N

N72YS

I'm New Here
Hi,

Ofcorse there is not alot of homebuilds delivering the same pleasure in flying, building and support, combined with an quasi acceptable price tag, but what if there wasn't any Vans on the market ? What homebuild would you have selected to build ?

Thanks.
 
Thank God we don?t have to make that choice! I could be wrong but as far as I know The RV?s are the best compromise in a experimental out there, If it goes as slow or slower it wont go as fast, if it goes as fast it wont go as slow or it wont land on soft strips, not to mention the control harmony and acro capability.

I can get to Southern CA from Washington buy lunch time with a passenger and baggage, do acro and land on a 1000? grass strip, all with the same airplane! If anything comes close it probably costs twice as much.

So what?s the point to this question? We live in the real world where we do have the RV?s as a choice.

Is this RV related?
 
The point in this question is to put Vans in comparisation with other top of the line of homebuilds.
 
Glastar Sportsman 2+2, hands-down. And no sissy two week to taxi program either!
 
I really liked the GlasStar originally, mostly because of the folding wings. In fact, I sent in a deposit to Stoddard Hamilton the day before they went bankrupt.

That was the divine intervention that said "build an RV, stupid."
 
Turbine Cubs of Wyoming LLC.

A glorified Super Cub with a Lycoming 180 and good sized tires for the backcountry. These are for the purpose that "tail draggers" were meant for! :D

L.Adamson --- RV6A (flying)
 
After two RV's, the Glastar Sportsman 2+2 will be the next one, hands down. I've already done two years of work prepping my wife for this, and she's good to go.
 
Although I'm currently in love with the Hatz Classic, I'd also build the Sportsman 2+2.
I'm convinced a guy needs 3 aiplanes; a speedy XC machine, a back country bird, and a local-around-the-patch plane. Sounds like my -9A fills all 3 needs (well 2 and a half of those).
 
The Legend YES

My heart says 'Turbine Legend'.
Click to expand...

I flew it twice, with the 572" Rodek block V8. Words cannot describe how that felt - the only airplane I've sampled that could launch harder down the runway was the F16C (and only with AB).

In flight, we could loaf along at 250 indicated at a very moderate power setting. Juicing that big bore engine torque rolled the airplane even at cruise speed. It was absolutely - totally - intoxicating. In a class all by itself. I loved the big V8. Hated to see it get replaced by the turbine, even though the turbine outperforms the V8.

Aerodynamically, the Legend was also amazing. Clean as an ice pick, ailerons that were perfect, and spot-on control balance. That Jeff Viken wing is an aerodynamic Work of Art. Stalls were a non event, with plenty of prestall buffet. The only "glitch" was the plane (with the early small v-tail) was a little unstable in yaw. That got fixed with a 6" extension to the vert stab.

The Legend.... oh yeah baby!! :D:D:D
 
Last edited:
I'm not building an RV, I'm starting out with a bearhawk. I use the forums because the glass panel, autopilot, fuel injection, and lycoming knowledge applies to me to as well.

The reason? Simple, I live in Alaska, so my flying is more slow, STOL, high wing, bush type operations.

I do want to build an RV-8 one day, but I'm not sure owning two airplanes is in the cards for me.

schu
 
I almost chose an RV but I couldn't get over the hershy bar wing and the gandy dancer gear legs. I"m building a Mustang II. I'm plans building and am only buying the parts from Mustang Aero which I can't or don't want to make myself. My final cost will be way lower than any RV. RV's are great and have blown away everything in it's class as far as market share is concerned, but there are plenty of alternatives with equal performance.
 
I own plans for the E-Racer so that would be my choice. I may even build it after I finish my 8.

If money and availability weren't a factor, a Berkut would top my list.
 
I was very close to purchase a Sonex kit, but I think (if there was no RV) I would most probably end up with some carbon fibre UL kit from the Zcech republic.
 
I will never build another airplane

I got it right the first time - the plane is built right for me and it is always ready to go, fast, high or low and long.

I was really surprised to see all of the back country plodders that came up on the wish list of people that have chosen to build an RV. Not disappointed or anything like that - just sincerely and unexpectedly surprised. The guy that wrote up the Legend is more in line with what I expected.

Bob Axsom
 
I’m not building anything, decided there are plenty of good used experimentals to pick from at a very fair price on the market today. I can do the annuals, and just let some A&P sign it off at a very fair price, so that's no longer an issue with me. It’s just a matter of saving up for it now.

But it seems to me the Mustang would be the best choice, followed by Thorp if you're wanting something similar to the RV's. And the prices seem to be around half that of the RV's as well. Neither one of these companies offer really all that much support though; no builders offer up a forum like this either; at least last I checked, but instead just use the archaic yahoo board with lots of spam thrown in.
 
This is a tough question. If there never was an RV, I'd probably be looking for something else fast and economical.

But now that I'll have the RV, my next plane needs to be for rugged stol ops. I think welding will be a useful skill to pickup anyway, so the next plane will be a bearhawk or a supercub clone.
 
Before ordering my RV-9 emp kit, I was about to buy a Quad City Challeger II ultralight. The dealer was really close to home, went there, did a demo ride... +amphibious float are a really good safety feature here in Qu?bec. What stopped me : it would have taken a too short time to build and I did not have enough money to put in there that fast...

Then, I had my eyes on the Murphy Air Rebel Nice little airplane to put on floats!

But I decided to buy a -9A instead. I think I'd like to put it on floats but for now, I will just keep it the way it is!
 
A Glasair "should" be at (near) the top of that list. Thats what I built and fly. You did not restrict your question to metal only.
Glasair I RG with Lyc IO360-C1D6 245HP ("slightly souped" up) 3 blade special built WW CS prop. "semi-Economy" cruise 195 Kts 8.5 GPH at 11,500 2400 rpm full mfp, also has ram air intake.
 
Bearhawk for me.

In fact, I'm thinking of buying the plans and start chiping away on one this fall.
 
If the RV was not available when I started in the late 90s I would have TRIED to afford to build a Stewart 51. I actuallty thought building my RV would be good practise for building a Stewart 51. Now just love flying my RV and have not thought twice about any other kit. (maybe that is also why my C-140 restoration is taking so long)
 
If money were no object I would go for a Viperjet. Those things are the ultimate kitplane, in my opinion. Very fast, very sexy.

Before I decided to build an RV, I was really considering a Berkut. Incredible airplane. When I lived in Southern California I happened to be returning flying one day and saw a Berkut sitting next to some hangars...I went over and found that it was Dave Ronnenberg (Berkut designer & owner of Renaissance Composites). I asked him about building the Berkut and he basically said that he didn't believe they should be a kit airplane. Too complex for the average person to build...you practically need to be a composites expert to do it right. Etc, etc.

All that got me thinking that I didn't want to get in over my head. Not to mention that I wanted some utility with the airplane I built. I think these 2 things are the reason there aren't many Berkuts flying!
 
None

Not a single one. I think the caliber of Van's design are worthy of a certified plane.

It would have been a Bonanza for.
 
I actually started a Glastar. I bought the emp kit about a year after The New Glasair company took over. I was nervous after the bankruptcy of SH. I figured I'd take my time building the emp and see if TNG survived. Well, they started raising the prices of the kits very aggressively. That scared me even more and made me think they were needing money. So, I reevaluated my mission and looked more closely at the RV's. Obviously, I ended up selling the Glastar emp kit. But, I still like the look and feel of the Glastar.
 
Since this is an 'only make believe' thread, and money is make believe too - I'd go for a Lancair IV-P or Lancair Evolution.

Regardless, I'd go for a Lancair ES-P if I weren't building an RV10.

Followed close by a Glasair III.
 
CNEJR said:
A Bearhawk or Highlander.
Click to expand...

Have you seen this guy and his Highlander on youtube?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z985xdXW-3w Makes me realize how much fun these guys are having with their STOL aircraft. It?s a shame most of us can only afford one type of plane.

If you like it, click on all of his videos. In one he lands on mountain over and over and turns it on a dime, without the tailwheel ever touching the ground.

Of the STOL enthusiasts, have any thought the Zenith 701?s or 750?s a good plane to consider?
 
I would stay away from zenith planes since crashing of those ch 601s.

Going back to topic. I would like the Tango XR if Vans didn't exist.
 
N941WR said:
Life is too short to fly an ugly airplane...
Click to expand...

I think they are pretty cool lookin? now, but my first impression of them was that that was the ugliest planes I think I had ever seen. Color schemes do help a lot to pretty them up, and the entire unique look just grew on me.

If the appearance is no concern, is there other reasons why this plane isn?t as appealing to other STOL aircraft enthusiasts? Is the design flawed? I kind of doubt the leading edge slats were really necessary, seems like a huge drag and cruise penalty for just a very minute gain in take off. Others have taken them off, but don?t know that much about the planes. Don't quite get the inverted HS either, but it's supposed to help as well. I dunno.

Aviator 168, I'd like to know more about the 601 crashes. Have any links?
 
non rv

I too looked at all the kits on then market and choose a Rv8 for my Florida plane of choice ,but if I lived out west (someday) I would look at the Dream Tundra ,an alum.highwing fom Canada or a Sportsman 2+2
 
The little company that could...

Bushcaddy, based in Montreal. Structurally stronger than a Murphy Rebel and sweet to fly. Definitely not fast but wheels, floats or skis. Big cabin and cargo area too. Great people to deal with as well.
 
Candidates, but not necessarily practical or compatible with my abilities:
Culp Special
Radial Rocket
Glastar Sportsman on amphib floats
 
Interesting no Lancair interest indicated here - seems like the Fixed Gear Legacy would be right up some of your alleys. Tough enough to land on grass, strong enough for acro, and an IO-540 would make it perform like the lighter RVs (not to mention a good deal faster).

Well, that's why we like a free market - so everyone can get what they like!

:D
 
This is a neat thread that makes you go "hmmm...."! Naturally I'm a bit biased about my first choice: The MULLICOUPE :)

Next and in no particular order is a whole bunch of planes I'll probably never get built or own, but still fun to think about (some now long since defunct or stillborn) that have caught my eye over the years.

Bearhawk
Glassair III
Glastar Sportsman
Hatz
Lionheart
Murphy Moose
Pietenpol
Pitts 12
Prowler
Radial Rocket
Ravin (the plastic Comanche)
Sherpa
Stewart Mustang
Super Cyclone (185 Clone)
Super Cub Clone (or PA12 Clone)
Supermarine Spitfire (the Australian one)
One of the Airdrome WWI planes with a Rotec on the front.

There are a whole host of others that I can't recall just at the moment, but those are the ones that float to the top. When you think about it, there has been an amazing variety of airplanes available over the years. Just about something for every taste! It's also amazing how many RV guys are building planes that they don't often discuss here. There are a number of Bearhawk builders, Stardusters, etc.. going together along with RV's in some people's shops. To those of you in this thread who posted and are not RV guys, I say welcome. While this site is Van's airforce, there always is information that can be gleaned from all types of builders both ways. Please keep us informed (or at least me) as to your progress of your various kits and projects. I enjoy seeing peoples projects, no matter what they are.

Lastly, one ought not lump all the Zenith airplanes into one stereotype just because one model specific version of one plane has had issues. The 601's (non LSA's/XL's), 701/801's are really well proven designs. While they may not win any beauty contests, they will out slow any of us. One of my techs built a 701 (another one of my techs is building a Storch) and I joke with them about getting a bird strike from the rear! That being said, they get the last laugh when they takeoff and land....across the runway!

Well, that's my 2 cents.
Cheers,
Stein.

PS, some crazy jokesters at my shop hung a sign on my Mullicoupe project and have renamed it the "Moneycoupe"!
 
Last edited:
I actually had a loaner Two-Weeks-To-Taxi Sportsman for around three months and flew it for over 50 hours, including a trip to San Jose from Portland. The fit and finish of the kit, including the custom interior, is more like a luxury car than a kit plane. The plane is a lot of fun to fly and is actually pretty fast for a strut-braced high wing. One big advantage is that it is a lot easier to get in and out of, no climbing up on the wing to get in. The big back door is really nice for loading the kids and baggage.

Our three teenagers are lobbying to trade our Cessna 140 and RV-4 for a Sportsman. It would make the perfect training aircraft- tricycle gear, tail wheel, IFR rating? and best of all ,floats.


Rob Hickman
Advanced Flight Systems

DSC_0015.JPG


DSC_0014.JPG


DSC_0042.JPG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.