I am building a plane for a combined fun/ cc but I am limited by budget, so my equipment will be similar to yours.
First, really think about the panel. I come from a Citabria so, I am used to a limited stack, but as to engine monitoring, I bought the GRT EIS 4000. I know it is a simple green LCD, but it will give you all the features you need. I bought a big, super bright warning light and installed it right in front. In my experience I generaly set up for a flight regime and only occaisionally monitor for changes, anything catastrophic will trigger the light and page the monitor immediately to the offending thing. The unit weighs ounces, it bulletproof, will survive startup, and was originally designed to survive in two cycle powered, open cockpit ultralights. In the future, if I wasnt an EFIS, the unit will send all the data to most units for graphical presentation.
As to comm and transponder the lightest/cheapest units are to be found in the glider world. I used an XCOM, because it has a real, and very nice, internal intercom with music capability, it weighs ounces, and it will fit without cutting the subpanel. I used a Micro Air transponder for the same reasons. The rest of the panel is an Airspeed, Altimeter, and ADI pilot. I wanted a single axis autopilot in case I get into clouds inadvertently. I already owned a Garmin 196 which is a great little unit for the budget minded.
Here is a picture:
Next, although my goal was to build for less than $55,000 I did splurge on a CS prop. I did this because, I also went with an O-320, and the biggest performance hit with that choice is typically take off and climb. In addition, I wanted to use the Sam James cowl and Whirlwind was able to sell an extended hub for my prop at no additional charge. Finally, the 151 prop has given excellent performance and weighs only 28LBS with spinner.
Next, keep your systems simple and work to reduce wiring complexity and weight. I used the EXP Bus system, and would again, but only for a very simple panel...the system is limited when you have high paower draw units or alot of loads to connect. The system is nice because it includes a dimmer, an internal ammeter, and annunciation of faults.
I also did not prime internal panels. My father (former Helicopter Mechanic) and I came up with an approach where we deburred rivet lines by using scotchbright to scuff the rivet line, then each rivet line was alodined using an alodine pen. The alcald was left unmolested everywhere else. Primer adds weight, and depending on how you apply it may add alot of weight. Opinions vary on this, so ask around. I went this route after an experience with my Citabria which had unpainted 20204-t3 alclad ribs. Before I owned it, at one point it had sat in a farm field for 15 years. Fabric covered, wood spars and these ribs. Well A fuel truck backed into my wings and when I opened them for repair there was not an ounce of corrosion anywhere. JMHO
Consider carburetors instead of fuel injection. It saves alot of weigh and complexity. It will be easier to start and cheaper. After flying hundreds of hours will a fully inverted-capable aircraft, I can tell you that the number of times you will want to go negative G is very limited. I really did not enjoy those maneuvers. I also talked to an experienced RV6 pilot who has full inverted systems on his plane...the wing and belt system on the RV really makes negative maneuvers and inverted flight a clutsy thing in these planes. The downside to a carb is probably some fuel burn.
Consider a tail dragger, they weigh about 10lbs less, and are much easier, and more simple to plumb for things like brakes. I happen to prefer the look of a TD, and they are faster. Although Van reports only minimal difference, field report suggest about 5 or more knots difference.
Finally, leave out what you do not need. I put brakes on only one side, for example and mounted the resevoir on the pilot side reducing pedal weight, and hose length and hence weight. Also it is more simple, direct, and easier to bleed. I used push pull cables for engine controls, again, deadly simple, lighter, and easier to install or mainitain in the future. I do think that quadrants are much more cool though.
As to sound deadening, there is a product called Dyna Plate. It is adhesive backed, and made of some exotic aluminum material. It deadens sound better than the original (heavy) dynamat, and it is only about .032 thick and darn near weightless. The best price I found was
www.onlinecarstereo.com
The reason I focused so much on weight and symplicity for my fun flyer is that it seems to be accepted fact that a light RV flies much better, and is much more enjoyable than a heavy RV. Simplicity is closely tied to weight and is, in all honesty, a philisophically attractive approach for me personally.
Again, these are just my thoughts and rational....opinions vary.
