Any plans-built "RV equivalents" out there?

"Morgans" wrote in message
...
Slap an autopilot in it, for less than $2000, and it would be "real"
stable.
--
Jim in NC

I've heard that the factory support for such a move would be less than nil -
no
modifications allowed (or even discussed)!

Sure, you could do such a thing - but you'd be burned at the stake if caught
8-)...

In article ,
"Netgeek" wrote:

I've been searching quite a bit for something equivalent or similar to an
RV-9 but
available as a plans-built. So far - no luck (seems that Van has done too
good a
job 8-)...

Basic requirements are - well - same as an RV-9: Metal, 2-seat (not tandem),
power from O-200/O-235/IO-240/O-320 - minimum cruise around 150-175mph,
range approximately 500-600 NM+, very stable (non-aerobatic)

Anybody here know of such a thing - or is it time to write Van a check
8-)...?

Thanks for any input.
Bill


The Mustang II is still available.

Look at the Mustang II, like we have. URL for the company he
http://www.mustangaero.com/

Kits or plans.



Netgeek wrote:
I've been searching quite a bit for something equivalent or similar to an
RV-9 but
available as a plans-built. So far - no luck (seems that Van has done too
good a
job 8-)...

Basic requirements are - well - same as an RV-9: Metal, 2-seat (not tandem),
power from O-200/O-235/IO-240/O-320 - minimum cruise around 150-175mph,
range approximately 500-600 NM+, very stable (non-aerobatic)

Anybody here know of such a thing - or is it time to write Van a check
8-)...?

Thanks for any input.
Bill

If you can afford it, write vans the check. You won't be sorry.

John Oliveira
N909RV reserved.
All flying surfaces done, working on Fuselage


"AINut" wrote in message
...
Look at the Mustang II, like we have. URL for the company he
http://www.mustangaero.com/

Kits or plans.



Netgeek wrote:
I've been searching quite a bit for something equivalent or similar to an
RV-9 but
available as a plans-built. So far - no luck (seems that Van has done
too
good a
job 8-)...

Basic requirements are - well - same as an RV-9: Metal, 2-seat (not
tandem),
power from O-200/O-235/IO-240/O-320 - minimum cruise around 150-175mph,
range approximately 500-600 NM+, very stable (non-aerobatic)

Anybody here know of such a thing - or is it time to write Van a check
8-)...?

Thanks for any input.
Bill

"John Oliveira" wrote in message
...
If you can afford it, write vans the check. You won't be sorry.

John Oliveira

"AINut" wrote in message
...
Look at the Mustang II, like we have. URL for the company he
http://www.mustangaero.com/

Kits or plans.

The Mustang looks really interesting - more than I need in terms of
performance
and looks like it would take a LONG time to build - but that's okay. Seems
anything worthwhile WILL take forever.

I wish Vans had something more of a "mixed" approach - i.e. fabricate what
you
want and buy the rest "ala carte" - but if that doesn't fit their business
model, so be
it - I can understand that.

I'll keep thinking it over - but it would be good therapy if I could at
least bend up
some used beer cans in the meantime 8-)...

Actually, the "perfect" solution (to keep the wife happy) would probably be
a
Canadair CRJ-200 converted for private use with a "tastefully redone
interior".

Meanwhile, I'll start bending some parts soon (likely for the Mustang) just
to keep
busy....

Thanks for all the input!









Netgeek wrote:
I've been searching quite a bit for something equivalent or similar to
an
RV-9 but
available as a plans-built. So far - no luck (seems that Van has done
too
good a
job 8-)...

Basic requirements are - well - same as an RV-9: Metal, 2-seat (not
tandem),
power from O-200/O-235/IO-240/O-320 - minimum cruise around 150-175mph,
range approximately 500-600 NM+, very stable (non-aerobatic)

Anybody here know of such a thing - or is it time to write Van a check
8-)...?

Thanks for any input.
Bill

Netgeek wrote:
"John Oliveira" wrote in message
...

If you can afford it, write vans the check. You won't be sorry.

John Oliveira


"AINut" wrote in message
...

Look at the Mustang II, like we have. URL for the company he
http://www.mustangaero.com/

Kits or plans.


The Mustang looks really interesting - more than I need in terms of
performance
and looks like it would take a LONG time to build - but that's okay. Seems
anything worthwhile WILL take forever.

I wish Vans had something more of a "mixed" approach - i.e. fabricate what
you
want and buy the rest "ala carte" - but if that doesn't fit their business
model, so be
it - I can understand that.

I'll keep thinking it over - but it would be good therapy if I could at
least bend up
some used beer cans in the meantime 8-)...

Actually, the "perfect" solution (to keep the wife happy) would probably be
a
Canadair CRJ-200 converted for private use with a "tastefully redone
interior".

Meanwhile, I'll start bending some parts soon (likely for the Mustang) just
to keep
busy....

Thanks for all the input!


Apologies for the convoluted order of posts....

If your requirements include non-acro/very stable, the M-II really ain't
your plane.

I haven't flown a -9, but I have flown several -4's (currently own one),
-6's & an -8. I've also flown several M-II's & Thorps. All have more or
less neutral stability. They are all great flying planes but aren't
designed for your mission.

The -9A was designed from the beginning for pilots with no tailwheel
time & limited experience in trainers like C-150's Pipers, etc. It's
reported to be much more stable than the other RV's & rumor in the RV
world is that all the Van's employees take the -9A on trips if they get
to pick.

How about the long winged Sonex? (But you really should just write that
check to Van's. Unless you are a consummate scrounger, you'll likely
spend very nearly as much for a scratch built plane before you are done
& believe me, there's plenty left to do with a kit.)

Charlie

Netgeek wrote:

I've been searching quite a bit for something equivalent or similar to

an

RV-9 but
available as a plans-built. So far - no luck (seems that Van has done
too
good a
job 8-)...

Basic requirements are - well - same as an RV-9: Metal, 2-seat (not
tandem),
power from O-200/O-235/IO-240/O-320 - minimum cruise around 150-175mph,
range approximately 500-600 NM+, very stable (non-aerobatic)

Anybody here know of such a thing - or is it time to write Van a check
8-)...?

Thanks for any input.
Bill

"Charlie" wrote in message
.. .
Apologies for the convoluted order of posts....

If your requirements include non-acro/very stable, the M-II really ain't
your plane.

I haven't flown a -9, but I have flown several -4's (currently own one),
-6's & an -8. I've also flown several M-II's & Thorps. All have more or
less neutral stability. They are all great flying planes but aren't
designed for your mission.

The -9A was designed from the beginning for pilots with no tailwheel
time & limited experience in trainers like C-150's Pipers, etc. It's
reported to be much more stable than the other RV's & rumor in the RV
world is that all the Van's employees take the -9A on trips if they get
to pick.

How about the long winged Sonex? (But you really should just write that
check to Van's. Unless you are a consummate scrounger, you'll likely
spend very nearly as much for a scratch built plane before you are done
& believe me, there's plenty left to do with a kit.)


Well, I certainly appreciate all the input from you guys! Looks like
we're back to square one. By that I mean - in looking around, the
RV9 seemed like the perfect plane for what I'd like to do and the
mission - was hoping I could find a plans-built equivalent that would
allow me to "sneak up on it" and start small (and cheap). The Sonex
was tempting - but realistically is meant for something else. The M-II
is probably more slippery, higher performance, and with a longer build
time than I'd hoped (but what a great plane!).

So, I'm back where I started - the RV-9 looks like the right plane
for my needs (and lack of talent - in both piloting and building 8-)...

I guess Van is going to get a check after all. I did read somewhere
exactly what Charlie said - the RV9 is the most stable platform that
Van has offered, great for IFR (even though that's not my intent for
now). So, time to bite the bullet, fatten up the piggy-bank and face
the inevitable - although that's not too onerous 8-)...

Thanks again!

Bill - Probably a future RV9 builder.................

Basic requirements are - well - same as an RV-9: Metal, 2-seat (not
tandem), power from O-200/O-235/IO-240/O-320 - minimum cruise around
150-175mph, range approximately 500-600 NM+, very stable
(non-aerobatic)

Apart from the "Metal" requirement, you've described the Vision
plans-built. (It's composite.) See http://www.visionaircraft.com

Greg

(AllTheGoodUseridsAreGone wrote)
Apart from the "Metal" requirement, you've described the Vision
plans-built. (It's composite.) See http://www.visionaircraft.com


Their website quickly grew rather tiresome. Hope their plane is better
designed than that darn web page. http://www.visionaircraft.com


Montblack

"Netgeek" wrote in message
...
I've been searching quite a bit for something equivalent or similar to an
RV-9 but
available as a plans-built. So far - no luck (seems that Van has done too
good a job 8-)...

Basic requirements are - well - same as an RV-9: Metal, 2-seat (not
tandem),
power from O-200/O-235/IO-240/O-320 - minimum cruise around 150-175mph,
range approximately 500-600 NM+, very stable (non-aerobatic)

Too bad your "requirements" are so specific. There are a couple of
well-proven designs made from "nature's" composite (wood) which are so close
to the RV-6/7/9 plan form that they are usually mistaken for RV's by Oshkosh
controllers. Their cruise speed doesn't quite measure up to the RV's but
they are plans-built and feature a total cost of less than half that of an
RV slow-build kit.

Build time can be as long as you want - if you futz around. But if you're
serious about wanting to fly it before you start collecting social security,
you can figure 3,500 - 4,000 hrs. That's 20 hrs/week for four years. It took
me 3 yrs. 8 mos. from first wood cut to first flight.

For pictures and specs, here's some links:

http://asia.groups.yahoo.com/group/Emerauders/ (Gotta sign up to view the
files, but it's free)

http://www.avions-piel.com/index.php (If you speak French)

http://www.homebuilt.org/kits/littner/littner.html (For plans & specs)

http://www.cis.strath.ac.uk/~if/aviation/emeraude/ (An Aussie's plane)

http://www.emeraude.de/ (A German group)

http://www.corvetteforum.net/c4/elwo...p/harvey5a.jpg (A picture of my
bird, taken from an RV-4! )

http://www.southernaviationservice.c...ts/Diamant.htm (A series of
pictures showing the construction of the 4 place model) He flew it for the
first time a couple of weeks ago.

If you want to drop me an email off-list (make the obvious changes to my
address), I would be happy to discuss the pros and cons of these designs as
well as send you some better pictures and specifications than you can find
on the web.

I have an interesting account of the restoration and flight of one plane
written by a retired USAF Col. who learned to fly in Stearmans, flew P-51's
in the ETO, F-80's in Korea, B-47's during the cold war and "Executive"
transports during 'Nam. He considers the Emeraude to be the finest flying
aircraft he has ever flown. I have to agree with him, though I have much
less range of experience to call on.

Let me know if I can help.

Rich S.