Different
ajay said:
Guys,
Don't think this is sacreligious, but I'm thinking about a compair "Comp Monster" CA-4. I wish I could go with an RV, great community and product rep, but my mission utility is more bush, utility, and floats. Just wondering if anyone has any experience with Comp Air or ever flown one of their piston variants? The CA-4 got a lot of attention 10 years ago, but seemed to have gotten overshadowed by Comp Air's foray into turbines.
any info or experience would be appreciated,
aj
Two totally different types of planes and missions, but you know that. RV-10 is for fast travel for 4 and great handling and performance. The plane you sound like you fancy is a large rough, back country plane, where speed and handling are secondary to STOL.
I have to point out the RV-10 takes off and lands fairly short. I suppose if you want to run off a dedicated rougher strips (not wild unapproved off-field gravel bars and dirt roads and fields) you could put larger tires and fairings on and take a little speed hit. Just a thought. The T/O and landing gnd roll for a RV-10 is take off 360 ft, landing 525 ft. A C-180, take off 625 ft, landing 480 ft. The point is the RV-10 is no slouch for short fields. I guess you know about RV's. The reason they are popular is the fairly low stall speed and associated semi-STOL performance. The RV-10 stall is 57 mph (49.6 kts), the C-180 is 48 kts. The RV-10 is by no means a Bush plane, but it can handle prepaired dirt. You could always oversize the tires and put large fairings on and loose a lot of top end for a little better rough filed operations. No one has done that but I think it is possible. However when you get use to going fast it is hard to slow down.
If you want a flying truck, hauler, bush plane you have a lot of off used off the shelf planes. You can buy them for less than it takes to make one. There are the C180, 182, 185, 206, Husky, Maule to name a few.
I am guessing it is not all performance you are after. I just am assuming you like the looks, are a high-wing man.
If I was going to build a slow, low, STOL 4 place bush / float plane I would go for a rag and tube fuselage like the bear hawk, that was suggested. Looks are not everything. You don't need a seamless look on a slow plane.
The Comp Air may look cool but the fiberglass thing does not dove tail well with the mission. It is great for a Lancair where they can make very complex compound curves and super smooth surface to milk a few extra MPH out of the airframes top speed. The need to get a few extra MPH out of a Bush plane is overridden by rugged and easily repaired.
A tube fuselage is so much better and stronger, especially for crash worthiness. If you are flying out of back country, on the back side of the power curve with fields that give you little options or margins, I want a steel cage around me. To be honest bush planes crash, a lot. Also a ONE PIECE fuselage, fiberglass is a mess if you damage part of it.
Just my opinion a bush plane should have Tubes and Rag. I am fine with an aluminum wing on a Tube truss fuselage. In fact that is ideal the combo of structure. The Glastar follows that philosophy in a way, it uses a steel truss, fiberglass and aluminum (wing) all in one plane. A neat idea, but not sure about it. May be too complicated to have all three in one plane.
Good luck. Take a look at the RV-10. If you don't mind the looks or the idea of a low wing you have to crawl on top of to enter the plane, the performance is hard to beat, by any 4 place plane, bush or otherwise.
