View Single Post
Old 17th Sep 2013, 13:44
  #1 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,049
building.. What would you choose?

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.

Last edited by Ultralights; 17th Sep 2013 at 13:47.
Ultralights is offline