Top 5 Experimental Airplanes In GA

[Ravioli]

"No longer marketed" and "out of fashion" would seem to be related...

Can't agree less.

No one is marketing the '55 Ford Thunderbird, but they are in no way "out of fashion."

My point was that a new builder cannot start a 6 because the kit was discontinued in favor of the 7 kit which is predrilled and has a taller rudder.

 

[Velocity173]

It’s not like the canard is dead. Plenty of Canard Squadron members and Velocity owners group. You can’t compare any of the EABs to Vans as far as popularity. Vans flat out dominates the community. But, it’s safe to say that the Varis, Longs, Cozys and Velocitys are doing well. Now, there are some rare ones such as the SQ2000, Berkut360, Tri-Q, and others that have a checkered safety record (especially Berkut) and never caught on. Those are the real “Starships” of the EAB community.

 

[GRG55]

Can't agree less.

No one is marketing the '55 Ford Thunderbird, but they are in no way "out of fashion."

My point was that a new builder cannot start a 6 because the kit was discontinued in favor of the 7 kit which is predrilled and has a taller rudder.

Comparing a 55 Thunderbird, and its rarity, with "...the most prolific kit plane designed. Bar none." seems as inconsistent as your previous post.

Are you disagreeing with my observation:

...My point was that like a lot of older E-AB designs, including the VariEze and Long-EZ, already completed RV-4s and '6s (which are hardly "obsolete" airplanes) are languishing in hangars and can be had for pretty reasonable prices compared the currently fashionable, bigger & faster RVs that have succeeded them. That's all.

or nitpicking my choice of words?

 

[wanttaja]

I think it likely that a lot of the 2016 additions are as you say, just re-registrations. However, I don't understand what you mean when you say that 200 RV-6s were deregistered since 2010? Your graph shows 51, so I guess the numbers for each year is just an end sum. An example would be 60 6s struck off the registry in 2013, but 20 new planes added. Is this correct?

The numbers shown are the net increase/decrease for each year over the preceding year. So for the RV-6 in 2013, "-40" means that forty more airplanes were removed from the registry than added.

The FAA Registration database includes a list of all de-registrations. My "200 RV-6s deregistered since 2010" were based on the January 2018 database, and counted all the RV-6s that were deregistered since January 1, 2010.

It should be noted that the number of deregistrations in a given year may vary in later years. For example, the January 2018 database shows 48 RV-6s deregistered in 2013, while the January 2016 database says 54. This is undoubtedly cases where aircraft were deregistered in error (usually by an owner's lapse) and restored to the list.

Also, don't people obtain their registrations prior to actually completing the plane, or are your numbers only showing actually flying aircraft?

My numbers are the total registered aircraft. There are no independent sources on the number of aircraft actually flying. The FAA says 40% of all registered homebuilts are inactive, which would include both not-yet-flying and abandoned aircraft.

In addition, each registration entry includes a code for Certification category. Supposedly, aircraft which do NOT have entries in this field have not yet been awarded an Airworthiness Certificate. At the end of 2017, for example, there were 1,972 total RV-6s in the registry, but only 1,796 of them were listed as having Experimental Amateur-Built airworthiness certificates. Ten additional aircraft are listed as certified in other categories.

However, this field is not that reliable. For instance,there are almost 2,400 Cessnas that have blank entries in this field. According to the registry, there's one normal-category and one Experimental Light Sport RV6.....

Ron Wanttaja

 

[denverpilot]

So much vacuous BS content on youtube cut&pasted from other videos solely for the purpose of generating clicks on income for the "creators"...

I wouldn’t call a percentage of a fraction of a penny, “income” really. LOL.

You can’t compare any of the EABs to Vans as far as popularity. Vans flat out dominates the community.

What’s amazing about all these numbers is Vans leads and it’s only with triple digit numbers. In any other sort of manufacturing that’s just a hobby business. And the rest are even lower.

For the health of the industry I wish those were four or five digit numbers. But it’s not going to happen.

 

[GRG55]

It’s not like the canard is dead. Plenty of Canard Squadron members and Velocity owners group. You can’t compare any of the EABs to Vans as far as popularity. Vans flat out dominates the community. But, it’s safe to say that the Varis, Longs, Cozys and Velocitys are doing well. Now, there are some rare ones such as the SQ2000, Berkut360, Tri-Q, and others that have a checkered safety record (especially Berkut) and never caught on. Those are the real “Starships” of the EAB community.

I come across the occasional Velocity in my travels, but its been a long time since I've seen an EZ in the air outside of OSH. It seems a real shame many aren't being flown - I can imagine a lot of builders are now in their later years and maybe not as active? There's two Long-EZs at my airport that have not flown in years; sitting in the back of hangars covered in dust. Seems to me an O-235 Long-EZ would be an incredibly fun, economical, fast ride for a young pilot who needs to save for 40 years to buy his first Cirrus.

Wasn't @Tom-D working on an O-200 VariEze?

 

[Tom-D]

Wasn't @Tom-D working on an O-200 VariEze?

Yes, just a project, finished and sold.

 

[Velocity173]

I come across the occasional Velocity in my travels, but its been a long time since I've seen an EZ in the air outside of OSH. It seems a real shame many aren't being flown - I can imagine a lot of builders are now in their later years and maybe not as active? There's two Long-EZs at my airport that have not flown in years; sitting in the back of hangars covered in dust. Seems to me an O-235 Long-EZ would be an incredibly fun, economical, fast ride for a young pilot who needs to save for 40 years to buy his first Cirrus.

Wasn't @Tom-D working on an O-200 VariEze?

I think they’re twice as many EZs registered than Velocitys but like you said, a lot aren’t active. Can be some good buys in used EZs out there.

One of these days I’m going to go to the Rough River fly-in. Usually have about 60-70 canards attend. 3,200 ft runway would be cutting it close for my take off safety buffer though.

http://www.roughriver.org/history.php

 

[Dav8or]

3,200 ft runway would be cutting it close for my take off safety buffer though.

And this right here is why canard aircraft haven't taken over and why they remain a small niche within GA.

 

[Velocity173]

And this right here is why canard aircraft haven't taken over and why they remain a small niche within GA.

You forgot to mention high stall speeds.

 

[SkyDog58]

No one is marketing the '55 Ford Thunderbird, but they are in no way "out of fashion."

Yes they are. Now, a ‘57 Chevy is a different story.

 

[wayne]

I think they’re twice as many EZs registered than Velocitys but like you said, a lot aren’t active. Can be some good buys in used EZs out there.

One of these days I’m going to go to the Rough River fly-in. Usually have about 60-70 canards attend. 3,200 ft runway would be cutting it close for my take off safety buffer though.

http://www.roughriver.org/history.php

And this right here is why canard aircraft haven't taken over and why they remain a small niche within GA.

Heck, there are a lot of people flying SR22s that want 3,000' minimum runway lengths too.

Personally that's not much of a limitation for me. The vast majority of airports I've landed at have 5,000'+ runways. Flying into HWO (North Perry/Hollywood, FL, near Miami) a couple of weeks ago was an oddball for me. I landed an took off of the shortest runway, 3,240'; with the longest being 3,350'.

A V-twin would be nice, but it just doesn't seem to have much luggage space, or enough useful load. What I got from feedback from builders was Velocity isn't set-up (and their kits) for production/build efficiency and the performance is a bit overstated. I seriously doubt I'll ever build any airplane though.

 

[jaymark6655]

A good list but without listing specific criteria on how you came to these conclusions, it’s mostly personal preference. All of these are on the high end for kitplanes and none are plans. Lots of nice plan builds can be done for a fraction of the cost of the aircraft in this lists.

The Sling 4, while I know you flew one, personally no way I’d pay over 200K for a 120 kt aircraft. I could get a Velocity XL for that, and do 200 kts with 4 pax and a much bigger cabin. That’s not because I like canards either, that’s just logic. Then again, if I were to pay over 200K for an EAB, I’d probably just go with a used SR22. But, that’s a whole other discussion.

Also, with the Glasair III no one is reporting real world over 250 kt cruise unless they’re at Reno. Typical reports average 230 kts. Still, respectable numbers and since I own a G I, I’m partial to the brand.

I think it’s safe to say that the Evolution has gone from a dying breed to deceased. Laid off half their work force and as of late October, they weren’t answering emails or phone calls. Hoping for the best but I think they’re done.

Pretty sure he has the pricing wrong. Sheet I have from Sling says the 4 cost $108K with every option they sell including interior, glass cockpit, and chute. To get to $200K you would have to have the company in CA help you build it and even then I think it only cost $190K.

 

[Datadriver]

This thread would be more interesting if the "top 5" category was more mission based. i.e. "Top 5 seaplanes" or "Top 5 biplanes" or "Top 5 Cross Country Aircraft".

 

[bflynn]

Certainly good choices...if price is no object. What about the everyday working stiffs, or us retirees on a fixed income?

For the ancient people, ancient airplanes.... http://www.airdromeaeroplanes.com ? If you work at it, it's reasonable to get in the air for under 20k.

 

[Grum.Man]

He’d have to have some serious aerodynamic mods to hit that number or twin turbos. Todd Copeland used to post on POA and reported 230 KTAS on 350 HP. Two G3s for sale on Barnstormers and the owners report 220 kts and 210 kt cruise.

Some can hit some serious speeds but anything in the upper 200s has been moded.

Just about all "stock" G III's I have seen are in the 215-220 kt range with the 300 hp non turbo engine.

 

[UngaWunga]

And this right here is why canard aircraft haven't taken over and why they remain a small niche within GA.

Yup. I'd love to have an EZ. Fast, efficient, what's not to like? But home field is 2100'.

 

[wanttaja]

Yup. I'd love to have an EZ. Fast, efficient, what's not to like? But home field is 2100'.

I used to share my hangar with a Long-EZ owner. I referred to many local airports as, "Where angels and Long-EZs fear to tread...."

Ron Wanttaja

 

[FormerHangie]

Certainly good choices...if price is no object. What about the everyday working stiffs, or us retirees on a fixed income?

Ron Wanttaja

Seems to me that many years ago, there were lots of EAAers working on minimalist airplanes, some very good

and some not so good

I don't think many of these older planes are still around.

I did a little looking around for some of the lower priced E-ABs around today, Sonex figures you can build one of their airplanes for about $37,000, excluding radios and paint. That with the scary (to me) AeroVee under the cowling. If you'd like a UL Power engine, that's close to $15,000 more. Maybe you split the difference and go with a Revmaster, but then you're rolling your own cowling and engine mount (I think). How about one of Mr. David Thatcher's designs? Those are a little more to my liking. You can scratch build one of those, or you can buy some premade parts to speed the process along. You'd probably spend less than on a Sonex as well.

Anything else under $40,000? Not with four stroke power, at least not from what I can see. I think back in the old days guys did a lot of scrounging and used leftover parts from scrapped airplanes. Remember the O-290-G? it was a GPU engine that some guys used in their airplanes. There was still surplus AN stuff available through the 60's and early 70's. I'm sure more than a few smaller homebuilts used the engines out of those airplanes built during the postwar boom, they'd have been going to the salvage yard in the late 60's and early 70's.

If you look at the aircraft production numbers (GAMA has these) you'll see that airplane production really plummeted after about 1981. The salvage parts that might well have gone into low buck homebuilts now never got produced.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Wouldn't mind getting some time on this guy

Wouldn't mind getting some time on this guy

Sounds like total of ~260 HP on a light, high lift frame and the smallest floats I've ever seen. Gonna check his useful load first but, I've considered putting another engine on my TII STOL Highlander Amphib via pylon pusher... Little beast in that video, thanks for posting.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

No info on its full gross, 1000 pounds of useful load take off length on unimproved landing sites seen on their website although it should still be near spectacular.