for you. Another good option in the tight cockpit department is a Wittman tailwind.
 
I'd definitely be buying rather than building. I want something I can repair and modify, though. There is a Wag Aero I've got my eye on and it is a front seat solo plane.

If it were just romance it would be Skybolt all the way. The thoughts of feeding it, and insuring it, and caring for a six cylinder which would double the cost of the plane if it had to be replaced makes me shudder at the thought of it. Still, laying down the hammer on a big V8 sports car is (if you'd permit me to say it on the forum) a sensory orgasm of sorts. The sound, the torque, the smell, all of it, and it leaves you in awe of the machine waiting to do your bidding.

The Cub seems like an MGB. It's tight, cramped, can't carry much, and you wonder why it has the appeal it does, but it has that appeal. It's inexpensive, simple, and fun. I've seen Cubs and fly-ins and they always just seem like Beagles. Small and eager to please with everything they've got. My grandpa took lessons in a Cub and I grew up hearing how much he liked them.

The Vans seems to me to be like my Subaru. Much more of a modern concept, relatively fast, thrifty, and able to go places even if it isn't outstanding at any one thing. It doesn't hurt that they have a vaguely "fighter plane" atmosphere to them. SO I see good and bad with all of them! I just know I wouldn't be buying another for a long time and I wouldn't want to get three years into ownership and come to hate it.
 
Tantalum said:
Vans RV-4.. I would say it's the most capable of the ones listed.. and likely fun

**by the way, I find in these situations there is usually one that you're leaning towards.. and hoping the group either talks you into or, or raises some serious red flags about it.. ultimately though, aviation is 90% romance driven so just buy the plane you feel most pulled towards
Click to expand...

Seconded. Vans RV-4 is probably the one that offers the fun/aero and ability for use of the IR. I'd think you could find a decent RV-4 for about the same price as a WA Cub Replica ($35-40K or so).
 
LoLPilot said:
I'd definitely be buying rather than building. I want something I can repair and modify, though. There is a Wag Aero I've got my eye on and it is a front seat solo plane.

If it were just romance it would be Skybolt all the way. The thoughts of feeding it, and insuring it, and caring for a six cylinder which would double the cost of the plane if it had to be replaced makes me shudder at the thought of it. Still, laying down the hammer on a big V8 sports car is (if you'd permit me to say it on the forum) a sensory orgasm of sorts. The sound, the torque, the smell, all of it, and it leaves you in awe of the machine waiting to do your bidding.

The Cub seems like an MGB. It's tight, cramped, can't carry much, and you wonder why it has the appeal it does, but it has that appeal. It's inexpensive, simple, and fun. I've seen Cubs and fly-ins and they always just seem like Beagles. Small and eager to please with everything they've got. My grandpa took lessons in a Cub and I grew up hearing how much he liked them.

The Vans seems to me to be like my Subaru. Much more of a modern concept, relatively fast, thrifty, and able to go places even if it isn't outstanding at any one thing. It doesn't hurt that they have a vaguely "fighter plane" atmosphere to them. SO I see good and bad with all of them! I just know I wouldn't be buying another for a long time and I wouldn't want to get three years into ownership and come to hate it.
Click to expand...

My only rebuttal to the cub stance is that they aren't much fun to fly in anything but calm and smooth. With the truck like ailerons and huge wing you get tossed all over the place where as the others will slice through a little better. I don't think the 6 cylinder will cost you all that much more to be honest. There are so many on the market you can score one for the same or less than a 4 cylinder that the Vans guys are fighting over. Two cylinders over the course of years is a pretty small investment and everything else will be similar in cost to a 4 banger. The gas and oil will set you back but I would be surprised if the insurance is any more than any other tail dragger.
 
It sounds like you want a Citabria... I know it's not E/AB, but with owner assisted Mx, it's really not THAT much different than experimentals.
 
LoLPilot said:
Apologies in advance. I'm about halfway through my IR and I'm doing my XC work right now. After I finish I am tossing around the idea of buying an inexpensive plane. My end goal is not the airlines. I want to get a commercial certificate so that I can go for a CFI just to instruct, and to maybe do fun-ish side jobs like tow banners. If I buy it will certainly be E-AB and I want a taildragger. That last part is what keeps me from joining a club.

Based on my criteria I've sort of narrowed the field down to three planes that have nothing in common, and so I'd just like to kick the ball around with a bunch of guys and gals that know these machines better than I do.

1) Wag Aero Cub clone - attractive because of low purchase cost, probably low insurance cost (for a tailwheel), the funky fun factor of a Cub, and simplicity (low maintenance cost). Downside is it is slow and has no electrical system.

2) Steen Skybolt - a few weeks ago I posted an ad about a blue Skybolt for sale asking why it hadn't sold. This shares nothing in common with the Cub except that when it's cold outside you're cold, and vice versa. I'm aware that insurance would be astronomical and until I flew off my first hundred hours or so I'd be probably looking at liability only. Also, if a Continental 470 or Lycoming 540 bit the dust I would be screwed for the time being. That being said, the thought of taxiing out with a shaking, straight-piped six cylinder is alluring.

3) Vans RV-4 - highest purchase price from what I've seen, but an economical machine to travel in should I decide to go somewhere in it. Also down the road I could make it light IFR capable.

Any one of these I'd do similar things with. I would try to travel with them in much the same way one travels with a motorcycle or classic sports car. I realize that none of these are great cross country vacation machines and require dedication to the journey rather than the destination. I would also like to take some basic aerobatics lessons and if I enjoyed it any one of those planes would be subjected to an aileron roll and a loop. I have seen enough videos of Cubs doing this to know that while dumb it is possible. So considering that I want to build time while flying for fun with no intention to do this as a career, what are your thoughts on those three? Or is there a model I'm missing? My basic desires are: tailwheel, two place with a strong preference for tandem, with an actual aircraft engine, and E/AB airworthiness.
Click to expand...
nosewheel pilot.JPG
 
Citabria - Airbatic backwards. Enclosed cockpit. Good visibility over the nose when taxiing. Kite with an engine. Tandem and tailwheel. Minimal avionics. Economic, but loud enough to think you're behind a V8!
 
If you’re going to CFI after, why not get a plane you could also use for that?
Lots better schedule, pay, etc.

Get a certified plane.
 
As to an rv-4
Got to disagree with grum man, although not nearly as rare as his egg, there are only about 1500 4's flying so it is not nearly as prevalent as the 678 group. As for IFR in a 4, it is really only a very light IFR airplane. An autopilot is a must and with the limited panel space there is no room for redundancy. Mine is capable of IFR but has way to many single point failure modes to take it in the clouds. As to performance and economy, very hard plane to beat. Goes really fast for about 8 to 9 gallons an hour and can go real slow burning very little gas. I wouldn't trade mine for anything except a warbird.

Bob
 
Quick question on this... is the whole "airbatic" thing actually true? I've heard people tell me this often that the much (and rightfully awesome) Citabria was named as such since it is "airbatic" backwards. But it's actually "aerobatic" - not airbatic. So, while it sounds the same as a homophone "Citabria" strictly speaking is not aerobatic spelled backwards. It is airbatic spelled backwards, but airbatic is not actually a word

It's a nitpick, I know, but I've never actually seen this directly credited as an intentional name given to it by the company, just something other pilots have attributed to it. Wikipedia insinuates the connection, but the article itself has a warning that it needs verification.. I scoured http://www.americanchampionaircraft.com/ and couldn't find anything on here either. We could ask Robert Brown but I'm assuming he's since passed..
 
As far as Citabrias go, yes that’s what I want. I did my tailwheel in a Decathlon and fell in love with that airplane. I like the Citabrias for the better useful load and better short field performance while still being able to do gentleman’s aerobatics. But I’m unwilling to shell out 15 grand to have it recovered, or 14 for wings if the sparks are bad because those are both things that are within my wheelhouse. Since I only want to instruct on the side after I get my commercial and CFI I’m figuring on working part time at a small school or at a flying club. If I bought a certified plane I’d be too tempted to lease it back somewhere and then insurance would go through the roof with a Citabria.

Not to mention that with stuff like engines, my mechanic and I could build an engine in his maintenance hangar and I could do things like LED lighting and avionics upgrades without having to convince the FAA that I haven’t made the plane any less safe by upgrading its technology platform.

As far as RV-4’s go I wouldn’t expect it to be a hard IFR machine. Just something I could shoot approaches in to stay current and if there were low ceilings at departure and I could make it to VFR conditions, or punch through a medium ceiling to get to my destination, it could do that. I wouldn’t expect it to fly to minimums but when I’ve done simulated approaches to minimums in training it’s put me so far out of my comfort zone that I don’t know if I’d do that in actual anyway even if I had a plane with WAAS GPS and dual VOR’s.
 
Last edited:
Crashnburn said:
Citabria - Airbatic backwards. Enclosed cockpit. Good visibility over the nose when taxiing. Kite with an engine. Tandem and tailwheel. Minimal avionics. Economic, but loud enough to think you're behind a V8!
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure "Citabria" is actually "Adverse Yaw" spelled backwards. Dang thing thinks it's a glider or something.

Tantalum said:
Quick question on this... is the whole "airbatic" thing actually true? I've heard people tell me this often that the much (and rightfully awesome) Citabria was named as such since it is "airbatic" backwards. But it's actually "aerobatic" - not airbatic. So, while it sounds the same as a homophone "Citabria" strictly speaking is not aerobatic spelled backwards. It is airbatic spelled backwards, but airbatic is not actually a word
Click to expand...

Yeah, but aerobatic backwords is Citaborea. Pretty sure they changed it just so that it wasn't a "bore".
 
LoLPilot said:
Not to mention that with stuff like engines, my mechanic and I could build an engine in his maintenance hangar and I could do things like LED lighting and avionics upgrades without having to convince the FAA that I haven’t made the plane any less safe by upgrading its technology platform.
Click to expand...
I think you underestimate the power of hangar fairies... Honestly though I think you're really overstating the differences. If you're handy, it brings the costs down significantly. "owner supplied parts" are your friend.

If that's the plane you want... get it!
 
How aboit a sonex or waiex with the 6 cylinder jabiru engine? Not quite as capable as an rv 4 but can be had for alot less money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top