building.. What would you choose?

[Ultralights]

this should be an interesting convo,
I plan to start building an aircraft in the next 18 months...
requirements are it must have very good range. (think Tasman sea crossings)
good cruise speeds. 2 seats,
and be future proof.
as for building skills, i am 20 yrs structures experience, in both metal airframes and all composites.
It will be built using TSO equip where needed to meet IFR requirements.. Garmin Glass G600's
Must be "future" proof. think expensive and harder to come by fuel types.
the 2 contenders, to compare Pros are.

Aircraft 1.
Composite carbon and Kevlar fibre airframe.
lazy aeros approved.+ spins (+6-3)
Extremely efficient. 15 Ltrs an Hr for a CAS cruise of 150Kts at 75% POWER.
20,000ft service ceiling
STOL capable in relation to other option.
200Ltr fuel capacity.
Fuel injected engine
lower Maintenance costs.
CS/feathering prop.
glide ratio 17:1 at MTOW
BRS standard.

Aircraft 2.
All Aluminium construction
Aeros approved including spinning
approx 40Ltrs Hr fuel burn depending on engine option (biggest possible)
cruise 175Kts. at 75% power.
200 ltr fuel capacity.
CS prop
plenty of examples flying, good support network.
more cargo capacity compared to option 1
higher eng and airframe maintenance costs.

so thats the very short list.
will be built with SAAA support and guidance obviously.

Option 2 would be the preferred aircraft if Diesel technology was cheaply available, but sadly it seams a long way off yet.

what would you build? and why? considering future issues with certain fuel types, and hourly running costs.

if you must know, the types are, Pipistrel Virus SW100IS, and the Vans RV-7A
initial purchase and build costs are very similar. and try not to bring aircraft type bias into the equation.

[Jack Ranga]

Piss easy, RV14 with me mate Mick's long range tanks :ok:

[waren9]

surely the fastest, best load, most versatile, nicest handling etc should be higher up the list than running cost?

if you can afford to own/build something that wont be earning its keep anyway then surely running/maint costs are the least of your worries? assuming you even own it long enough for that to matter.

sounds like its a toy for enjoyment. do what will be most fun for you?

[solowflyer]

RV why reinvent the wheel. Would keep away from the virus they are very small and light. Bloke on our airfield had one nose wheel broke off on his second flight. Had to ship it back to Russia or wherever it came from to get repaired.

[Amiri01]

The RV series are an honest and well proven design, but to extract a little more performance, perhaps you could consider the Evo wing F1 Rocket.

It's specs can be found at http://http://www.teamrocketaircraft.com/quickbuild/spec/index.html (http://www.teamrocketaircraft.com/quickbuild/spec/index.html)

That aircraft would give you the benefits of the RV series with respect to ease of building but with enhanced performance due to the larger engine capability.

[VH-XXX]

175 knots out of an RV7 ?

What happened to your Panthera idea?

One of those aircraft runs on unleaded and Avgas, the other on Avgas (in general) and litres per mile per passenger, one of them is clearly the winner. If fuel and economy are important to you there's an obvious winner but if you want a Lycoming up front.....

[Volumex]

My vote is Option 2 with 180hp IO-360-B run on unleaded (http://www.lycoming.com/Portals/0/Upload/SI1070S%20Specified%20Fuels.pdf) or 100LL. It is not totally future proof, but will last until diesels are prolific.

[BronteExperimental]

My vote is option 2 without the A.

Im not so sure why everyone is so skeptical about Vans published performance figures. 180hp RV7 spec - 200mph = 174kts. In my experience, its spot on.
The caveat is that they need to be built well - as per plans, clean, light and straight. A lot of AUS RVs that I see don't look like they have the attention to detail required to get the book values.

Depending on your circumstances, id contemplate an RV8 as well. Unless you think you will always be flying with a passenger.

PM if you want more opinion.

Cheers

[s e t h]

jabiru twin...

[Ultralights]

the reason running cost is an issue, i average approx 200hrs a year. the first year i owned the Savannah, racked up just over 300 hrs. the last 2 years have seen 150 per year, only due to poor weather. so the cost difference between 40 ltrs/hr and 15ltrs/hr is quite significant. not to mention schedule servicing. and i am very familiar with the rotax line of engines. and have just as much confidence in my 912 as i do any lycombing or conti engine.

An Unleaded burning Lycombing or conti around the 200 hp range would make the second option more attracive and get it over the line. any one have experience, or know where i can find the data on th dinosaur engines burning unleaded?
If the SMA certified diesel was cheaper, it would definately be Option 2, but $EUR75,000, just is to much.

whats the max fuel capacity of an RV7 with tip tanks or other modifications?

[Volumex]

Lycoming SI 1070 S "Specified Fuels for Spark Ignited Gasoline Aircraft Engine Models" (http://www.lycoming.com/Portals/0/Upload/SI1070S%20Specified%20Fuels.pdf)

[VH-XXX]

It would appear that you already know that the Rotax will be far more economical per mile, so the only reasoning you could use for an RV would be.... "I just want one."

40lph will hurt. Most of the RV owners that I know all whinge about the fuel they are guzzling. One has just upgraded his RV6 to a DyonAero Mcr01 Sportster. 150-160 knots on a 100hp 912 Rotax. The 80 HP model achieves 150 knots easily. There's only a could of them in Australia. Not for the feint-hearted with a 2ft wing chord :\

[Jabawocky]

Gents, and Ladies, the issue of unleaded Avgas is VERY close to being a none event. Even at the rate I get things built, it is close to an RV10 time frame, or for most people half an RV7 time frame, so lets drop the fuel issue out of the equation.

By the way ALL the IO engines do not appear on any Petersen STC for a good reason. ;)

Diesel options.....I doubt the laws of physics will change in my life time, but a trans tasman crossing with a TC or NA petrol burner, that has a loss of forced induction might likely become a NA sub optimal performer. In the Diesels however, you will swim. Think carefully about that.

OK on to airframe choices, JR has hit the nail on the head. RV14, get the slow build wings so you can do the fuel thing, is aerobatic, is big and roomy with good payload and is a 170 knot 75% power kind of machine. Good payload as well.

Next option is a Lancair Legacy. The prize winning aircraft at Ausfly this year was the Legacy owned by Mr Gary Weeks and he flies out of a field near you UL, so if you do not know him let me know. He is definately worth talking to. The fuel burn and TAS numbers he emails to me all the time are enough to tip me over the edge some days. ( I swear he has a static problem :} ). I have been promised some Lancair time in early October, so I will let you know what I think, but I am pretty sure my RV grin will be extended to a Lancair grin.

If you want a tandem, build an RV8.

If you want some extra help you know where to find me.

[Jabawocky]

XXX
Most of the RV owners that I know all whinge about the fuel they are guzzling.

Well they are clearly doing it wrong. There is a solution to it as well, 8-10 November in Camden, Advanced Pilot (http://www.advancedpilot.com/livecourse-au.html)

Try putting a serious payload like I had last weekend at FL130 and doing 155-165TAS on 38 LPH in a 100HP Rotax powered machine. You cant have everything. But you can go close. Having a Rotax pocket rocket might get you speed at low burn but carry nothing. I can appreciate the buzz of that, but if I want to carry more than a water bottle and an iPad, I need to be prepared to pay a small premium to do so.

:ok:

[poteroo]

If you can do without the aeros buzz, then the RV-9/9A wing is the more efficient at higher altitudes than the 7 series.

If you are going to build your own wings - then you can build in a set of auxiliary tanks outboard of the mains - but not way out at the tips like the Johansen type. VH-JSP,(a 9A, currently hangared at JT), sports a set of 35L aux tanks which are plumbed into the main fuel selector via a 2nd fuel selector for R/L aux. Using these @ 30 mins each creates next to nil wing out of balance. In round figures - another 120-150 mins endurance.

Fuel injection and electronic injection make a very good combo with the 360 engine - but you are then into avgas only. Probably a set of GAMIjets will improve this again. Even without them - my IO-360 in a 9A will give me 140 KTAS @ 27LPH ROP, and 23LPH @ LOP. And that's with an 87 inch pitch fixed Sensenich prop.

For the money, I think you can actually get more efficiency out of fixed pitch props pitched well to suit your long distance cruise intention. Save $8k, and some weight too.

Now if it comes to not using avgas, perhaps you could still run the higher compression FI/EI engines using some form of anti-knock additive to replace the avgas lead?? Something which might make these engine useful into the future?

happy days,

[Agrajag]

Most of the RV owners that I know all whinge about the fuel they are guzzling.

Not all of 'em though!

The RV7 I fly will do 175 KTAS on 40 litres/hr. It will also happily do the same speed on 31 litres/hr, and that makes it comparable to a car in terms of litres/100km. (But several orders of magnitude more fun!)

The difference is merely operating technique. As Jaba says, a little education has enormous payoffs. Sorry if this has drifted off the original topic, but it may have a bearing on the final choice of build.

[Jabawocky]

The 9/9A is an excellent choice, but not aerobatic.

I think your TAS is reading slow, (and IAS) as the 9A I am familiar with has an IO320 and does closer to 160 knots at altitude. And that is around 26LPH I think.

Here is the -9A I am familiar with, and it is verified in terms of static and IAS dynamically so the speeds are within 2 knots.
Copied from another forum.
We've tweaked the flow gauge parameter and corrected a static error, so now that I have accurate fuel flow and TAS within 1 knot at 140 kt, I can report some accurate numbers. I chose the 81" over the 79" to get good cruise performace with one P-mag, and it worked out very well. Australia doesn't have any high-altitude airports so reduced climb is ok.

Engine: Superior XP-IO-320-A1AC2
Ignition: 1 P-mag and 1 Slick mag
Prop: Sensenich 70CM7S9-0 (81)

Static RPM is about 2240. It will climb at 1700 fpm solo with full fuel.

Top speed at 8,500 ft (9,700 DA) leaned to 75 ROP is 172 kt TAS at 10gph. It hit 2640 rpm so I pulled it back after finding top speed.
LOP cruise 159 kt TAS at 7.1 gph WOT 2470 rpm.
LOP cruise at 9,400 (11,500 DA) returning from the solar eclipse was 150 kt TAS at 6.2 gph WOT 2350 rpm. I think the lean-mode EGTs in the photo aren't accurate but there was room to richen a bit.

It seems to have gained 3 - 5 kt since I removed the tiedown rings. I didn't realize they made that much drag.

http://i.imgur.com/JTtbu.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ca5IL.jpg



Hope that helps with your -9A data comparisons. They are a delightful thing to fly :ok:

[Fantome]

Reverting for a moment to the old fashioned way . . .

("those bloody old vets, when they're out with their pets, still believe in the old fashioned way" - The Lament of the Artificially Inseminated Cow)

. . . . .old mate is planning on building a Wot so as to fly a centenary flight
of the 1921 Bert Hinkler non-stop Mascot-Bundaberg in his Avro Baby.

Any Wots in OZ? Flying or under conconstruction





Wot http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Elevator.curriewot.arp.750pix.jpg/300px-Elevator.curriewot.arp.750pix.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elevator.curriewot.arp.750pix.jpg)


Role Single-seat aerobatic Manufacturer Homebuilt Designer J.R.Currie First flight 1937 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_in_aviation) The Currie Wot (pronounced as what) was a 1930s British (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) single-seat aerobatic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerobatic) biplane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biplane) aircraft. Plans were sold for home building (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebuilt_aircraft) of the aircraft.
Contents




1 Design and development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currie_Wot#Design_and_development)
2 Specifications (Currie Wot) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currie_Wot#Specifications_.28Currie_Wot.29)
3 See also (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currie_Wot#See_also)
4 Notes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currie_Wot#Notes)
5 References (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currie_Wot#References)
6 External link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currie_Wot#External_link)


Design and development

The Wot was designed by J R (Joe) Currie, and two examples were built by Cinque Ports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinque_Port) Aviation Limited at Lympne Aerodrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lympne_Airport) in 1937. They were both powered by a single 40 hp Aeronca-JAP J-99 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeronca_E-113) two-cylinder engines, but had minor differences in design. They were designated the Wot 1 and Wot 2; the name came about whilst Currie was building the first aircraft and being tired with being asked what he would call it, replied: "Call it Wot you blooming well like". Currie built two aircraft (G-AFCG and G-AFDS), that he offered for sale at £250.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currie_Wot#cite_note-Severne_p76-1) Both were destroyed in 1940 during a Second World War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) German air raid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing) on Lympne. After the war, at the request of Viv Bellamy, then Chief Flying Instructor at the Hampshire Aeroplane Club (HAC) at Eastleigh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastleigh), Currie used the same drawings to enable the HAC to build two more examples under the supervision of J O Isaacs. The first aircraft, registered G-APNT, first flew on the 11 September 1958. G-APNT was soon re-engined with a four-cylinder 60 hp Walter Mikron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mikron) II engine and was also trialled using floats. With the more powerful Mikron engine it was known as the Hot Wot and later, with the floats, as the Wet Wot. The floatplane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floatplane) version was not a success and they were soon removed.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currie_Wot#cite_note-Severne_p76-1) With the original Aeronca-JAP engine fitted it was delivered on 29 May 1959 as the personal aircraft of Westland Aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Aircraft) test pilot H J Penrose (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harald_Penrose&action=edit&redlink=1), who christened the aeroplane 'Airymouse' and wrote a book of the same name about his experiences flying the aircraft.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currie_Wot#cite_note-Severne_p77-2) The second aircraft, registered G-APWT had a number of different engines fitted for trials, including a 60 hp Rover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover_Company) TP60/1 industrial gas turbine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine) engine,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currie_Wot#cite_note-Severne_p77-2) before being delivered to Elstree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elstree) Aerodrome in 1962.
Aircraft plans were sold to amateur builders and soon examples were being constructed, the first homebuilt aircraft flying in 1963. The most unusual Wots were built in 1967 by Slingsby Sailplanes Limited (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slingsby_Aviation). Slingsby built six aircraft modified to represent the Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Aircraft_Factory_S.E.5)A for film work. They were powered by 115 hp Lycoming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_Engines) engines with dummy exhausts and other modifications as 0.83 scale replicas. They were delivered to Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland) and fitted with dummy guns for the film Darling Lili (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darling_Lili). Some of the aircraft were also used in the films I Shot Down Richthofen, I Think (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_Shot_Down_Richthofen,_I_Think&action=edit&redlink=1), and Dubious Patriot (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dubious_Patriot&action=edit&redlink=1).

[Ultralights]

I have looked at the RV14, not too much in service data there yet, and not QB kit at the moment on the Vans site. and its probably a little to big for our needs.
Cargo isnt a consideration, after a few years in light small recreational aircraft, i have learnt to pack light and small. no problem taking the savannah on a 2 week trip, 2 people, and getting it all in and under weight. hiking equipment is the way to go in this regard.
The Virus has more capacity than the Savannah.in both MTOw and physical cargo area.

I looked at the Dynaero, nice, but a lack of support in OZ, and other builders out here was a bit of a show stopper.
The Virus has quite a few example flying in Canada, the US and plenty in the EU. and i already have a copy of the construction, and ops manuals for the Virus. very easy to follow and understand. as is the Vans paperwork.
Aeros capable is a must, though im happy with lazy basic stuff, unlike my partner, who wants the full eye popping 8G and competition level.
The 7 is still a strong option, especially if those figues quoted above can safely and easily be achieved. quite impressive.

ill have to get the calculator out and figure out some costs based on those figures.

[poteroo]

Ultralights I'd agree with Jabawocky about the efficiency of injected/electronic engines in an RV. You can expect to run the FP version very efficiently by climbing out @ 75% and about 110-120 KIAS and cruising at a pre-determined TAS. I use the Johansen proven number of 140-145 KTAS and fly as high as possible to achieve WOT and find that it really does allow you to lean out to somewhere in the 23-28 LPH range. I'd say an RV7 with an IO-360 with EI and a FP Sensenich plus LRT would be a pretty good choice
happy days,

[Jabawocky]

Yep, the RV7 is a 155-160 knot machine at 30 LPH. The RV8 is tandem :ok:

So many choices.....

UL give me a call, been a while since we spoke last. :ok:

[On eyre]

I agree Poteroo with your figures - not surpassing since VNN is sister ship to yours and we did our homework well. I have got lazy however and now lean in cruise to give hottest CHT of 390 degrees with same results you quote. Esperance to Ceduna non-stop (via the coast) nil wind no problem with standard 9A tanks.
Cheers

[Ultralights]

just had the calculator out for the last few hrs,
The numbers add up well for an RV10! thinking kids etc in the next 2 to 5 years as well. (as i have been informed by the other half)
with the $75,000 SMA Diesel (actual USD) burning 7-10Gph. for 230Hp to 10,000ft.
the SMA is $25K more than a nice IO540, but over 2000hrs, fuel burn saving are approx $60K! engine TBO is 2400hrs..

How well do RV10's perform with 230Hp? (up to 10Kft)
according to the Vans website, speeds are in the order of 5mph slower. but you do gain a few miles in range.

[Jack Ranga]

You want range in an RV10? I'll give you range, well.......me mate Mick will.

[Ultralights]

what fuel range options are there for an RV10, as well as the 7, wing tip tanks? modified main tanks?
the Virus has 100ltrs standard, but optioned to 200ltrs, but had to be built at the factory as the wing has to be layed up and manufatured differently.

[Jabawocky]

UL

The SMA story has been done to death in the RV community, and it does not stack up, and the weight is much more etc. The forward CofG issue is definately an issue, trust me, I have two batteries down the back, and one up the forward CofG is easily found.

As for fuel savings, well they are not much, and the overhaul or repair issue is not good, and the concept of a TC coupling or something effectively giving you a flame out is sub optimal as well. Beats me how they get them in a certified plane.

If you are thinking an RV10, IFR and done properly, please ignore the Vans costs, they are bare bones and under priced (out of date) and not landed in Oz. Your budget needs to be around $220K +/- $30K depending on a lot of variables.

Give me a call.

And yes Jack Ranga can tell you all about his RV10-MRTT aircraft. I think it has drogues and a boom........:}

[Jack Ranga]

I can't tell you who engineered my long range tanks (:E) I can tell you they were professionally engineered & destruction tested. They will be over 8 hours, reserves on top @ around 170kts IAS.

They aren't tip tanks. I don't get any financial benefit from these. If you are building a standard build vans and want more info, PM me.

[poteroo]

Ultralights

Suggest you join Doug Reeves' Vansairforce site - Van's Aircraft RV Builder Forums and News. ¯¯VAF¯¯ (http://www.vansairforce.net) and use the search function for 'long range tanks' or 'extended fuel tanks' or similar. Hundreds of threads - some with good links to commercial builders - others to sole private builders who have included extra tanks during build. Most give at least another 150-180 mins flying time.
happy days,

[VH-XXX]

Of course you will need approval from the NZ CAA to fly this fueled up beast there due to the experimental category of this proposed aircraft... :-)

[27/09]

Of course you will need approval from the NZ CAA to fly this fueled up beast there due to the experimental category of this proposed aircraft... :-)Really, is that so?

[VH-XXX]

27/09, yes indeed that is true.

We can't take our experimental aircraft outside Australia without permission from the destination country.

[Ultralights]

having a good read of the Vans site mentioned above, lots of info..

the RV14 numbers look good.... :ok:

[dubbleyew eight]

you want range!!!

hunt out Jon Johansen. he does a totally wet wing.

2,100 nautical mile range in still air in his Rv4

he was trying to make a business of the RV wing mods.

[Andy_RR]

Jon's totally wet wing RV4 was last seen in the Port Adelaide Aviation Museum. My chat with Jon at Temora revealed that it was past its used-by date due to many signs of stretched rivets. He said it needed a new wing built but it wasn't economic, hence finding its way to the museum. I don't know if it is still there as they were shaking the tin for donations in order to keep it.

Upshot is, the wet wing was built for record breaking - not commuting or general use. It's hard enough to seal a standard fuel tank properly...

I'd recommend building as standard an RV as you can if your ambition is to finish it and fly it. Forget diesels and wet wings and things - they will only cause grief and delay and possibly abandonment.

I am looking forlornly at my (probably not) half-built RV-8 and wondering if I can afford to keep it. I really need a kick up the arse to crack on with it, but the price of fuel, medicals and general administrative bollocks pertaining to flying depresses me a lot.

(Woe is me...) :{

[dubbleyew eight]

andy now you know why the pilot owner before me and me fly a W8.

we could afford to.

[Andy_RR]

By the way, the RV-8 is the most efficient RV at the speeds most people like to fly. Even the RV-9 doesn't match it and the RV-14 is a definite guzzler...

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/541859_10151732787847804_363007543_n.jpg

Look at how much power is required to achieve your favorite cruise speed.

(all data is ex-Van's website)

[Jabawocky]

Frontal area ;)

[Andy_RR]

andy now you know why the pilot owner before me and me fly a W8.

we could afford to.

Was that the yellow(?) Tailwind at Narromine on the other weekend?

[dubbleyew eight]

no not me. (the yellow machine at narromine)


(who the hell paints aeroplanes yellow :yuk: )


jabawokky if a piece of round wire can have the same drag as an entire aerofoil surely there is more to it than just frontal area?????

[Andy_RR]

Yes, there is. When you're flying fast, wing area = drag, fancy aerofoils or not.

The RV-9 has 124 ft^2, the RV-7 121 ft^2 whereas the RV-8 has only 116 ft^2

The induced drag advantage of the higher aspect ratio wing on the -9 isn't much of a gain when you're a long way past best L/D anyway. Neither is the fancy foil, since Re is high and alpha is low and a riveted Al wing will never ever be laminar.

[Ultralights]

found this reply from vans when asked about projected fuel burn of the RV-14, on the vansairforce site.

"Since there are no owner built 14s flying yet, there aren't a lot of real world numbers. I've
flown the airplane on one 1400 mile trip and a lot of shorter trips, and generally plan on 10
gph overall. In cruise, at altitude we can do a bit less -- around 9 gph for 155-160 KTAS. IT'll
give you 170 KTAS, but the fuel burn will be about 12 -- so we rarely push it that hard. With
the injected IO-390 and good instrumentation, we're quite happy running it lean of peak at
altitude.

For the same 155-160 speed the smaller RV-9 burns about 7.5 and the RV-7 about 8 at
altitude. The 9, with no need for aerobatic roll rates, has a higher aspect ratio wing and it's
efficient cruise altitude is a bit higher, resulting in better economy.

Understand that these numbers are very general. The pilot has ultimate control and one
person's figures can easily be different by 15% -- or more.

[Jabawocky]

UL

I won't promise my house as a warranty, but you can be pretty sure of this as real world numbers. 161 knots TAS @ 8000' on 34.5/35.5 LPH.

Oddly enough my calculations are spot on with the claims in the content you posted. I assume Vans have published that somewhere and I have never found their numbers to be inaccurate. They do not sem to be like the days of old where manufacturers would publish all sorts of claims that could not be realised.

Having said that it took two Aussies to sit in the Beech sales room and point out their G58 Baron specs were horribly ....errr...mistaken. Not all that long ago I am told.

So what are you going to build?

[Ultralights]

still havnt made a decision, waiting to get a response to a a few questions from Vans, but so far the -14 seams the best fit.

[dubbleyew eight]

every schmuck in the world can start a project.
it takes a bit of persistence to be able to finish one.

only start the project if you are certain you can finish it.

[VH-XXX]

How are you gonna fit your kids in the back of a 14?

[Jack Ranga]

They'll fit up until the age of about 6-7 :ok:

[Andy_RR]

They'll fit in the back of an -8 (one at a time) and, what's more, they won't fight!

[Ultralights]

How are you gonna fit your kids in the back of a 14? thats the line of questioning i have put to Vans, the baggage area is 36 to 40Inch long, so quite a lot bigger than a standard economy class pitch. capacity is 100Lbs, but is only limited by floor loading, not CoG calc. a floor can be strengthened,
as for not finishing, i have been a structures guy all my life, and have a full workshop at my disposal. and even staff if need by that want to help.

[VH-XXX]

If you are even contemplating kids, trying to convert a two seater is probably not the best course of action. If you can stretch for a 10 you'll be far better off accommodation wise. By the time you finish they will have probably outgrown the RV14 even if it was possible to fit them in. Kids come with a lot of baggage (of the physical kind), keep that in mind!

[Jabawocky]

UL, there is a share in a nice IFR RV10 down in Sydney for sale. Just a thought ;)

[Ultralights]

thats anpother option, how many in the sindicate?

[Jabawocky]

No idea....but I know it is well built. That is a good start.

I will see what I can dig up for you. Maybe it is still available. They did want too much for the share in my opinion, but it is now very well priced.

Check PM's:ok:

[LewC]

Advert in the Australian Aviation Advertiser has a one sixth share in an RV10 on offer for $35,000.

[Sailvi767]

The above post is very true. I have a RV6 that was built to be fast. Small tail and a IO360 with 10 to 1 pistons. I cruise at 10.8 gallons per hour at 185 knots. Run it LOP at 7.8 to 8 GPH and I still get 175 knots. Hard to beat that combination of speed and economy in anything else in the price range.

[cockney steve]

This thread seems to have settled into a "which Vans" debate!

Although I am a great fan of Composite construction,there are a number of drawbacks.
Build-conditions, temperature and humidity need accurate control. surgical cleanliness is also a prerequisite. a wipe with a rag is NOT "clean" !
Damage can remain hidden until structural failure. We all know of the phantom hangar rash appearance...but if it doesn't show.......
Operating conditions.....Composites don't take kindly to sitting for hours in a strong, hot sun.

Repairs need a skill and experience-level hard to find...or a dedicated person willing to learn on the job....Your job! :hmm:

Vans is orthodox construction, proven track-record,good resale value and provided it's properly corrosion-proofed at build and properly put together, will outlive the builder comfortably.
Damage is usually self-evident!
Err....guess I'd build a Vans! (very impressed with the recent AD's and the quality of the construction and components.)