AND THE KIS CRUISER ROUNDS THE PYLON...

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 the

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 he 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

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 the

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 he 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

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

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

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

So - finally on to the posted subject he 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)

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)

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)

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

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