Any Kit Builders/Fliers?

I have to say Im pretty impressed with some of the stuff Vans has put out there. I got to fly an RV-7 a few weeks ago and found it to not only be a good, fast XC machine, but also a fun airplane to yank and bank around. Though, in terms of economy, it's pretty hard to beat a Sonex with a VW engine in it.
 
TheFlyingTurkey said:
I'm not even sure what my mission would be. I definitely want at least two seats so I can instruct, either students or my kids. I'm an HVAC technician also, so I am very mechanically inclined and work well with tools, and I love to build things. So a 2 seat kit plane would be a great choice for that.

However, I would really like to travel with the family from IL to FL to visit grandma. That would require a 4 place plane that could really seat 4 people and a dog + bags. I'm thinking it would be tough to do on the cheap. Maybe a 172 with a ton of fuel stops.

I guess I was just thinking about something cheap to cruise around the local area in, maybe even go to AirVenture and camp out under the wing. (Not too far from the Chicago area).
Click to expand...

You can't instruct in experimentals, except as already noted.

To accomplish your mission you need something along the lines of a 402 or pa31. Maybe a pa32(r), 206...210.
 
I'm building a RV-8. I've previously owned a couple of airplanes and am currently involved in a warbird.

As others have noted, you can instruct in an experimental, but the process of gaining and insuring a LOA to do so is prohibitive in most cases. An owner can take instruction in his plane, but offering your plane to the public for instruction has many limitations. You'll probably get better information if you visit the EAA forums, or one of many construction-type or aircraft specific forums. Talk to guys who are building their second or third airplane and you'll get better information that you'll find on a professional pilot forum.
 
TheFlyingTurkey said:
I'm not even sure what my mission would be. I definitely want at least two seats so I can instruct, either students or my kids. I'm an HVAC technician also, so I am very mechanically inclined and work well with tools, and I love to build things. So a 2 seat kit plane would be a great choice for that.

However, I would really like to travel with the family from IL to FL to visit grandma. That would require a 4 place plane that could really seat 4 people and a dog + bags. I'm thinking it would be tough to do on the cheap. Maybe a 172 with a ton of fuel stops.

I guess I was just thinking about something cheap to cruise around the local area in, maybe even go to AirVenture and camp out under the wing. (Not too far from the Chicago area).
Click to expand...

First - forget an old C172 - much better value buying a Piper Pacer or Stinson 108. Further, for even more value and getting your hobby itch scratched - look at a Pacer, Stinson or some other project and restore it. Might end up being quicker and you still get the teaching your sons thing. Luscombe's can be found cheap. Third, if you're building something, look into a Bearhawk. If I wanted a kit-built, four place hauler that has great performance I'd look no further than a Bearhawk. Just kick ass machines.
 
WacoFan said:
First - forget an old C172 - much better value buying a Piper Pacer or Stinson 108. Further, for even more value and getting your hobby itch scratched - look at a Pacer, Stinson or some other project and restore it. Might end up being quicker and you still get the teaching your sons thing. Luscombe's can be found cheap. Third, if you're building something, look into a Bearhawk. If I wanted a kit-built, four place hauler that has great performance I'd look no further than a Bearhawk. Just kick ass machines.
Click to expand...

I'd love to get a 108, but money didn't allow for it right now. Probably down the road, just not a bastardized metalized one.
 
I've been drooling a lot over the Kitfox. I wouldn't build one myself because I'm not mechanically inclined, but from what I hear they're a very reliable airframe, and the wings fold so you can tow/store it at home.
 
Murdoughnut said:
I've been drooling a lot over the Kitfox. I wouldn't build one myself because I'm not mechanically inclined, but from what I hear they're a very reliable airframe, and the wings fold so you can tow/store it at home.
Click to expand...

I saw an early Avid flyer sell, when listed for less than 10K a few weeks back on either ebay or barnstormers. Granted, it was 2 stroke, but it looked cool. An Avid Flyer is a quasi-related to Kitfox design, IIRC.
 
rframe said:
Another option is a basket case Piper tail dragger. Simple tube and fabric, proven and easy to work on, if you stick with something like a J3, very simple systems.... just pretty much dissassembly, replace bad parts, refinish. WagAero carries most anything you need to supplement. Not really any more work than a kitbuilt and with a cooperative A&P to review and sign off on your work as you go, you can retain the standard airworthiness certification and use it for instruction later. Knew a guy and his son that rebuilt a J3 Cub this way in wayyyy less time and for wayyyy less money than most people put into a kit.
Click to expand...

A J3 really sparks my interest and I've been thinking about going down that road too. Thanks.
 
WacoFan said:
First - forget an old C172 - much better value buying a Piper Pacer or Stinson 108. Further, for even more value and getting your hobby itch scratched - look at a Pacer, Stinson or some other project and restore it. Might end up being quicker and you still get the teaching your sons thing. Luscombe's can be found cheap. Third, if you're building something, look into a Bearhawk. If I wanted a kit-built, four place hauler that has great performance I'd look no further than a Bearhawk. Just kick ass machines.
Click to expand...


I never considered a Stinson 108. Here's one for $19K http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/aircraft/Single Engine Piston/1946/Stinson/108-1/1658153.html

Pretty cool.

With fabric is it a necessity to hangar?
 
TheFlyingTurkey said:
I never considered a Stinson 108. Here's one for $19K http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/aircraft/Single Engine Piston/1946/Stinson/108-1/1658153.html

Pretty cool.

With fabric is it a necessity to hangar?
Click to expand...

The price is low because its a 108 (Not a 108-1 as listed, serial number would be too low to make it a 108-1), with the old Franklin 150. Most have been upgraded to the 165 with the heavier duty case, for longevity. Generally, 108-1's and 108-3's give you the most useful load. The 108-3 has the bigger tail, which some do/don't like aesthetically.

Having never flown one, I've heard people say it is one of the most forgiving tailwheel aircraft out there. Fabric doesn't have to be in a hangar, but it's going to last longer in one.
 
RV-4

2qu3ifd.jpg
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
The price is low because its a 108 (Not a 108-1 as listed, serial number would be too low to make it a 108-1), with the old Franklin 150. Most have been upgraded to the 165 with the heavier duty case, for longevity. Generally, 108-1's and 108-3's give you the most useful load. The 108-3 has the bigger tail, which some do/don't like aesthetically.

Having never flown one, I've heard people say it is one of the most forgiving tailwheel aircraft out there. Fabric doesn't have to be in a hangar, but it's going to last longer in one.
Click to expand...

Generally anything Stinson built is a really nice flying machine. I know people who've gone from flying 108's to flying a Reliant and they say the Reliant is a • cat too. Stinson built nice machines.
 
TheFlyingTurkey said:
I never considered a Stinson 108. Here's one for $19K http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/aircraft/Single Engine Piston/1946/Stinson/108-1/1658153.html

Pretty cool.

With fabric is it a necessity to hangar?
Click to expand...

I would put any airplane I owned in a hanger - metal, fabric, whatever. That's just me, but I wouldn't let one sit outside. As for the Stinsons - look into them - read some pireps, etc. Also, don't go to sleep on a Piper Pacer. Outperform a 172, plentiful parts and short-wing Pipers fly nice.
 
WacoFan said:
I would put any airplane I owned in a hanger - metal, fabric, whatever. That's just me, but I wouldn't let one sit outside. As for the Stinsons - look into them - read some pireps, etc. Also, don't go to sleep on a Piper Pacer. Outperform a 172, plentiful parts and short-wing Pipers fly nice.
Click to expand...


Depends how expensive the hanger is. When it gets north of $5k/year, covers start looking better and better... And the couple of extra years you might get out of the paint/fabric are usually worth a lot less than the cost of the hanger. Most of the value of the hanger is having a place to turn wrenches, and store crap that your wife wants out of the garage at home.
 
TheFlyingTurkey said:
With fabric is it a necessity to hangar?
Click to expand...


No, a hangar is definitely not required for either a metal or fabric airplane. Modern fabrics and coatings are basically indifferent to weather, they dont hold water and the UV protection is quite good with proper installation. A set of quality airplane covers can block most remaining UV and protect paint from sun fading. A quality set of wing and tail covers can be bought new for $500-1,500 (depending upon manufacturer and "features"). That's just a few months hangar rental in most areas... so for those who have to keep a closer eye on the budget, it's a good option.

That said there are many other benefits to a hangar: storage, covered area for preflight, easy access to electricity for engine heaters and tools, lighting at night, the ability to store your airplane while torn apart for owner-assisted annuals and misc maintenance, might have easy access to water to keep your plane washed, an area to keep paperwork and teach ground lessons and fill out logbooks, etc, hail protection (you can buy padded covers with hail protection if you are in an area with frequent heavy thunderstorm activity).

So, a hangar is very much NOT required, but is certainly nice... if you have the extra $2,000-6,000 per year to pay for one.

Spending $5,000/year on a $15,000 airplane, there better be a lot of intangible benefits...
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Depends how expensive the hanger is. When it gets north of $5k/year, covers start looking better and better... And the couple of extra years you might get out of the paint/fabric are usually worth a lot less than the cost of the hanger. Most of the value of the hanger is having a place to turn wrenches, and store crap that your wife wants out of the garage at home.
Click to expand...

Well, the ability to turn wrenches inside a hanger is really nice. Plus, fabric is all good and you might get a couple extra years but I'm more concerned with wood, or in say a Luscombe - corrosion, particularly down by the tail. Plus, I don't want the airplane tied down outside - I want it secure in a locked hanger with no access by people I don't want to have access to it. Plus hail/thunderstorms, etc. Plus the finish on painted machines. And, I guess my overall thinking is that if you can't afford to hanger the airplane you really can't afford an airplane. Had a guy come to me when I was a hotshot 18 year old that leased hanger space...rented airplanes...sold airplanes...washed airplanes...cleaned toilets and other glamorous things. He said "I'd really like to have an airplane - I can only afford $15k max, but I really want an airplane". My response to him was "If you can only afford a $15k airplane...you really can't afford a $15k airplane. Let's talk about block time in our Cessna 140 or something like that.".
 
WacoFan said:
I guess my overall thinking is that if you can't afford to hanger the airplane you really can't afford an airplane
Click to expand...


While I agree with you when you talk about the benefits of hangars (there are a lot of benefits), I hear this "if you cannot afford the hangar you cannot afford the airplane" a lot and simply disagree. There are a lot of people who can afford a $15,000 airplane, $30 tie down, $800 annual, $400 insurance, and $25/hour in auto gas on a working man's budget and can enjoy general aviation, take their kids flying, take a buddy for a burger and to chase a roll of toilet paper through the sky, etc... the fundamentals of GA that keep it accessible to every day people.... but a lot of airport bums (some well meaning, but mostly idiotic weekend warriors) come around and tell them "well you really need to just upgrade to ____, you really need _____, if you respect your airplane you'll hangar it", etc etc and very quickly they are told they cannot afford to play. And then they tend to be the same ones who will sit around the coffee pot and talk about the great 140 they own that hasn't left their hangar in 5 years, sitting on flat tires, and complaining that the only people flying now are hot shots in Cirri who dont have any stick and rudder skills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top