AND THE KIS CRUISER ROUNDS THE PYLON...

[Paul Folbrecht]

Merry Christmas to all RAHers!!

For no particular reason, I've decided to give a little "brain dump" of
where I am right now in my kitplane choosing process.

A little background. I'd been dreaming of a two-place kitplane for a
number of years, leaning heavily towards an RV-9A for a long time, after
looking closely also at Pulsars and the Zenith 601XL. Over the last
numbers of months, though, I've decided that I simply can't build
anything less than a four-seater, which pretty much had me starting over
in the research.

Few quick words about my flying background: I started training seriously
for my PPL in September of '03 and got my ticket in January (of this
year) at about 65 hours. I bought a 152 a short time later and start
racking up the hours - passed 200 last month. Yes, I fly a lot. Partly
because I've been working on the instrument rating since August, which I
should have within a couple months.

My Mission:

- Real 4-place aircraft that can carry 4 adults with baggage and 3-hours
fuel.

- Cruise at least 150 KTAS at altitude.

- Must be a decent IFR platform - stable enough to fly hands-off in the
clouds for a few seconds at a time. Not a "fly it all the time" type
aircraft.

That's really it for the 'must-haves'. A few more 'want-to-haves' which
will come out below.

So, back to the kit choice. I started out with a heavy bias towards
Van's due to a lot of reasons: I really like(d) the idea of metalworking
vs. composites, the great popularity of the designs (# flying, builder
support), the sheer sexiness, the performance - well, all the reasons
they're the #1 kitplane producer. So, I took a long and hard look at
the RV-10 (so long and hard, actually, that the airplane began to get a
bit uncomfortable, I sensed). Suberb aircraft, no doubt. It's a
scaled-up RV - how could it not be?? But what has turned me off is the
sticker-shock. It'll just cost too much to build (by MY standards),
partly because a constant speed prop is NECESSARY (factory told me this)
and partly because, of course, it needs a big honkin Lyc or Cont up
front - it HAS to be a 6-cyl, for w&b reasons (also from the factory).
Because I also want a full IFR panel that'll probably cost $20K, this
pushes up the completed cost of the aircraft to over $100K, which is
just too much for me - my goal is $85K.

(My current experience with my littler Lyc has really disuaded me from
wanting one with two MORE cylinders to buy/feed/maintain. I recently
had a bit of topend work done - HEY, LYCOMING - $250+ FOR AN EXHAUST
VALVE??? HELLO???? WHAT ARE YOU THINKING???)

So, for reasons of initial/OH cost, maintenance, and fuel burn, I want
an aircraft that gives good performance with a 4-cylinder traditional
aircraft engine, OR one of these babies:

http://deltahawkengines.com

More on that later.

(Any sort of auto-conversion is NOT an option for me. No sir. Not if
it was free. And please nobody bogart my thread to flame me for this
comment.)

I'm going to try to shorten this up now. After I threw out the 10 I
started reading more about DeltaHawk - for one thing these guys are
based very near me and I was once present for some static testing they
were doing on their 172 testbed. Their engines look awesome on paper,
in theory, seem to run great, and are wonderfully smooth. I've been
intrigued for awhile, and now they're finally nearing shipping
production engines.

Anyway, they've got a Velocity testbed, and are partnering with
Velocity, which is actually what got me to taking a very close look at
the Velocity SE FG. There is a lot to like there:

1) Looks. Mean nothing - except to me, and everyone else. They just
look so darn cool.

2) Excellent cruise performance on only 180hp (or even 160).

3) Big enough for 4 adults (a little cramped, and no real baggage room).

4) Partnering with DeltaHawk on a FWF kit. Big plus.

5) Solid company - good sales, good record.

6) Kit is quite reasonably priced at $27K!

There's only one real negative, to me, but unfortunately it is likely
just too big of a negative - the high 'min' speed and the resulting long
takeoff roll, high approach speed, and long landing roll.

I've read a lot about the aerodynamic differences of canards vs.
conventional, some of it here, and I don't think it needs to be rehashed
again. We all know why these things are true of canards (if you don't,
you can find out). Bottom line is that it seems you need a lot more
runway to operate one than you do a conventional airplane with similar
gross weight & cruise performance.

I am based at MWC, which has runways of 3100' and 4100'. What I'm
waiting to find out is whether or not 3100 is a REASONABLE AND SAFE
runway length for a Velocity SE at gross on an average day with 160hp or
180hp. I have due a demo ride in DeltaHawk's velocity (can't wait)
which should do a lot to answer questions like that. But, from all I've
read, my current conclusion is that 3100' is most likely pushing it, and
that would just eliminate too many of the airports I'm fond of flying
to, some of which have single runways around 2500 ft or so - hell, that
probably eliminates 30%-40% of the GA airports in the country.

(A Long EZ crashed on takeoff at MWC a few years ago due to a much too
long takeoff roll, but I understand he was over gross.)

So - finally on to the posted subject here: the KIS Cruiser! Currently
my front-runner (but who knows). Things I like:

- TRUE 4-place with lots of room!

- Flies just fine on 180hp. A 180 DH might be an option, or I'd be
happy with an experimental Lyc 360 (Superior).

- Has a purty mouth, and other parts too.

- Has a reasonable history - a couple dozen flying, I believe, nothing
but positive reports on performance and stability.

- Kit is reasonably priced at $35K, making my $85K flying cost doable.

Things I still want more info on:

- Exactly how hard is construction? I know jigs are needed - bummer.
I've been spoiled by thoughts of a nice, matched-hole metal RV kit.

- State of the company? I've heard they're for sale. You don't hear
much about Pulsar in general. Their 2-seaters do not seem to be
terribly popular.

That's about it. I figure that I know enough about how a Cruiser flies
without actually flying one, and after I've sampled the Velocity I'll
likely have enough info to make up my mind. I'm currently waiting for a
house to be completed (May) and would like to have whatever kit I decide
on to be arriving within a few weeks of move-in (giving me time to set
up shop).

Any thoughts are quite welcome. Thanks for reading.

~Paul Folbrecht
~PP-SEL
~C152 N89795
~MWC

[Jean-Paul Roy]

Have you had a look at the Zenith CH-801. Great plane, easy to built and
cheap compared to the RV's.
Just an opinion

Jean-Paul
"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
> Merry Christmas to all RAHers!!
>
> For no particular reason, I've decided to give a little "brain dump" of
> where I am right now in my kitplane choosing process.
>
> A little background. I'd been dreaming of a two-place kitplane for a
> number of years, leaning heavily towards an RV-9A for a long time, after
> looking closely also at Pulsars and the Zenith 601XL. Over the last
> numbers of months, though, I've decided that I simply can't build
> anything less than a four-seater, which pretty much had me starting over
> in the research.
>
> Few quick words about my flying background: I started training seriously
> for my PPL in September of '03 and got my ticket in January (of this
> year) at about 65 hours. I bought a 152 a short time later and start
> racking up the hours - passed 200 last month. Yes, I fly a lot. Partly
> because I've been working on the instrument rating since August, which I
> should have within a couple months.
>
> My Mission:
>
> - Real 4-place aircraft that can carry 4 adults with baggage and 3-hours
> fuel.
>
> - Cruise at least 150 KTAS at altitude.
>
> - Must be a decent IFR platform - stable enough to fly hands-off in the
> clouds for a few seconds at a time. Not a "fly it all the time" type
> aircraft.
>
> That's really it for the 'must-haves'. A few more 'want-to-haves' which
> will come out below.
>
> So, back to the kit choice. I started out with a heavy bias towards
> Van's due to a lot of reasons: I really like(d) the idea of metalworking
> vs. composites, the great popularity of the designs (# flying, builder
> support), the sheer sexiness, the performance - well, all the reasons
> they're the #1 kitplane producer. So, I took a long and hard look at
> the RV-10 (so long and hard, actually, that the airplane began to get a
> bit uncomfortable, I sensed). Suberb aircraft, no doubt. It's a
> scaled-up RV - how could it not be?? But what has turned me off is the
> sticker-shock. It'll just cost too much to build (by MY standards),
> partly because a constant speed prop is NECESSARY (factory told me this)
> and partly because, of course, it needs a big honkin Lyc or Cont up
> front - it HAS to be a 6-cyl, for w&b reasons (also from the factory).
> Because I also want a full IFR panel that'll probably cost $20K, this
> pushes up the completed cost of the aircraft to over $100K, which is
> just too much for me - my goal is $85K.
>
> (My current experience with my littler Lyc has really disuaded me from
> wanting one with two MORE cylinders to buy/feed/maintain. I recently
> had a bit of topend work done - HEY, LYCOMING - $250+ FOR AN EXHAUST
> VALVE??? HELLO???? WHAT ARE YOU THINKING???)
>
> So, for reasons of initial/OH cost, maintenance, and fuel burn, I want
> an aircraft that gives good performance with a 4-cylinder traditional
> aircraft engine, OR one of these babies:
>
> http://deltahawkengines.com
>
> More on that later.
>
> (Any sort of auto-conversion is NOT an option for me. No sir. Not if
> it was free. And please nobody bogart my thread to flame me for this
> comment.)
>
> I'm going to try to shorten this up now. After I threw out the 10 I
> started reading more about DeltaHawk - for one thing these guys are
> based very near me and I was once present for some static testing they
> were doing on their 172 testbed. Their engines look awesome on paper,
> in theory, seem to run great, and are wonderfully smooth. I've been
> intrigued for awhile, and now they're finally nearing shipping
> production engines.
>
> Anyway, they've got a Velocity testbed, and are partnering with
> Velocity, which is actually what got me to taking a very close look at
> the Velocity SE FG. There is a lot to like there:
>
> 1) Looks. Mean nothing - except to me, and everyone else. They just
> look so darn cool.
>
> 2) Excellent cruise performance on only 180hp (or even 160).
>
> 3) Big enough for 4 adults (a little cramped, and no real baggage room).
>
> 4) Partnering with DeltaHawk on a FWF kit. Big plus.
>
> 5) Solid company - good sales, good record.
>
> 6) Kit is quite reasonably priced at $27K!
>
> There's only one real negative, to me, but unfortunately it is likely
> just too big of a negative - the high 'min' speed and the resulting long
> takeoff roll, high approach speed, and long landing roll.
>
> I've read a lot about the aerodynamic differences of canards vs.
> conventional, some of it here, and I don't think it needs to be rehashed
> again. We all know why these things are true of canards (if you don't,
> you can find out). Bottom line is that it seems you need a lot more
> runway to operate one than you do a conventional airplane with similar
> gross weight & cruise performance.
>
> I am based at MWC, which has runways of 3100' and 4100'. What I'm
> waiting to find out is whether or not 3100 is a REASONABLE AND SAFE
> runway length for a Velocity SE at gross on an average day with 160hp or
> 180hp. I have due a demo ride in DeltaHawk's velocity (can't wait)
> which should do a lot to answer questions like that. But, from all I've
> read, my current conclusion is that 3100' is most likely pushing it, and
> that would just eliminate too many of the airports I'm fond of flying
> to, some of which have single runways around 2500 ft or so - hell, that
> probably eliminates 30%-40% of the GA airports in the country.
>
> (A Long EZ crashed on takeoff at MWC a few years ago due to a much too
> long takeoff roll, but I understand he was over gross.)
>
> So - finally on to the posted subject here: the KIS Cruiser! Currently
> my front-runner (but who knows). Things I like:
>
> - TRUE 4-place with lots of room!
>
> - Flies just fine on 180hp. A 180 DH might be an option, or I'd be
> happy with an experimental Lyc 360 (Superior).
>
> - Has a purty mouth, and other parts too.
>
> - Has a reasonable history - a couple dozen flying, I believe, nothing
> but positive reports on performance and stability.
>
> - Kit is reasonably priced at $35K, making my $85K flying cost doable.
>
> Things I still want more info on:
>
> - Exactly how hard is construction? I know jigs are needed - bummer.
> I've been spoiled by thoughts of a nice, matched-hole metal RV kit.
>
> - State of the company? I've heard they're for sale. You don't hear
> much about Pulsar in general. Their 2-seaters do not seem to be
> terribly popular
> That's about it. I figure that

[RobertR237]

>
>So - finally on to the posted subject here: the KIS Cruiser! Currently
>my front-runner (but who knows). Things I like:
>
>- TRUE 4-place with lots of room!
>
>- Flies just fine on 180hp. A 180 DH might be an option, or I'd be
>happy with an experimental Lyc 360 (Superior).
>
>- Has a purty mouth, and other parts too.
>
>- Has a reasonable history - a couple dozen flying, I believe, nothing
>but positive reports on performance and stability.
>
>- Kit is reasonably priced at $35K, making my $85K flying cost doable.
>
>Things I still want more info on:
>
>- Exactly how hard is construction? I know jigs are needed - bummer.
>I've been spoiled by thoughts of a nice, matched-hole metal RV kit.
>
>- State of the company? I've heard they're for sale. You don't hear
>much about Pulsar in general. Their 2-seaters do not seem to be
>terribly popular.
>
>That's about it. I figure that I know enough about how a Cruiser flies
>without actually flying one, and after I've sampled the Velocity I'll
>likely have enough info to make up my mind. I'm currently waiting for a
>house to be completed (May) and would like to have whatever kit I decide
>on to be arriving within a few weeks of move-in (giving me time to set
>up shop).
>
>Any thoughts are quite welcome. Thanks for reading.
>
>~Paul Folbrecht
>~PP-SEL
>~C152 N89795
>~MWC

Paul,

Based on the analysis you have done, I believe the KIS would be a great choice.
There are a number of changes going on at Pulsar (KIS supplier) which makes it
a lot easier for me to give a recommendation as well. I am building (off and
on) a KIS Cruiser as well and have the unofficial builders web site. You can
get on the KISBUILDERS newsgroup and get all the help you need as well.

Check out my website and contact me direct ) if you have any
questions. The web site has hundreds of photos and lots of tips from multiple
builders. We would welcome you to the group and might even have a couple of
builders in your area. If there are any completed aircraft in your area you
might even be able to catch a ride with one of the proud owners.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[David Tate]

The only jig needed is for the wing. The upper and lower wing skins provided
with the kit already have the proper contour so its just a matter of making
a simple cradle by cutting a half dozen or so ribs from plywood with a
scroll saw to support the preformed skins. No riveting, drilling or bending
of metal. Just slather on some epoxy resin, pile on some sandbags to hold
things in place and go take a nap till the epoxy hardens.

See Bob Reed's message about Pulsar. There has been abominable factory
support in the past but they seem to be in the process of reorganizing.

There are a few of us that have completed a KIS Cruiser and love them. The
closest to MCW are probably mine in the Cleveland, OH area and a real beauty
in Mankato, MN. Neither of us needs much excuse to show you how it flies.

Dave Tate (KIS Cruiser with Lycoming O-360 and 260 hrs tt)


----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Folbrecht" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 11:58 AM
Subject: AND THE KIS CRUISER ROUNDS THE PYLON...


>> Things I still want more info on:
>
> - Exactly how hard is construction? I know jigs are needed - bummer.
> I've been spoiled by thoughts of a nice, matched-hole metal RV kit.
>
> - State of the company? I've heard they're for sale. You don't hear
> much about Pulsar in general. Their 2-seaters do not seem to be
> terribly popular.
>
> That's about it. I figure that I know enough about how a Cruiser flies
> without actually flying one, and after I've sampled the Velocity I'll
> likely have enough info to make up my mind. I'm currently waiting for a
> house to be completed (May) and would like to have whatever kit I decide
> on to be arriving within a few weeks of move-in (giving me time to set
> up shop).
>
> Any thoughts are quite welcome. Thanks for reading.
>
> ~Paul Folbrecht
> ~PP-SEL
> ~C152 N89795
> ~MWC

[Clyde Torres]

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
> My Mission:
>
> - Real 4-place aircraft that can carry 4 adults with baggage and 3-hours
> fuel.
>
> - Cruise at least 150 KTAS at altitude.
>
> - Must be a decent IFR platform - stable enough to fly hands-off in the
> clouds for a few seconds at a time. Not a "fly it all the time" type
> aircraft.

> - Kit is reasonably priced at $35K, making my $85K flying cost doable.

> - Has a reasonable history - a couple dozen flying, I believe, nothing
> but positive reports on performance and stability.

You are sadly mistaken if you think that there is a four seater IFR platform
with 3 hours (really almost 4) of fuel flying >150 KTAS out there. Just
mentioning an airplane like the KIS Cruiser will make guys jump in and start
trying to sell you on it regardless of whether it can meet your needs or
not. Their objective, just like the others, is to get you to go with what
they are building. Later on you will find out that it really doesn't meet
your mission profile. In fact, your mission profile doesn't meet your
objectives above, especially the $85K sticker shock. If you are worried
about the cost of an exhaust valve on a 152, then you need to stick to RC
model airplanes, much less a non-existent four seater.

There are many guys out there that started building airplanes with good
intentions and found out that they just couldn't afford one or had the time
to build it. They are the vast majority in fact. You either need to face
reality now or get ready to face it in a few years when you're selling off
your uncompleted project.

BTW, a decent IFR platform isn't just a stable airplane that can be flown
hands off for a few seconds. It involves an instrument package that is
going to cost you more than you think.

Clyde Torres

[Paul Folbrecht]

> You are sadly mistaken if you think that there is a four seater IFR platform
> with 3 hours (really almost 4) of fuel flying >150 KTAS out there. Just

Well, I suppose, then, that the RV-10 and Velocity XL do not actually
exist. Or that their designers GREATLY exaggerate their performance
figures. Or that, based on your definition of an IFR platform (I can
only imagine), they don't qualify.

> mentioning an airplane like the KIS Cruiser will make guys jump in and start
> trying to sell you on it regardless of whether it can meet your needs or
> not. Their objective, just like the others, is to get you to go with what
> they are building. Later on you will find out that it really doesn't meet
> your mission profile. In fact, your mission profile doesn't meet your

A devious, devious, bunch, to be sure. I hear many of them sell their
own children to finance their aircraft.

> objectives above, especially the $85K sticker shock. If you are worried
> about the cost of an exhaust valve on a 152, then you need to stick to RC
> model airplanes, much less a non-existent four seater.

You think it makes sense that an exhaust valve costs $250? You think
that is perfectly reasonable and logical?

Having to replace all the valves, unexpectedly, isn't something I
relished, but most certainly something I was capable of covering. Yes,
that's aviation. Actually, I fly much _less_ airplane than I can afford.

> There are many guys out there that started building airplanes with good
> intentions and found out that they just couldn't afford one or had the time
> to build it. They are the vast majority in fact. You either need to face
> reality now or get ready to face it in a few years when you're selling off
> your uncompleted project.

You need to see a therapist and get to the bottom of your pessimistic,
antisocial attitude. You live for this type of thing, don't you?

> BTW, a decent IFR platform isn't just a stable airplane that can be flown
> hands off for a few seconds. It involves an instrument package that is
> going to cost you more than you think.

Oh, yes, you're right, I have not an inkling. I've done no research
whatsoever. The figure of $20,000 for a decent panel that I mentioned
is completely off the wall. Even though the entirely usable, real-world
IFR panel I have in my Cessna 152 (dual King nav/coms, one with GS,
Garmin 340 w/markers, VFR GPS), right now, cost half of that.

Merry Christmas!

[Paul Folbrecht]

Bob,

Thanks. I'm already familiar with your excellent site. Makes up for
the lack of other builder's KIS sites, to be sure.

> Paul,
>
> Based on the analysis you have done, I believe the KIS would be a great choice.
> There are a number of changes going on at Pulsar (KIS supplier) which makes it
> a lot easier for me to give a recommendation as well. I am building (off and
> on) a KIS Cruiser as well and have the unofficial builders web site. You can
> get on the KISBUILDERS newsgroup and get all the help you need as well.
>
> Check out my website and contact me direct ) if you have any
> questions. The web site has hundreds of photos and lots of tips from multiple
> builders. We would welcome you to the group and might even have a couple of
> builders in your area. If there are any completed aircraft in your area you
> might even be able to catch a ride with one of the proud owners.
>
>
> Bob Reed
> www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
> KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....
>
> "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
> pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
> (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
>

[Paul Folbrecht]

Jean-Paul,

Really just not what I'm looking for. I'm not looking for a STOL
aircraft. The 801 is too slow.

> Have you had a look at the Zenith CH-801. Great plane, easy to built and
> cheap compared to the RV's.
> Just an opinion

[Clyde Torres]

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
> > You are sadly mistaken if you think that there is a four seater IFR
platform
> > with 3 hours (really almost 4) of fuel flying >150 KTAS out there. Just
>
> Well, I suppose, then, that the RV-10 and Velocity XL do not actually
> exist. Or that their designers GREATLY exaggerate their performance
> figures. Or that, based on your definition of an IFR platform (I can
> only imagine), they don't qualify.

For $85K you are dreaming.

Clyde Torres

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Paul Folbrecht wrote:

> I am based at MWC, which has runways of 3100' and 4100'. What I'm
> waiting to find out is whether or not 3100 is a REASONABLE AND SAFE
> runway length for a Velocity SE at gross on an average day with 160hp
or
> 180hp. ...... But, from all I've
> read, my current conclusion is that 3100' is most likely pushing
it.......

I fly a COZY MKIV with a 180 HP O-360. The performance (TO, climb,
landing) should be pretty close to the SE FG, although the COZY will
cruise faster (I plan for 175 KT block speed, and get it). I fly out of
Fitchburg, MA (KFIT) which has 4500 and 3400 ft. runways, at 350 ft MSL.
Even at gross weight, I rarely take more than 1/2 the long runway to
lift off. I've often flown into 2900 ft. fields, although I wouldn't be
very comfortable trying to get out of there at gross (2155 lb., for my
plane). I can land and stop my plane, at any weight, in less than 2000
ft - usually closer to 1500 ft.

Personally, I would say that MWC is more than adequate and safe for 99%
of the flying that most folks do with a 4-seater - how often do you
really load the plane to gross weight? When I'm alone, I'm off the
ground in about 1500 ft, and if it's cold, even less. I think that even
if you were at gross weight, the 4100 ft runway is completely adequate
except on the hottest of days.

Also, with respect to cost, I've got $70K in my COZY (IFR legal
w/autopilot), and it's one of the more expensive ones, I'm told - most
build for less.

Contact me directly if you like for more detailed info.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2004

[Paul Dow]

I haven't seen the Zenith CH-640 mentioned in this thread yet.
www.zenair.com As you proabaly know, every plane is the result of
comprimises. The base price is $24,800, $35,190 for quick build. About
the only comprimize from your point would be to replace your knot
specification with MPH. Takeoff roll is listed at 990 ft. at gross. It
would be nice if it had more modern looking cooling inlets, but other
than those items it looks like something you may want to consider.


Paul Folbrecht wrote:
> Jean-Paul,
>
> Really just not what I'm looking for. I'm not looking for a STOL
> aircraft. The 801 is too slow.
>
>> Have you had a look at the Zenith CH-801. Great plane, easy to built and
>> cheap compared to the RV's.
>> Just an opinion

[Paul Folbrecht]

I know you can't get an RV-10 for $85K. Used engine, and bare min VFR
panel, maybe. Neither can you get an IFR Velocity XL for that. But I
think you can build an IFR Velocity SE or KIS Cruiser for that amount,
fixed-pitch prop, new engine.

> "Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>You are sadly mistaken if you think that there is a four seater IFR
>
> platform
>
>>>with 3 hours (really almost 4) of fuel flying >150 KTAS out there. Just
>>
>>Well, I suppose, then, that the RV-10 and Velocity XL do not actually
>>exist. Or that their designers GREATLY exaggerate their performance
>>figures. Or that, based on your definition of an IFR platform (I can
>>only imagine), they don't qualify.
>
>
> For $85K you are dreaming.
>
> Clyde Torres
>
>

[Paul Folbrecht]

I'm looking, and admit I'm intrigued, though my gut feeling is that this
may be an aircraft that I might just not be completely happy with. I
plan on quite likely flying what I build for a very long time (I'm 34),
so I want to build exactly what I want. But thanks, as I wasn't aware
of this design.

P.S. Back when I was looking for a two-seater I did consider the XL, but
rejected it in favor of an RV as a, well, just all-around better
airplane (with far better performance). But while an XL is really no
cheaper to build than an RV-9, the 640 does offer the big advantage (as
I see it) over the RV-10 as accepting a 4-cyl engine and FP prop.

Paul Dow wrote:

> I haven't seen the Zenith CH-640 mentioned in this thread yet.
> www.zenair.com As you proabaly know, every plane is the result of
> comprimises. The base price is $24,800, $35,190 for quick build. About
> the only comprimize from your point would be to replace your knot
> specification with MPH. Takeoff roll is listed at 990 ft. at gross. It
> would be nice if it had more modern looking cooling inlets, but other
> than those items it looks like something you may want to consider.
>
>
> Paul Folbrecht wrote:
>
>> Jean-Paul,
>>
>> Really just not what I'm looking for. I'm not looking for a STOL
>> aircraft. The 801 is too slow.
>>
>>> Have you had a look at the Zenith CH-801. Great plane, easy to built and
>>> cheap compared to the RV's.
>>> Just an opinion

[Paul Folbrecht]

Hey, pls accept my apology for the "personal" (though not serious)
comments in my previous reply to you. It was a bit stronger than it
needed to be, and on Christmas yet. I'm bad.

Clyde Torres wrote:

> "Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>You are sadly mistaken if you think that there is a four seater IFR
>
> platform
>
>>>with 3 hours (really almost 4) of fuel flying >150 KTAS out there. Just
>>
>>Well, I suppose, then, that the RV-10 and Velocity XL do not actually
>>exist. Or that their designers GREATLY exaggerate their performance
>>figures. Or that, based on your definition of an IFR platform (I can
>>only imagine), they don't qualify.
>
>
> For $85K you are dreaming.
>
> Clyde Torres
>
>

[Clyde Torres]

Paul, apologies accepted on the other email.

My point is, though, that $85K is a low number for a true four seater IFR
platform that performs the way you want it to. The numbers I've seen are
way up in the >$135K range. Every bird I've seen that used an O-360/O-320
and had four seats was not really a four seater capable of carrying four
people comfortably with some bags and enough fuel to fly four hours. You
need a bigger airframe and a bigger engine, thus driving the costs up.
Every person that has done this analysis before you either gave up or
settled for a two person airplane that has four seats. Many of these
aircraft are wonderful aircraft - better than production models. They will
haul two people very comfortably with plenty of room for fuel and bags, but
as soon as you put two people in the back, you are very limited in what you
can carry.

Clyde


"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
> I know you can't get an RV-10 for $85K. Used engine, and bare min VFR
> panel, maybe. Neither can you get an IFR Velocity XL for that. But I
> think you can build an IFR Velocity SE or KIS Cruiser for that amount,
> fixed-pitch prop, new engine.
>
> > "Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>>You are sadly mistaken if you think that there is a four seater IFR
> >
> > platform
> >
> >>>with 3 hours (really almost 4) of fuel flying >150 KTAS out there.
Just
> >>
> >>Well, I suppose, then, that the RV-10 and Velocity XL do not actually
> >>exist. Or that their designers GREATLY exaggerate their performance
> >>figures. Or that, based on your definition of an IFR platform (I can
> >>only imagine), they don't qualify.
> >
> >
> > For $85K you are dreaming.
> >
> > Clyde Torres
> >
> >

[RobertR237]

>
>Bob,
>
>Thanks. I'm already familiar with your excellent site. Makes up for
>the lack of other builder's KIS sites, to be sure.
>
>

Paul,

One of the biggest selling points for the KIS Cruiser, at least for me, was the
size of the aircraft in comparison to most of the other four place aircraft.
It is not a big aircraft, just a bit larger than an RV-6 but will take four
adults in relative comfort. (Better than many production 4-place aircraft.) It
would not however handle four adults and a large baggage load as well.

Like you, I wanted a plane that gave me a good compromise between speed,
comfort, passenger load, and economy. The Cruiser met those goals very well.
It is a true four place from load capacity but isn't overly spacious in the
back seat but is very comfortable for those average four passenger flights.
The biggest point for me was that it could carry my wife and me along with all
the baggage we would ever want to haul around which is saying a lot for my
wife. <BG> The O-360, or IO-360 is easily available and offers good economy
when combined with the cruise speed of the Cruiser. The wing loading makes for
good IFR platform as well.

In any case, I would agree that the KIS Cruiser would be a good choice and it
not difficult to build either.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[RobertR237]

>
>> You are sadly mistaken if you think that there is a four seater IFR
>platform
>> with 3 hours (really almost 4) of fuel flying >150 KTAS out there. Just
>
>Well, I suppose, then, that the RV-10 and Velocity XL do not actually
>exist. Or that their designers GREATLY exaggerate their performance
>figures. Or that, based on your definition of an IFR platform (I can
>only imagine), they don't qualify.
>

They are just illusions and don't really exist. Damn good looking illusions
though.

>> mentioning an airplane like the KIS Cruiser will make guys jump in and
>start
>> trying to sell you on it regardless of whether it can meet your needs or
>> not. Their objective, just like the others, is to get you to go with what
>> they are building. Later on you will find out that it really doesn't meet
>> your mission profile. In fact, your mission profile doesn't meet your
>
>A devious, devious, bunch, to be sure. I hear many of them sell their
>own children to finance their aircraft.
>

I DID NOT! Nobody would give me what I was asking...they all wanted me to pay
to take them off my hands. <BG>

>> objectives above, especially the $85K sticker shock. If you are worried
>> about the cost of an exhaust valve on a 152, then you need to stick to RC
>> model airplanes, much less a non-existent four seater.
>
>You think it makes sense that an exhaust valve costs $250? You think
>that is perfectly reasonable and logical?
>
>Having to replace all the valves, unexpectedly, isn't something I
>relished, but most certainly something I was capable of covering. Yes,
>that's aviation. Actually, I fly much _less_ airplane than I can afford.
>
>> There are many guys out there that started building airplanes with good
>> intentions and found out that they just couldn't afford one or had the time
>> to build it. They are the vast majority in fact. You either need to face
>> reality now or get ready to face it in a few years when you're selling off
>> your uncompleted project.
>
>You need to see a therapist and get to the bottom of your pessimistic,
>antisocial attitude. You live for this type of thing, don't you?
>
>> BTW, a decent IFR platform isn't just a stable airplane that can be flown
>> hands off for a few seconds. It involves an instrument package that is
>> going to cost you more than you think.
>
>Oh, yes, you're right, I have not an inkling. I've done no research
>whatsoever. The figure of $20,000 for a decent panel that I mentioned
>is completely off the wall. Even though the entirely usable, real-world
>IFR panel I have in my Cessna 152 (dual King nav/coms, one with GS,
>Garmin 340 w/markers, VFR GPS), right now, cost half of that.
>
>Merry Christmas!

Actually, the IFR panel for a homebuilt will cost a whole lot less than one for
a production aircraft.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[RobertR237]

>
>"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
>> > You are sadly mistaken if you think that there is a four seater IFR
>platform
>> > with 3 hours (really almost 4) of fuel flying >150 KTAS out there. Just
>>
>> Well, I suppose, then, that the RV-10 and Velocity XL do not actually
>> exist. Or that their designers GREATLY exaggerate their performance
>> figures. Or that, based on your definition of an IFR platform (I can
>> only imagine), they don't qualify.
>
>For $85K you are dreaming.
>
>Clyde Torres

Wrong...very possible especially for the RV-10 but probably not for you.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[RobertR237]

>
>Paul, apologies accepted on the other email.
>
>My point is, though, that $85K is a low number for a true four seater IFR
>platform that performs the way you want it to. The numbers I've seen are
>way up in the >$135K range.

Don't know who's numbers you have seen but yes, the $135K range is not unusual
but not required either. The difference is in the details and I do mean in the
details. If you do the work yourself and don't have the panel custom
fabricated, custom interiors, constant speed props, FADEC systems, and a host
of other very expensive options, the costs come down considerably. So before
you say it "can't" be done, do the detail research to determine the cost
breakdown and what could be done.

>Every bird I've seen that used an O-360/O-320
>and had four seats was not really a four seater capable of carrying four
>people comfortably with some bags and enough fuel to fly four hours.

You have seen and detailed all the four place aircraft? Don't believe so.

>You need a bigger airframe and a bigger engine, thus driving the costs up.

Depends on mission profile. If you intend to fly four and a lot of baggage all
the time, I might agree but if that is NOT your mission, I totally disagree.

>Every person that has done this analysis before you either gave up or
>settled for a two person airplane that has four seats.

TOTALLY WRONG! And you don't speak for everyone. By the way, I have flown two
different KIS Cruisers with four people on board and in one case it was also
loaded with baggage. Both flights were fairly comfortable and the performance
was great.

>Many of these
>aircraft are wonderful aircraft - better than production models. They will
>haul two people very comfortably with plenty of room for fuel and bags, but
>as soon as you put two people in the back, you are very limited in what you
>can carry.
>
>Clyde

Hell, I know of many twins that suffer the same fate so should we say that all
twins are equally limited? Sorry Clyde but you need to do a little more
homework.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Clyde Torres]

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
> >You are sadly mistaken if you think that there is a four seater IFR
platform
> >with 3 hours (really almost 4) of fuel flying >150 KTAS out there. Just
> >mentioning an airplane like the KIS Cruiser will make guys jump in and
start
> >trying to sell you on it regardless of whether it can meet your needs or
> >not. Their objective, just like the others, is to get you to go with
what
> >they are building. Later on you will find out that it really doesn't
meet
> >your mission profile. In fact, your mission profile doesn't meet your
> >objectives above, especially the $85K sticker shock. If you are worried
> >about the cost of an exhaust valve on a 152, then you need to stick to RC
> >model airplanes, much less a non-existent four seater.
> >
>
> Sorry Clyde, but you don't know what you are talking about and it shows.
>
> >There are many guys out there that started building airplanes with good
> >intentions and found out that they just couldn't afford one or had the
time
> >to build it. They are the vast majority in fact. You either need to
face
> >reality now or get ready to face it in a few years when you're selling
off
> >your uncompleted project.
> >
>
> Gee, tell that to the thousands who are flying their homebuilts. Yes,
some
> underestimate the cost but the $85K is very doable for the KIS Cruiser and
if
> you don't believe me, I believe Dave Tate who commented earlier can add
> clarification.
>
> >BTW, a decent IFR platform isn't just a stable airplane that can be flown
> >hands off for a few seconds. It involves an instrument package that is
> >going to cost you more than you think.
> >
> >Clyde Torres
>
> Well Clyde, why don't you inform us all on the details of what you think
or are
> you just proficient and saying it can't be done.

Paul, here is an example of a person who is trying very hard to sell you on
what he is building. If you buy into it, you will find that you will not be
able to build what will meet your stated mission profile for $85K.
Referring to another fellow builder to add clarification is an example of
baiting you to build what they are building. If you really want to quantify
what I am talking about, take them up on it. Don't ask a builder, though.
Ask one who has built and is flying a platform similar to what you want. If
he is flying avionics from the 1980s, they will be prone to failures and in
general be maintenance headaches. If you value the lives of yourself and
your family, select avionics that are more up to date and in line with
today's navigational aids. Don't get LORAN, get an IFR approved GPS for
example. Get a six pack that is recommended for IFR work and get good ones.
If you go cheap on this stuff, you will be putting yourself and your family
in peril. Once you price what a very good IFR avionics/instrument package
costs, you will begin to understand and appreciate the real cost of an IFR
platform. And that's just a beginning. Surely you can buy a mid-life
engine and run it for a while. Nothing wrong with that. But earlier you
mentioned the DeltaHawk or an XP360. Have you priced those engines lately?
As I said earlier, to get a real four seater, you will have to move up to a
bigger engine than that, because the airframe will be bigger. It's just a
basic fact of life that you cannot get a true four seater to carry bags and
fuel for a decent long distance flight for $85K. As this poster said in an
earlier email, he can carry himself and his wife and their bags but that's
about it. The KIS SC is a wonderful airplane for that specific purpose, but
it is NOT a true four seater with bag capability (unless you're calling your
wife a bag) and long distance capability at 150 TAS with a decent IFR panel
for $85K. It's just not possible. Don't take a builder's word for it.
Challenge someone who is flying such a platform and quantify the
performance, the quality of instruments and engine, and how much money he
has in it. I guarantee you that it will not add up as you think.

Yep, I know I sound like the Grinch, but I am just trying to set you
straight.

Clyde Torres

[Matt Whiting]

RobertR237 wrote:

>>>You are sadly mistaken if you think that there is a four seater IFR
>>
>>platform
>>
>>>with 3 hours (really almost 4) of fuel flying >150 KTAS out there. Just
>>
>>Well, I suppose, then, that the RV-10 and Velocity XL do not actually
>>exist. Or that their designers GREATLY exaggerate their performance
>>figures. Or that, based on your definition of an IFR platform (I can
>>only imagine), they don't qualify.
>>
>
>
> They are just illusions and don't really exist. Damn good looking illusions
> though.
>
>
>>>mentioning an airplane like the KIS Cruiser will make guys jump in and
>>
>>start
>>
>>>trying to sell you on it regardless of whether it can meet your needs or
>>>not. Their objective, just like the others, is to get you to go with what
>>>they are building. Later on you will find out that it really doesn't meet
>>>your mission profile. In fact, your mission profile doesn't meet your
>>
>>A devious, devious, bunch, to be sure. I hear many of them sell their
>>own children to finance their aircraft.
>>
>
>
> I DID NOT! Nobody would give me what I was asking...they all wanted me to pay
> to take them off my hands. <BG>
>
>>>objectives above, especially the $85K sticker shock. If you are worried
>>>about the cost of an exhaust valve on a 152, then you need to stick to RC
>>>model airplanes, much less a non-existent four seater.
>>
>>You think it makes sense that an exhaust valve costs $250? You think
>>that is perfectly reasonable and logical?
>>
>>Having to replace all the valves, unexpectedly, isn't something I
>>relished, but most certainly something I was capable of covering. Yes,
>>that's aviation. Actually, I fly much _less_ airplane than I can afford.
>>
>>
>>>There are many guys out there that started building airplanes with good
>>>intentions and found out that they just couldn't afford one or had the time
>>>to build it. They are the vast majority in fact. You either need to face
>>>reality now or get ready to face it in a few years when you're selling off
>>>your uncompleted project.
>>
>>You need to see a therapist and get to the bottom of your pessimistic,
>>antisocial attitude. You live for this type of thing, don't you?
>>
>>
>>>BTW, a decent IFR platform isn't just a stable airplane that can be flown
>>>hands off for a few seconds. It involves an instrument package that is
>>>going to cost you more than you think.
>>
>>Oh, yes, you're right, I have not an inkling. I've done no research
>>whatsoever. The figure of $20,000 for a decent panel that I mentioned
>>is completely off the wall. Even though the entirely usable, real-world
>>IFR panel I have in my Cessna 152 (dual King nav/coms, one with GS,
>>Garmin 340 w/markers, VFR GPS), right now, cost half of that.
>>
>>Merry Christmas!
>
>
> Actually, the IFR panel for a homebuilt will cost a whole lot less than one for
> a production aircraft.

Yes, how much does a compass, turn coordinator and one nav/comm cost
anyway? :-)


Matt

[David Tate]

Bob Reed is correct.

$85K is very reasonable for the KIS Cruiser. Mine, equipped with factory new
Lycoming O-360 was considerably less that because I went with the old
fashioned gyros and steam gauges in the instrument panel that I've grown
accustomed to over the past 40 years of flying.

Bob Anderson, who recently completed his KIS Cruiser (and won the prize at
Oshkosh last sumer) probably spent that much because of all the goodies in
the panel, such as glass cockpit, panel mount GPS, angle of attack meter etc
as well as professionally designed interior upholstery.

Dave Tate Serial #4052 260 hrs TT


"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > Gee, tell that to the thousands who are flying their homebuilts. Yes,
some
> underestimate the cost but the $85K is very doable for the KIS Cruiser and
if
> you don't believe me, I believe Dave Tate who commented earlier can add
> clarification.
>> Bob Reed
> www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
> KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....
>
> "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
> pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
> (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
>

[[email protected]]

"...The wing loading makes for good IFR platform as well. ..."
How is wing loading related to IFR?

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> "...The wing loading makes for good IFR platform as well. ..."
> How is wing loading related to IFR?
>

A higher wing loading generally translates to a better ride in turbulence.


Matt

[RobertR237]

>
>Paul, here is an example of a person who is trying very hard to sell you on
>what he is building. If you buy into it, you will find that you will not be
>able to build what will meet your stated mission profile for $85K.

And you are the classic example of the pundits who are always setting on the
sideline saying "It can't be done because YOU can't do it."

>Referring to another fellow builder to add clarification is an example of
>baiting you to build what they are building. If you really want to quantify
>what I am talking about, take them up on it. Don't ask a builder, though.
>Ask one who has built and is flying a platform similar to what you want.

Sorry Clyde but that is exactly what I suggested that he do, in fact, I
suggested that he join the builders group which includes a number of builders
who have already completed their aircraft and are quite happy with them.


>If he is flying avionics from the 1980s, they will be prone to failures and in
>general be maintenance headaches. If you value the lives of yourself and
>your family, select avionics that are more up to date and in line with
>today's navigational aids. Don't get LORAN, get an IFR approved GPS for
>example. Get a six pack that is recommended for IFR work and get good ones.

Wow, now why didn't the rest of us think of that?

>If you go cheap on this stuff, you will be putting yourself and your family
>in peril. Once you price what a very good IFR avionics/instrument package
>costs, you will begin to understand and appreciate the real cost of an IFR
>platform. And that's just a beginning. Surely you can buy a mid-life
>engine and run it for a while. Nothing wrong with that. But earlier you
>mentioned the DeltaHawk or an XP360. Have you priced those engines lately?

Well why don't you tell us the price, I happen to know it and have purchased a
new one so I can tell you they are not cheap.

>As I said earlier, to get a real four seater, you will have to move up to a
>bigger engine than that, because the airframe will be bigger. It's just a
>basic fact of life that you cannot get a true four seater to carry bags and
>fuel for a decent long distance flight for $85K. As this poster said in an
>earlier email, he can carry himself and his wife and their bags but that's
>about it. The KIS SC is a wonderful airplane for that specific purpose, but
>it is NOT a true four seater with bag capability (unless you're calling your
>wife a bag) and long distance capability at 150 TAS with a decent IFR panel
>for $85K. It's just not possible. Don't take a builder's word for it.

Yes, don't take a builders word for it, take the word of the guy who probably
hasn't built anything beyond a model airplane or you can contact some of the
builders who are already flying their aircraft and find out how much they paid
and what their expenses were and what extras they added.

>Challenge someone who is flying such a platform and quantify the
>performance, the quality of instruments and engine, and how much money he
>has in it. I guarantee you that it will not add up as you think.
>
>Yep, I know I sound like the Grinch, but I am just trying to set you
>straight.
>
>Clyde Torres
>

Prove it!

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[RobertR237]

>>>Merry Christmas!
>>
>>
>> Actually, the IFR panel for a homebuilt will cost a whole lot less than one
>for
>> a production aircraft.
>
>Yes, how much does a compass, turn coordinator and one nav/comm cost
>anyway? :-)
>

While that may be the minimum required for IFR, I don't think I would want to
limit myself to that. The panel will run upwards of $18k for a good IFR panel.
I could probably build out a panel with the same capabilities of most
available used production aircraft for around $12k. The newer glass panels and
top of the line avionics will run you closer to $25k. As I said in another
post, the difference is in the details and how much of the work you do
yourself.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[RobertR237]

>
>"...The wing loading makes for good IFR platform as well. ..."
>How is wing loading related to IFR?
>
>

A plane with very light wing loading tends to be more affected by turbulence
and will require more attention to flying.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[RobertR237]

>
>Bob Reed is correct.
>
>$85K is very reasonable for the KIS Cruiser. Mine, equipped with factory new
>Lycoming O-360 was considerably less that because I went with the old
>fashioned gyros and steam gauges in the instrument panel that I've grown
>accustomed to over the past 40 years of flying.
>
>Bob Anderson, who recently completed his KIS Cruiser (and won the prize at
>Oshkosh last sumer) probably spent that much because of all the goodies in
>the panel, such as glass cockpit, panel mount GPS, angle of attack meter etc
>as well as professionally designed interior upholstery.
>
>Dave Tate Serial #4052 260 hrs TT
>

Thanks Dave, I know that yours is not the only Cruiser to be completed for
under $85k but you are the only other member of the KIS builders who
participates in this forum. Mine will not come in at under $85k, (under $90k)
but I have also spent more for my FADEC equiped engine ($27k), the Blue
Mountain EFIS, dual axis autopilot, and several other options which pushed the
price up some. Even at that, I am including the additional costs for equipment
that I bought and then sold for less than I paid because I decided on something
else.

The important point is that the cost is in the builders control and need NOT
result in expenditures in the over $100k range or over $85k if that is your
budget. Your plane is a perfect example of that and anyone who has seen your
plane also knows that you didn't compromise on safety to do so.

Finally, I must apologize for the tone of my replies to Clyde but it really
does **** me off when people jump into a discussion with comments that are
clearly not based on facts and direct experience. I don't have anything to
gain by trying to convince someone else to build the same plane I am building.
In fact, I have been brutally honest in my comments to some potiential builders
over the years. Based on Pauls comments, it appears that he has done his
homework and the mission profile he outlined does fit the Cruiser. I believe
that Cruiser will fit his requirements in every way and I will offer all
possible assistance to him during the construction process. I made the same
offer to Dave Tate and several other KIS builders over the last few years and
several have taken me up of that offer. That is the same offer I am making to
Paul and it has nothing to do with some personal gain.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Matt Whiting]

RobertR237 wrote:
>>>>Merry Christmas!
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, the IFR panel for a homebuilt will cost a whole lot less than one
>>
>>for
>>
>>>a production aircraft.
>>
>>Yes, how much does a compass, turn coordinator and one nav/comm cost
>>anyway? :-)
>>
>
>
> While that may be the minimum required for IFR, I don't think I would want to
> limit myself to that. The panel will run upwards of $18k for a good IFR panel.
> I could probably build out a panel with the same capabilities of most
> available used production aircraft for around $12k. The newer glass panels and
> top of the line avionics will run you closer to $25k. As I said in another
> post, the difference is in the details and how much of the work you do
> yourself.

Yes, but my point is that an "IFR panel" doesn't mean it has to be a
glass cockpit with every bell and whistle available. Some folks seem to
forget that we were flying IFR long before GPS and glass cockpits ... or
even before VORs for that matter.


Matt

[[email protected]]

I have installed avionics in a previous life, and it was under the
inpretion that the Garmin 400 series, was the best choose for an IFR
package (i mostly installed the GNS-430), from what i understand all u
need is an Encoder and the Garmin GNS-480, found o0n on Spruce.

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/garmingns480.php


Matt Whiting wrote:
> RobertR237 wrote:
> >>>>Merry Christmas!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Actually, the IFR panel for a homebuilt will cost a whole lot less
than one
> >>
> >>for
> >>
> >>>a production aircraft.
> >>
> >>Yes, how much does a compass, turn coordinator and one nav/comm
cost
> >>anyway? :-)
> >>
> >
> >
> > While that may be the minimum required for IFR, I don't think I
would want to
> > limit myself to that. The panel will run upwards of $18k for a
good IFR panel.
> > I could probably build out a panel with the same capabilities of
most
> > available used production aircraft for around $12k. The newer
glass panels and
> > top of the line avionics will run you closer to $25k. As I said in
another
> > post, the difference is in the details and how much of the work you
do
> > yourself.
>
> Yes, but my point is that an "IFR panel" doesn't mean it has to be a
> glass cockpit with every bell and whistle available. Some folks seem
to
> forget that we were flying IFR long before GPS and glass cockpits ...
or
> even before VORs for that matter.
>
>
> Matt

[RobertR237]

>>>>Actually, the IFR panel for a homebuilt will cost a whole lot less than
>one
>>>
>>>for
>>>
>>>>a production aircraft.
>>>
>>>Yes, how much does a compass, turn coordinator and one nav/comm cost
>>>anyway? :-)
>>>
>>
>>
>> While that may be the minimum required for IFR, I don't think I would want
>to
>> limit myself to that. The panel will run upwards of $18k for a good IFR
>panel.
>> I could probably build out a panel with the same capabilities of most
>> available used production aircraft for around $12k. The newer glass panels
>and
>> top of the line avionics will run you closer to $25k. As I said in another
>> post, the difference is in the details and how much of the work you do
>> yourself.
>
>Yes, but my point is that an "IFR panel" doesn't mean it has to be a
>glass cockpit with every bell and whistle available. Some folks seem to
>forget that we were flying IFR long before GPS and glass cockpits ... or
>even before VORs for that matter.
>
>
>Matt
>

Agreed!


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[RobertR237]

>
>I have installed avionics in a previous life, and it was under the
>inpretion that the Garmin 400 series, was the best choose for an IFR
>package (i mostly installed the GNS-430), from what i understand all u
>need is an Encoder and the Garmin GNS-480, found o0n on Spruce.
>
>http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/garmingns480.php
>

Well.....you do need a bit more than that but it is a good start.

>
>Matt Whiting wrote:
>> RobertR237 wrote:
>> >>>>Merry Christmas!
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Actually, the IFR panel for a homebuilt will cost a whole lot less
>than one
>> >>
>> >>for
>> >>
>> >>>a production aircraft.
>> >>
>> >>Yes, how much does a compass, turn coordinator and one nav/comm
>cost
>> >>anyway? :-)
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > While that may be the minimum required for IFR, I don't think I
>would want to
>> > limit myself to that. The panel will run upwards of $18k for a
>good IFR panel.
>> > I could probably build out a panel with the same capabilities of
>most
>> > available used production aircraft for around $12k. The newer
>glass panels and
>> > top of the line avionics will run you closer to $25k. As I said in
>another
>> > post, the difference is in the details and how much of the work you
>do
>> > yourself.
>>
>> Yes, but my point is that an "IFR panel" doesn't mean it has to be a
>> glass cockpit with every bell and whistle available. Some folks seem
>to
>> forget that we were flying IFR long before GPS and glass cockpits ...
>or
>> even before VORs for that matter.
>>
>>
>> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
>


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[[email protected]]

ya your right i forgot about the gyro, other then that the unit is
just about as self contained as u can get. When i was installing them
there was talk about a piece of hardware that u placed on 3 parts of
your aircraft, it was like a GPS Gyro, i don't know if it true but that
would deffinenly be something worth looking into, especialy since qyro
are EXSPENCIVE

[Paul Folbrecht]

Bob,

> Finally, I must apologize for the tone of my replies to Clyde but it really
> does **** me off when people jump into a discussion with comments that are
> clearly not based on facts and direct experience. I don't have anything to
> gain by trying to convince someone else to build the same plane I am building.

You sure don't need to convince me of that.

> In fact, I have been brutally honest in my comments to some potiential builders
> over the years. Based on Pauls comments, it appears that he has done his
> homework and the mission profile he outlined does fit the Cruiser. I believe

Sure does.

The Velocity is still a serious contender as well - slight change. It's
going to be one of those two, though. I will be getting a demo ride in
a Velocity in the next couple weeks (and I'll report here in depth).

> that Cruiser will fit his requirements in every way and I will offer all
> possible assistance to him during the construction process. I made the same
> offer to Dave Tate and several other KIS builders over the last few years and
> several have taken me up of that offer. That is the same offer I am making to
> Paul and it has nothing to do with some personal gain.

The facts that you are building a Cruiser and that your site exists
probably increases the odds of me building one by 30% or better. :-)
Your site is truly a wealth of knowledge, and I've seen enough of your
posts over the years to know that you're generous with your time and
have no doubts about you being serious about the offer to help. It's
much appreciated!

>
>
> Bob Reed
> www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
> KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....
>
> "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
> pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
> (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
>

[Paul Folbrecht]

> I fly a COZY MKIV with a 180 HP O-360. The performance (TO, climb,
> landing) should be pretty close to the SE FG, although the COZY will
> cruise faster (I plan for 175 KT block speed, and get it). I fly out of

Why is that? (I'm not too familiar with the Cozy - plans building is
over my head.) I can't believe it's cleaner than a Velocity to the tune
of 15 knots.

> Fitchburg, MA (KFIT) which has 4500 and 3400 ft. runways, at 350 ft MSL.
> Even at gross weight, I rarely take more than 1/2 the long runway to
> lift off. I've often flown into 2900 ft. fields, although I wouldn't be
> very comfortable trying to get out of there at gross (2155 lb., for my
> plane). I can land and stop my plane, at any weight, in less than 2000
> ft - usually closer to 1500 ft.

Good to know. Thanks.

> Personally, I would say that MWC is more than adequate and safe for 99%
> of the flying that most folks do with a 4-seater - how often do you
> really load the plane to gross weight? When I'm alone, I'm off the
> ground in about 1500 ft, and if it's cold, even less. I think that even
> if you were at gross weight, the 4100 ft runway is completely adequate
> except on the hottest of days.

No doubt about the 4100 footer, but it's not like I'm going to want to
land with 20 knots of crosswind, right? Could happen. (I've landed
with gusts to 34 knots 30 degrees off the runway in my 152 - we get
windy days in the spring & fall especially.) Thus, really, the 3100 has
got to be adequate as well. After further research, I'm nearly totally
convinced that it is. Thus the Velocity is now a serious contender
again. Fortunately I have as long as 4-5 months yet before I really
want to have my mind made up and the kit ordered.

> Also, with respect to cost, I've got $70K in my COZY (IFR legal
> w/autopilot), and it's one of the more expensive ones, I'm told - most
> build for less.

Well, being a plans-building stud probably helps a bit there. :-)

[RobertR237]

>
>> I fly a COZY MKIV with a 180 HP O-360. The performance (TO, climb,
>> landing) should be pretty close to the SE FG, although the COZY will
>> cruise faster (I plan for 175 KT block speed, and get it). I fly out of
>
>Why is that? (I'm not too familiar with the Cozy - plans building is
>over my head.) I can't believe it's cleaner than a Velocity to the tune
>of 15 knots.
>
>> Fitchburg, MA (KFIT) which has 4500 and 3400 ft. runways, at 350 ft MSL.
>> Even at gross weight, I rarely take more than 1/2 the long runway to
>> lift off. I've often flown into 2900 ft. fields, although I wouldn't be
>> very comfortable trying to get out of there at gross (2155 lb., for my
>> plane). I can land and stop my plane, at any weight, in less than 2000
>> ft - usually closer to 1500 ft.
>
>Good to know. Thanks.
>
>> Personally, I would say that MWC is more than adequate and safe for 99%
>> of the flying that most folks do with a 4-seater - how often do you
>> really load the plane to gross weight? When I'm alone, I'm off the
>> ground in about 1500 ft, and if it's cold, even less. I think that even
>> if you were at gross weight, the 4100 ft runway is completely adequate
>> except on the hottest of days.
>
>No doubt about the 4100 footer, but it's not like I'm going to want to
>land with 20 knots of crosswind, right? Could happen. (I've landed
>with gusts to 34 knots 30 degrees off the runway in my 152 - we get
>windy days in the spring & fall especially.) Thus, really, the 3100 has
>got to be adequate as well. After further research, I'm nearly totally
>convinced that it is. Thus the Velocity is now a serious contender
>again. Fortunately I have as long as 4-5 months yet before I really
>want to have my mind made up and the kit ordered.
>
>> Also, with respect to cost, I've got $70K in my COZY (IFR legal
>> w/autopilot), and it's one of the more expensive ones, I'm told - most
>> build for less.
>
>Well, being a plans-building stud probably helps a bit there. :-)
>

There is a COZY Kit available.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[RobertR237]

>
>Bob,
>
>> Finally, I must apologize for the tone of my replies to Clyde but it really
>> does **** me off when people jump into a discussion with comments that are
>> clearly not based on facts and direct experience. I don't have anything to
>> gain by trying to convince someone else to build the same plane I am
>building.
>
>You sure don't need to convince me of that.
>
>> In fact, I have been brutally honest in my comments to some potiential
>builders
>> over the years. Based on Pauls comments, it appears that he has done his
>> homework and the mission profile he outlined does fit the Cruiser. I
>believe
>
>Sure does.
>
>The Velocity is still a serious contender as well - slight change. It's
>going to be one of those two, though. I will be getting a demo ride in
>a Velocity in the next couple weeks (and I'll report here in depth).
>

The Velocity is without a doubt one of the sexiest aircraft around. I love the
look of the plane and had a large poster of it on my office wall for a long
time. For some strange reason, my wife did NOT agree with my opinion of the
airplane. At the time I was making the decision, the only available Velocity
kit did not have enough baggage room to suit me. The newer Velocity XL kit
solved that problem. I also didn't care for the way the Velocity handled on
takeoff and landing but that was a personal preference.

>> that Cruiser will fit his requirements in every way and I will offer all
>> possible assistance to him during the construction process. I made the
>same
>> offer to Dave Tate and several other KIS builders over the last few years
>and
>> several have taken me up of that offer. That is the same offer I am making
>to
>> Paul and it has nothing to do with some personal gain.
>
>The facts that you are building a Cruiser and that your site exists
>probably increases the odds of me building one by 30% or better. :-)
>Your site is truly a wealth of knowledge, and I've seen enough of your
>posts over the years to know that you're generous with your time and
>have no doubts about you being serious about the offer to help. It's
>much appreciated!
>

Thanks. Now if I could just get back a small percentage of the time I have
spent on the web site, I might just finish my own plane. <BG> In fact, that
is the one issue I have NOT seen you post any budget numbers on. You have done
your homework on your mission profile, on the available kits, and the costs but
have you really looked at the cost of time and the effect on your family?
Don't discount that part of the building process and if at all possible, get
the significant others involved in the process. You will need their support if
not directly their help.





Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Paul Folbrecht asks:

> Why is that? (I'm not too familiar with the Cozy - plans building is
> over my head.) I can't believe it's cleaner than a Velocity to the
tune
> of 15 knots.

Well, the FG Velocity leaves the nose gear down (you did say SE FG,
right?) while the COZY retracts it. Also, the COZY has less wing area,
so less drag both ways, and the fuselage is a bit smaller, too. The
Velocity RG is a tiny bit faster than the COZY, and the FG is a bunch
slower.

> No doubt about the 4100 footer, but it's not like I'm going to want to
> land with 20 knots of crosswind, right?

I have a few times - works OK.

>...Thus, really, the 3100 has got to be adequate as well.

For landing, it's no problem. As I think I mentioned, I can land and
stop in less than 2500 ft at gross weight at SL. I landed at Meadowlake
airport (6800 ft MSL) at about 1600 lb (light) in under 2500 ft.

The only issue MIGHT be heavy, hot takeoffs with a crosswind.

>....After further research, I'm nearly totally
> convinced that it is. Thus the Velocity is now a serious contender
> again. Fortunately I have as long as 4-5 months yet before I really
> want to have my mind made up and the kit ordered.

Good. The more canards, the better, even if they're from a kit :-).

> > Also, with respect to cost, I've got $70K in my COZY (IFR legal
> > w/autopilot), and it's one of the more expensive ones, I'm told -
most
> > build for less.
>
> Well, being a plans-building stud probably helps a bit there. :-)

Actually, I'm not much of a scrounge at all - I've outspent most folks
considering what I've got to show for it :-).

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2004

[Logistic Solutions]

My name is Ruben Flores I own a Shipping company in Texas and will give
a cheaper price that no one can match. We can save 50 percent off UPS
and FED-ex prices. We can ship anywhere in the world at anytime. If
you need a quote please feel free to call at 210-364-5333 or e-mail at
. We will need to know the weight, where it is
going and how fast you want it there. We will also donate %5 of
profits to the Tsunami relief in your company name.
If interested please contact me.