Best homebuilt for ~700 nm commute

[es330td]

I have a firm opportunity to take a much higher paying job and expand
my education but taking the family might be difficult. If I have to
leave them I'd like to find some way to fly myself back and forth for
frequent visits for the 4-5 years I will be there. Flying commercial
is not an option as it is a 8-9 hour trip each way tied to carrier
schedules once driving to/from major carrier airports is included. I
know there are plenty of planes that can cruise in the 200+ range,
however, so flying myself would be an alternative as both locations
have airpots within 10 miles of town centers.

I only need to carry myself and minor luggage so passenger capacity
isn't a concern.

My mission requirements are a 700 nm range with reserve and a flight
time under 4 hours facing occasional IMC weather as I will be flying
between GA and east Texas. I'd also prefer something with as low a
fuel burn as possible for cost savings.

In investigating this, it looks like a Cozy/Aerocanard is going to be
the way to go. With a 1000 mile range, service ceilings approaching
class A and greater than 200 mph cruise I can't find anything else
that matches this in an affordable package to build. As I have past
experience as an auto mechanic, being able to work on the plane to
keep costs down is important so I'm going to have to go with something
I build myself.

Are there any good alternatives outside the canard family?

[Michael Henry[_2_]]

es330td wrote:

> My mission requirements are a 700 nm range with reserve and a flight
> time under 4 hours facing occasional IMC weather as I will be flying
> between GA and east Texas. I'd also prefer something with as low a
> fuel burn as possible for cost savings.


Vans RV-7 -> http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-7int.htm

Vans RV-8 also meets the speed and range requirements but as a tandem
may not have enough panel space for IFR.

Mustang II -> http://www.mustangaero.com/Mustang%20II/MustangII.html

Lancair Legacy FG -> http://www.lancair.com/Main/legacy.html

[denny]

On Jul 7, 1:48�am, es330td > wrote:
>>
> Are there any good alternatives outside the canard family?

Check out the Tango 2 at www.teamtango.com. The standard
configuration carries 58 gallons which will give you an approximate
1,100 nm ifr range at 175-180 KTAS. You can go with the 90 gallon
full wet wing and make your 1,400 nm round trip without refueling, or
fly LAX-to-JAX nonstop if you can stand it. Useful load is 800lb or
1,000 with the wet wing. Basically, it will carry what ever you can
pack in for luggage. I have an older version with 40 gallon tanks and
consider 750 nm a comfortable day vfr range, no wind. I have several
trips over 800 nm, with some tail wind, burning 33-35 gallons. The
owner of the first wet wing airplane has one trip of 1,540 nm on 65
gallons.
I just passed 1,550 hours in my airplane, N99GE, using it
primarily for business trips, many matching your profile. I average
about 7.5 gallons per hour, switch on to switch off. I routinely
operate off a grass strip.
The panel is big enough to put in about anything you want or can
afford. Our EFIS 1200 has been popular. We are currently fitting up
the first airplane with Precise Flight speed brakes, which been a
perfect fit. We are testing an affordable laser horizon line, like
the SR-71 used to have. I am now flying with our new plenum chamber
for engine cooling, which is working almost too well, giving CHTs in
the low 300s. Autopilots are optional.

Denny Funnemark
Team Tango

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:11:39 +1000, Michael Henry
> wrote:

>es330td wrote:
>
>> My mission requirements are a 700 nm range with reserve and a flight
>> time under 4 hours facing occasional IMC weather as I will be flying
>> between GA and east Texas. I'd also prefer something with as low a
>> fuel burn as possible for cost savings.
>
>
>Vans RV-7 -> http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-7int.htm
>
>Vans RV-8 also meets the speed and range requirements but as a tandem
>may not have enough panel space for IFR.
>
>Mustang II -> http://www.mustangaero.com/Mustang%20II/MustangII.html
>
>Lancair Legacy FG -> http://www.lancair.com/Main/legacy.html




Thorp T18 !!!!

[es330td]

On Jul 7, 8:17Â*am, denny > wrote:
> On Jul 7, 1:48�am, es330td > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Are there any good alternatives outside the canard family?
>
> Â* Â* Â*Check out the Tango 2 atwww.teamtango.com. Â*The standard
> configuration carries 58 gallons which will give you an approximate
> 1,100 nm ifr range at 175-180 KTAS. Â*You can go with the 90 gallon
> full wet wing and make your 1,400 nm round trip without refueling, or
> fly LAX-to-JAX nonstop if you can stand it. Â*Useful load is 800lb or
> 1,000 with the wet wing. Â*Basically, it will carry what ever you can
> pack in for luggage. Â*I have an older version with 40 gallon tanks and
> consider 750 nm a comfortable day vfr range, no wind. Â*I have several
> trips over 800 nm, with some tail wind, burning 33-35 gallons. Â*The
> owner of the first wet wing airplane has one trip of 1,540 nm on 65
> gallons.
> Â* Â* Â*I just passed 1,550 hours in my airplane, N99GE, using it
> primarily for business trips, many matching your profile. Â*I average
> about 7.5 gallons per hour, switch on to switch off. Â*I routinely
> operate off a grass strip.
> Â* Â* Â*The panel is big enough to put in about anything you want or can
> afford. Â*Our EFIS 1200 has been popular. Â*We are currently fitting up
> the first airplane with Precise Flight speed brakes, which been a
> perfect fit. Â*We are testing an affordable laser horizon line, like
> the SR-71 used to have. Â*I am now flying with our new plenum chamber
> for engine cooling, which is working almost too well, giving CHTs in
> the low 300s. Â*Autopilots are optional.
>
> Denny Funnemark
> Team Tango

This looks like a great plane and well within my idea of a reasonable
budget with full IFR avionics installed. Reading your review really
piqued my interest; I grew up in San Antonio, TX, within sight
distance of the flight patterns for Randolph AFB where the T-38s flew
while I was growing up. I loved watching them fly and while I will
never get to fly a T-38/F-5 the fact that someone who has thinks so
highly of this plane definitely makes me interested in the Tango 2.

[john smith]

> es330td wrote:
> > My mission requirements are a 700 nm range with reserve and a flight
> > time under 4 hours facing occasional IMC weather as I will be flying
> > between GA and east Texas. I'd also prefer something with as low a
> > fuel burn as possible for cost savings.

Michael Henry > wrote:
> Vans RV-7 -> http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-7int.htm
> Vans RV-8 also meets the speed and range requirements but as a tandem
> may not have enough panel space for IFR.

I would recommend a Van's RV for several reasons:
- excellent builder support along your route (RV builders area
everywhere)
- excellent aircraft for high-speed cruise, low fuel consumption,
low-airspeed takeoffs and landings at short fields, providing more
options

[es330td]

On Jul 7, 2:04*pm, John Smith > wrote:
> > es330td wrote:
> > > My mission requirements are a 700 nm range with reserve and a flight
> > > time under 4 hours facing occasional IMC weather as I will be flying
> > > between GA and east Texas. *I'd also prefer something with as low a
> > > fuel burn as possible for cost savings.
>
> *Michael Henry > wrote:
>
> > Vans RV-7 ->http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-7int.htm
> > Vans RV-8 also meets the speed and range requirements but as a tandem
> > may not have enough panel space for IFR.
>
> I would recommend a Van's RV for several reasons:
> - excellent builder support along your route (RV builders area
> everywhere)
> - excellent aircraft for high-speed cruise, low fuel consumption,
> low-airspeed takeoffs and landings at short fields, providing more
> options

IIRC, there are more RV's out there than any other homebuilt. Before I
posted I checked out the -7 but was a little concerned about the
range. According to AIRNAV, the distance between my airports of
interest is 684 nm direct and my path takes me through/around the
general aviator's Hell that is Hartsfield-Jackson. They aren't always
accomodating to GA IFR pilots and will route you all over the place.
Depending on whether I am coming or going, if I am VFR I can just
cancel and fly under the class B or file a pop-up IFR but if I have to
take off or land in IMC I have to let them send me where they will.
With a 775 sm range at 75% power on the -7 I start running into
problems of getting low on fuel and pushing into my reserve if the
flight encounters any kind of rerouting. I can, of course, slow down
but now I start getting over 4 hours and given that a lot of my flying
would be early evening I'd rather not push myself.

I'm not scratching any reasonable plane off my list just yet; in fact,
this doesn't become viable until I get my IFR ticket which is at least
a year off. It doesn't hurt to start educating myself because I can
always start building even before I am ready for cross country
commuting.

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "es330td" == es330td > writes:
es330td> As I have past
es330td> experience as an auto mechanic, being able to work on the
es330td> plane to keep costs down is important so I'm going to
es330td> have to go with something I build myself.

Just curious, any build will take a year or two at least, will you
have time for this living away from home?
--
Mom always told me I could be whatever I wanted to be when I grew
up, 'within reason.' When I asked her what she meant by 'within
reason,' she said, 'You ask a lot of questions for a garbage
man.'
- Jack Handey

[Morgans[_2_]]

"es330td" > wrote

> IIRC, there are more RV's out there than any other homebuilt. Before I
> posted I checked out the -7 but was a little concerned about the
> range.

Hey, it's called experimental for a reason. You can add extra fuel
capacity, yourself. Tip tanks come to mind, since they can be added without
adding extra stress to the wing spar, or connections of the wing to the
plane. Well built ones could probably lower the stall speed, and possibly
add to the gross payload, too.
--
Jim in NC

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:35:28 -0700 (PDT), es330td >
wrote:

>On Jul 7, 2:04*pm, John Smith > wrote:
>> > es330td wrote:
>> > > My mission requirements are a 700 nm range with reserve and a flight
>> > > time under 4 hours facing occasional IMC weather as I will be flying
>> > > between GA and east Texas. *I'd also prefer something with as low a
>> > > fuel burn as possible for cost savings.
>>
>> *Michael Henry > wrote:
>>
>> > Vans RV-7 ->http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-7int.htm
>> > Vans RV-8 also meets the speed and range requirements but as a tandem
>> > may not have enough panel space for IFR.
>>
>> I would recommend a Van's RV for several reasons:
>> - excellent builder support along your route (RV builders area
>> everywhere)
>> - excellent aircraft for high-speed cruise, low fuel consumption,
>> low-airspeed takeoffs and landings at short fields, providing more
>> options
>
>IIRC, there are more RV's out there than any other homebuilt. Before I
>posted I checked out the -7 but was a little concerned about the
>range. According to AIRNAV, the distance between my airports of
>interest is 684 nm direct and my path takes me through/around the
>general aviator's Hell that is Hartsfield-Jackson. They aren't always
>accomodating to GA IFR pilots and will route you all over the place.
>Depending on whether I am coming or going, if I am VFR I can just
>cancel and fly under the class B or file a pop-up IFR but if I have to
>take off or land in IMC I have to let them send me where they will.
>With a 775 sm range at 75% power on the -7 I start running into
>problems of getting low on fuel and pushing into my reserve if the
>flight encounters any kind of rerouting. I can, of course, slow down
>but now I start getting over 4 hours and given that a lot of my flying
>would be early evening I'd rather not push myself.
>
>I'm not scratching any reasonable plane off my list just yet; in fact,
>this doesn't become viable until I get my IFR ticket which is at least
>a year off. It doesn't hurt to start educating myself because I can
>always start building even before I am ready for cross country
>commuting.

have you ever realised that the fuel caps come off pretty easily.
you could refuel enroute :-)
it is not as though you are flying california to hawaii.

Stealth (easily overlooked) Pilot

[denny]

On Jul 7, 5:35�pm, es330td > wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2:04�pm, John Smith > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>>
> >
> >
> > I'm not scratching any reasonable plane off my list just yet; in fact,
> this doesn't become viable until I get my IFR ticket which is at least
> a year off. �It doesn't hurt to start educating myself because I can
> always start building even before I am ready for cross country
> commuting.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

When you start your IFR training and flying you will really learn
about the old saying "the only time you can have too much fuel on
board is when you are on fire". Plan on at least a 20 knot headwind
on some of those westbound trips, and add in the range and time to
your alternate, plus a 45 minute (minimum). Suddenly your airplane is
much less capable and your normal 700 nm range requires a fuel stop
somewhere between A and B, or GA and TX . Fuel starvation is still a
leading cause of accidents. Buying big enough tanks for your mission
helps your odds.

Denny

[Lou]

On Jul 7, 4:35 pm, es330td > wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2:04 pm, John Smith > wrote:
>
>
>
> > > es330td wrote:
> > > > My mission requirements are a 700 nm range with reserve and a flight
> > > > time under 4 hours facing occasional IMC weather as I will be flying
> > > > between GA and east Texas. I'd also prefer something with as low a
> > > > fuel burn as possible for cost savings.
>
> > Michael Henry > wrote:
>
> > > Vans RV-7 ->http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-7int.htm
> > > Vans RV-8 also meets the speed and range requirements but as a tandem
> > > may not have enough panel space for IFR.
>
> > I would recommend a Van's RV for several reasons:
> > - excellent builder support along your route (RV builders area
> > everywhere)
> > - excellent aircraft for high-speed cruise, low fuel consumption,
> > low-airspeed takeoffs and landings at short fields, providing more
> > options
>
> IIRC, there are more RV's out there than any other homebuilt. Before I
> posted I checked out the -7 but was a little concerned about the
> range. According to AIRNAV, the distance between my airports of
> interest is 684 nm direct and my path takes me through/around the
> general aviator's Hell that is Hartsfield-Jackson. They aren't always
> accomodating to GA IFR pilots and will route you all over the place.
> Depending on whether I am coming or going, if I am VFR I can just
> cancel and fly under the class B or file a pop-up IFR but if I have to
> take off or land in IMC I have to let them send me where they will.
> With a 775 sm range at 75% power on the -7 I start running into
> problems of getting low on fuel and pushing into my reserve if the
> flight encounters any kind of rerouting. I can, of course, slow down
> but now I start getting over 4 hours and given that a lot of my flying
> would be early evening I'd rather not push myself.
>
> I'm not scratching any reasonable plane off my list just yet; in fact,
> this doesn't become viable until I get my IFR ticket which is at least
> a year off. It doesn't hurt to start educating myself because I can
> always start building even before I am ready for cross country
> commuting.

What about adding additional tanks for the commute?
After all it is experimental

Lou

[es330td]

On Jul 7, 6:32*pm, Bob Fry > wrote:
>
> Just curious, any build will take a year or two at least, will you
> have time for this living away from home?
> --

Living by myself, I think I should. I am assuming that the time I
spend now on the "honey-do" list at home (lawn, dishes, errands) will
be mine since I simply won't be there. I usually spend an hour or so
each night playing with my kids so I get that time back too. I am most
likely going to go with something that is kit built, rather than plans
built, to reduce my build time. I am not going to be one of the
homebuilders that in reality pays somebody to build a plane but I am
going to base my choice in part on getting one that I can buy major
pieces already constructed so this rules out the Cozy. I know someone
at both airports who is an A&P mechanic so I'll have expertise
available for hire as needed. Even if it takes me 3 years, I still
get an airplane at the end of it.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:32:08 +0800, Stealth Pilot
> wrote:

> have you ever realised that the fuel caps come off pretty easily.
> you could refuel enroute :-)

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/longrange.jpg

Ron Wanttaja

[Peter Dohm]

"es330td" > wrote in message
...
On Jul 7, 6:32 pm, Bob Fry > wrote:
>
> Just curious, any build will take a year or two at least, will you
> have time for this living away from home?
> --

Living by myself, I think I should. I am assuming that the time I
spend now on the "honey-do" list at home (lawn, dishes, errands) will
be mine since I simply won't be there. I usually spend an hour or so
each night playing with my kids so I get that time back too. I am most
likely going to go with something that is kit built, rather than plans
built, to reduce my build time. I am not going to be one of the
homebuilders that in reality pays somebody to build a plane but I am
going to base my choice in part on getting one that I can buy major
pieces already constructed so this rules out the Cozy. I know someone
at both airports who is an A&P mechanic so I'll have expertise
available for hire as needed. Even if it takes me 3 years, I still
get an airplane at the end of it.

___________new messages begins___________

It appears that you might be moving both to and from locations with multiple
EAA chapters, and they are a very good source of second hand experience.
Visit each chapter a couple of times; because every member does not attend
every meeting. You can then gain a lot of additional information by
visiting some of the builders and/or participating in the chapter's "hangar
invasions".

As to some of wheat you might look for:
1 Kits are not all equal--some kits take more time than some plans and
some need different kinds of workspace.
2 Builders are not all equal--both skills and priorities vary. Some
builders have good three dimensional thinking and manufacturing skills--and
they can build a good solid aircraft in a few hundred hours. Others will
spend a tremendous amount of time staring at the project and reinventing one
wheel after another--so that the project takes thousands of hours if it is
ever finished.

All the best for your project--even if you only buy a slower airplane are
convert part of what would have been your building time to be used as
commuting time instead.

Peter

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

es330td wrote:
> On Jul 7, 6:32 pm, Bob Fry > wrote:
>> Just curious, any build will take a year or two at least, will you
>> have time for this living away from home?
>> --
>
> Living by myself, I think I should. I am assuming that the time I
> spend now on the "honey-do" list at home (lawn, dishes, errands) will
> be mine since I simply won't be there. I usually spend an hour or so
> each night playing with my kids so I get that time back too. I am most
> likely going to go with something that is kit built, rather than plans
> built, to reduce my build time. I am not going to be one of the
> homebuilders that in reality pays somebody to build a plane but I am
> going to base my choice in part on getting one that I can buy major
> pieces already constructed so this rules out the Cozy. I know someone
> at both airports who is an A&P mechanic so I'll have expertise
> available for hire as needed. Even if it takes me 3 years, I still
> get an airplane at the end of it.

That last sentence you wrote is as close as I've seen you say the one
thing you need to say before you start a build project but it isn't
quite there yet.

Building itself needs to be one of your goals otherwise you probably
won't ever finish and then at the end of 3 years you will have a pile of
very expensive aluminum.

The old saying "If you want to build, build. If you want to fly, buy."
is as true as it ever was even if the quick build kits make the building
easier.

[denny]

On Jul 7, 1:48�am, es330td > wrote:
> I> >
> Are there any good alternatives outside the canard family?
This discussion seems to have come down to whether you should
build with aluminum or composites, leaving out wood and tube &
fabric. The way I see it, if you build your own composite airplane,
you are the manufacturer and should be pretty good at repairing hanger
rash by the time you are ready to fly. I know of at least one
compostite airplane that flipped over and was damaged, as one would
expect. The spar and wings were intact. The insurance adjuster said
repair it. Had it been an aluminum airplane he would have scrapped
it. What does all this prove? Not much. If one method was clearly
superior, the other would disappear. Sunlight may not bother
aluminum, but corrosion sure does. Until we start mining
nonobtainium, you're stuck with compromises. Take your pick.
More important in picking your plane is your mission
requirement. When you start your IFR training you will find the true
meaning of the old saying "The only time you can have too much fuel on
board is when you are on fire". You need to plan on at least a 20
knot headwind for some of those trips to TX, sometimes both ways,
(like the day you actually get to go). If the destination is imc, you
need altenate fuel plus 45 minute reserve (minimum). If you have a
barely 700 nm, no wind, VFR range, you will need to make an enroute
fuel stop on some trips. A five hour duration becomes more like three
if you have to plan the whole trip IFR. Better to land with two hours
fuel in your tanks than zero while diverting. Fuel exhaustion is
still a leading cause of accidents. Your four hour trip just became
closer to six.
Good luck in your research.

Denny

[john smith]

Have you given Budd Davidson's BEARHAWK a look?

http://www.bearhawkaircraft.com/

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Morgans wrote:

> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote
>
>>http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/longrange.jpg
>
>
> Oh, I see you must have the model with the refueling probe in the spinner,
> huh? <g>


No, it uses an interupter gear that only squirts between the prop blades.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote
>
> http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/longrange.jpg

Oh, I see you must have the model with the refueling probe in the spinner,
huh? <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> Oh, I see you must have the model with the refueling probe in the
>> spinner, huh? <g>
>
> No, it uses an interupter gear that only squirts between the prop blades.

And the pilot catches the fuel in the mouth, and spits it into the tank!
:-)

Good comeback, and quick, too, by the way!
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"John Smith" > wrote

> Have you given Budd Davidson's BEARHAWK a look?
>
> http://www.bearhawkaircraft.com/

The problem is that you have to be using the 260 HP engine to get that 150
MPH, where you could be doing closer to 200 MPH (or more) on a 180 HP
engine.

With fuel prices, that would be a significant difference.
--
Jim in NC

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Morgans wrote:

>>> Oh, I see you must have the model with the refueling probe in the
>>>spinner, huh? <g>
>>
>>No, it uses an interupter gear that only squirts between the prop blades.
>
>
> And the pilot catches the fuel in the mouth, and spits it into the tank!
> :-)
>
> Good comeback, and quick, too, by the way!


Aw, the place was getting a little dull, you know?

[Jim Stockton[_2_]]

"> With fuel prices, that would be a significant difference.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
Following that I would suggest Airtran to DFW. They can handle almost any
weather that you couldn't and a ticket is about the same as 25 gal of avgas.
Alot more practical and a lot less likely to make a smoking hole due to got
to get there pressure. If you want to fly a homebuilt do it, just don't try
to reliably commute in it.
My 2 cents worth.
Jim Stockton

[BobR]

On Jul 16, 8:57*pm, "Jim Stockton" <me@nowhere> wrote:
> "> With fuel prices, that would be a significant difference.> --
> > Jim in NC
>
> Following that I would suggest Airtran to DFW. They can handle almost any
> weather that you couldn't and a ticket is about the same as 25 gal of avgas.
> Alot more practical and a lot less likely to make a smoking hole due to got
> to get there pressure. If you want to fly a homebuilt do it, just don't try
> to reliably commute in it.
> My 2 cents worth.
> Jim Stockton

Many people use both spam cans and homebuilts to commute. There is no
reason that a homebuilt would be any less reliable than any other
aircraft if properly constructed. Either way, it must be considered
that commuting with any private aircraft is highly dependent on
weather factors. Considering the miserable record of commercial
airlines over the last few years, I wouldn't consider private aircraft
commuting any less reliable than commercial.

I have commuted by commercial airlines many years ago with great
success but times have changed. First, my commute was between to
fairly close cities with major carrier service and hourly flights
between the destinations. I wouldn't consider trying it today. I had
to do the commute for about 18 months a couple of years ago and found
it much quicker to just drive the 260 miles. A longer commute as
discussed by the originator of this thread would not be possible to
drive but private aircraft would take about the same about of time
that I spent driving. That from a time standpoint would be less than
required for commercial even if you were guaranteed catching a flight
that met your schedule.

The biggest problem by far would be finding a commercial schedule that
would meet the requirements for timely commutes. Unless the origin
and destination are major cities with routine and frequent direct
schedules between them, commuting by commercial airlines would be more
time consuming that it was worth. I see no reason why a 700nm commute
by private aircraft including a mission capable homebuilt would not be
a highly reliable choice.

[gorgon]

While the RV series and many Composite designs are great, don'g
overlook the W-10 Tailwind.

I believe an O-320 powered one has beaten many RV's of higher power in
the recent OSH races. Using an O-200 or O-235, they are almost as
fast....just don't climb as well in the Rockies. Which you don't need
on your route.

Construction is about as straight forward as you can get and very
economical. Modifications by Jim Clement have really improved the
first "approved" two seat homebuilt. And there is a tri-gear version.

[denny]

..> --
>
> . If you want to fly a homebuilt do it, just don't try
> to reliably commute in it.
> My 2 cents worth.
> Jim Stockton

I built my airplane to use as a business tool for travel as a
field service technician. I used to travel out of Atlanta, KATL in my
passenger days. My experimental, amateur built airplane was more
reliable, cheaper, and was faster than the airlines if you considered
door-to-door travel time. On a typical one hour airline flight I
averaged about 75mph. I averaged about 125 mph in my plane, door-to-
door. In six years my dispatch reliability has been 100%. I can't
say that for going commercial. It all depends on what and how you
build, and maintenance.

Denny

[es330td]

On Jul 16, 9:57*pm, "Jim Stockton" <me@nowhere> wrote:
> "> With fuel prices, that would be a significant difference.> --
> > Jim in NC
>
> Following that I would suggest Airtran to DFW. They can handle almost any
> weather that you couldn't and a ticket is about the same as 25 gal of avgas.
> Alot more practical and a lot less likely to make a smoking hole due to got
> to get there pressure. If you want to fly a homebuilt do it, just don't try
> to reliably commute in it.
> My 2 cents worth.
> Jim Stockton

If I can't fly myself the commute becomes impossible. My home is
almost 2 hours drive from KATL and the place I would be is 1.5 hours
from KHOU. My trip one way is 3.5 hours before I am on an airport
property. Factor in security, loading the plane and flight time and
one way is now 7 hours. Doing that twice in a weekend leaves me with
almost no time as I am dependent on carrier schedules. I can afford
the avgas but I can't afford the time.

[BobR]

On Jul 20, 2:26 pm, es330td > wrote:
> On Jul 16, 9:57 pm, "Jim Stockton" <me@nowhere> wrote:
>
> > "> With fuel prices, that would be a significant difference.> --
> > > Jim in NC
>
> > Following that I would suggest Airtran to DFW. They can handle almost any
> > weather that you couldn't and a ticket is about the same as 25 gal of avgas.
> > Alot more practical and a lot less likely to make a smoking hole due to got
> > to get there pressure. If you want to fly a homebuilt do it, just don't try
> > to reliably commute in it.
> > My 2 cents worth.
> > Jim Stockton
>
> If I can't fly myself the commute becomes impossible. My home is
> almost 2 hours drive from KATL and the place I would be is 1.5 hours
> from KHOU. My trip one way is 3.5 hours before I am on an airport
> property. Factor in security, loading the plane and flight time and
> one way is now 7 hours. Doing that twice in a weekend leaves me with
> almost no time as I am dependent on carrier schedules. I can afford
> the avgas but I can't afford the time.

In the late 60's and early 70's I used to commute between Houston and
Dallas on almost a daily basis. Texas International used to offer a
weekly ticket called the Consecutive Executive. You paid one price
for a weekly pass that allowed you to fly anywhere TI serviced through
out the week. It was great and worked well for me since I lived 10
minutes from the airport in Houston and the office was 5 minutes from
Love field in Dallas. There was no real security checkin and you just
walked to the boarding gate, showed you ticket and walked on.

Even if they offered such a bargain today I don't think it would be
possible to do this today with all the issues of security and check
in. Even if you live close to the airport at both locations, the time
to commute would take longer by commercial than by private plane for
anything less than 800-1000 miles depending on aircraft. I really
believe the distance is probably even greater but allowing for a fuel
stop does affect the time.

What I would recommend is looking for a 4-place aircraft with a bit
more stability. I know that many of the 2-place homebuilts have the
range and speed you are looking for but would be concerned about the
workload factor on long routine flights. You don't want a plane that
you have to fly every minute of the flight. Most of the 4-place
planes have slightly heaver wing loading and will give you a smoother
flight. I am building a Pulsar Super Cruiser (KIS Cruiser) that would
make an outstanding choice. I would also recommend the RV10 if you
don't mind the larger engine and increased fuel burn.

[es330td]

On Jul 20, 9:21*pm, BobR > wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2:26 pm, es330td > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 16, 9:57 pm, "Jim Stockton" <me@nowhere> wrote:
>
> > > "> With fuel prices, that would be a significant difference.> --
> > > > Jim in NC
>
> > > Following that I would suggest Airtran to DFW. They can handle almost any
> > > weather that you couldn't and a ticket is about the same as 25 gal of avgas.
> > > Alot more practical and a lot less likely to make a smoking hole due to got
> > > to get there pressure. If you want to fly a homebuilt do it, just don't try
> > > to reliably commute in it.
> > > My 2 cents worth.
> > > Jim Stockton
>
> > If I can't fly myself the commute becomes impossible. My home is
> > almost 2 hours drive from KATL and the place I would be is 1.5 hours
> > from KHOU. *My trip one way is 3.5 hours before I am on an airport
> > property. *Factor in security, loading the plane and flight time and
> > one way is now 7 hours. *Doing that twice in a weekend leaves me with
> > almost no time as I am dependent on carrier schedules. *I can afford
> > the avgas but I can't afford the time.
>
> In the late 60's and early 70's I used to commute between Houston and
> Dallas on almost a daily basis. *Texas International used to offer a
> weekly ticket called the Consecutive Executive. *You paid one price
> for a weekly pass that allowed you to fly anywhere TI serviced through
> out the week. *It was great and worked well for me since I lived 10
> minutes from the airport in Houston and the office was 5 minutes from
> Love field in Dallas. *There was no real security checkin and you just
> walked to the boarding gate, showed you ticket and walked on.
>
> Even if they offered such a bargain today I don't think it would be
> possible to do this today with all the issues of security and check
> in. *Even if you live close to the airport at both locations, the time
> to commute would take longer by commercial than by private plane for
> anything less than 800-1000 miles depending on aircraft. *I really
> believe the distance is probably even greater but allowing for a fuel
> stop does affect the time.
>
> What I would recommend is looking for a 4-place aircraft with a bit
> more stability. *I know that many of the 2-place homebuilts have the
> range and speed you are looking for but would be concerned about the
> workload factor on long routine flights. *You don't want a plane that
> you have to fly every minute of the flight. *Most of the 4-place
> planes have slightly heaver wing loading and will give you a smoother
> flight. *I am building a Pulsar Super Cruiser (KIS Cruiser) that would
> make an outstanding choice. *I would also recommend the RV10 if you
> don't mind the larger engine and increased fuel burn.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Although I like the miserly fuel usage of the Long-EZ, the Cozy/
Aerocanard is looking promising as they claim 1000 mile range with a
200 mph cruise. I don't like that the burn in an O-360 will be higher
than an O-320 but the tight fit of a Long-EZ may get trying for 4
hours straight. Having the double wide panel in which to install toys
like FLIR and a Garmin 430 & 496 will probably be the better route to
go from a safety standpoint.

[es330td]

On Jul 20, 9:21*pm, BobR > wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2:26 pm, es330td > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 16, 9:57 pm, "Jim Stockton" <me@nowhere> wrote:
>
> > > "> With fuel prices, that would be a significant difference.> --
> > > > Jim in NC
>
> > > Following that I would suggest Airtran to DFW. They can handle almost any
> > > weather that you couldn't and a ticket is about the same as 25 gal of avgas.
> > > Alot more practical and a lot less likely to make a smoking hole due to got
> > > to get there pressure. If you want to fly a homebuilt do it, just don't try
> > > to reliably commute in it.
> > > My 2 cents worth.
> > > Jim Stockton
>
> > If I can't fly myself the commute becomes impossible. My home is
> > almost 2 hours drive from KATL and the place I would be is 1.5 hours
> > from KHOU. *My trip one way is 3.5 hours before I am on an airport
> > property. *Factor in security, loading the plane and flight time and
> > one way is now 7 hours. *Doing that twice in a weekend leaves me with
> > almost no time as I am dependent on carrier schedules. *I can afford
> > the avgas but I can't afford the time.
>
> In the late 60's and early 70's I used to commute between Houston and
> Dallas on almost a daily basis. *Texas International used to offer a
> weekly ticket called the Consecutive Executive. *You paid one price
> for a weekly pass that allowed you to fly anywhere TI serviced through
> out the week. *It was great and worked well for me since I lived 10
> minutes from the airport in Houston and the office was 5 minutes from
> Love field in Dallas. *There was no real security checkin and you just
> walked to the boarding gate, showed you ticket and walked on.
>
> Even if they offered such a bargain today I don't think it would be
> possible to do this today with all the issues of security and check
> in. *Even if you live close to the airport at both locations, the time
> to commute would take longer by commercial than by private plane for
> anything less than 800-1000 miles depending on aircraft. *I really
> believe the distance is probably even greater but allowing for a fuel
> stop does affect the time.
>
> What I would recommend is looking for a 4-place aircraft with a bit
> more stability. *I know that many of the 2-place homebuilts have the
> range and speed you are looking for but would be concerned about the
> workload factor on long routine flights. *You don't want a plane that
> you have to fly every minute of the flight. *Most of the 4-place
> planes have slightly heaver wing loading and will give you a smoother
> flight. *I am building a Pulsar Super Cruiser (KIS Cruiser) that would
> make an outstanding choice. *I would also recommend the RV10 if you
> don't mind the larger engine and increased fuel burn.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I also intend to do this with a good autopilot. If I am going to be
thinking about doing this regularly by myself spending 5k+ on good
avionics is cheap in consideration of the safety factor it adds.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

es330td wrote:

>
> I also intend to do this with a good autopilot. If I am going to be
> thinking about doing this regularly by myself spending 5k+ on good
> avionics is cheap in consideration of the safety factor it adds.

The great thing about Ex-HB is you can get a hell of an Auto-Pilot for
less than 5K

[Blueskies]

"es330td" > wrote in message ...
> My mission requirements are a 700 nm range with reserve and a flight
> time under 4 hours facing occasional IMC weather as I will be flying
> between GA and east Texas. I'd also prefer something with as low a
> fuel burn as possible for cost savings.
>


BD-4

[Peter Dohm]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
...
>
> "es330td" > wrote in message
> ...
>> My mission requirements are a 700 nm range with reserve and a flight
>> time under 4 hours facing occasional IMC weather as I will be flying
>> between GA and east Texas. I'd also prefer something with as low a
>> fuel burn as possible for cost savings.
>>
>
>
> BD-4
That actually was a very good cross country performed, although I never rode
in one and have no idea of the roll stability or lack of same. In fact, all
I know of its handling is the statement of an owner, about 25 years ago, who
siad: "It will spin, DON'T!"

Peter