Maybe we should call this the "Alternatives" forum :)

Couldn't resist being the first... Perhaps we should name this forum the "Alternatives" as I'm not building an RV either. However, I as well, enjoy "Hanging out" here and learning from those that are building airplanes!

So many areas apply regardless of what you are building - engines, mounting, wiring, panels, electronics, etc. While the main construction methods may vary between aluminum and carbon or glass airpalnes, there are lots of areas where there are similarities.

Oh, well, in the spirit of promoting yet another forum name change (or creation there of ...)

While this isn't mine, it's Carl Lewis'. Mine should be up a flying this fall.... Ya just gotta love fast airplanes (why I feel a kinship to Rockets). Even if we are a we bit faster....

Oh, btw, mine will have the gear down and welded, but unfortunately, the 3rd wheel will be in the wrong place

Man, no sooner do we FINALLY get our own forum, and it get's hijacked by the plastic airplane crowd!

BTW, I still have a soft spot for fiberglass airplanes having spent 4-years up to my elbows in Safe-T-Poxy.

One thing about plastic airplanes!

There is only one word that describes plastic airplanes ..... "CURVES", no matter if they are on soft masses , or Rigid masses, they are awesome.... Course you know what they say about plastic airplanes...

The air "sticks" to them better and that make em go faster... Where else can you do 240kts on 13.5 gph, and climb out at 2500 fpm.

Being serious for a minute. I think there is a different mission profile for airplanes built between the RV gang and us plastic airplane builders. You guys build to fly to have fun, do formation, light to medium aerobatics, etc. I build to fly to have fun and to get me somewhere without spending all day doing it. While the distinction is subtle, it seems to be there.

By all means...Can't we just get along

I think the RV crowd is OK with anyone making a contribution regarding common issues and subjects, avionics, electrical, engines, props, maintenance and safety. I especially LOVE to hear from the glass guys how to do fiberglass better. The best post on "glue and string" subjects are usually from former or current glass-plane builders.

Now lets be real. There is real fierce competitiveness or pride in ones "Brand", materials, mission or engine size. We all have prejudice or preferences. I will not go into the trade offs, but the RV's are the most popular homebuilts and have the highest resale to cost to build ratio for a reason. It does not mean other brands are not as good or don't have a niche.

One of the biggest rivalries has been the composite vs. other planes, so if plastic plane pilots and owner post and make any bragging comments like, I go 240 mph blaaaa blaaaaa, expect to be take some good natured ridicule. Granted the fast glass is not going to be real comfortable on a moderately rough 1000 foot grass strip. Besides the only glass I want to sit in is my hot tub. PS don't forget to put your gear down.

I have seen RV'ers, Glass-pilots, Bonanza pilots and War Bird pilots (the worst) alike with their nose in the air at airshows. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It is a plane Darn it, its good. I remember when one of the "other" planes tried to park in the "chosen" RV area at a show, it was like WWIII. The poor marshaller did not know, it looked like a RV, and the pilot felt like crap (probably with less than a stellar opinion of RV'ers). Silly BS that RV'ers are not immune from. However I must admit I take great pride in the RV "Brand". I do think it offers the most bang for buck, best handling (feel) and best overall performance and safety, but it does not mean I can't appreciate an antique, war bird, wood, rag and tube or a Lancair with sexy curves.

Welcome aboard all (homebuilts), I say. RV'ers can just take it as a huge compliment that builders of other models are attracted to this RV sites and want to know how RV'ers do it. It really says it all. It is also a complement that groups like the RV killer group pop-up. George

aadamson said:

The air "sticks" to them better and that make em go faster... Where else can you do 240kts on 13.5 gph, and climb out at 2500 fpm.

Click to expand...

That kind of bragging is going to get my attention. I don't think you are referring to your fixed gear Lancair.

I think you referring to a 2 seat Legacy, retract with a 310 HP Cont. IO-550-N. As far as 13.5 gal/hr at 240 kts, I seriously doubt, especially in a 2500 fpm climb, which is what you kind of imply. I guess you mean a 240kt cruise at 8000ft, which I believe. 13.5 gal sounds suspiciously low. My guess is 15 gal/hr or more. No doubt the Legacy is a winner at Reno and king of the fast glass class, but..........it comes at a high cost most can't or want to afford. If you want to go fast, buy a jet.

The cost of a Lancair Legacy/IV kit, engine, prop and avionics for this kind of plane is well over 1/4 million dollars typically! I talked to a pro builder and he told me Lancair IV's cost more than 500 grand to build! That's 1/2 Mil! Turbine, 3/4 a Mil! Apples and Cucumbers. Yes you go faster but at a cost premium of gas burn, build cost and other cost (maintenance and insurance). You can by a used King Air or MU2 for less than $200,000.

I'll back thru town in my RV with a 210 mph cruise and still be able to land on a short grass strip, AND BUILD IT IT FOR $60,000 (with used 180hp Lyc, Day/Night Deluxe VFR panel). Also the Cafe Foundation Triaviathon winner is a RV-4.

Don't get me wrong I love the Lancair, but I would probably not build one even if the cost was less. For those that do build them, great, not jealous. I don't want to cruise along at altitude. That's not fun for me. In fact I do that for a living. I want to do formation, aerobatics, go into small fields and occasional X-C, while not going broke doing it. You can't touch the value of a RV. No plane on the kit plane market represents as much value.

If you compare a RV-10 to a fixed ES Lancair you find the RV-10 does very very well on at least $50 to $100 thousand dollars less. (see table below). Here's an post I made comparing the RV-10 to the Lancair ES. I think you will also find RV's compare to Lancair's (320/360's/FG) with similar size 4-banger engines very well overall. The speed difference is not as dramatic as you make it sound when quoting the top speed of the fastest plane in the Lancair line-up.

The big difference is about the $41,000 kit price plus $20k engine.
....................................RV-10........Lancair ES
Horse Power.....................260 HP............310 HP
Cruise [75% @ 8000 ft]......201 mph..........225 mph
Stall Speed........................57 mph............65 mph
Takeoff Distance.................360 ft............600 ft
Landing Distance.................525 ft............800 ft
Rate of Climb...................1,950 fpm.......2,000 fpm
Ceiling (est.)..................24,000 ft.........18,000 ft
Empty Weight..................1,520 lbs.........1,900 lbs
Gross Weight...................2,700 lbs.........3,200 lbs
Max useful......................1,180 lbs..........1,300 lbs
Fuel...................................60 Gal.............95 Gal
KIT COST.............$34,910/($44,860 QB)....$75,500

If the RV-10 had a 310 HP engine it would cruise approx 6% faster:
201 mph x (310/260)^(.33) = 213 mph,
so the Lancair claimed cruise is 12 mph faster.

I think if you want to cruise faster, consider a turbocharger (normalizing). Both (above) nice planes, but the kit price difference, cost of larger engine would make my 4 place kit plane choice easy. Goooooooo Team Van's.

Let's see...

However I must admit I take great pride in the RV "Brand". I do think it offers the most bang for buck, best handling (feel) and best overall performance and safety

Click to expand...

George, I hesitate to even respond, but I do have to clear a few things up, so people don't go away thinking wrong.

First I *am* referring to a Fixed Gear Legacy! While not specifically on their website, they have no problem selling you the RG kits minus the RG parts and substituting in the FG parts. Cost come down about 10-11K from the RG costs. They have done extensive vibration testing etc, to offer this option only on the carbon kit.

From all people, you should know you *can't* make the above statement and sincerely be factual. I'll concede the bang for the buck, but only by a small amount. The handling (specifically feel), overall performance, and safety is where I have a major problem. There is just no factual proof for that statement. Based upon the research that I've done, a Legacy is no more unsafe or safe than an RV. If you take poor pilot decision out of the equation, or leave it in, I don't care, they both will have a similar accident rate.

So let's debunk a few of the other comments.

a) 240kts (not MPH, KTS), on 13.5 gph, is a routine in a legacy. In fact, the 2 super legacy's that are flying with twin turbos are usually up at 275kts on 15-16 gph. (unless they are racing, then they are 375mph+ on lots of gas ).

I suspect I'll get 225kts, with a fixed gear version. Might even be a bit better than that....based upon the one other flying in this configuration. It was 225kts with no body work, or paint on it's maiden voyage. I was there, was ground ops for the test pilot and was writing down the numbers. Including fuel flow's.

b) You *CANT* compare an ES or a IV to a Legacy for costs! Period. However, you might compare a Legacy FG to an RV7, similarly equiped. Yes, you can build a very expensive Lancair if you wish, but I'll give you actual numbers. I'm building a Legacy - Fixed Gear in Carbon fiber (based upon the RG kit with fixed gear parts, costing less as well), I'm putting in it a dual chelton system with autopilot and electric steam gauge backup. It will have a 396, sl30 and 327 transponder with full audio panel. It will also use an MVP-50 engine monitor from IE and will be breaker based, but with no lighted switch panels as in most Legacy's, mine will be toggles. I'll have a custom built IO-550, NA, with dual alts/batts and no vacuum.



My costs also include 4 wks of build assist at the factory @ 4K/week (not required, but I wanted the jump start). BTW, if desired, you can build one with build assist in 10wks.

All the above will cost a whole bunch less than 200K, in fact, in my case, just a little north of 150K. More than most RVs, yep, but equiped a whole bunch different as well. As a point of reference, most people will tell you that to get the entire cost for your experimental airplane, take the kits cost and multiply it by 3. My kit was 41K, so I'm in the ballpark. More expensive than an eglass FG, but less than an RG. As another point of reference, I've got a friend building an FG in eglass that even with a new TIO-360, he'll be finished for around 125K.

c) Yes, with a Legacy, you get all the parts, remaining glass or carbon needed, and the resin and hardener. There are options available as well, just like from Vans, if you like.

d) Your comments about increased insurance costs also are compairing "apples and grapes". Based upon the insurance rates that I've seen here, my insurance is going to be more, but only because of the hull value increase.... Yes, if you cross the line to an RG, it's a bunch more, but again, my gear are down and welded just like yours.

Do you think I walk into the "lions den" to try to convert people? Most of the ones here are building an RV already. I just come to learn, understand, and hopefully let others teach me something. That something in this case, *isn't* going to be to get a different airplane. Just like I suspect others won't be swayed by my off the cuff comments.

If I wanted to own a metal airplane, I'd be building an RV... I can afford the "slight" cost difference and prefer a fast performance airplane. Just like you wouldn't take a Mooney ovation into a dirt or grass strip, I have no desire to do that in my Legacy either. Perhaps my point was missed. I do believe there are different mission profiles between RV pilots and Lancair Pilots. You can define mission anyway you like. For me, it's pretty simple. It's an IFR equiped airplane and landing facility, with 1000-1200hm range, that can get me there in 4-5hrs and have 1000lbs of useful load. Only needs to haul 2, but high and fast is my ticket. Course, I don't want to spend an arm and a Leg for doing so.

Pride is an aweful powerful thing, even your comments came across very strong and proud. Certainly we can have different opinions but just like the Rocket driver who felt awkward in the "lions den", I know how he feels.

Hopefully, this fall, mine will look like this even tho this is the eglass version with a 4cyl on it and mine will be a 6 cyl version in carbon.



(Doug, thanks for the bandwidth, I do enjoy your forums)

Now, I'm not going to hijack this thread any longer ... Right

I'd like a IV

Hijack continues

Mark,

I was about to say that could be either an ES-P(ressurized), or a IV, then I saw the gear, it's a IV... I believe...

I love having a forum where both Lancair builders and RV builders can give their best argument for why they are building their planes! It's great for guys like me who have not started building yet. I've been torn between the RVs, Lancairs, and Glasair planes for months and months. Hearing real life experiences (and even some blowhard opinions ) actually helps a lot in making build decisions. Quite honestly, I like the look and speed of the Glasairs and Lancairs more than the RV, but their high stall speeds are what make me think twice about them. So I say keep up the discussions. Manufacturer websites only give half the information we need. The rest has to come from the pilots. Speaking of that, I've heard some scary things regarding Lancairs (mostly ES's) and their stall/spin characteristics. Any thoughts on that Alan?

Well, a builder is a builder,a pilot is a pilot, maybe we can all learn from each
other to be better of both.
If the plastic pilots wants to talk about speed,I would love to discuss STALLSPEEDS
GRASSTRIPS
AEROBATICS
ECONOMY
Why dont we just admit that we have different taste when it comes to women/cars/planes/Clothes and use these pages to help each other with topics that concerns building/flying/maintaning our babys

J?rn M?ller
RV8 203 hours

rv8pilot said:

Well, a builder is a builder,a pilot is a pilot, maybe we can all learn from each
other to be better of both.
If the plastic pilots wants to talk about speed,I would love to discuss STALLSPEEDS
GRASSTRIPS
AEROBATICS
ECONOMY
Why dont we just admit that we have different taste when it comes to women/cars/planes/Clothes and use these pages to help each other with topics that concerns building/flying/maintaning our babys

J?rn M?ller
RV8 203 hours

Click to expand...

Here, here.... My point exactly about different mission profiles! Course, you'll probably catch me closer to the economy side that it would first appear. Just take miles per gallon as an example

Ya know...

skelrad said:

Speaking of that, I've heard some scary things regarding Lancairs (mostly ES's) and their stall/spin characteristics. Any thoughts on that Alan?

Click to expand...

I can't talk directly about the ES and I have zero experience with them. But of any of the Lancairs, I'd have to say its one of the safer ones. In fact, its the basis for what became the columbia 300 and 400 series certified airplanes back when the two companies were associated with one another.

I am not going to suggest that there isn't a difference between the RV's and the Lancairs when it comes to stall. The largest difference is in the wing design. Laminar flow wings do an excellent job of helping the airplane move quickly thru said air when air is moving quickly around them, they are less than stellar (for the lengh associated with a Legacy), when the air starts to slow down.

Lancairs also usually have a "dual tapered" wing. The inside wing tapers to a transition point, and the outer wing tapers in a much more dramatic fashion both in length and width. Greg Cole who designed the Legacy created a whole new airfoil when he did the wing for the Legacy. BTW, for those curious, Greg is also an accomplished ultra light sailplane designer and it's no coincidence that the wings look similar, altho the wings on the sailplane are must longer.

This wing design gives the Legacy it's speed, but it also gives it a rather high stall speed. Now, let's get the speeds out of the way. Stall speed in a Legacy is around 60-65kts even tho the website would publish that speed in MPH. That's faster, than a Cessna, and faster than an RV (doesn't matter which model).

If you like go read this report http://www.cafefoundation.org/aprs/legacy.pdf it will do the best as explaining the speeds and configurations.

This concern simply needs to be factored into your training and mission activities if you elect to go this route.

Yep you are right

aadamson said:

George, I hesitate to even respond, but I do have to clear a few things up, so people don't go away thinking wrong.
So let's debunk a few of the other comments.

a) 240kts (not MPH, KTS), on 13.5 gph, is a routine in a legacy. In fact, the 2 super legacy's that are flying with twin turbos are usually up at 275kts on 15-16 gph. (unless they are racing, then they are 375mph+ on lots of gas ).

Now, I'm not going to hijack this thread any longer ... Right

Click to expand...

First I did say knots. Second I looked at the Cafe foundation info on both the Legacy and IV for fuel burn. I just don't believe 13.5 gph, sorry.

I don't think you needed to read between the lines, I out and out said I was proud of the RV line, best value on the market and a few other items. They are just unlike any other plane I have flown with top speed in excess of 200 mph. Handling and performance are so good who cares whether you are tearing up the country side at 210 mph or 225 kts (259 mph), when you are under a bubble canopy vista with fantastic control feel, in search of that $100 hamburger.

Side note on stall speed. Since kenitic energy is a square function. Using 65kts for the Lancair and 58 mph for the RV, (74/58)^2 = 60% more energy for the Lancair.

I'm not trying to convince you either, but point out the group you are talking to is not necessarily enamored with just more kts on the top speed. Comparing a 200 hp RV-7/8 Vs. your Lancair FG-6 in a coast to coast X-C flight (2500 sm), you would save 2:15. On a short 500 mile segment we are talking about 27 minutes. I'm just not in that much of a rush.

I appreciate your clearing up the speeds and cost. That's interesting to know, but if you are going to throw out some gee whiz speed numbers it does help quantify what you are talking about when you talk about airplane/engine/power setting/altitude. There's a new RV that flys at 500 kts (picture below).

I do understand the Turbo Legacy and Turbo IV planes are going much faster than 240kt TAS at altitude, but I was going on normally aspirated, since 99.9% of the RV's are ATMO engines. I assumed you where trying to strike some comparison with RV's and Lancairs. If you want to compare turbo Lancairs with RV's than here is the new RV-8J Mark VI (6 to 1 TWR)



Since I travel for a living I kind of like being at home when I am off of work. None of my comments take away from the Lancair ES, FG, IV or what ever models they have. In fact it was the Lancair 235 in 1985 that got me interested in homebuilding. I guess my main point is you can build a very basic to fairly nice RV, engine and all for the cost of a Lancair kit alone. I think that is my point, and it is even true.

Cheers, best of luck building your plane and look forward to seeing some pics when you get done. George.

aadamson said:

The air "sticks" to them better and that make em go faster... Where else can you do 240kts on 13.5 gph, and climb out at 2500 fpm.

Click to expand...

Not to be argumentative (well, maybe just a little) lets make an apples to apples comparison. The FG Legacy, with a 200HP 4 banger cruises at 210MPH (per Lancair's website, http://www.lancair.com/Main/legacy_fg.html) An RV-7 with the same engine cruises at 207MPH (Van's website, http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-7per.htm)

All those curves and f-glass nets you 3 MPH. And I am being generous. Van's published performance numbers have been absolutely verified a thousand times over. The same cannot be said for other manufacturers (although I have no evidence to dispute Lancair's claim.)

Even take at face value, 3MPH? Hardly seems worth it, especially when you factor in the 10 MPH (give or take based on weight) difference in stall speed (hence landing speed, hence crash surviveability)

Big engine version

sprucemoose said:

Not to be argumentative (well, maybe just a little) lets make an apples to apples comparison. The FG Legacy, with a 200HP 4 banger cruises at 210MPH ....

(snip)

Even take at face value, 3MPH? Hardly seems worth it, especially when you factor in the 10 MPH (give or take based on weight) difference in stall speed (hence landing speed, hence crash survivability)

Click to expand...

Jeff good point, nicely put, but he is building a 6-cylinder version they don't list on the web. I think its 310hp. He also estimates his cruise will be 225kts at 13.5 gph (I think not sure). That sounds a little optimistic, but my point is speed cost money. But your point is the speed is from power not the airframe. To go faster you need a big engine. I also figure the curves are good for 10 mph as you say and with cost, weight and stall speed one must ask the question you pose, is it worth it? For some the answer is yes. G

Of course, George, but if I put 310HP on an RV-7.........

Yes Jeff

sprucemoose said:

Of course, George, but if I put 310HP on an RV-7.........

Click to expand...

310 hp RV-7:
Lets see: 207 x ( 310 / 200 ) ^ .33 = 240 mph or 208 kts.

Do the same for the Legacy FG with 200 hp @ 210 mph (per Lancair specs)

210 x ( 310 / 200 ) ^ .33 = 243 mph or 211 kts.

That is why I was saying the 225 kt est is kind of high for a 310 hp FG Legacy. When you start going fast, well above 200 kts retract gear starts to look good.

The Legacy (retract) is listed with a 240 kts cruise, 29 kts more than my est for the fixed gear Legacy FG with 310 hp. G

You're a mind reader. I was just looking up that formula. However, not to pick nits, buit you're basing your calculations on 100%HP, not 75% which is cruise power. Should work out the same either way, but somebody check my arithmetic.

You guys are too much

Here's the airplane and the numbers if anyone is curious... I was there, took the pictures, went over to the airport, was ground ops for the first flight and copied down the numbers as the pilot read them to me. http://www.highrf.com/gallery/Other-Legacys/DSCN1039 Dressed that way, notice no wheel pants... 225kts at 7k at 23/2500 on 14.2 gph, (it was a brand new engine).

Expectation is that it will a bit faster with pants, paint and bodywork. Engineer at the factor predicted 10-12 kts slower than an RG and was suprised.

As we have all said, I'm not trying to convince anyone to switch, I don't get a commision. For those that want to go this way, they will. Too bad niether company is public, so at least we could buy some stock and feel that our emotions were causing a greater good. They won't, everyone will do what they want for their own good reasons and i'm certainly not going to chang my mind.

Apples to apples ok....

Lancair FG in eglass with io-360 will be 210mph, drink about 9.5 gph and will cost approx 80K and up depending on finish. Kit is 34K at this date. I would suspect would compete with an RV 6,7,8 in similar equipment, performance, and endurance.

Lancair RG in carbon with IO-550 will be 275mph, drinks 13-15 gph and will cost approx 140k and up depending on finish. Kit is 52K at this date. Probably doesn't have a competitor in the RV line for a variety of reasons.

Lancair FG-6 (my nomenclature) in carbon with IO-550 will be a little slower than the RG can be built for 100k and up depending on finish. 41K at this date. Also probably has not direct competitors in the RV line for all the reasons stated above.

So, bottom line, all but the FG in eglass are in a different class from the RV. Doesn't mean better, just means different, for different mission profiles (don't ya like that I beat that drum well).

Can someone please help me with this tho. Given what you all have said about the hypothecial.....I know of an RV-8 with a custom built IO-540. Speeds on it are 190Kts, with top speed of 205kts. An 8 has to have a better cD than a 7 or 6, so there must be some magic in the Lancair design.

Id also suspect its more than just the curves. If not, everyone would be flying a Rocket...... Of course they would, just read this http://www.teamrocketaircraft.com/f1evo/final.html similar HP, similar gear, similar wing design with the EVO.

(see how I brought this back on topic )...

aadamson said:

(see how I brought this back on topic )...

Lancair FG in eglass with io-360 will be 210mph, drink about 9.5 gph

Click to expand...

On topic? You mean there's a topic?

As for the 9.5GPH, I gotta call BS here. 9.5GPH on an angle valve O-360 is around 65% power (again, somebody with a whiz-wheel check my numbers) but the cruise speed quoted is (and always will be, unless noted) at 75% power, at least. 75% cruise (no doubt where the 210MPH came from) is closer to 12GPH.

aadamson said:

Can someone please help me with this tho. Given what you all have said about the hypothecial.....I know of an RV-8 with a custom built IO-540. Speeds on it are 190Kts, with top speed of 205kts. An 8 has to have a better cD than a 7 or 6, so there must be some magic in the Lancair design.

Click to expand...

I'll venture a guess. A lifetime of looking at prop cards at airshows has convinced me that many if not most pilots have no idea how to report performance.

aadamson said:

so there must be some magic in the Lancair design.

Click to expand...

Apparently the magic doesn't kick in until you get above 200 HP.

But seriously, I'm glad to have other airplane types here, it makes for some good debate and discussion. I enjoy having similar discussions with my Glasair builder friends (of course it's all hypothetical, as none of them are anywhere near flying......

I never said angle valve

sprucemoose said:

On topic? You mean there's a topic?

As for the 9.5GPH, I gotta call BS here. 9.5GPH on an angle valve O-360 is around 65% power (again, somebody with a whiz-wheel check my numbers) but the cruise speed quoted is (and always will be, unless noted) at 75% power, at least. 75% cruise (no doubt where the 210MPH came from) is closer to 12GPH.

Click to expand...

Ok, you really have to help me here... Where did I say anything about an "angle valve"? There are lots of IO-360's that are *parallel valved* and 160 or 180HP. I owned and flew a 1997 172R with an IO-360 and it burned 8.5-9 gph at 75% power. The other IO-360's that are angle valve are also 200HP (at least most of them) and are routinely flightplaned and flow at 10gph. I fly one in a mooney of a friend of mines that has a fuel computer and I've done the start the clock at startup, and stop it at shutdown and divide the fuel by the time... While this isn't absolutely accurate as it takes into account the little fuel burn on descent, it also takes into account the larger fuel burn on climb out.....

But then again, I'm going to start yet another controversy, I lean to a Target EGT on takeoff and climb so maybe I'm just more lean all the way around... BTW, none of the above is LOP, it's all 50d ROP for cruise... I haven't gotten brave enough to try LOP.

Yes, I as well, enjoy the dialog. I appreciate the ability to keep it sane. Thank you.

If you guys haven't flown these engines and these airplanes, ya really need to try it...I'm quite confident in the fuel flows for the IO-360, the IO-550 I do have to rely on my friends as mine isn't flying yet, but will be soon

Aint America great..... "To each his own"... Or to be policially correct "To each their own" ...

Ok, now where is Milt with all those posts of his Rocket.... I'll confide in you... If I weren't building a Legacy, I'd be building a Rocket, there is just something about a tandem tail dragger, that looks good, and those rockets look almost as good as the Legacy.

aadamson said:

Ok, you really have to help me here... Where did I say anything about an "angle valve"? There are lots of IO-360's that are *parallel valved* and 160 or 180HP. I owned and flew a 1997 172R with an IO-360 and it burned 8.5-9 gph at 75% power.

Click to expand...

Ah-ha, I think I see part of the problem. You're thinking in terms of a parallel valve O-360 180 HP, whether injected or carburated) while I'm talking about the larger (and thirstier) angle valve O-360 (200 HP.)

Why am I talking about the angle valve when refering to the FG Legacy? Because that is the engine Lancair is using in the 4 cyl version (again taken from their website, see the link in my prior post.) The engine puts out roughly 10% more horspower, and therefor will burn roughly 10% more gas (very roughly, but power costs gas.)

Now, I don't have handy a 97 172R manual, the closest I have is an '82 172RG, which uses the same engine (180HP injected parallel valve O-360.) Looking over the performance charts, it is clear that you cannot get anywhere near 75% power for less than 10GPH. At 8.5-9, I suspect you were running closer to 65% power.

Great Discussion

Great discussion, Alan. I'm really enjoying your spirited defense of your Lancair on a "Rocket" site. You have a beautiful airplane going there, one I wish was in my hangar. We're splitting nits here with our choices...these are both gorgeous, capable aircraft which are focused on slightly different end goals performance-wise. I have an RV-4 now with a Rocket kit on the way. Once that's flying, I'll take a hard look at the Legacy. Which one would I prefer to fly on any given day? I'd have to do a little "test flying" to figure that one out!

Good luck with your Lancair. Great machine and truly indicative of the ingenuity extant in General Aviation today. Now that the government is no longer paying for my flying, I'm awfully glad to have options like these out there to pick from.

Regards,

Lee...

Here is something to think of

Why is glass faster? (or is it)

Surface finish? True, glass is smooth, but flush riveted aluminum is smooth. In fact old wood winged / fabric fuselage Bellanca's are smooth (and fast).


Frontal area? Really no difference and not material related. Many fast glass planes are faster because they are just so small, and the pilot is practically laying down.


Curved surfaces? With out question composite has a clear and undisputed advantage here, ease of making complex shapes. Does that help aerodynamics. It can. Is it enough to make a diference? Yes it helps, but many times the swoop of a fuselage loft line is more sexy than a clear aerodynamic advantage. You can make aluminum parts with compound curves (stretched formed) at increased expense. Clearly a complicated wing lends itself to composite construction, but a fancy wing section is not necessarily needed for a light subsonic plane. The lowly NACA 23013.5 is a pretty great airfoil for the RV in the weight/HP/speed range we operate in.


Construction? It has always been thought that composite is easier and less labor intensive (expensive). You could say that but in practice aerospace quality composite structure is very expensive, as echoed in the price of kit planes.


Weight? Composite should be better but in practice, partly due to conservatism, composite planes weigh the same or more than other materials. The first all composite commercial plane, the Star Ship was regulated to death. While the conventionally constructed (metal) equivalent, the Piaggio P.180 Avanti is still in service, which out performed the Star Ship, as did the conventional King Air at much less cost. http://www.airliners.net/photos/small/8/4/5/0013548.jpg


To answer my question, why is glass faster? Well it is not the glass really, it's the HP and design, mostly the HP. The material is secondary and only part of the puzzle.


Bottom line material alone or curved surfaces is not the real secret, the design is, a balance of trade offs. Some of the most fantastic aircraft have been made out of metal (P-51, SR-71) and out of composites (B2, Spaceship One). One material is not superior for speed, weight or cost, but a trade off. As far as beauty I get hot for metal. Composite is fine for my hot tub (kidding).

George

Thanks

Lee, Thanks, don't worry too much, once I'm finished with the Legacy, maybe I'll have to build a rocket....My wife would prefer the M1, if they ever bring it to market. That then might be a good comparison to the Legacy (in fixed gear with an IO-550).

By golly he's got it!

gmcjetpilot said:

Bottom line material alone or curved surfaces is not the real secret, the design is, a balance of trade offs. Some of the most fantastic aircarft have been made out of metal (P-51, SR-71) and out of composites (B2, Spaceship One). One material is not superior for speed, weight or cost, but a trade off. As far as beauty I get hot for metal. Composite is fine for my hot tub (kidding).

George

Click to expand...

George, thank you for making my point.... Would you agree, that for a given cost target, with a given construction time target, that a glass airplane can be made better aerodynamically, than a metal airplane? I'll offer you two cases in point.

a) the Legacy's have an option from the factory to cut a 6" x 4" notch in the wings, just inside the outer wing attach point. This cut is for a Landing/Taxi light option. The option, includes a Lexan molded cover. However, in wind tunnel tests, that cut decreased speed by 2kts due to the turbulance that is created from the slight detachment of the laminar flow.

b) There are 3 "super" legacy's that are all built by Any Cheaveti (sp) in San Diego. They are the ones that continue to dominate the "sport" class at Reno and yes, they are all TSIO-550 airplanes with modified engines and probably make between 400-600 HP. There is actually an area in a Legacy that has been addressed with two fuselage bubbles. The area directly behind the wings on the fuselage is not aerodynamically correct and as a result, again the laminar flow detaches and causes drag. Adding these two "cheeks" resolve that issue and speed and performance increases.

It's not only the "smoothness" of the curves", it's also the shape of them.

So, I believe your analysis is *exactly* correct. For a given target design, composites are inherently easier to mold to that design than are typical metal processes. Remember, I said for a given construction timeframe and cost. (as a point of reference, you can build a Legacy in as little at 600-800hrs. I should know I have just over 400 in mine and it's just about ready for an engine. Mind you, that does not include bodywork or paint, but it would be airworthy and fly).

Would you agree with that analysis?

aadamson said:

Lee, Thanks, don't worry too much, once I'm finished with the Legacy, maybe I'll have to build a rocket.

Click to expand...

I knew we'd find comon ground if we looked hard enough. My next project will be a Rocket as well.

I'm building a -7 because of the low initial cost of build (reletive anyway). I considered a Glasair IIRG, Lancair Legacy FG (small engine), and a Glastar as well. But I think the RV is the best bang for the buck, will have a better resale value/market, and is a better first airplane.

Could Be A Lot of Fun!!

Alan/Jeff: So we are doing the same thing in opposite directions! Once my F1 is done and your Lancairs are finished, we should get together for a little fun flying and comparisons!! Actually, I'm ready to go now (but "only" in my RV-4).

Regards,

Lee...

Oh, yea - I'm in

Sounds like lots of fun. I'm hoping to be done by the fall time. Lots to do between now and then, but basic construction is complete. Now that would just be too much fun.... A formation flight of a Legacy, a Rocket, and an RV.... Too cool... Course, requirement is gear have to be down and welded.... An no snide remarks about having my third one at the wrong end.... Like I said, if they would ever bring the M1 to market, that would solve lots of things... Actually, I saw a drawing at Lancair of a tail dragger Lancair.... Well, one could dream ...

Looking forward to it...

aadamson said:

Now that would just be too much fun.... A formation flight of a Legacy, a Rocket, and an RV.... Too cool

Click to expand...

I'm up for it, on the condition that I lead (otherwise I'll be sucking wind in the back for sure.)

Reminds me of a good picture from the '98 Van's Accessories Catalog. You should see the prices in there...

The lancairs are sweet craft, no doubt about it. I had a chance to look at one of the big dollar turbine powered and pressurized models once when stopping off along a cross country training flight. The fact that her (and feminine is definitely the appropriate gender) FG cousins are so similar in price to an RV is very cool.

I know this isn't comparing Rockets to Carbon Fiber Fixed Gear Legacies, but the RV-7A claims 206MPH cruise, the Legacy FG claims 210MPH with the same engine. I call those "close enough". Useful load is similar. Rate of climb is within 50FPM. They are very similar planes. The legacy has bigger tanks (if you are light enough to use the extra capacity) and the stall speed, runway required, etc is a bit more, the RV is a bit better for short fields and fun flying... but they are both capable of operating off any airport 93% of us will actually ever use. Both are better than any production plane most of us are likely to see. Lancair has a cost estimate for the Legacy-FG of $99K counting two $4000 builder assist programs. The estimate doesn't seem to include paint, fancy instrumentation, or any other "amenities" that most of us want. Strip out the extra $8K and you have $91,000. The Vans cost estimator puts a quick-build RV-7A with similar amenities at $72-75K. call it a $16,000-$19,000 difference. 20%. That is just maybe within the "slop" factor most of us face. In other words, the difference might well be eaten up in rent on whatever is being used as a shop while the plane is being built, or in keeping the shop warm or cool, or storage if we need to shelve the project for a while to deal with life outside of building. It doesn't seem to be entirely apples to apples either in that Lancair seems to charge extra for things like adjustable pedal assemblies, but it is close enough.

The higher performance planes from all camps cost more... no surprise there either. It really isn't a cost issue... it is a "what do you want" issue. They are all sweet planes that make people like me (building an 8A) envious.

If you want to talk economy, the truth is that gallons per hour has a hard time competing with kilobucks per first flight. An extra $10K spent building to save 1GPH in cruising (at the same speed) takes 2500 hours to reach break-even (assuming $4/gal fuel). A few extra knots take even longer to pay off in hard financial terms...it's that old "on a 500mi flight, cruising 250 instead of 200 will save at best 30 minutes."

So don't talk economy. Talk the joy of speed, excellent handling, the empowerment of being able to do things you couldn't do with a slower or less capable airplane. Talk the fun and reward of building. That's why we are building airplanes in the first place. If we just wanted to go places, we'd take our $70,000, $155,000, $36,000, or however much we are budgeting, and buy airline tickets. That sort of money will cover airfair to every continent on the planet several times over.

Legacy v. RV7

Interesting posts.

I too compared the Legacy FG to the RV7A. Initially I was interested in the ES, but my wife does not enjoy flying and doesn't plan on traveling in the plane, so without her buy-in I had to consider the 2 seaters.

In my worthless opinion, the Legacy FG beats the RV hands down in the looks department. The Legacy is just downright sexy. Both the RV fuse and wing are boxy, though the Rocket is significantly more attractive in the curves department. The Legacy also beats the RV in the top speed department, though probably not by much. (But how much do you need if you are able to pull away from the other guy in a head to head). Where the RV wins is in the cockpit room, cost to build and handling. Why do I think the RV handles better? Having flown both the RV7 and Legacy RG I found the Legacy too sensitive in pitch for my taste, particularly if you want an instrument platform. Roll was perfect, but pitch was not. Interestingly a recent article in KitPlanes magazine concurs with my impression. The RV7 by contrast was downright easy to fly precisely on an instrument approach the first time I sat in the cockpit.

I still love the ES, but it will have to wait until I win the wife over. I sure hope I am successful because it is a gorgeous airplane and has more room than you can use.

Antony

RV - more roomy... I don't think so.

Ummm, why do you say the RV is better in cockpit room? From the specs it's exactly the same width wise with the Legacy winning out in what I consider to be the most critical dimension (because the other one is the same), the headroom dimension.

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-7spe.htm
http://www.lancair.com/Main/legacy_fg.html

On the handling, yup, I'd agree... If you are flying at 240kts, the elevator on a Legacy exhibits positive stability (the aircraft stays in the position it's put instead of trying to fly back to a stable, level state), but then again, when do you fly an approach at 240kts! Slow it down to 120kts and it's a whole different feel. Also, there is a huge difference between the RG and the RG at slower speeds. The FG has a more comfortable feel when slow due to the aerodynamics of the down and welded gear and their fairings.

Here's an example. in the RG, on approach, when you drop the gear, you have to increase power to arrest the 3000 fpm descent rate, the FG doesn't exhibit this characteristic. Hanging out that very dirty gear on the RG really messes with the drag and Cd.

I also think we've dispelled the myth of costs. For a given set of equipment, the FG will perhaps cost you a smidge more than an RV. However, let's take the time dimension into the equation. An FG can be flying in about 400-600 hours of construction without full body work and paint. I doubt the RV can make that number.

So, you see, we have this duel. They are similar in performance with a slight nod going to the Legacy, they are similar in costs, there is an advantage to the glass airplane in looks and construction time. Insurance seems to be comparable (I'm talking FG here, RG is a whole nother ball game). You have the option of a turbo normalized FWF in the Legacy with factory support, the fuel capacity advantage goes to the Legacy. However, if your mission profile includes dirt runways, short fields (1500' of less), rough runways, etc. The nod would go to the RV7 (not the "A" model for rough, dirt runways as we've come to learn). I will concede a difference in handling, but I'm not sure it equates to an advantage one way or the other, let's just say they are different - FG to FG

Oh, and least anyone is concerned about the useful loads... unfortunately, I can't talk about the eglass FG as I'm not building one, I'm building a Carbon version, but my Gross weight will most likely be 2400 (for takeoff, 2200-2300 for landing) instead of the 2200 listed in the specs (again, I'm in carbon, so you look at the RG specs even tho I'll have down and welded gear). Empty weight based upon the one other like mine that is flying and the RG's will be around 1400 lbs. So, yes, there is use for all that fuel...

aadamson said:

I also think we've dispelled the myth of costs. For a given set of equipment, the FG will perhaps cost you a smidge more than an RV.

Click to expand...

My gosh, I'd love to live in your world! A smidge? Really?

Lancair estimates the Legacy FG at $91,423.80 if you don't use any builders assist. This estimate does not include any paint, interior, or instruments and avionics. The RV7 (200hp) is estimated at $79,870, ready to fly (including VFR x-country instruments and avionics but no paint).

Evening the scores by putting the exact same instruments in the Legacy (we'll just leave paint and interior out of the equation to simplify things) adds $10,500 to the Legacy cost. So, to get the Legacy FG flying in roughly the same configuration as the RV7 costs about $22,053.80 more. Assuming $4 per gallon and a 10 gph burn, that difference pays for around 550 hours of flying in the RV7!

I'm not trying to take anything away from the Legacy. I think it's a beautiful plane, and if I had the extra cash, I might be swayed to build one. But I just had to smile at your "smidge" extra in cost (considering your Legacy is just "north of $150k"). I just can't go along with the "we've dispelled the myth of the cost difference" argument. When it comes to arguments about why one plane is better than the other, there are a lot of compelling thoughts on both sides, but in my world, the cost difference DOES put a checkmark on the RV side. In most people's reality, the $22k+ difference to build and fly is a huge reason to build the RV7, considering the performance similarities between it and the Legacy.

If the cost difference is pocket change, go for it! Me? I'll take the slower plane with slower stall speed, get to my destination just a bit later than you, and still smile all the way. Please, no offense intended - just wanted to point out that the financial reality for many people on this site still gives credibility to the RV/Legacy cost difference argument.


Gotta love this new forum!

Ummm, why do you say the RV is better in cockpit room? From the specs it's exactly the same width wise with the Legacy winning out in what I consider to be the most critical dimension (because the other one is the same), the headroom dimension.

Click to expand...

Is the Legacy the "brand X" referenced on Van's site? In other words, there is more to headroom than the distance from floor to top of canopy along the centerline. I haven't sat in either (when I started looking at the Van's line, I gravitated instantly to the RV-4 but chose the 8A because it fits my "mission profile" better) so I can't say.

However, let's take the time dimension into the equation.

Click to expand...

Build time... the price estimate I quoted was for a quick build. That puts you at 500-800. Not as good as 400-600, but not a huge difference either. Both are within what the homebuilt market considers the "allowable lie". Said another way, if you fly your Legacy RG after 500 hours of building I'll eat my hat.

For myself, I'm going to go slow build. I want to be finished in late 2009 because that's when I'll have more time to fly and travel. I'll take the $8K price difference and put it into electronics.

They are similar in performance with a slight nod going to the Legacy

Click to expand...

Speed is one part of performance. Some would say that the RV's +6/-3G outperforms the Legacy's +4.4, -2.2. I would say the performance envelope is different between the two craft. I considered the Legacy FG, but the performance advantage of the 8A was compelling for my intended use.

The A models on dirt runways... there are arguments both ways. People who have flown both have recomended the 'A' as better for short fields and grass, saying that the main gear on RVs are too short but the lack of a tail wheel lets you rock the A back further on TO and landing. If you think that *any* airplane is immune to catching a wheel you are wrong. Personally, I hope to have a dirt runway in my future, and am building an 8A.... but then the few planes I've flown all required that you unload the nosewheel at anything above a slow roll to prevent shimmies, thumps (when transitioning over uneven concrete) and snags. I don't think the Legacy RG will be any different.

Oh, and least anyone is concerned about the useful loads... unfortunately, I can't talk about the eglass FG as I'm not building one,

Click to expand...

...of course you can talk about published specs. You just find it more favorable to compare a $150,000+ project to an $80,000 project.

You guys are too much (part 2)

...of course you can talk about published specs. You just find it more favorable to compare a $150,000+ project to an $80,000 project.

Click to expand...

Ok, let's get one thing on the table.... My FG is not the same as the FG that is listed in all the specifications, etc. I thought this ahd been covered already.

Mine is all carbon fiber (drove the cost up by 10K, but can be converted later to RG if I like). My 150K is also inclusive of 4 wks of build assist at the factory. My 150K is a full stocked and loaded IFR GLASS panel with dual chelton screens. See the picture above. My FG will have a Cont IO-550 in it as opposed to the IO-360 solutions for the stock FG. BTW, the stock FG is all fiberglass, no carbon (well maybe the horz stab and elevators I can't remember).

So, you see, I didn't post the numbers to come up with the "smidge" comment, it was another RV builder, see the thread above.

Most of the thread which exception of my original post or two, has discussed the *stock* FG as it is from the factory, with it's performance. But then I guess if you just read the "new posts" you would have missed that point.

Also, let's see, my total build log at this moment, in time is 246hrs. My wings are 100% done and ready to be bolted on. My tail feathers are 100% done. I'm about a wks away from having all the flight controls in, including engine controls. My center wings and fuselage are all done 100%. The seats, center console, fuel system, including pump and selector and all pushrods will go in at the same time. They are all fit and ready to go. Flaps motor/mounts, trim motors/mounts, autopilot motors/mounts etc are all done. The main gear are done and all I need to do is the farings. I don't have an engine mount yet, and when I do I have to get the nose gear bolted together, but then it will be ready for an engine. My panel layout is done, and I'll do all the wiring.

Ah, one last thing, my 246hrs is missing 2 wks of build assist. I've been working to catch up those 1st 4 wks in my log, while I'm entering all my current times. So I suspect 400-600 will be highly doable, most likely will get a bunch of the body work done in that time.

I guess we've about worn out this topic. I suppose we can agree, we like different things, can afford different things, and will probably buy different things in the future.... But perhaps we can still be friends.... You do realize, Ive stuck this out more that most... Not in attempt to sway anyones decisions, more to enjoy the forum and learn what I can... Call me the ugly ducking, or the black swan, what ever you like...

Record straightening

skelrad said:

Lancair estimates the Legacy FG at $91,423.80 if you don't use any builders assist. This estimate does not include any paint, interior, or instruments and avionics. The RV7 (200hp) is estimated at $79,870, ready to fly (including VFR x-country instruments and avionics but no paint).

Click to expand...

As a point of reference, I think you'll find that 91K number *does* include a vfr panel. Sheesh, the kit is 34K, and engine is another 35K (that's a new TIO-360 180H too btw), in that remaining 21K I would expect is the panel, albiet basic vfr, and a few other options that you might perfer. If not, you sure can build a really nice IFR panel for that 21K.

Again, just to set the record straight. ...

aadamson said:

As a point of reference, I think you'll find that 91K number *does* include a vfr panel. Sheesh, the kit is 34K, and engine is another 35K (that's a new TIO-360 180H too btw), in that remaining 21K I would expect is the panel, albiet basic vfr, and a few other options that you might perfer. If not, you sure can build a really nice IFR panel for that 21K.

Again, just to set the record straight. ...

Click to expand...

http://www.lancair.com/Main/legacy_fg_faq.html

Check me on it, but I just looked directly at their Legacy FAQ website, which, unless I missed something (that IS possible), at the bottom says that the "Estimate does not include the Instrument Panel, Paint and Upholstery." It also says at the top that this is a "low end estimate."

According to Lancair, there is a lot more extra money involved in building the Legacy than just the 34K kitprice and 35K engine price that you list above.

If this is wrong, I'd love to know about it, because I wouldn't mind having a Legacy in my hanger!

Ok how about this...

Kit is 34K right... includes everything to build the plane...
Engine is 32K for the turbo.

Ok, now, let me go look at my options list for my legacy and see what else you'd need.

Actually, you know what, this is even simpler than that....Let's stay apples and apples...

Let's do it this way... I'm going to assume that parts that could be used on one, could be used on either and will highlight were differences.

Kit price: Legacy-34,900, RV7A-26,480 (fast build to stay a to a - delta is ~8K)

I suspect that will get you a very similar amount of stuff. Major options over that would be...(doesn't mean any of the below has to come from the factory)

Engine - If you can get one for one, you can get it for either at the same price

Avionics - Again, there is no specification that would drive the need for anything different between the two, so this should be similar

Prop/spinner - Same as above.

Ok, that leaves kit options.

I can't speak for the RV's, so I'll try it for the FG (all fiberglass 4 cyl) Legacy.
- Pitot/Static
- eyeball vents
- fuel boost pump (andair)
- fuel selector (andair)
- external lighting (taxi/landing, stobes, nav)
- on the legacy if you like, you can add an inflatable canopy seal to reduce the wind noise
- epoxy pump (probably a must have for the legacy)
- fuel probes (need to be EI or Microvision capacitive type)
- Autopilot brackets, they make a composite molded version
- rudder trim if you want it, the base kit comes with the MAC servos, indicators, and switches for roll and pitch
- Battery(s)
- electrical power grids, switches, breakers, fuses, wiring, stick grips, etc
- all firewall forward hardware except engine mount. This would include cable assemblies, mounts, brackets, gascolators (andair), etc
- antennas
- seatbelts

If the options list matches the same list of things you'd need for an RV, then we are only out the difference in the base kit price. The only items above that are specific to the legacy are the molded AP brackets (pretty simple and could be done by builder to save cost) and the canopy seal (nice options, but not required). The rest is all generic stuff. You can get it from Spruce, from Lancair, from vans, from whoever.

I've got the whole list in front of me, and with a few exceptions, the list above is mostly what I did. Mind you, mine is a dual alt/batt, all electric system and I've added a few 3rd party options.

I really think, that with the exception of the 8K different in kit price, that you could do one or the other similar equiped and the rest of the price would be the same.

Thanks Alan. I do see where you're coming from with the numbers. If the difference really does turn out to be only $8K, well, that makes the decision process that much more difficult. Such tough decisions we have to make in life, huh? I'll let you know as soon as I decide which way I'm going to go. Either way, I really like the addition of other models to this website. It's great for lurkers like me who are trying to make some big decisions!

Make Sure!

SNF is coming up here in another 60 days... make sure you go get a ride in BOTH.... Your mission profile may vary from mine and make it so one fits better than the other.

fly and compare

Skelrad:

As Alan said you really should go and compare the planes in person. SNF I agree is a perfect venue for this. I arranged test flights prior to arriving in '04.

As I mentioned above, my decision between the Legacy FG and RV-7 came down to two primary factors -- cost and comfort. On the cost side the RV enabled me to not only spend quite a bit less overall for the cost of the airframe, but it also allowed me to space my payments out without penalty. On the comfort side, although the Legacy publishes the same width specs for the cockpit, I found other factors equally if not more relevant to determining comfort. Keep in mind that I am a bigger (read wider) person than most. My upper and lower body are reasonably big due to a lot of weight lifting during and after college and too much good food / too little exercise since! The other factors influencing comfort for me were:

1) the RV canopy profile doesn't impinge on shoulder and head room for me (5'11")
2) the stock RV has no center console to impinge on butt/hip room and
3) the stock RV has more leg room due to the lack of a center console and no (or less) taper in the fuse toward the firewall in the cockpit area

I did, however, prefer the recline angle of the seats in the Legacy.

Go try them both and make your own decision.

Good luck.

Antony

Legacy FG vs RV7

aparchment said:

Skelrad:
2) the stock RV has no center console to impinge on butt/hip room and
3) the stock RV has more leg room due to the lack of a center console and no (or less) taper in the fuse toward the firewall in the cockpit area

Click to expand...

To maintain our apples to apples thread...

The Legacy FG *does not* have the center console (it can be added as an option if you like), nor does it have the RG type floors, this allows much greater leg room than the RG. If you looked at the RG, it's an entirely different airframe inside than the FG and it's made from Carbon, where the FG is made from eglass.

Lancair also now has a "scheduled" payment approach if a lump sump isn't in your liking...

I'm not affiliated with them in anyway, other than being a builder. I'd just like to make sure the apples to apples stays in tact.. Also as discussed, with the exception of the initial kit price delta, unless the options listing for the Legacy includes things that the RV comes with. I don't think there is any other specific cost driver.

Picture of the inside of an FG, without seats... Sorry, I don't have a "full view"


Other side


An RG without the forward floorboards installed