What airplane would fill this mission?

[John B]

Hello all,

I'm looking for an airplane to purchase or build, but I can't find one
that meets all of my needs/wants (yes, I know, all airplanes are a
bucket of compromises). So, I'm asking all of you out there for
advice on any airplanes that would fit this profile.

Important to Haves:
- could be kept outdoors (eliminates fabric?)
- can carry 2 people
- could be eligible for sport pilot flight (<1232lbs gross)
- could cruise at 95+ kts
- could do limited/basic aerobatics
- has at least reasonable short/soft field performance (say
1500-2000' grass)
- is relatively cheap to fly (engine <115hp or so, decent TBO,
<5-6gph cruise)
- it's not a one-off design that has no parts support or can't be
insured
- if I have to build it, it needs to be "easy" (I've never built
something, a quoted time of ~400hrs maybe?)

Nice to Haves:
- side-by-side seating
- tricycle gear (mostly for insurance)
- could be used to teach my Dad to fly (in terms of flying/landing
qualities..I'm thinking sport-pilot-esqe, so I don't know about the
regulations/legalities yet)
- I'm partial to high-wing, just because of the view down, rather
than the view up.
- Is a type-certificated airplane (I am seriously considering a
homebuilt, but would prefer something that I could be flying sooner
rather than later)
- could have gyros/ifr certified? This is very low priority, but if
it could not be grounded by "benign" ifr, that would be a bonus

From my research, I can't find an airplane that meets all these
ideals. Something like a Citabria might be close, but the fabric
wings/wood spar rule it out (hangars are 5x more expensive than
tiedown at my airport, and you can't get one anyway even if you
wanted). Something like a Zenith Experimental is close, but I don't
think you can do aerobatics in a 601, and the 701 is much more STOL
(and slower cruise) than I want. Also, the sport-pilot criteria are
greatly limiting, so that would probably be the first to go, although
I do have a few friends that are interested in the sport pilot license
and might be potential partners if it can fit.

I'm a 24 year old professional engineer, with about 190hrs total time,
with a private SEL w/ instrument rating. I don't have tons of money
by any means, but I think right now I could afford maybe
$20,000-$30,000 worth of airplane, as long as the operating costs are
reasonably low (in airplane terms ;-) I just want something that I
can fly around on nice days, take friends along sometimes, could learn
to do limited aerobatics (yes, I would definitely take lots of
lessons), and could take on trips of up to 80nm to visit family around
the area.

Thanks everybody, and I welcome any suggestions of airplanes as well
as suggestions of ways to change my criteria above from those who've
been through my experience before.

John Bumgarner

[Colin Kingsbury]

John,

The airplane you're looking for is called a "Unicorn." They're wonderful in
principle and many people claim that if you look hard and long enough you'll
find one for sale, but no one ever seems to.

You're going to need to make some compromises here. One way to go would be
something like a PA-28-140 or an older 172. You'll lose the aerobatic
capability but it scores well on most other points. If Sport Pilot is a big
deal for you my feeling would be that you need to wait a year or so until we
find out what it will mean in the real world.

IMHO you should also look very seriously at taking at least 1 partner for 2
reasons. First, if you find someone who can afford the same as you can, then
you could buy a much nicer plane to start with and save on the maintenance.
Second, when (not if) a big-ticket item hits you, it won't hurt so bad. The
cost of buying the plane isn't half as important as the cost of keeping it
airworthy.

I'm 28 and work in software in the Boston area, and joined a club as a 1/5th
owner of a middle-aged '79 C-172 last April. It cost me 10k to buy in,
$120/mo for fixed costs, and $50 wet tach. I was tempted to spend more money
and buy something fancier, but going this way the plane costs less than my
car all told, so that I still had money left over for other things and
wasn't at as much risk if I lost my job etc etc. In a few years you might
start thinking about a new car or buying a house and it's nice if you don't
have to sell the plane to do that.

Best,
-cwk.


"John B" > wrote in message
om...
> Hello all,
>
> I'm looking for an airplane to purchase or build, but I can't find one
> that meets all of my needs/wants (yes, I know, all airplanes are a
> bucket of compromises). So, I'm asking all of you out there for
> advice on any airplanes that would fit this profile.
>
> Important to Haves:
> - could be kept outdoors (eliminates fabric?)
> - can carry 2 people
> - could be eligible for sport pilot flight (<1232lbs gross)
> - could cruise at 95+ kts
> - could do limited/basic aerobatics
> - has at least reasonable short/soft field performance (say
> 1500-2000' grass)
> - is relatively cheap to fly (engine <115hp or so, decent TBO,
> <5-6gph cruise)
> - it's not a one-off design that has no parts support or can't be
> insured
> - if I have to build it, it needs to be "easy" (I've never built
> something, a quoted time of ~400hrs maybe?)
>
> Nice to Haves:
> - side-by-side seating
> - tricycle gear (mostly for insurance)
> - could be used to teach my Dad to fly (in terms of flying/landing
> qualities..I'm thinking sport-pilot-esqe, so I don't know about the
> regulations/legalities yet)
> - I'm partial to high-wing, just because of the view down, rather
> than the view up.
> - Is a type-certificated airplane (I am seriously considering a
> homebuilt, but would prefer something that I could be flying sooner
> rather than later)
> - could have gyros/ifr certified? This is very low priority, but if
> it could not be grounded by "benign" ifr, that would be a bonus
>
> From my research, I can't find an airplane that meets all these
> ideals. Something like a Citabria might be close, but the fabric
> wings/wood spar rule it out (hangars are 5x more expensive than
> tiedown at my airport, and you can't get one anyway even if you
> wanted). Something like a Zenith Experimental is close, but I don't
> think you can do aerobatics in a 601, and the 701 is much more STOL
> (and slower cruise) than I want. Also, the sport-pilot criteria are
> greatly limiting, so that would probably be the first to go, although
> I do have a few friends that are interested in the sport pilot license
> and might be potential partners if it can fit.
>
> I'm a 24 year old professional engineer, with about 190hrs total time,
> with a private SEL w/ instrument rating. I don't have tons of money
> by any means, but I think right now I could afford maybe
> $20,000-$30,000 worth of airplane, as long as the operating costs are
> reasonably low (in airplane terms ;-) I just want something that I
> can fly around on nice days, take friends along sometimes, could learn
> to do limited aerobatics (yes, I would definitely take lots of
> lessons), and could take on trips of up to 80nm to visit family around
> the area.
>
> Thanks everybody, and I welcome any suggestions of airplanes as well
> as suggestions of ways to change my criteria above from those who've
> been through my experience before.
>
> John Bumgarner

[Jerry Springer]

Sounds like you want a 152 Cessna Aerobat

John B wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I'm looking for an airplane to purchase or build, but I can't find one
> that meets all of my needs/wants (yes, I know, all airplanes are a
> bucket of compromises). So, I'm asking all of you out there for
> advice on any airplanes that would fit this profile.
>
> Important to Haves:
> - could be kept outdoors (eliminates fabric?)
> - can carry 2 people
> - could be eligible for sport pilot flight (<1232lbs gross)
> - could cruise at 95+ kts
> - could do limited/basic aerobatics
> - has at least reasonable short/soft field performance (say
> 1500-2000' grass)
> - is relatively cheap to fly (engine <115hp or so, decent TBO,
> <5-6gph cruise)
> - it's not a one-off design that has no parts support or can't be
> insured
> - if I have to build it, it needs to be "easy" (I've never built
> something, a quoted time of ~400hrs maybe?)
>
> Nice to Haves:
> - side-by-side seating
> - tricycle gear (mostly for insurance)
> - could be used to teach my Dad to fly (in terms of flying/landing
> qualities..I'm thinking sport-pilot-esqe, so I don't know about the
> regulations/legalities yet)
> - I'm partial to high-wing, just because of the view down, rather
> than the view up.
> - Is a type-certificated airplane (I am seriously considering a
> homebuilt, but would prefer something that I could be flying sooner
> rather than later)
> - could have gyros/ifr certified? This is very low priority, but if
> it could not be grounded by "benign" ifr, that would be a bonus
>
> From my research, I can't find an airplane that meets all these
> ideals. Something like a Citabria might be close, but the fabric
> wings/wood spar rule it out (hangars are 5x more expensive than
> tiedown at my airport, and you can't get one anyway even if you
> wanted). Something like a Zenith Experimental is close, but I don't
> think you can do aerobatics in a 601, and the 701 is much more STOL
> (and slower cruise) than I want. Also, the sport-pilot criteria are
> greatly limiting, so that would probably be the first to go, although
> I do have a few friends that are interested in the sport pilot license
> and might be potential partners if it can fit.
>
> I'm a 24 year old professional engineer, with about 190hrs total time,
> with a private SEL w/ instrument rating. I don't have tons of money
> by any means, but I think right now I could afford maybe
> $20,000-$30,000 worth of airplane, as long as the operating costs are
> reasonably low (in airplane terms ;-) I just want something that I
> can fly around on nice days, take friends along sometimes, could learn
> to do limited aerobatics (yes, I would definitely take lots of
> lessons), and could take on trips of up to 80nm to visit family around
> the area.
>
> Thanks everybody, and I welcome any suggestions of airplanes as well
> as suggestions of ways to change my criteria above from those who've
> been through my experience before.
>
> John Bumgarner

[Dave]

"John B" > wrote in message
om...
> Hello all,
>
> I'm looking for an airplane to purchase or build, but I can't find one
> that meets all of my needs/wants (yes, I know, all airplanes are a
> bucket of compromises). So, I'm asking all of you out there for
> advice on any airplanes that would fit this profile.
>
> Important to Haves:
> - could be kept outdoors (eliminates fabric?)
> - can carry 2 people
> - could be eligible for sport pilot flight (<1232lbs gross)
> - could cruise at 95+ kts
> - could do limited/basic aerobatics
> - has at least reasonable short/soft field performance (say
> 1500-2000' grass)
> - is relatively cheap to fly (engine <115hp or so, decent TBO,
> <5-6gph cruise)
> - it's not a one-off design that has no parts support or can't be
> insured
> - if I have to build it, it needs to be "easy" (I've never built
> something, a quoted time of ~400hrs maybe?)
>
> Nice to Haves:
> - side-by-side seating
> - tricycle gear (mostly for insurance)
> - could be used to teach my Dad to fly (in terms of flying/landing
> qualities..I'm thinking sport-pilot-esqe, so I don't know about the
> regulations/legalities yet)
> - I'm partial to high-wing, just because of the view down, rather
> than the view up.
> - Is a type-certificated airplane (I am seriously considering a
> homebuilt, but would prefer something that I could be flying sooner
> rather than later)
> - could have gyros/ifr certified? This is very low priority, but if
> it could not be grounded by "benign" ifr, that would be a bonus
>
> From my research, I can't find an airplane that meets all these
> ideals. Something like a Citabria might be close, but the fabric
> wings/wood spar rule it out (hangars are 5x more expensive than
> tiedown at my airport, and you can't get one anyway even if you
> wanted). Something like a Zenith Experimental is close, but I don't
> think you can do aerobatics in a 601, and the 701 is much more STOL
> (and slower cruise) than I want. Also, the sport-pilot criteria are
> greatly limiting, so that would probably be the first to go, although
> I do have a few friends that are interested in the sport pilot license
> and might be potential partners if it can fit.
>
> I'm a 24 year old professional engineer, with about 190hrs total time,
> with a private SEL w/ instrument rating. I don't have tons of money
> by any means, but I think right now I could afford maybe
> $20,000-$30,000 worth of airplane, as long as the operating costs are
> reasonably low (in airplane terms ;-) I just want something that I
> can fly around on nice days, take friends along sometimes, could learn
> to do limited aerobatics (yes, I would definitely take lots of
> lessons), and could take on trips of up to 80nm to visit family around
> the area.
>
> Thanks everybody, and I welcome any suggestions of airplanes as well
> as suggestions of ways to change my criteria above from those who've
> been through my experience before.
>
> John Bumgarner

For a low wing suggestion with exceptional "above" visibility you could a
lot worse than consider the Slingsby T67C.
http://www.slingsby.co.uk/firefly.htm#clients

I don't know whether there are any on the US market but they are a well
build plane, composite, hard wearing and my Dad used to be the Chief
Inspector issuing certificates of airworthiness.

[Dave]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dave wrote:
> >
> > For a low wing suggestion with exceptional "above" visibility you could
a
> > lot worse than consider the Slingsby T67C.
>
> It weighs 1300 pounds too much to meet the requirements.
>

Compromise

[Chris]

www.velocityaircraft.com

Give their "XL" line of aircraft a look, like the Elite XL.

These have a very large passenger space for a kit-built craft, and good
handling characteristics.

[Frank]

A properly finished fabric covered aircraft can be tied down outside for
approximately 20 yrs. before requiring recover, according to the fabric
suppliers.

[L.D.]

Frank wrote:

>A properly finished fabric covered aircraft can be tied down outside for
>approximately 20 yrs. before requiring recover, according to the fabric
>suppliers.
>
>
Yes, Like Frank says, don't rule out fabric airplane. I have seen many
fabric airplanes live outside for 20 years. If your airplane lives
outside and you have a hail storm, you would wish you had fabric. You
ever try to replace all the skin on an aluminum airplane?

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dave wrote:
>
> For a low wing suggestion with exceptional "above" visibility you could a
> lot worse than consider the Slingsby T67C.

It weighs 1300 pounds too much to meet the requirements.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Jeff LeTempt]

I think the Velocity only meets one of John's criteria....it can carry 2
people. Everything else is a bust.

Jeff

"Chris" > wrote in message
. com...
> www.velocityaircraft.com
>
> Give their "XL" line of aircraft a look, like the Elite XL.
>
> These have a very large passenger space for a kit-built craft, and good
> handling characteristics.
>
>

[David H]

John B wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I'm looking for an airplane to purchase or build, but I can't find one
> that meets all of my needs/wants (yes, I know, all airplanes are a
> bucket of compromises). So, I'm asking all of you out there for
> advice on any airplanes that would fit this profile.
>
> Important to Haves:
> - could be kept outdoors (eliminates fabric?)
> - can carry 2 people
> - could be eligible for sport pilot flight (<1232lbs gross)
> - could cruise at 95+ kts
> - could do limited/basic aerobatics
> - has at least reasonable short/soft field performance (say
> 1500-2000' grass)
> - is relatively cheap to fly (engine <115hp or so, decent TBO,
> <5-6gph cruise)
> - it's not a one-off design that has no parts support or can't be
> insured
> - if I have to build it, it needs to be "easy" (I've never built
> something, a quoted time of ~400hrs maybe?)
>
> Nice to Haves:
> - side-by-side seating
> - tricycle gear (mostly for insurance)
> - could be used to teach my Dad to fly (in terms of flying/landing
> qualities..I'm thinking sport-pilot-esqe, so I don't know about the
> regulations/legalities yet)
> - I'm partial to high-wing, just because of the view down, rather
> than the view up.
> - Is a type-certificated airplane (I am seriously considering a
> homebuilt, but would prefer something that I could be flying sooner
> rather than later)
> - could have gyros/ifr certified? This is very low priority, but if
> it could not be grounded by "benign" ifr, that would be a bonus
>
> From my research, I can't find an airplane that meets all these
> ideals.

Do you want to go flying, or do you want to spend a few years building an
airplane and then go flying?

I've got nothing but respect for those that are up to the task of
building their own plane, and maybe one day I'll have the time, skills
and patience (and money) to build one of my own (I'd love to - who
wouldn't?), but I think it's important to keep in mind how you want to
spend your time. Building a plane is no small undertaking. Homebuilts
certainly are very, very tempting, but I think for a lot of us the time
and effort required are beyond what we are able or willing to commit to.

As for your requirements, many of us have been down this road before.
For me, a simple Cessna 150 fits the mission pretty well, and with the
exception of the sport pilot qualification, the aerobatics and
super-short field capabilities, it fits yours too (you WILL have to
compromise). As pointed out elsewhere, you could get a C-150 Aerobat if
that's important, and there are 150HP 150s available that make great
short-field performers. Of course, the plane is limited in many ways,
but any airplane is, and for me at least, the 150 fits my needs well
enough. There are another handful of older airplanes out there that would
work just fine as well: need four seats? a 172 or a Cherokee. Maybe an
Ercoupe or a Champ (can't find much cheaper flying than that). If a
taildragger is OK then a Luscombe gets you more style at the cost of some
interior room and carrying capacity. There are plenty of decent older
airplanes you can buy for the cost of a very modest new car, and which
you can fly on the cheap.

My recommendation: subscribe to Trade-A-Plane for a few months and read
the ads just to get a feel for what your money gets you. Look up the
type clubs for the 2 or 3 models you identify and watch their websites
for insights. Talk to owners of these planes about their experiences.
Bum rides and fly a couple of them. Then start looking for a good one,
and be patient until the right one comes along. Then take a deep breath
and don't look back!

Good lick!

David H
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying

[Chris]

"Jeff LeTempt" > wrote in message
...
> I think the Velocity only meets one of John's criteria....it can carry 2
> people. Everything else is a bust.

According to the press I've seen, 200 knots cruise, so there's atleast 2.
Probably fits the stowage as well, with modifications.

It should be practical in price considerations also, unless you go overboard
with the plush leather seats and top of the line instrumentation.

[Chris]

"Jeff LeTempt" > wrote in message
...
> I think the Velocity only meets one of John's criteria....it can carry 2
> people. Everything else is a bust.

Ok, let's go down the list....

Important to Haves :

- could be kept outdoors
- can carry 2 people
- could cruise at 95+ kts
my documentation gives it a 200 kt cruise with a Lycoming IO 540

- has at least reasonable short/soft field performance (say 1500=2000'
grass)
- is relatively cheap to fly
- if I have to build it, it needs to be "easy"
if you're "lazy" or at a lower skill level, you can get most or all
subassemblies
pre-assembled. Can't get much easier than that.

----------------

Nice to Haves :

- side-by-side seating
- could be used to teach my Dad to fly

And this, just from cursory knowledge of the model. I could probably go
even further, but it's 10am on a saturday, and I'd rather get back to sleep.

;-)

Of course, there are many other planes, homebuilt and not, that would fit
alot of his criteria. Velocity just looks to me to be an interesting plane.
Someday I may own one,
but not today.

[RU ok]

, "Chris" > wrote:

>- has at least reasonable short/soft field performance (say 1500=2000'
>grass)

Caveat Emptor !

>- is relatively cheap to fly

Caveat Emptor !

>- if I have to build it, it needs to be "easy"
> if you're "lazy" or at a lower skill level, you can get most or all
>subassemblies
> pre-assembled. Can't get much easier than that.

Caveat Emptor !


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

[Jeff]

Chris

You are correct sir that the Velocity XL (the model you recommended) can
cruise faster than 95 knots and I agree the Velocity is a neat airplane, but
it is not the best plane for John's mission needs. But if you really want
to go do the list.......

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hello all,

I'm looking for an airplane to purchase or build, but I can't find one that
meets all of my needs/wants (yes, I know, all airplanes are a bucket of
compromises). So, I'm asking all of you out there for advice on any
airplanes that would fit this profile.

Important to Haves:

- could be kept outdoors (eliminates fabric?)

======= could be done I guess, but you do not see many NICE glass airplanes
sitting outside for long periods of time. At least they do not stay nice
for long if you leave them outside.

- can carry 2 people

======= no problem as I said before

- could be eligible for sport pilot flight (<1232lbs gross)

======= according to Velocity, empty weight is atleast 1300 pounds, maximum
level speed is way to fast, and stall speed is also way to fast.

- could cruise at 95+ kts

======= as you said this is an easy one

- could do limited/basic aerobatics

======= not within the mission capabilities of a Velocity

- has at least reasonable short/soft field performance (say 1500-2000'
grass)

======= not within the mission capabilities of a Velocity

- is relatively cheap to fly (engine <115hp or so, decent TBO, <5-6gph
cruise)

======= With recommended engine capacity of 260 to 300 HP
(http://www.velocityaircraft.com/airmodel.html) fuel consumption would be
probably 12-15 GPH, not what I would call cheap to fly.

- it's not a one-off design that has no parts support or can't be insured

======= I guess the Velocity would also meet this requirement

- if I have to build it, it needs to be "easy" (I've never built something,
a quoted time of ~400hrs maybe?)

======= Even if you believe what the manufacturer claims, minimum time to
build would be 3 time more than this for a standard build kit. If you opted
to spend an additional $18,500 you could have the fast build kit done in
double this time.

Nice to Haves:

- side-by-side seating

======= Velocity does this

- tricycle gear (mostly for insurance)

======= Velocity does this

- could be used to teach my Dad to fly (in terms of flying/landing
qualities..I'm thinking sport-pilot-esqe, so I don't know about the
regulations/legalities yet)

======= Velocity could do this

- I'm partial to high-wing, just because of the view down, rather than the
view up.

======= Velocity does not do this

- Is a type-certificated airplane (I am seriously considering a homebuilt,
but would prefer something that I could be flying sooner rather than later)

======= No and Yes

- could have gyros/ifr certified? This is very low priority, but if it
could not be grounded by "benign" ifr, that would be a bonus

======= Velocity does this

From my research, I can't find an airplane that meets all these ideals.
Something like a Citabria might be close, but the fabric wings/wood spar
rule it out (hangars are 5x more expensive than tiedown at my airport, and
you can't get one anyway even if you wanted). Something like a Zenith
Experimental is close, but I don't
think you can do aerobatics in a 601, and the 701 is much more STOL (and
slower cruise) than I want. Also, the sport-pilot criteria are greatly
limiting, so that would probably be the first to go, although I do have a
few friends that are interested in the sport pilot license and might be
potential partners if it can fit.

I'm a 24 year old professional engineer, with about 190hrs total time, with
a private SEL w/ instrument rating. I don't have tons of money by any
means, but I think right now I could afford maybe $20,000-$30,000 worth of
airplane, as long as the operating costs are reasonably low (in airplane
terms ;-) I just want something that I can fly around on nice days, take
friends along sometimes, could learn to do limited aerobatics (yes, I would
definitely take lots of lessons), and could take on trips of up to 80nm to
visit family around the area.

======= a Velocity for $20,000-30,000 - right. $37,500 gets you a standard
airplane kit. If you could build one for less than $50,000 I would be
impressed. Even on the Velocity web site they claim $55,000 to build a SE,
and that is for a used 180-220 HP engine, not a 260-300 HP as recommended
for the XL. Not to mention the basic kit price for the XL is $10,000 more
than the SE. I would guess a basic XL could be built for about
$65,000-70,000, more than double what he says he can afford. Could find a
partner I guess. Aerobatics - not in a Velocity. Occasionally take
friends - would be way better off to own a 2 seater and ocasionally rent a 4
seater. 80 NM trip in a Velocity is a little overkill wouldn't you say. If
he said 800 NM then the Velocity may be a better choice.

Thanks everybody, and I welcome any suggestions of airplanes as well as
suggestions of ways to change my criteria above from those who've been
through my experience before.

John Bumgarner


"Chris" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Jeff LeTempt" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I think the Velocity only meets one of John's criteria....it can carry 2
> > people. Everything else is a bust.
>
> Ok, let's go down the list....
>
> Important to Haves :
>
> - could be kept outdoors
> - can carry 2 people
> - could cruise at 95+ kts
> my documentation gives it a 200 kt cruise with a Lycoming IO 540
>
> - has at least reasonable short/soft field performance (say 1500=2000'
> grass)
> - is relatively cheap to fly
> - if I have to build it, it needs to be "easy"
> if you're "lazy" or at a lower skill level, you can get most or all
> subassemblies
> pre-assembled. Can't get much easier than that.
>
> ----------------
>
> Nice to Haves :
>
> - side-by-side seating
> - could be used to teach my Dad to fly
>
> And this, just from cursory knowledge of the model. I could probably go
> even further, but it's 10am on a saturday, and I'd rather get back to
sleep.
>
> ;-)
>
> Of course, there are many other planes, homebuilt and not, that would fit
> alot of his criteria. Velocity just looks to me to be an interesting
plane.
> Someday I may own one,
> but not today.
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Chris wrote:
>
> - has at least reasonable short/soft field performance (say 1500=2000'
> grass)

The various models use anywhere from 1300' to 1600' of asphalt. If you're
taking a Velocity out of a 2000' grass strip, you're going to have to be
running light.

> - is relatively cheap to fly

If you put one of the larger engines in it, it wouldn't be my idea of cheap
to fly.

> - if I have to build it, it needs to be "easy"
> if you're "lazy" or at a lower skill level, you can get most or all
> subassemblies
> pre-assembled. Can't get much easier than that.

You still have to do over half the work, and you have to deal with all the
precautions of dealing with glass layup techniques. Might be able to buy a
partially completed kit reasonably, though. From someone who didn't take
those precautions.

The main killer is his "Sport Pilot" requirement. No way a Velocity is going
to come in under 1200 pounds.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[G.R. Patterson III]

David H wrote:
>
> For me, a simple Cessna 150 fits the mission pretty well, and with the
> exception of the sport pilot qualification, the aerobatics and
> super-short field capabilities, it fits yours too (you WILL have to
> compromise).

Actually, a stock 150 can easily operate out of a 1500' grass strip, if there
are no obstacles at the end. My '69 model could get off the ground in less than
700' of asphalt with a mid-time engine and a full load.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[larsen-tools]

Sonny, at your age and income bracket, stick to reading magazines and
renting.
Flying is a rich man's sport, a poor man's fantasy, or an up-scale blue
collar job. You can't afford it.
If you want to fly, go join the air force.


"John B" > wrote in message
om...
> Hello all,
>
> I'm looking for an airplane to purchase or build, but I can't find one
> that meets all of my needs/wants (yes, I know, all airplanes are a
> bucket of compromises). So, I'm asking all of you out there for
> advice on any airplanes that would fit this profile.
>
> Important to Haves:
> - could be kept outdoors (eliminates fabric?)
> - can carry 2 people
> - could be eligible for sport pilot flight (<1232lbs gross)
> - could cruise at 95+ kts
> - could do limited/basic aerobatics
> - has at least reasonable short/soft field performance (say
> 1500-2000' grass)
> - is relatively cheap to fly (engine <115hp or so, decent TBO,
> <5-6gph cruise)
> - it's not a one-off design that has no parts support or can't be
> insured
> - if I have to build it, it needs to be "easy" (I've never built
> something, a quoted time of ~400hrs maybe?)
>
> Nice to Haves:
> - side-by-side seating
> - tricycle gear (mostly for insurance)
> - could be used to teach my Dad to fly (in terms of flying/landing
> qualities..I'm thinking sport-pilot-esqe, so I don't know about the
> regulations/legalities yet)
> - I'm partial to high-wing, just because of the view down, rather
> than the view up.
> - Is a type-certificated airplane (I am seriously considering a
> homebuilt, but would prefer something that I could be flying sooner
> rather than later)
> - could have gyros/ifr certified? This is very low priority, but if
> it could not be grounded by "benign" ifr, that would be a bonus
>
> From my research, I can't find an airplane that meets all these
> ideals. Something like a Citabria might be close, but the fabric
> wings/wood spar rule it out (hangars are 5x more expensive than
> tiedown at my airport, and you can't get one anyway even if you
> wanted). Something like a Zenith Experimental is close, but I don't
> think you can do aerobatics in a 601, and the 701 is much more STOL
> (and slower cruise) than I want. Also, the sport-pilot criteria are
> greatly limiting, so that would probably be the first to go, although
> I do have a few friends that are interested in the sport pilot license
> and might be potential partners if it can fit.
>
> I'm a 24 year old professional engineer, with about 190hrs total time,
> with a private SEL w/ instrument rating. I don't have tons of money
> by any means, but I think right now I could afford maybe
> $20,000-$30,000 worth of airplane, as long as the operating costs are
> reasonably low (in airplane terms ;-) I just want something that I
> can fly around on nice days, take friends along sometimes, could learn
> to do limited aerobatics (yes, I would definitely take lots of
> lessons), and could take on trips of up to 80nm to visit family around
> the area.
>
> Thanks everybody, and I welcome any suggestions of airplanes as well
> as suggestions of ways to change my criteria above from those who've
> been through my experience before.
>
> John Bumgarner

[Bruce Bockius]

You suggested a Zodiac 601, and I'll agree...

> Important to Haves:
> - could be kept outdoors (eliminates fabric?)

Not a problem. All metal 6061-T6 corrosion resistant construction.

> - can carry 2 people

Yes

> - could be eligible for sport pilot flight (<1232lbs gross)

Yes, depending on model. A 601HD and a 601XL should be.

> - could cruise at 95+ kts

Depending on model. My 601HD cruises at 93kts in real-life.
Obviously a 601XL or HDS will go faster.

> - could do limited/basic aerobatics

The 601's are designed for +/- 6g's (ultimate, pilot only). Obviously
not an Extra, but you can certainly perform mild aerobatics (loops,
rolls, wingovers, spins, etc) without problems.

> - has at least reasonable short/soft field performance (say
> 1500-2000' grass)

Yes. My 601HD takes off/lands in <1000 ft even at 7000+MSL.

> - is relatively cheap to fly (engine <115hp or so, decent TBO,
> <5-6gph cruise)

I used a Subaru engine. About 5.5gph fuel burn. Total ownership
costs (excluding purchase price but including maintenace, liability
insurance, fuel) run me around $12/hour. Tie-downs/hanger is extra.

> - it's not a one-off design that has no parts support or can't be
> insured

Zenith aircraft's been selling them since 1984, with over 1000 flying
worldwide.

> - if I have to build it, it needs to be "easy" (I've never built
> something, a quoted time of ~400hrs maybe?)

Zenith quotes 400 hours. They've built them in 7 days with amateur
labor at Oshkosh and Sun-n-fun. I built mine in 650 hours including a
full instrument panel and some extras.

> Nice to Haves:
> - side-by-side seating

Yes

> - tricycle gear (mostly for insurance)

Both available. I have the taildragger. My insurance is $280/year
for liability. When I was buying hull insurance it was an extra
$1050/year for $35,000 (same was true when I started flying, when my
TT was 160 hrs with 40 hrs in type).

> - could be used to teach my Dad to fly (in terms of flying/landing
> qualities..I'm thinking sport-pilot-esqe, so I don't know about the
> regulations/legalities yet)

Very docile plane, even the taildragger. I test flew mine having
never been in a Zodiac before, or flown a low-wing plane.

> - I'm partial to high-wing, just because of the view down, rather
> than the view up.

The view in a Zodiac with it's canopy is so spectacular you'll never
notice that you have to bank to see straight down.

> - Is a type-certificated airplane (I am seriously considering a
> homebuilt, but would prefer something that I could be flying sooner
> rather than later)

Building will clearly take longer than buying... but you'll know the
airplane much better and you'll be able to do the maintenace and
annuals (which can save a lot of money). And then you'll have a
brand-new plane. Build times for Zodiacs range from the 7 days quoted
above to, well, as long as you want to take. I built rather
leisurely (averaged 53 minutes/day) so mine took 2 years.

> - could have gyros/ifr certified? This is very low priority, but if
> it could not be grounded by "benign" ifr, that would be a bonus

An appropriately equipped Zodiac could be used to "break through" a
ground layer to VFR on top, but would not make an acceptable "hard"
IFR platform. It is simply not stable enough (when you design a plane
you make a tradeoff of stablility for responsiveness - the Zodiac,
being a sport plane, is more nimble than stable.) [Note that I am not
instrument rated, and thus not an expert on what would make an good
IFR platform]

My 601HD with Stratus Subaru, full instruments, NAV/COM & XPDR cost
about $31,000 total.

-Bruce

**********************************
Bruce Bockius
http://www.WhiteAntelopeSoftware.com/zodiac

[Colin Kingsbury]

Horsefeathers!

Disposable income is what matters, and a single 24-year-old with a good job
will have more of it than he will likely see again until his kids are out of
college.

The smart thing for him to do is to buy a decent plane that he can afford to
keep in good shape, so that he has a good chance of selling it quickly at a
good price when he decides he wants to buy a condo or go back to school or
something in a few years. This is much better than buying a fancy car that
will simply depreciate to hell the minute he drives it off the lot.

-cwk.

"larsen-tools" > wrote in message
news:YCJJb.25884$i55.15222@fed1read06...
> Sonny, at your age and income bracket, stick to reading magazines and
> renting.
> Flying is a rich man's sport, a poor man's fantasy, or an up-scale blue
> collar job. You can't afford it.
> If you want to fly, go join the air force.
>

[dave]

I was looking for something similar. I have an instrument rating and
about 200 hours. I bought a citabria last year. Don't rule out fabric
or tailwheels. You may find one with good fabric and the metal spar. I
doubt you'll get one in your price range with a metal spar. You must
get a prebuy from a mechanic that knows citabrias and has done many spar
inspections. As far as insurance, I'm paying about $1100/year. That
was with about 20 hours of tailwheel time with 0 in type. Mine is a
1968 7ECA with a gyro panel. It could be used for IFR. I don't imagine
I'd ever use it for that but it could be used to maintain currency.

The only real snag is the side/side seating. As someone already
suggested, the Cessna 150/152 aerobat may suite your needs.

Also, check out the citabria group on yahoo.com. Tons of good
information and many seasoned pilots.

Good luck in your search!

Dave


John B wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I'm looking for an airplane to purchase or build, but I can't find one
> that meets all of my needs/wants (yes, I know, all airplanes are a
> bucket of compromises). So, I'm asking all of you out there for
> advice on any airplanes that would fit this profile.
>
> Important to Haves:
> - could be kept outdoors (eliminates fabric?)
> - can carry 2 people
> - could be eligible for sport pilot flight (<1232lbs gross)
> - could cruise at 95+ kts
> - could do limited/basic aerobatics
> - has at least reasonable short/soft field performance (say
> 1500-2000' grass)
> - is relatively cheap to fly (engine <115hp or so, decent TBO,
> <5-6gph cruise)
> - it's not a one-off design that has no parts support or can't be
> insured
> - if I have to build it, it needs to be "easy" (I've never built
> something, a quoted time of ~400hrs maybe?)
>
> Nice to Haves:
> - side-by-side seating
> - tricycle gear (mostly for insurance)
> - could be used to teach my Dad to fly (in terms of flying/landing
> qualities..I'm thinking sport-pilot-esqe, so I don't know about the
> regulations/legalities yet)
> - I'm partial to high-wing, just because of the view down, rather
> than the view up.
> - Is a type-certificated airplane (I am seriously considering a
> homebuilt, but would prefer something that I could be flying sooner
> rather than later)
> - could have gyros/ifr certified? This is very low priority, but if
> it could not be grounded by "benign" ifr, that would be a bonus
>
> From my research, I can't find an airplane that meets all these
> ideals. Something like a Citabria might be close, but the fabric
> wings/wood spar rule it out (hangars are 5x more expensive than
> tiedown at my airport, and you can't get one anyway even if you
> wanted). Something like a Zenith Experimental is close, but I don't
> think you can do aerobatics in a 601, and the 701 is much more STOL
> (and slower cruise) than I want. Also, the sport-pilot criteria are
> greatly limiting, so that would probably be the first to go, although
> I do have a few friends that are interested in the sport pilot license
> and might be potential partners if it can fit.
>
> I'm a 24 year old professional engineer, with about 190hrs total time,
> with a private SEL w/ instrument rating. I don't have tons of money
> by any means, but I think right now I could afford maybe
> $20,000-$30,000 worth of airplane, as long as the operating costs are
> reasonably low (in airplane terms ;-) I just want something that I
> can fly around on nice days, take friends along sometimes, could learn
> to do limited aerobatics (yes, I would definitely take lots of
> lessons), and could take on trips of up to 80nm to visit family around
> the area.
>
> Thanks everybody, and I welcome any suggestions of airplanes as well
> as suggestions of ways to change my criteria above from those who've
> been through my experience before.
>
> John Bumgarner

[Gilan]

The Titan Tornado S with a Jabiru 2200 would be a nice choice.
http://www.titanaircraft.com/AircraftDetail.asp?PKID=5
--
Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Ercoupe!!! It's low-wing, other than that it pretty much fits.

for example: http://www.aso.com/i.aso/AircraftView.jsp?aircraft_id=58543
This is the most expensive one I have ever seen, the vast majority of
htem are less cherry and in the low 20's or high teens.

disclaimer: I have no interest in this plane though I have lusted after it.

John B wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I'm looking for an airplane to purchase or build, but I can't find one
> that meets all of my needs/wants (yes, I know, all airplanes are a
> bucket of compromises). So, I'm asking all of you out there for
> advice on any airplanes that would fit this profile.
>
> Important to Haves:
> - could be kept outdoors (eliminates fabric?)
> - can carry 2 people
> - could be eligible for sport pilot flight (<1232lbs gross)
> - could cruise at 95+ kts
> - could do limited/basic aerobatics
> - has at least reasonable short/soft field performance (say
> 1500-2000' grass)
> - is relatively cheap to fly (engine <115hp or so, decent TBO,
> <5-6gph cruise)
> - it's not a one-off design that has no parts support or can't be
> insured
> - if I have to build it, it needs to be "easy" (I've never built
> something, a quoted time of ~400hrs maybe?)
>
> Nice to Haves:
> - side-by-side seating
> - tricycle gear (mostly for insurance)
> - could be used to teach my Dad to fly (in terms of flying/landing
> qualities..I'm thinking sport-pilot-esqe, so I don't know about the
> regulations/legalities yet)
> - I'm partial to high-wing, just because of the view down, rather
> than the view up.
> - Is a type-certificated airplane (I am seriously considering a
> homebuilt, but would prefer something that I could be flying sooner
> rather than later)
> - could have gyros/ifr certified? This is very low priority, but if
> it could not be grounded by "benign" ifr, that would be a bonus
>
> From my research, I can't find an airplane that meets all these
> ideals. Something like a Citabria might be close, but the fabric
> wings/wood spar rule it out (hangars are 5x more expensive than
> tiedown at my airport, and you can't get one anyway even if you
> wanted). Something like a Zenith Experimental is close, but I don't
> think you can do aerobatics in a 601, and the 701 is much more STOL
> (and slower cruise) than I want. Also, the sport-pilot criteria are
> greatly limiting, so that would probably be the first to go, although
> I do have a few friends that are interested in the sport pilot license
> and might be potential partners if it can fit.
>
> I'm a 24 year old professional engineer, with about 190hrs total time,
> with a private SEL w/ instrument rating. I don't have tons of money
> by any means, but I think right now I could afford maybe
> $20,000-$30,000 worth of airplane, as long as the operating costs are
> reasonably low (in airplane terms ;-) I just want something that I
> can fly around on nice days, take friends along sometimes, could learn
> to do limited aerobatics (yes, I would definitely take lots of
> lessons), and could take on trips of up to 80nm to visit family around
> the area.
>
> Thanks everybody, and I welcome any suggestions of airplanes as well
> as suggestions of ways to change my criteria above from those who've
> been through my experience before.
>
> John Bumgarner

[Rich S.]

"TTA Cherokee Driver" > wrote in message
...
> Ercoupe!!! It's low-wing, other than that it pretty much fits.
>
> > - could do limited/basic aerobatics

Only if manufactured prior to June, 1946 (Under the old C.A.R.'s which
lacked the Standard, Utility and Aerobatic classifications).

Rich S.
Ex-owner of N94195, mfg. May, 1946.