Any plans-built "RV equivalents" out there? [Archive]

Orval Fairbairn

March 5th 05, 08:15 PM

In article >,
"Netgeek" > wrote:

> I've been searching quite a bit for something equivalent or similar to an
> RV-9 but
> available as a plans-built. So far - no luck (seems that Van has done too
> good a
> job 8-)...
>
> Basic requirements are - well - same as an RV-9: Metal, 2-seat (not tandem),
> power from O-200/O-235/IO-240/O-320 - minimum cruise around 150-175mph,
> range approximately 500-600 NM+, very stable (non-aerobatic)
>
> Anybody here know of such a thing - or is it time to write Van a check
> 8-)...?
>
> Thanks for any input.
> Bill

The Mustang II is still available.

Netgeek

March 5th 05, 08:27 PM

"Frank van der Hulst" > wrote in message:
> Is buying a set of plans off Vans no longer an option?

That would be the ideal. However, looking around their website I see
that the "Construction Plans" are offered at US$275. I assumed that
since they are really geared towards selling kits the plans describe the
"construction" and don't really provide the type of detail for individual
parts that would be required to "scratch build".

They have a sample section from the RV-8 plans for download to
review - and they sort of confirm my suspicion - i.e. they're meant to
describe putting the kit together - not for fabricating individual
components.

Perhaps someone on here who has a set of plans can comment as to
whether there's enough detail or not ?????

Kyle Boatright

March 5th 05, 08:37 PM

"Netgeek" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Frank van der Hulst" > wrote in message:
>> Is buying a set of plans off Vans no longer an option?
>
> That would be the ideal. However, looking around their website I see
> that the "Construction Plans" are offered at US$275. I assumed that
> since they are really geared towards selling kits the plans describe the
> "construction" and don't really provide the type of detail for individual
> parts that would be required to "scratch build".
>
> They have a sample section from the RV-8 plans for download to
> review - and they sort of confirm my suspicion - i.e. they're meant to
> describe putting the kit together - not for fabricating individual
> components.
>
> Perhaps someone on here who has a set of plans can comment as to
> whether there's enough detail or not ?????

My RV-6 was from a kit, but the plans were plenty adequate to scratch build.
Why don't you e-mail Van's and find out if their RV-9 plans are adequate for
scratch building if that's the airplane you want? Given the time and cost
of any airplane project, I'd spend the 30 seconds needed to e-mail Van's
before you give up on the airplane you want.

KB

AINut

March 5th 05, 09:01 PM

Look at the Mustang II, like we have. URL for the company here:
http://www.mustangaero.com/

Kits or plans.

Netgeek wrote:
> I've been searching quite a bit for something equivalent or similar to an
> RV-9 but
> available as a plans-built. So far - no luck (seems that Van has done too
> good a
> job 8-)...
>
> Basic requirements are - well - same as an RV-9: Metal, 2-seat (not tandem),
> power from O-200/O-235/IO-240/O-320 - minimum cruise around 150-175mph,
> range approximately 500-600 NM+, very stable (non-aerobatic)
>
> Anybody here know of such a thing - or is it time to write Van a check
> 8-)...?
>
> Thanks for any input.
> Bill
>
>

alexy

March 5th 05, 09:11 PM

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote:

>
>"Netgeek" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Frank van der Hulst" > wrote in message:
>>> Is buying a set of plans off Vans no longer an option?
>>
>> That would be the ideal. However, looking around their website I see
>> that the "Construction Plans" are offered at US$275. I assumed that
>> since they are really geared towards selling kits the plans describe the
>> "construction" and don't really provide the type of detail for individual
>> parts that would be required to "scratch build".
>>
>> They have a sample section from the RV-8 plans for download to
>> review - and they sort of confirm my suspicion - i.e. they're meant to
>> describe putting the kit together - not for fabricating individual
>> components.
>>
>> Perhaps someone on here who has a set of plans can comment as to
>> whether there's enough detail or not ?????
>
>My RV-6 was from a kit, but the plans were plenty adequate to scratch build.
>Why don't you e-mail Van's and find out if their RV-9 plans are adequate for
>scratch building if that's the airplane you want? Given the time and cost
>of any airplane project, I'd spend the 30 seconds needed to e-mail Van's
>before you give up on the airplane you want.
>
>KB
>
And as a next step, spend the ~$60 for "preview plans" which, as I
understand it, are complete plans, except reduced to fit 11x17 sheets
that are folded and put in a 3-ring binder, and they do not reflect
all of the latest changes in the actual plans. But should be enough
for you to see whether you'd want to build from the full set.

FWIW, the excerpt you saw on the vans page was from the construction
manual. There is an associated drawing (dwg 3) showing details. The
first few drawings are 3: Horizontal stab (that these instructions are
associated with), 4: elevator, 5: elev hinge parst and trim tab
details, 6: vert stab, 7: rudder, 8: Horiz and vert stab part
alignments and empennage rib fluting locations.

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Charlie

March 6th 05, 06:30 PM

Frank van der Hulst wrote:
> Netgeek wrote:
>
>> I've been searching quite a bit for something equivalent or similar to an
>> RV-9 but
>> available as a plans-built. Anybody here know of such a thing - or is
>> it time to write Van a check
>> 8-)...?
>
>
> Is buying a set of plans off Vans no longer an option?
>
> Frank
The -3, -4 & -6 plans at one time included enough info to scratchbuild.
The plans for the newer planes have only assembly drawings & do not
include dimension info except for the very few parts that must be
fabricated.

If you can revise your cruise requirements downward slightly, you might
look at the Sonex.

Charlie
RV-4 flying
RV-7 wings

John Oliveira

March 6th 05, 11:21 PM

If you can afford it, write vans the check. You won't be sorry.

John Oliveira
N909RV reserved.
All flying surfaces done, working on Fuselage

"AINut" > wrote in message
...
> Look at the Mustang II, like we have. URL for the company here:
> http://www.mustangaero.com/
>
> Kits or plans.
>
>
>
> Netgeek wrote:
>> I've been searching quite a bit for something equivalent or similar to an
>> RV-9 but
>> available as a plans-built. So far - no luck (seems that Van has done
>> too
>> good a
>> job 8-)...
>>
>> Basic requirements are - well - same as an RV-9: Metal, 2-seat (not
>> tandem),
>> power from O-200/O-235/IO-240/O-320 - minimum cruise around 150-175mph,
>> range approximately 500-600 NM+, very stable (non-aerobatic)
>>
>> Anybody here know of such a thing - or is it time to write Van a check
>> 8-)...?
>>
>> Thanks for any input.
>> Bill
>>

[email protected]

March 7th 05, 09:19 PM

>> Basic requirements are - well - same as an RV-9: Metal, 2-seat (not
tandem), power from O-200/O-235/IO-240/O-320 - minimum cruise around
150-175mph, range approximately 500-600 NM+, very stable
(non-aerobatic)

Apart from the "Metal" requirement, you've described the Vision
plans-built. (It's composite.) See http://www.visionaircraft.com

Greg

Montblack

March 7th 05, 10:11 PM

(AllTheGoodUseridsAreGone wrote)>
> Apart from the "Metal" requirement, you've described the Vision
> plans-built. (It's composite.) See http://www.visionaircraft.com

Their website quickly grew rather tiresome. Hope their plane is better
designed than that darn web page. http://www.visionaircraft.com

Montblack

Netgeek

March 7th 05, 11:12 PM

"Charlie" > wrote in message
.. .
> If you can revise your cruise requirements downward slightly, you might
> look at the Sonex.
>
> Charlie

Yep, I looked long and hard at the Sonex - a great little plane! The info
pack and
especially the flying video with Tony Spicer are compelling. However, by
all
accounts the Sonex is a "sport plane" (and apparently a very good one!) but
many
builders/flyers (and the factory) note that it's "neutrally stable" and not
really made
for cross-country. That's not meant to be critical - it's actually an
attribute for its'
intended mission - just doesn't fit my needs since I'm really looking for
economical
distance travelling...8-(

I'm really up against what I'm sure many of you have gone through - and that
is the
requirements of She Who Must Be Obeyed 8-)... I'm thinking along the lines
of
Beech Sundowner for comfort and simplicity but with an extra 40-50 knots -
she's
thinking Business Class on Cathay Pacific. A compromise is going to be
difficult!

Bill

Netgeek

March 7th 05, 11:22 PM

"John Oliveira" > wrote in message
...
> If you can afford it, write vans the check. You won't be sorry.
>
> John Oliveira

> "AINut" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Look at the Mustang II, like we have. URL for the company here:
> > http://www.mustangaero.com/
> >
> > Kits or plans.

The Mustang looks really interesting - more than I need in terms of
performance
and looks like it would take a LONG time to build - but that's okay. Seems
anything worthwhile WILL take forever.

I wish Vans had something more of a "mixed" approach - i.e. fabricate what
you
want and buy the rest "ala carte" - but if that doesn't fit their business
model, so be
it - I can understand that.

I'll keep thinking it over - but it would be good therapy if I could at
least bend up
some used beer cans in the meantime 8-)...

Actually, the "perfect" solution (to keep the wife happy) would probably be
a
Canadair CRJ-200 converted for private use with a "tastefully redone
interior".

Meanwhile, I'll start bending some parts soon (likely for the Mustang) just
to keep
busy....

Thanks for all the input!

> >
> >
> >
> > Netgeek wrote:
> >> I've been searching quite a bit for something equivalent or similar to
an
> >> RV-9 but
> >> available as a plans-built. So far - no luck (seems that Van has done
> >> too
> >> good a
> >> job 8-)...
> >>
> >> Basic requirements are - well - same as an RV-9: Metal, 2-seat (not
> >> tandem),
> >> power from O-200/O-235/IO-240/O-320 - minimum cruise around 150-175mph,
> >> range approximately 500-600 NM+, very stable (non-aerobatic)
> >>
> >> Anybody here know of such a thing - or is it time to write Van a check
> >> 8-)...?
> >>
> >> Thanks for any input.
> >> Bill
> >>
>

March 8th 05, 02:28 AM

"Netgeek" > wrote in
:

>
> "Charlie" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> If you can revise your cruise requirements downward slightly, you
>> might look at the Sonex.
>>
>> Charlie
>
> Yep, I looked long and hard at the Sonex - a great little plane! The
> info pack and
> especially the flying video with Tony Spicer are compelling. However,
> by all
> accounts the Sonex is a "sport plane" (and apparently a very good
> one!) but many
> builders/flyers (and the factory) note that it's "neutrally stable"
> and not really made
> for cross-country. That's not meant to be critical - it's actually an
> attribute for its'
> intended mission - just doesn't fit my needs since I'm really looking
> for economical
> distance travelling...8-(
>
> I'm really up against what I'm sure many of you have gone through -
> and that is the
> requirements of She Who Must Be Obeyed 8-)... I'm thinking along the
> lines of
> Beech Sundowner for comfort and simplicity but with an extra 40-50
> knots - she's
> thinking Business Class on Cathay Pacific. A compromise is going to
> be difficult!
>
> Bill
>
>

You should fly in a Sonex before you dismiss it. A Sonex with a Jab
3300 cruises near 160mph. I don't think a RV-9 is even possitively
stable. A Sonex is very easy to fly, you can hold the stick between
your knees for a bit if nessasary and you could easily ignore the rudder
except for landing in crosswinds.

How long distance is your distance?

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

Charlie

March 8th 05, 03:02 AM

Netgeek wrote:
> "John Oliveira" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>If you can afford it, write vans the check. You won't be sorry.
>>
>>John Oliveira
>
>
>>"AINut" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Look at the Mustang II, like we have. URL for the company here:
>>>http://www.mustangaero.com/
>>>
>>>Kits or plans.
>
>
> The Mustang looks really interesting - more than I need in terms of
> performance
> and looks like it would take a LONG time to build - but that's okay. Seems
> anything worthwhile WILL take forever.
>
> I wish Vans had something more of a "mixed" approach - i.e. fabricate what
> you
> want and buy the rest "ala carte" - but if that doesn't fit their business
> model, so be
> it - I can understand that.
>
> I'll keep thinking it over - but it would be good therapy if I could at
> least bend up
> some used beer cans in the meantime 8-)...
>
> Actually, the "perfect" solution (to keep the wife happy) would probably be
> a
> Canadair CRJ-200 converted for private use with a "tastefully redone
> interior".
>
> Meanwhile, I'll start bending some parts soon (likely for the Mustang) just
> to keep
> busy....
>
> Thanks for all the input!

Apologies for the convoluted order of posts....

If your requirements include non-acro/very stable, the M-II really ain't
your plane.

I haven't flown a -9, but I have flown several -4's (currently own one),
-6's & an -8. I've also flown several M-II's & Thorps. All have more or
less neutral stability. They are all great flying planes but aren't
designed for your mission.

The -9A was designed from the beginning for pilots with no tailwheel
time & limited experience in trainers like C-150's Pipers, etc. It's
reported to be much more stable than the other RV's & rumor in the RV
world is that all the Van's employees take the -9A on trips if they get
to pick.

How about the long winged Sonex? (But you really should just write that
check to Van's. Unless you are a consummate scrounger, you'll likely
spend very nearly as much for a scratch built plane before you are done
& believe me, there's plenty left to do with a kit.)

Charlie

>>>Netgeek wrote:
>>>
>>>>I've been searching quite a bit for something equivalent or similar to
>
> an
>
>>>>RV-9 but
>>>>available as a plans-built. So far - no luck (seems that Van has done
>>>>too
>>>>good a
>>>>job 8-)...
>>>>
>>>>Basic requirements are - well - same as an RV-9: Metal, 2-seat (not
>>>>tandem),
>>>>power from O-200/O-235/IO-240/O-320 - minimum cruise around 150-175mph,
>>>>range approximately 500-600 NM+, very stable (non-aerobatic)
>>>>
>>>>Anybody here know of such a thing - or is it time to write Van a check
>>>>8-)...?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for any input.
>>>>Bill
>>>>
>>
>
>

Dave Hyde

March 8th 05, 03:19 AM

ET wrote...

> I don't think a RV-9 is even possitively stable.

It is, as long as the CG is within limits.

Dave 'stick fixed and stick free' Hyde

Netgeek

March 8th 05, 04:07 AM

"Charlie" > wrote in message
.. .
> Apologies for the convoluted order of posts....
>
> If your requirements include non-acro/very stable, the M-II really ain't
> your plane.
>
> I haven't flown a -9, but I have flown several -4's (currently own one),
> -6's & an -8. I've also flown several M-II's & Thorps. All have more or
> less neutral stability. They are all great flying planes but aren't
> designed for your mission.
>
> The -9A was designed from the beginning for pilots with no tailwheel
> time & limited experience in trainers like C-150's Pipers, etc. It's
> reported to be much more stable than the other RV's & rumor in the RV
> world is that all the Van's employees take the -9A on trips if they get
> to pick.
>
> How about the long winged Sonex? (But you really should just write that
> check to Van's. Unless you are a consummate scrounger, you'll likely
> spend very nearly as much for a scratch built plane before you are done
> & believe me, there's plenty left to do with a kit.)
>

Well, I certainly appreciate all the input from you guys! Looks like
we're back to square one. By that I mean - in looking around, the
RV9 seemed like the perfect plane for what I'd like to do and the
mission - was hoping I could find a plans-built equivalent that would
allow me to "sneak up on it" and start small (and cheap). The Sonex
was tempting - but realistically is meant for something else. The M-II
is probably more slippery, higher performance, and with a longer build
time than I'd hoped (but what a great plane!).

So, I'm back where I started - the RV-9 looks like the right plane
for my needs (and lack of talent - in both piloting and building 8-)...

I guess Van is going to get a check after all. I did read somewhere
exactly what Charlie said - the RV9 is the most stable platform that
Van has offered, great for IFR (even though that's not my intent for
now). So, time to bite the bullet, fatten up the piggy-bank and face
the inevitable - although that's not too onerous 8-)...

Thanks again!

Bill - Probably a future RV9 builder.................

Dave Hyde

March 8th 05, 04:39 AM

Netgeek wrote...

> So, I'm back where I started - the RV-9 looks like the right plane
> for my needs (and lack of talent - in both piloting and building 8-)...

As has been posted already, the -9 plans might be sufficient for
scratch-building one. The -4 plans are (or were when I got mine).
If you think you lack building skills, however, be advised that
scratch building one requires alot more skill than building
from a kit. The initial parts cost is less, but you'll almost
certainly screw up more parts, and it's going to take a LOT
longer.

Dave 'my kit took long enough' Hyde

RV-4 N416RV, first flight 21 Jan 04.

Netgeek

March 8th 05, 05:12 AM

"Dave Hyde" > wrote in message
...
>> As has been posted already, the -9 plans might be sufficient for
> scratch-building one. The -4 plans are (or were when I got mine).
> If you think you lack building skills, however, be advised that
> scratch building one requires alot more skill than building
> from a kit. The initial parts cost is less, but you'll almost
> certainly screw up more parts, and it's going to take a LOT
> longer.

I think the decision has been pretty much made - to build an
RV9 from a kit. My delusions about building from plans have been
pretty well shattered for now - maybe next time (in a different life).
Even so - I'll bet a few beers that it will take me longer than most
others and I'll figure out how to to screw it up better than most 8-).

Time will tell - fortunately I've got lots of time (I think - and hope!).

Morgans

March 8th 05, 05:21 AM

"Netgeek" > wrote

> Yep, I looked long and hard at the Sonex - a great little plane! The info
> pack and
> especially the flying video with Tony Spicer are compelling. However, by
> all
> accounts the Sonex is a "sport plane" (and apparently a very good one!)
but
> many
> builders/flyers (and the factory) note that it's "neutrally stable" and
not
> really made
> for cross-country.

Slap an autopilot in it, for less than $2000, and it would be "real" stable.
--
Jim in NC

Netgeek

March 8th 05, 05:27 AM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> Slap an autopilot in it, for less than $2000, and it would be "real"
stable.
> --
> Jim in NC

I've heard that the factory support for such a move would be less than nil -
no
modifications allowed (or even discussed)!

Sure, you could do such a thing - but you'd be burned at the stake if caught
8-)...

Dave Hyde

March 8th 05, 06:06 AM

Netgeek wrote...

There's some pretty stiff competition for you out there :-)

> I'll bet a few beers that it will take me longer than most
> others...

Took me 11 years to finish a -4 from a kit. I know of others
that took longer.

> and I'll figure out how to to screw it up better than most 8-).

....and you probably won't make a mistake that someone else hasn't
already. The airplanes are pretty solid and fault-tolerant.
One of the hardest things I had to learn was what's acceptable
and what's really screwed up.

Check out http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
and sign up for some of the RV-lists. Really helpful.

Dave 'storming and norming' Hyde

Morgans

March 8th 05, 06:20 AM

"Netgeek" > wrote

>
> I've heard that the factory support for such a move would be less than
nil -
> no
> modifications allowed (or even discussed)!
>
> Sure, you could do such a thing - but you'd be burned at the stake if
caught
> 8-)...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

That's why there is an "X" in esperimental! <g>

I can't imagine even Sonex complaining about an autopilot.
--
Jim in NC

AINut

March 8th 05, 06:58 AM

I bet if you look again, the Mustang II kit will be significantly less
costly than the other brand. About the same build time. And there
aren't thousands of them flying, so you would be unique on your block 8-).

Netgeek wrote:
> "Dave Hyde" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>As has been posted already, the -9 plans might be sufficient for
>>
>>scratch-building one. The -4 plans are (or were when I got mine).
>>If you think you lack building skills, however, be advised that
>>scratch building one requires alot more skill than building
>>from a kit. The initial parts cost is less, but you'll almost
>>certainly screw up more parts, and it's going to take a LOT
>>longer.
>
>
> I think the decision has been pretty much made - to build an
> RV9 from a kit. My delusions about building from plans have been
> pretty well shattered for now - maybe next time (in a different life).
> Even so - I'll bet a few beers that it will take me longer than most
> others and I'll figure out how to to screw it up better than most 8-).
>
> Time will tell - fortunately I've got lots of time (I think - and hope!).
>
>

Corky Scott

March 8th 05, 12:58 PM

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 23:07:12 -0500, "Netgeek" >
wrote:

>Well, I certainly appreciate all the input from you guys! Looks like
>we're back to square one. By that I mean - in looking around, the
>RV9 seemed like the perfect plane for what I'd like to do and the
>mission - was hoping I could find a plans-built equivalent that would
>allow me to "sneak up on it" and start small (and cheap). The Sonex
>was tempting - but realistically is meant for something else. The M-II
>is probably more slippery, higher performance, and with a longer build
>time than I'd hoped (but what a great plane!).
>
>So, I'm back where I started - the RV-9 looks like the right plane
>for my needs (and lack of talent - in both piloting and building 8-)...

If you're looking for speed and efficiency and scratch building, you
might want to take a look at the Wittman Tailwind. It's not metal,
but it is inexpensive to build, cruises at a relatively high speed and
has "excellent natural dynamic stability qualities".

See: http://www.chlassociates.com/Aviation/tailwind.htm

Corky Scott

Rich S.

March 8th 05, 04:28 PM

"Netgeek" > wrote in message
...
> I've been searching quite a bit for something equivalent or similar to an
> RV-9 but
> available as a plans-built. So far - no luck (seems that Van has done too
> good a job 8-)...
>
> Basic requirements are - well - same as an RV-9: Metal, 2-seat (not
> tandem),
> power from O-200/O-235/IO-240/O-320 - minimum cruise around 150-175mph,
> range approximately 500-600 NM+, very stable (non-aerobatic)

Too bad your "requirements" are so specific. There are a couple of
well-proven designs made from "nature's" composite (wood) which are so close
to the RV-6/7/9 plan form that they are usually mistaken for RV's by Oshkosh
controllers. Their cruise speed doesn't quite measure up to the RV's but
they are plans-built and feature a total cost of less than half that of an
RV slow-build kit.

Build time can be as long as you want - if you futz around. But if you're
serious about wanting to fly it before you start collecting social security,
you can figure 3,500 - 4,000 hrs. That's 20 hrs/week for four years. It took
me 3 yrs. 8 mos. from first wood cut to first flight.

For pictures and specs, here's some links:

http://asia.groups.yahoo.com/group/Emerauders/ (Gotta sign up to view the
files, but it's free)

http://www.avions-piel.com/index.php (If you speak French)

http://www.homebuilt.org/kits/littner/littner.html (For plans & specs)

http://www.cis.strath.ac.uk/~if/aviation/emeraude/ (An Aussie's plane)

http://www.emeraude.de/ (A German group)

http://www.corvetteforum.net/c4/elwood89/temp/harvey5a.jpg (A picture of my
bird, taken from an RV-4! :o)

http://www.southernaviationservice.com/Sights/Diamant.htm (A series of
pictures showing the construction of the 4 place model) He flew it for the
first time a couple of weeks ago.

If you want to drop me an email off-list (make the obvious changes to my
address), I would be happy to discuss the pros and cons of these designs as
well as send you some better pictures and specifications than you can find
on the web.

I have an interesting account of the restoration and flight of one plane
written by a retired USAF Col. who learned to fly in Stearmans, flew P-51's
in the ETO, F-80's in Korea, B-47's during the cold war and "Executive"
transports during 'Nam. He considers the Emeraude to be the finest flying
aircraft he has ever flown. I have to agree with him, though I have much
less range of experience to call on.

Let me know if I can help.

Rich S.

Kyle Boatright

March 8th 05, 11:36 PM

"AINut" > wrote in message
...
>I bet if you look again, the Mustang II kit will be significantly less
>costly than the other brand. About the same build time. And there aren't
>thousands of them flying, so you would be unique on your block 8-).
>

Do you really believe the MII can be built as quickly as Van's current kits,
which are all pre-punched (OK, except for the -3 and -4)? I'd think the
self jigging feature of Van's kits would save you 500 hours worth of time on
airframe alignment and locating where to drill the holes. I know I spent
plenty of hours on my -6 making darned sure that everything was plumb, and
making sure I drilled holes in the right places, as opposed to the wrong
places (usually separated by 1/4" or so)...

As a data point, a local fellow who completed an MII said that if he had it
to do over again, he'd go with Van's, simply because of the better
engineered kits. This guy finished his MII something like 2 years ago.

KB

Charlie

March 9th 05, 12:14 AM

Netgeek wrote:
> "Charlie" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>Apologies for the convoluted order of posts....
>>
>>If your requirements include non-acro/very stable, the M-II really ain't
>>your plane.
>>
>>I haven't flown a -9, but I have flown several -4's (currently own one),
>>-6's & an -8. I've also flown several M-II's & Thorps. All have more or
>>less neutral stability. They are all great flying planes but aren't
>>designed for your mission.
>>
>>The -9A was designed from the beginning for pilots with no tailwheel
>>time & limited experience in trainers like C-150's Pipers, etc. It's
>>reported to be much more stable than the other RV's & rumor in the RV
>>world is that all the Van's employees take the -9A on trips if they get
>>to pick.
>>
>>How about the long winged Sonex? (But you really should just write that
>>check to Van's. Unless you are a consummate scrounger, you'll likely
>>spend very nearly as much for a scratch built plane before you are done
>>& believe me, there's plenty left to do with a kit.)
>>
>
>
> Well, I certainly appreciate all the input from you guys! Looks like
> we're back to square one. By that I mean - in looking around, the
> RV9 seemed like the perfect plane for what I'd like to do and the
> mission - was hoping I could find a plans-built equivalent that would
> allow me to "sneak up on it" and start small (and cheap). The Sonex
> was tempting - but realistically is meant for something else. The M-II
> is probably more slippery, higher performance, and with a longer build
> time than I'd hoped (but what a great plane!).
>
> So, I'm back where I started - the RV-9 looks like the right plane
> for my needs (and lack of talent - in both piloting and building 8-)...
>
> I guess Van is going to get a check after all. I did read somewhere
> exactly what Charlie said - the RV9 is the most stable platform that
> Van has offered, great for IFR (even though that's not my intent for
> now). So, time to bite the bullet, fatten up the piggy-bank and face
> the inevitable - although that's not too onerous 8-)...
>
> Thanks again!
>
> Bill - Probably a future RV9 builder.................
>
>
You can get started for about $1k plus tools. After that it's about
$4k-$5k per subkit. The upside is there's very little left to buy except
the engine & prop to make the plane fly.

BTW, you can add the autopilot without concern. I'd bet that over 80% of
current kits have autopilots going in them. Here's the link to the ones
you can buy through Van's accessory catalog:

http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1110326553-122-444&action=search

or if the link 'wraps', go to vansaircraft.com & search the accessory
catalog for 'autopilot'.

If you place the order for the tail kit, mention my name. :-)

Charlie England
-7 wings (can you say 'finder's fee'?

Montblack

March 9th 05, 01:08 AM

("Charlie" wrote)
>
> http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1110326553-122-444&action=search
>
> or if the link 'wraps', go to vansaircraft.com & search the accessory
> catalog for 'autopilot'.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?I4C1422AA
(same link as above with Make a Shorter Link)

http://tinyurl.com/4lk8m
(same link with TinyURL)

Montblack

Daniel

March 9th 05, 02:34 AM

Morgans wrote...
>
> I can't imagine even Sonex complaining about an autopilot.

Modifications, even sensible ones, (or even the discussion thereof)
have gotten Sonex builders banned from the company mailing lists, a
declaration of being an "enemy", a revocation of the right to call
their planes Sonexes, threats of physical harm, an end to all builder
support, and omission or removal from the publicized list of
completions. Exceptions are made for such things as seat cushions.

Daniel

March 9th 05, 04:31 AM

(Daniel) wrote in
om:

> Morgans wrote...
>>
>> I can't imagine even Sonex complaining about an autopilot.
>
>
> Modifications, even sensible ones, (or even the discussion thereof)
> have gotten Sonex builders banned from the company mailing lists, a
> declaration of being an "enemy", a revocation of the right to call
> their planes Sonexes, threats of physical harm, an end to all builder
> support, and omission or removal from the publicized list of
> completions. Exceptions are made for such things as seat cushions.
>
> Daniel
>

Well, I know of only one builder who was banned from the Sonex list and
he just rubbed the owner & his son the wrong way. The only
modifications he made was toe brakes, and custom cowl. Actually I think
he really got banned for telling them to lighten up too many times.

BUT you could very quietly scratch build a Sonex for less than $15K with
a *gasp* Corvair engine (Keep that VERY quiet until you order everything
you think your gonna need from Sonex) in about 1200 hours and bore holes
in the sky at 150-160mph cruise. OR for about $35K total and around 800
hours build the kit with a Jabiru 3300.

To compare that to RV building you could very well build 2 or 3 Sonex
for the cost and time invested in an RV.

NOW, the RV is without a doubt more plane, and currenty better resale %
I will not argue that!

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

Netgeek

March 9th 05, 03:49 PM

"ET" > wrote in message

> BUT you could very quietly scratch build a Sonex for less than $15K with
> a *gasp* Corvair engine (Keep that VERY quiet until you order everything
> you think your gonna need from Sonex) in about 1200 hours and bore holes
> in the sky at 150-160mph cruise. OR for about $35K total and around 800
> hours build the kit with a Jabiru 3300.

Interesting idea from a cost standpoint. But, that's another problem I'd
have - engine choices. I can understand the factory view on this - they
don't want to support a zillion different choices or be part of someone
else's huge experiment (or subsequent lawsuits) - but I'd be alot more
comfortable if at least *one* of the choices was something more
"traditional" - e.g. O-200 - but there are no such choices that come in
under their strict 200 lb. weight limit 8-(.....

Personally, I would never really feel secure flying a VW and I've heard
the Jabirus are pretty much CNC'd versions of the same. (I'm not
trying to start any arguments/discussion! Note that I said "personally").
As for the Corvair, the folks who like them make a pretty good case
for their reasons and Wm Wynne has clearly done alot of good work,
but I'm still going to sit on the fence for awhile (until there are ALOT
more hours in the air)...8-)

Besides - Sonex says "No way"........8-)

Bob Kuykendall

March 9th 05, 04:47 PM

Earlier, Netgeek wrote:

> I've been searching quite a bit for
> something equivalent or similar to an
> RV-9 but available as a plans-built...

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that all of the RVs are
available as staged kits - that is, tail, then wings, then fuselage,
then finishing kit. That helps spread the cost out to some degree.

Cost-wise, I think that the RVs compare favorably with
scratch-building. Especially when you figure in the time it takes to
track down all the different materials and the costs to have them
shipped. You also have to figure in the time it takes to make blanks,
forms, dies, and jigs, and tweak them to make usable parts. And you
need to figure in the inevitable scrap parts that aren't
flight-article-worthy.

Back when I did cost-analysis on the HP-18 sailplane kit, I can
remember comparing it to the more refined RV-4 kit and wondering how
Dick V. could deliver so much for so little. The answer, of course, is
volume...

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

March 9th 05, 09:35 PM

"Netgeek" > wrote in
:

>
> "ET" > wrote in message
>
>> BUT you could very quietly scratch build a Sonex for less than $15K
>> with a *gasp* Corvair engine (Keep that VERY quiet until you order
>> everything you think your gonna need from Sonex) in about 1200 hours
>> and bore holes in the sky at 150-160mph cruise. OR for about $35K
>> total and around 800 hours build the kit with a Jabiru 3300.
>
> Interesting idea from a cost standpoint. But, that's another problem
> I'd have - engine choices. I can understand the factory view on this
> - they don't want to support a zillion different choices or be part of
> someone else's huge experiment (or subsequent lawsuits) - but I'd be
> alot more comfortable if at least *one* of the choices was something
> more "traditional" - e.g. O-200 - but there are no such choices that
> come in under their strict 200 lb. weight limit 8-(.....
>
> Personally, I would never really feel secure flying a VW and I've
> heard the Jabirus are pretty much CNC'd versions of the same. (I'm not
> trying to start any arguments/discussion! Note that I said
> "personally"). As for the Corvair, the folks who like them make a
> pretty good case for their reasons and Wm Wynne has clearly done alot
> of good work, but I'm still going to sit on the fence for awhile
> (until there are ALOT more hours in the air)...8-)
>
> Besides - Sonex says "No way"........8-)
>
>
>

Heh!

Yeah, I'd trust a Jabiru though any day. Regardless of it's "roots"
it's a very stout reiliable engine (esp. the 3300). I just refuse to
pay $15 grand for one!

If you really want "traditional" go for a Cessna-Piper <grin>

Good luck in your search!

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

Ken Finney

March 9th 05, 10:57 PM

"Netgeek" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Hyde" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> As has been posted already, the -9 plans might be sufficient for
> > scratch-building one. The -4 plans are (or were when I got mine).
> > If you think you lack building skills, however, be advised that
> > scratch building one requires alot more skill than building
> > from a kit. The initial parts cost is less, but you'll almost
> > certainly screw up more parts, and it's going to take a LOT
> > longer.
>
> I think the decision has been pretty much made - to build an
> RV9 from a kit. My delusions about building from plans have been
> pretty well shattered for now - maybe next time (in a different life).
> Even so - I'll bet a few beers that it will take me longer than most
> others and I'll figure out how to to screw it up better than most 8-).
>
> Time will tell - fortunately I've got lots of time (I think - and hope!).
>
>

May I suggest that you hook up with a local EAA chapter? The
one I below to (www.eaa326.org) is VERY RV oriented, and
lots of people to give you advice, encouragement, and help
along the way.

John Clear

March 10th 05, 07:56 AM

In article >,
Montblack > wrote:
>>
>http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1110326553-122-444&action=search
>>
>> or if the link 'wraps', go to vansaircraft.com & search the accessory
>> catalog for 'autopilot'.
>
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?I4C1422AA
>(same link as above with Make a Shorter Link)
>
>http://tinyurl.com/4lk8m
>(same link with TinyURL)

Forget TinyURL, EvilURL is more fun:

http://evilurl.com/pornoboobwhore
(same link as above)

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

Gordon Arnaut

April 8th 05, 07:22 AM

If you must have an aluminum plane, check out Jim Bede's new design, the
BD-18. This is an update of Bede's BD-1, which became the Grumman Yankee.
It's lighter than the Yankee with a smaller wing and can be powered by a
Jabiru orr Lycoming. The plans are $500, but I understand Bede's plans are
among the best in the business.
http://www.bedecorp.com/designs/bd18/intro.htm

I'm glad someone mentioned the Emeraude. Another venerable wood and fabric
design is the Jodel, which is similar to the Emeraurde but has a unique
"bent" wing. Some of the smaller simpler models ones can be built in 1000
hours or therabouts.

Cruise speed is probably not going to match the Van's models but stall speed
will be lower and Jodels are famous for being some of the nicest flying
planes in the world. The are noted for their great stability and make a fine
IFR platfroms.

One unique thing about Jodels is that they are certified designs that can
also be built by amateurs from plans. You can still get the plans from the
original firm that built thousands of certified Jodels, most of which are
still flying in all corners of the world.

Jodels are very popular with homebuilders in Europe and Australia where the
rules for homebuilt airplanes are much tougher and designs must be
"approved" by the authorities. The official Jodel website is here (in
French) http://www.avionhttp://www.avions-jodel.com/s-jodel.com/

This website is in English and is a great reference for Jodels.
http://www.jodel.com/index.asp

The Canadian Falconar series is derivative of the Jodel designs:
http://www.falconaravia.com/

There is a very lively Jodel group on Yahoo, with hundreds of fanatical
Jodel owners and builders around the world. There are probably more Jodels
flying worldwide than Van's RVs. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jodel/

One of the advantages of wooden airframes is that they soak up noise and
vibration quite effectively. If you ever get a chance to fly in a Jodel,
Emeraude or Falco, going back to a spam can will seem like quite a step
down.

Regards,

Gordon Arnaut
Ontario, Canada

Morgans

April 8th 05, 07:58 AM

C.D.Damron

April 8th 05, 12:47 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> Has it flown yet? How many are flying, and how many hours?

How dare you ask the obvious.

Gordon Arnaut

April 8th 05, 08:16 PM

Hey Guys,

I'm not trying to promote Jime Bede. I've never even owned a Yankee or any
of Jim's other designs -- alhtough I know several Grumanns owners and they
are excellent flying airplanes.

The BD-18 does seem like "vaporware" right now, but the smaller single-seat
BD-17 has flown and I don't see why the BD-18 shouldn't fly just fine.

Another possibility for building an aluminum two-seater from plans is Chris
Heintz's Zenith 601 series. With a Lyc 235 max cruise is "only" 138mph, but
stall would be lower than on an RV-9. The Zenith actually has a little more
wing area than the RV with a max weight that is conisederably lower.

You can use a Rotax 912, Jabiru, Continental O-200, or Lycoming on this
plane, or even a Corvair. Lots of people build these from scratch and they
use pulled "Avex" rivets, so no bucking -- which means they go together a
lot quicker.

Personally, I understand Netgeek's point about wanting to build from
scratch. While Van's prices are very attractive compared to what's out
there, I think the actual material costs are probably only a fraction of
that. There are lots of people who build metal planes from scratch. I know a
couple of guys who are building all-metal Polliwagons.

Regards,

Gordon.

PS: I would still rather build a wood plane.

"C.D.Damron" > wrote in message
news:Ibu5e.2589$8Z6.1278@attbi_s21...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Has it flown yet? How many are flying, and how many hours?
>
>
> How dare you ask the obvious.
>
>

Gordon Arnaut

April 8th 05, 08:32 PM

I forgot to post the link for the Zenith:
http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/index.html

Also, there is a historical link between the Zenith series and the Jodels.
Designer Chris Heintz was a designer for Avions Robin, which itself is an
offshoot of Jodel (Pierre Robin was a protege of Jodel designer Jean
Delemontez).

Robins are still being built in France as certified airplanes and still use
the unique Jodel bent wing. http://www.apex-aircraft.com/

Regards,

Gordon.

Jerry Springer

April 9th 05, 01:26 AM

Gordon Arnaut wrote:
> Hey Guys,
>
> I'm not trying to promote Jime Bede. I've never even owned a Yankee or any
> of Jim's other designs -- alhtough I know several Grumanns owners and they
> are excellent flying airplanes.
>
> The BD-18 does seem like "vaporware" right now, but the smaller single-seat
> BD-17 has flown and I don't see why the BD-18 shouldn't fly just fine.
>
> Another possibility for building an aluminum two-seater from plans is Chris
> Heintz's Zenith 601 series. With a Lyc 235 max cruise is "only" 138mph, but
> stall would be lower than on an RV-9. The Zenith actually has a little more
> wing area than the RV with a max weight that is conisederably lower.
>

What does a Zenith stall at?

> You can use a Rotax 912, Jabiru, Continental O-200, or Lycoming on this
> plane, or even a Corvair. Lots of people build these from scratch and they
> use pulled "Avex" rivets, so no bucking -- which means they go together a
> lot quicker.
>
> Personally, I understand Netgeek's point about wanting to build from
> scratch. While Van's prices are very attractive compared to what's out
> there, I think the actual material costs are probably only a fraction of
> that.

Don't count on the material being cheap if you if you only buy enough
for one airplane, Van buys in large volumes.

There are lots of people who build metal planes from scratch. I know a
> couple of guys who are building all-metal Polliwagons.

I know of one beautiful RV-6 built from scratch right here practically
in VAN's back
yard. :-)

Jerry

Jerry Springer

April 9th 05, 01:34 AM

Never mind I found the 601 stall speeds and as I figured the RV-9/9A is
still equivalent or slower, even with a 160hp Lyc (44 solo and 50 gross)
Jerry

Gordon Arnaut wrote:

> Hey Guys,
>
> I'm not trying to promote Jime Bede. I've never even owned a Yankee or any
> of Jim's other designs -- alhtough I know several Grumanns owners and they
> are excellent flying airplanes.
>
> The BD-18 does seem like "vaporware" right now, but the smaller single-seat
> BD-17 has flown and I don't see why the BD-18 shouldn't fly just fine.
>
> Another possibility for building an aluminum two-seater from plans is Chris
> Heintz's Zenith 601 series. With a Lyc 235 max cruise is "only" 138mph, but
> stall would be lower than on an RV-9. The Zenith actually has a little more
> wing area than the RV with a max weight that is conisederably lower.
>
> You can use a Rotax 912, Jabiru, Continental O-200, or Lycoming on this
> plane, or even a Corvair. Lots of people build these from scratch and they
> use pulled "Avex" rivets, so no bucking -- which means they go together a
> lot quicker.
>
> Personally, I understand Netgeek's point about wanting to build from
> scratch. While Van's prices are very attractive compared to what's out
> there, I think the actual material costs are probably only a fraction of
> that. There are lots of people who build metal planes from scratch. I know a
> couple of guys who are building all-metal Polliwagons.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gordon.
>
> PS: I would still rather build a wood plane.
>
>
> "C.D.Damron" > wrote in message
> news:Ibu5e.2589$8Z6.1278@attbi_s21...
>
>>"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Has it flown yet? How many are flying, and how many hours?
>>
>>
>>How dare you ask the obvious.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

Gordon Arnaut

April 9th 05, 02:27 AM

Jerry,

From what I can see on the respective websites, the RV-9A stalls at 50mph at
its gross weight of 1750 pounds with the O-320 engine. (Presumably with full
flaps, since Van's does not specify).

The 601XL stalls at 44mph with full flaps at its gross weight of 1300 pounds
with the O-235. So the 601 stall speed is lower by 6mph at gross.

This sounds about right since the RV-9A has a wing area of 124sq.ft. versus
132 sq.ft. for the 601XL.

Regards,

Gordon.
"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
...
>
> Never mind I found the 601 stall speeds and as I figured the RV-9/9A is
> still equivalent or slower, even with a 160hp Lyc (44 solo and 50 gross)
> Jerry
>
> Gordon Arnaut wrote:
>
>> Hey Guys,
>>
>> I'm not trying to promote Jime Bede. I've never even owned a Yankee or
>> any of Jim's other designs -- alhtough I know several Grumanns owners and
>> they are excellent flying airplanes.
>>
>> The BD-18 does seem like "vaporware" right now, but the smaller
>> single-seat BD-17 has flown and I don't see why the BD-18 shouldn't fly
>> just fine.
>>
>> Another possibility for building an aluminum two-seater from plans is
>> Chris Heintz's Zenith 601 series. With a Lyc 235 max cruise is "only"
>> 138mph, but stall would be lower than on an RV-9. The Zenith actually has
>> a little more wing area than the RV with a max weight that is
>> conisederably lower.
>>
>> You can use a Rotax 912, Jabiru, Continental O-200, or Lycoming on this
>> plane, or even a Corvair. Lots of people build these from scratch and
>> they use pulled "Avex" rivets, so no bucking -- which means they go
>> together a lot quicker.
>>
>> Personally, I understand Netgeek's point about wanting to build from
>> scratch. While Van's prices are very attractive compared to what's out
>> there, I think the actual material costs are probably only a fraction of
>> that. There are lots of people who build metal planes from scratch. I
>> know a couple of guys who are building all-metal Polliwagons.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Gordon.
>>
>> PS: I would still rather build a wood plane.
>>
>>
>> "C.D.Damron" > wrote in message
>> news:Ibu5e.2589$8Z6.1278@attbi_s21...
>>
>>>"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>Has it flown yet? How many are flying, and how many hours?
>>>
>>>
>>>How dare you ask the obvious.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>

Highflyer

April 9th 05, 02:36 AM

"Gordon Arnaut" > wrote in message
...
> If you must have an aluminum plane, check out Jim Bede's new design, the
> BD-18. This is an update of Bede's BD-1, which became the Grumman Yankee.
> It's lighter than the Yankee with a smaller wing and can be powered by a
> Jabiru orr Lycoming. The plans are $500, but I understand Bede's plans are
> among the best in the business.
> http://www.bedecorp.com/designs/bd18/intro.htm
>

I would be extremely reluctant to build ANYTHING from Jim Bede until there
were at least 500 or so completed and flying without problems. Aircraft
designed by Bede have been known to have serious and deadly flaws in many
cases that were directly attributable to errors in the design. Three of the
eighteen Bede designs have been reworked by others until they became more or
less acceptable. Some are still dangerous. Avoid these offerings. One
example of a Bede design that was significantly reworked until it became
flyable is the Grumman Yankee. Several million dollars were spent by many
people to make that airplane reasonably safe to fly and get it certified.

>
> I'm glad someone mentioned the Emeraude. Another venerable wood and fabric
> design is the Jodel, which is similar to the Emeraurde but has a unique
> "bent" wing. Some of the smaller simpler models ones can be built in 1000
> hours or therabouts.
> <snip>
>

Anything designed by Claude Piel will be an excellent airplane and the plans
are very good. Many of his designs are certified. The Emeraude is a very
nice one. So are the Diamant and the Beryll. Most of his designs are named
after jewels. An Emeraude powered by an O-200 Continental ( which you can
buy for a fraction of the cost of the Lycoming used in the RV series ) makes
an extremely gentle and flyable airplane that is a pleasure to fly. It is
not a two hundred mile an hour airplane but it will fly very slowly under
complete control and if the engine quits you will most likely walk away
without injury and likely the airplane will as well. The beautiful
elliptical wing is lovely but a chore to build since no more than two parts
are the same and they are likely a left and right hand pair! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

PHILLIP COYLE

August 21st 05, 01:11 AM

I just had to put this in. I owned a Yankee and I found that it was the best
plane that I have ever flown. It just became a part of you when you got in
and it handled great. It was fast for just a 235 engine and if I were not
disabled I would be looking for another one. I hae seen a number of Bede's
kit planes BD4's and BD10-J and all in all they have been very good. The way
that I see it the people that say that they are no goo are the ones that
have never flown one. I will say that you have to be on your toes most of
the time but that is where the fun comes from for me. People that just want
to set back and let the plane do everything had best stay away from Bede's
planes

"Gordon Arnaut" > wrote in message
...
> Hey Guys,
>
> I'm not trying to promote Jime Bede. I've never even owned a Yankee or any
> of Jim's other designs -- alhtough I know several Grumanns owners and they
> are excellent flying airplanes.
>
> The BD-18 does seem like "vaporware" right now, but the smaller
single-seat
> BD-17 has flown and I don't see why the BD-18 shouldn't fly just fine.
>
> Another possibility for building an aluminum two-seater from plans is
Chris
> Heintz's Zenith 601 series. With a Lyc 235 max cruise is "only" 138mph,
but
> stall would be lower than on an RV-9. The Zenith actually has a little
more
> wing area than the RV with a max weight that is conisederably lower.
>
> You can use a Rotax 912, Jabiru, Continental O-200, or Lycoming on this
> plane, or even a Corvair. Lots of people build these from scratch and they
> use pulled "Avex" rivets, so no bucking -- which means they go together a
> lot quicker.
>
> Personally, I understand Netgeek's point about wanting to build from
> scratch. While Van's prices are very attractive compared to what's out
> there, I think the actual material costs are probably only a fraction of
> that. There are lots of people who build metal planes from scratch. I know
a
> couple of guys who are building all-metal Polliwagons.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gordon.
>
> PS: I would still rather build a wood plane.
>
>
> "C.D.Damron" > wrote in message
> news:Ibu5e.2589$8Z6.1278@attbi_s21...
> >
> > "Morgans" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Has it flown yet? How many are flying, and how many hours?
> >
> >
> > How dare you ask the obvious.
> >
> >
>
>
>

john smith

August 21st 05, 03:27 PM

Richard Riley wrote:
> I agree with you about the BD-4. But every single BD10 that's flown
> has killed the pilot, except for the prototype - and the pilot there
> was VERY lucky to get it back on the ground after the vertical failed.

No it hasn't!!!
Jim Prebie is still alive, although in prison for awhile after he built
and flew it.

john smith

August 21st 05, 11:16 PM

Richard Riley wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:27:17 GMT, john smith > wrote:
>
> :Richard Riley wrote:
> :> I agree with you about the BD-4. But every single BD10 that's flown
> :> has killed the pilot, except for the prototype - and the pilot there
> :> was VERY lucky to get it back on the ground after the vertical failed.
> :
> :No it hasn't!!!
> :Jim Prebie is still alive, although in prison for awhile after he built
> :and flew it.
>
> I don't know Prebie, and I don't find a record for a BD-10 with that
> name as owner or builder.

I cannot even find an NTSB record for a gear-up accident involving the
aircraft at KMRT, Marysville OH. Photos are somewhere in my archives.