nondem wrote:
There are lots of similar comments on the thing. There are a few around
- I notice lots of them seem to be fitted(and flying) with much heavier
engines and accessories than the original plans call for. Makes me
think the plane is more robust than you might think considering it's
recommended engines and weights. I like the idea of the thing being
stronger than it has to be.
As far as I can tell it's the only no-weld,bolt together airplane that
doesn't require a finish carpenters skills and/or a big bucket of
money.

Financially - it looks like I'll be able to build the fuselage main
structure w/under $400 in materials. That includes using all AN quality
hardware. Being able to build the thing in $200-$300 increments fits
right in w/my situation.

I have found no information on any design flaws and all the owners I
can find references from are positive. There are ski and float versions
flying.
Can you(or anyone) find any real technical reasons for avoiding the
design?
I have the plans in hand and you can tell it's a one man show - but you
can also tell the guy did his homework and believes in the plane.


Just for grins and giggles...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/texasparasol/