Top 5 Experimental Airplanes In GA

easik

easik

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jun 24, 2017
Messages
235
Display Name
Display name:
easik
Here is my top 5

#1 RV-10 - Complete package for a 4 seater airplane. Best bang for the buck, and Performance, useful load and support community are all A+ IMO.

#2 Sling 4 - Comes in at number 2 because of the design and light weight characteristics. Although it's just as expensive as the RV-10, I think this is an option that will save you some money in the long run, just on fuel alone.

#3 Xcub - Not for all pilots, the Xcub is arguably one of the best bush planes in the market. Pricey, but I've yet to find an owner or pilot who isn't in love with this plane.

#4 Glasair III - This plane is the absolute speed machine. Reserved for better skilled and experience pilots. I don't think you can go wrong with this one if performance/speed/aerobatics is at the top of your mission.

#5 Lancair Evolution - A dying breed, but still relevant in today's market. This airplane is a great substitute for a light jet.

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

Ron Wanttaja
 
The Sling 4 is a four place airplane with a 115hp turbocharged Rotax. Standard empty weight is listed at 1,036 pounds, but I wonder how realistic that is and what the real world performance is like. It sounds too good to be true, but if the numbers are real good for them!
 
SkyDog58 said:
So how many hours do you have in each of these?
Click to expand...

Relax. It's a forum thread for entertainment purposes only. If somebody starts a thread here entitled "Top 5 Fighter Planes of WWII" would you demand, or expect the author of thread to have flown each one? I sure wouldn't and yet most would be fine with that as we all have our opinions on the subject.
 
RV10,or a velocity. Not a builder,but like those models.
 
wanttaja said:
Certainly good choices...if price is no object. What about the everyday working stiffs, or us retirees on a fixed income?

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Interesting list. Shows the evolution of homebuilts away from scratch built to kits, and from simple kits to generally now pretty expensive. Even the CubCrafters EX-2, if built with restraint, is still likely to be well north of $150,000 before it is finished.

A list from 30 years ago would almost certainly have included the Rutan Long-EZ, likely the Vans RV-4 and perhaps the Cozy as the 4-place. They all seem to be pretty good value as completed airplanes today.
 
Dav8or said:
Relax. It's a forum thread for entertainment purposes only. If somebody starts a thread here entitled "Top 5 Fighter Planes of WWII" would you demand, or expect the author of thread to have flown each one? I sure wouldn't and yet most would be fine with that as we all have our opinions on the subject.
Click to expand...

But when someone is recommending a list of modern day GA aircraft including experimental that we might actually want to fly or even buy, the actual experience of the person advocating the aircraft is important when weighing his opinion. Also some reasons as to why one personally considers a particular plane to be the best in its class would be helpful as well.

Why is the XCub one of the best bush planes? What did you compare it to?

Why or how is the Lancair a good substitute for a light jet?

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect some actual information on the decision making process including personal hands on experience when one makes such a list. If it is just a whimsical "gee I think these planes look cool and other people say they are great so I like them", that's fine but just say so.
 
X Cub is certificated. Carbon Cub is the Exp equivalent. Whether a Carbon Cub is durable enough to be considered a bush plane is questionable.
 
SkyDog58 said:
But when someone is recommending a list of modern day GA aircraft including experimental that we might actually want to fly or even buy, the actual experience of the person advocating the aircraft is important when weighing his opinion. Also some reasons as to why one personally considers a particular plane to be the best in its class would be helpful as well.

Why is the XCub one of the best bush planes? What did you compare it to?

Why or how is the Lancair a good substitute for a light jet?

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect some actual information on the decision making process including personal hands on experience when one makes such a list. If it is just a whimsical "gee I think these planes look cool and other people say they are great so I like them", that's fine but just say so.
Click to expand...

I guess you must be talking about the video. I couldn't watch it. It was annoying so I quit. It's a typical YouTube gimmick to get views. Create click bait by making a "Top Ten" list. It's a cheesy way to get people to watch your video and it's also a lazy way to come up with an idea for a video.

The title of the video and the thread really should have been- My top five kit planes. As most here know, the Experimental category includes a lot more types of aircraft than just kits, so in this case, using kit instead of experimental is more accurate than experimental because it is in fact a video and thread only about airplane kits and does not include the other types. The real problem with this more truthful title is the inclusion of the word "my" lets one know it is opinion only, so since most people don't care about a stranger's opinion, the click bait becomes less effective.

Having said that, an actual top five kit plane video would be pretty boring because I suspect (I haven't actually done the research on this) that the actual top five kit planes, based on numbers sold and numbers completed and flown would likely all be Vans models.
 
James331 said:
Wouldn't mind getting some time on this guy

Click to expand...

That plane is ridiculously cool. Whatever happened to it? It doesn't seem to have gone anywhere, but it does appear to be the ideal backwoods airplane. I'm not all that interested in bush flying, but this airplane does interest me. It would be awesome on floats too.
 
Dav8or said:
Relax. It's a forum thread for entertainment purposes only. If somebody starts a thread here entitled "Top 5 Fighter Planes of WWII" would you demand, or expect the author of thread to have flown each one? I sure wouldn't and yet most would be fine with that as we all have our opinions on the subject.
Click to expand...
I've come to realize that some of us just take life way too seriously. So I appreciate your comment there. To your second comment about the video, I don't depend on the forum to generate views as you suggested. 99% of my video views comes from Youtube itself. I only post on this forum because I want to share my passion and excitement for airplanes and flying and to get some discussion going about airplanes. Isn't that the reason we're all here? If I must be explicit about it; "YES all of my posts are my own opinion". Didn't think I had to do that but hey what do you know :)
 
Last edited:
I feel like I used to see a lot more EZ variants in the past and people toting their efficiency and good handling in the exp world.

I know the RV mania took over and likely ate up a lot of that, but I’m surprised the EZ sub-culture isn’t stronger than it is.
 
Dav8or said:
That plane is ridiculously cool. Whatever happened to it? It doesn't seem to have gone anywhere, but it does appear to be the ideal backwoods airplane. I'm not all that interested in bush flying, but this airplane does interest me. It would be awesome on floats too.
Click to expand...

Not sure, but IMO it blows the doors off a carbon cub
 
STOL performance isn't very impressive. It doesn't carry much. Probably a good game survey plane, and that's what the builder does for a living, I believe. Carbon Cubs are toys. Bush planes are tools.
 
Stewartb said:
STOL performance isn't very impressive. It doesn't carry much. Probably a good game survey plane, and that's what the builder does for a living, I believe. Carbon Cubs are toys. Bush planes are tools.
Click to expand...

Being a experimental topic, these planes can't make money or work anyways.

But carbon cubs seems to sell well, I'd imagine a double ended would appeal to the same market. Plus it's fills the twin check box, has waaaay better visibility, and prop clearance.
 
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.
 
Velocity173 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This one goes exactly what the tail number says it does. Custom retractable gear and lots of fiberglass fairing work.

Photo is a formation flight a friend got to do with her. Jealous...

2ef0933786a9f0be26790260be6fce27.jpg
 
denverpilot said:
I feel like I used to see a lot more EZ variants in the past and people toting their efficiency and good handling in the exp world.

I know the RV mania took over and likely ate up a lot of that, but I’m surprised the EZ sub-culture isn’t stronger than it is.
Click to expand...
The kit is the thing, nowadays, and the traditional canards were composite construction that was largely hand-built. Sure, companies produce some kits (Velocity) but they aren't suited to automated kit production like the RVs and Sonexes are. Push a sheet of aluminum into a machine, get a bunch of parts out. For composites, though, you need a lot of hand labor to lay-up and make the parts for the kits.

Ron Wanttaja
 
denverpilot said:
I feel like I used to see a lot more EZ variants in the past and people toting their efficiency and good handling in the exp world.

I know the RV mania took over and likely ate up a lot of that, but I’m surprised the EZ sub-culture isn’t stronger than it is.
Click to expand...

The E-AB world is subject to fad and fashion like any other. There's always something else out there trying to capture everyone's imagination.

The plans built hot wire Rutan canard pushers gave way to premolded composite Glasairs and Lancairs. None of the canard derivatives (Cozy, Velocity, Berkut) have had as big an impact.

Even in the Vans line up RV-4s and '6s seem to be out of fashion and can be had for pretty reasonable prices today compared to their more contemporary and popular successors, like the '8.

I notice there's a lot fewer Rutan EZs and a lot fewer fixed gear Glasairs on the grass at Oshkosh these days compared to the late '80s/early '90s when people were actively building them. Time passes, things change.
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
This one goes exactly what the tail number says it does. Custom retractable gear and lots of fiberglass fairing work.

Photo is a formation flight a friend got to do with her. Jealous...

2ef0933786a9f0be26790260be6fce27.jpg
Click to expand...

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.
 
Velocity173 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Probably. I got to peek at it on the ground but the builder wasn’t there. Slippery looking devil and it looked like the cowl was quite full. :)
 
If there was just one kitplane I could choose, it would be Ed Swearingen's SX-300. Those things look fast parked on the ramp. This one belongs to Sanders Aeronautics.

IMG_0362.JPG
 
wanttaja said:
The kit is the thing, nowadays, and the traditional canards were composite construction that was largely hand-built. Sure, companies produce some kits (Velocity) but they aren't suited to automated kit production like the RVs and Sonexes are. Push a sheet of aluminum into a machine, get a bunch of parts out. For composites, though, you need a lot of hand labor to lay-up and make the parts for the kits.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

It’s too bad those monster carbon fiber fuselage making machines that Boeing has haven’t turned into giant 3D carbon fiber printers at a low cost.

3D print your airplane. That’d change some things.
 
easik said:
I've come to realize that some of us just take life way too seriously. So I appreciate your comment there. To your second comment about the video, I don't depend on the forum to generate views as you suggested. 99% of my video views comes from Youtube itself. I only post on this forum because I want to share my passion and excitement for airplanes and flying and to get some discussion going about airplanes. Isn't that the reason we're all here? If I must be explicit about it; "YES all of my posts are my own opinion". Didn't think I had to do that but hey what do you know :)
Click to expand...


So much vacuous BS content on youtube cut&pasted from other videos solely for the purpose of generating clicks on income for the "creators"...
 
denverpilot said:
I feel like I used to see a lot more EZ variants in the past and people toting their efficiency and good handling in the exp world.

I know the RV mania took over and likely ate up a lot of that, but I’m surprised the EZ sub-culture isn’t stronger than it is.
Click to expand...

There's no quick build kit. In fact there is no kit. Those are plans built planes. Lots more time involved and it turns out, a lot of people hate working with fiberglass and love flying into shorter fields. Of course the Velocity aircraft are evolutions of the EZ and I guess they sell OK. The Vans RV was already a great all around plane with great appeal, but when they introduced the CNC prepunched holes, that was genius. I just turns out people prefer bucking rivets forever instead of sanding fiberglass forever.
 
Dav8or said:
There's no quick build kit. In fact there is no kit. Those are plans built planes. Lots more time involved and it turns out, a lot of people hate working with fiberglass and love flying into shorter fields. Of course the Velocity aircraft are evolutions of the EZ and I guess they sell OK. The Vans RV was already a great all around plane with great appeal, but when they introduced the CNC prepunched holes, that was genius. I just turns out people prefer bucking rivets forever instead of sanding fiberglass forever.
Click to expand...

The canards had other compromises beyond the long paved runways necessary and the sanding required. The kneeling landing gear, the dodgy low speed roll control, the pusher configuration which subjected the prop to abuse from debris, all drove people away from the concept over time. Beyond that, Rutan pulled support, and nobody has stepped forward with a winning update to the two seat concept (Velocity is a 4 seater, Cozy is really tight, etc.).
 
easik said:
Here is my top 5

#1 RV-10 - Complete package for a 4 seater airplane. Best bang for the buck, and Performance, useful load and support community are all A+ IMO.

#2 Sling 4 - Comes in at number 2 because of the design and light weight characteristics. Although it's just as expensive as the RV-10, I think this is an option that will save you some money in the long run, just on fuel alone.

#3 Xcub - Not for all pilots, the Xcub is arguably one of the best bush planes in the market. Pricey, but I've yet to find an owner or pilot who isn't in love with this plane.

#4 Glasair III - This plane is the absolute speed machine. Reserved for better skilled and experience pilots. I don't think you can go wrong with this one if performance/speed/aerobatics is at the top of your mission.

#5 Lancair Evolution - A dying breed, but still relevant in today's market. This airplane is a great substitute for a light jet.
Click to expand...

Have to admit, I wouldn't want a single one of the planes on your list.

I'd be happier with a Velocity over an RV-10 or Sling 4.

I'd prefer a Zenith CH-750 or a J-3 to the Xcub.

I'd prefer a Lancair Legacy, Long EZ, or Questair Venture to the Glasair. I've always thought the Glasair was ugly.

No interest in something like a Lancair Evolution, so I'd replace that with something like a Minimax, Airbike, or Flybaby.
 
GRG55 said:
Even in the Vans line up RV-4s and '6s seem to be out of fashion and can be had for pretty reasonable prices today compared to their more contemporary and popular successors, like the '8.
Click to expand...

They're not out of fashion, they're in a sense obsolete. The factory no longer makes those kits. You can't buy a brand new RV-4, or RV-6 kit. Their lower value on the used market reflects that 1) they are older with older avionics and higher hours and 2) there really were desirable improvements made with the 7 and 8, so newer and better will always command a higher price. Plenty of people still interested in and flying 4s and 6s, it's just that as the all the remaining unbuilt kits are finally being completed, fewer and fewer are being added to the registry each year.
 
Dav8or said:
They're not out of fashion, they're in a sense obsolete. The factory no longer makes those kits. You can't buy a brand new RV-4, or RV-6 kit. Their lower value on the used market reflects that 1) they are older with older avionics and higher hours and 2) there really were desirable improvements made with the 7 and 8, so newer and better will always command a higher price. Plenty of people still interested in and flying 4s and 6s, it's just that as the all the remaining unbuilt kits are finally being completed, fewer and fewer are being added to the registry each year.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, I looked at the net yearly increase in RVs over the last eight years.
rv_production.jpg

Remember, the FAA had its re-registration effort in 2010-2013, and the overall EAB ranks were reduced by almost one-quarter.

There's a spike in RV-6s in 2016. Not sure why that is. It's possible some of the ~200 RV-6s de-registered since 2010 were returned to the registry.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Last edited:
Dav8or said:
They're not out of fashion, they're in a sense obsolete. The factory no longer makes those kits. You can't buy a brand new RV-4, or RV-6 kit.
Click to expand...

This is not correct. Every one of the kits to build an RV-3, '4 or '6 is still available. To finish an already started project, or to build an entire airplane. The lead times are extending and the prices are rising due falling demand, but they have not been discontinued.

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.
 
Last edited:
wanttaja said:
Out of curiosity, I looked at the net yearly increase in RVs over the last eight years.
rv_production.jpg

Remember, the FAA had its re-registration effort in 2010-2013, and the overall EAB ranks were reduced by almost one-quarter.

There's a spike in RV-6s in 2016. Not sure why that is. It's possible some of the ~200 RV-6s de-registered since 2010 were returned to the registry.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

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?

Also, don't people obtain their registrations prior to actually completing the plane, or are your numbers only showing actually flying aircraft?
 
@easik is depriving some village of its idiot.

Your exclusion of Long, Velocity, and Sonex in favor of your limited view of the EXP market is ridiculous. And the previously mentioned Cub miss-classification doesn't help.

GRG55 said:
Even in the Vans line up RV-4s and '6s seem to be out of fashion and can be had for pretty reasonable prices today compared to their more contemporary and popular successors, like the '8.
Click to expand...

The 6's are no longer marketed. Not sure that makes them "out of fashion," since in the 30yrs since introduction it has become the most prolific kit plane designed. Bar none.
 
Ravioli said:
...The 6's are no longer marketed. Not sure that makes them "out of fashion," since in the 30yrs since introduction it has become the most prolific kit plane designed. Bar none.
Click to expand...

"No longer marketed" and "out of fashion" would seem to be related...;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top