I was just looking at fun 2 seat airplanes to consider when my kids finally move out and we no longer have any dogs to haul around. I was looking at the RV 7's and seen a glasair 1 for sale that caught my attention. I googled them and it appears they are fairly fast. has anyone every owned one or rode in one? I'm 6'0' tall and was wondering if I would have enough head room to sit in one with a headset on. I know nothing about them except they look pretty cool. any gotcha's with the RG model?
thanks for any input
Jim

I owned a Glasair 1 trike 25 years ago. 150 hp engine, fixed pitch wooden prop, extended wing tips with tip tanks, and the big rudder. 185 mph cruise at 8,000'. As I remember it 7-1/2 gph fuel flow.

I am (was more likely) 6 foot and one half inches and weighed 190 lbs. In order to fit vertically (with headset) I had to take the seat cushion out. Mine had the gull wing doors.

My fuel caps leaked horribly. The fuel tanks in the one I owned trapped substantial water and so the Glasair needed to be wing rocked and tail rocked and then sumped again. The gentlemen I sold it to said he was able to fix the leaking fuel caps.

I didn't have an autopilot. Maintaining heading and altitude required constant input.

If you remove the extended wingtips/gas tanks and install the original wingtips it was rated for some aerobatics. I never did that.

It was fun and fast and cheap.

I have owned a 1RG for about 15 years, it's the only one I have ever been in, so I can only speak for mine. Long wings and 160hp w/CS yields about 170 kts, a bit shy of the 200 or so they advertise; the numbers in the POH remind me of those for an early Mooney, obviously written by the marketing department...

When I had a week to burn and decided what I really needed was another airplane, I made a lap around the SW looking a prospective airplanes, on the list was a 450 Stearman, a Lancair 235, 320, 360 and 4, and just because it was along the way, the Glasair 1 RG. I had pretty much decided on the Lancair providing the Boeing Biplane didn't trip my trigger. I came home with the Glasair... With the exception of the Lancair 320, I tried them all out. In all fairness I loved the 4 and the 235, I just wasn't quite ready for that big of hole in my wallet in the case of the 4, and the 235 was simply too small for my 6', 200# to fit in. The 360 was faster than the Glasair but I simply didn't care for it, too much stuffed into too little space; there wasn't even room for a real air filter. The medium Lancair seemed more of a plane I would take to air shows with smooth paved runways, Where the Glasair was more of a real airplane I could fly around the country that would be happy with most any runway I would take my twin Comanche. 15 years later I am still happy with my choice.

When asked what it flys like, probably the closest plane I have flown that is similar is the Aerostar, it likes speed to climb well, especially when heavy, lift off at 80 or so, accelerate to 120-130 and then climb. Try to fly it like a Cessna or a Piper and you feel like you have lead in your ass. Mine has a full wet wing giving it a range of about 2500NM, I have never flown it to max range, but I have made a number of 2000NM legs and it is a surprisingly comfortable airplane to sit in for 10+ hrs. I have always made the long trips alone, making the "bottle breaks", etc. a bit less entertaining.

In all it is a rather conventional airplane, handles ice as well as one could expect, it simply slows down but doesn't have any stability issues as the ice builds, at least up to a 1/2" or so, that is about the most I have ever collected. One thing to remember is with a wet wing the ice won't come off the wings for a while due to the cold gas if the forward tank is full. First time I experienced this it took me a moment to figure out why the ice came off the tail, but not the wing..?? Also there isn't any wire mesh in the structure, so give lightning a wide berth.

As with any experimental, it's all about build quality. No design, no matter how good the designers did can compensate for a crappy build; this is why I didn't try out the Lancair 320, once I saw the Napa wiring, Walmart patio cushions, and West Marine engine instruments I figured it wasn't something I wanted to trust my butt to.

Fun little plane, pretty neat to be going 3 miles a minute and still getting 25 MPG!

Jeff

Thanks for the good info Jeff. do you recall what your useful load is? I'm 6'0' 225lbs. my wife is medium build. would 2 people have issues with their shoulders being too tight together to be comfortable? I'll defiantly put it in the list of planes to check out. I've got a few years to do some research on them. have you ever flown an RV 6,7, or 9? if so, how would you compare the Glasair to an RV?
Thank you
Jim

UL in mine is about 950#, with full fuel (101 gallons) me and a couple bags is about it. Of course you typically aren't going 2000+ miles between stops. One nice thing, I can gas it up and fly around all week without having to look for gas. However, I think finding one like mine with a full wet wing would be a challenge.

As for comfort, it is better than the Lancair, and about on par with the side-by side RV's, in other words it is better if you like the person next to you if the flight is long... The attached picture will give you and idea of what it looks like inside, this was taken a few years ago before I changed out the avionics, but it gives you an idea.

Comparing the Glasair to the RV's, I would give the over all nod the the RV series, after flying both it comes as no surprise Van's creation is literally everywhere and the Glasair is somewhat of a rarity. The Glasair is an old design designed to do primarily one thing, go fast; where the RV was more of a "Total Performance" as Van calls it optimized to do everything well. History has proven this design philosophy to be a winner. I'm a bit of a odd duck that likes stuff a bit different and the little Glasair that can fly from Anchorage to Phoenix, or even Hawaii, without extra tankage was one of the primary reasons I chose it.

The RV's are a heck of a lot easier to transition to, they fly like pretty much anything else and that nice fat wing is a lot more forgiving at slow speeds. Not to say the Glasair is difficult to fly, or has any bad manners, it simply flys like a Glasair. I remember checking out a friend who was no stranger to airplanes, who stated "I thought I was a pretty good pilot until I got in this little thing.." Now this guy was the real deal, PBY, Howard 500, DC3, C46, Jet Star, you name it, he had flow it. The little Glasair has a personality of it's own that takes a few laps around the patch to get up to speed with. Defiantly one of those planes that the less you do the better it likes it, a lot like the A*. Put it on speed and it will land itself, try and land like a Cessna and it gets ugly...

Jeff

Nice Garmin 195!

I had a 1FT that I used to commute to work for two years. I got 145ktas on 7gph. I'm 6"/245# and I flew a lot with my medium sized wife - also with several buddies around my size. You'll have to have one person's arm along the top of the seat back to be comfortable with two guys in there. Mine was very straightforward to own. It was sensitive in pitch and slow in roll. Stall characteristics were a bit snappy and it had no stall horn so you have to actually fly the plane and listen to what it was telling you. Aileron rolls with the engine torque were fine and fun, against the torque took a bit longer. Never did a loop in it.

Mine came with a Sesnich cruise prop which I swapped out for a Prince P-tip prop - that really livened it up.

I crashed a 2S TD. Be aware if there is tailwheel shimmy on the tailwheel strut that is bonded to the fiberglass tail post that it can come unbonded from the fuselage sides in the tail. This will not be visible in a walk around.

What happened was when landing it was not typically a full stall because the TW would hit first followed by the mains. But this day on a grass strip flaring a little high it hit TW first and immediately pitched very nose up. This caught me by surprise because it ballooned up and all I could see was sky. Added some power and tried to bring the nose down but the left wing kept trying to come down. I remembered the lap belts were tied to the wing and the shoulder harnesses are tied to the fuselage so I kept trying to keep the wing from hitting but never could get any rudder control. Bounced and started groundloop to the left. Brake corrected it at first but after crossing the runway it started again to the right.

The TD gear is tied together in the upper fuselage with a cross tube. This tube holds compression loads but in a ground loop situation if there is inward load on the gear all the load is taken by the fuselage side. The fuselage failed outward so the gear folded under and daylight was coming in by the rudder pedals. Fuel lines failed and ended up on my belly and right gear. No real wing damage other than some scratches.

I walked down the runway to the initial contact point and the entire Tailwheel assembly, tail post and rudder horn were laying there. The rudder skin had split open and jammed on the outside of the fuselage. Only one side of the rudder is hinged with a vertical piano hinge. That explains why no rudder control.

I have seen a couple TD1 airplanes with normal leaf springs for the tailwheel. I would try to get that setup or a tapered rod like an RV. Also I would look into longer main gear struts. I believe Grove can make a set to length maybe 3” longer. And also tie the threaded rod completely through the gear leg tops so they can take in and out loads if needed. The stock gear is also too short for a 180 and full length constant speed prop. Wheel landings were too close if any compression on the legs it could hit.

I have a G1 that I commute with daily. Mine is a fixed gear version so my useful load comes in at around 1000 pounds. I don’t have a header tank so I only carry 45 gallons. I plan for 175kts on 11.5gph above 7000ft. I’m 6’, 190lbs and fit with probably 6 inches to spare head-wise. Biggest complaint is comfort for the longer legs. The way the legs are slung under panel and the typical bucket seats, doesn’t allow for much adjusting of body. If you need any advice on a bird your looking at, give me a shout. Some great info on the Glasair forums as well

Had a Glasair 1 RG 15 years ago. 160HP with autopilot & 48 gallons fuel. Called it a pocket rocket. fun to fly. Glasair can do grass fields as well as fly 200mph. cheap, fast, fun. Off to Oshkosh packed to the headliner with camping gear and 2 bodies. will carry some load. can't remember W&B on that trip and don't want to know. A number of different emergency gear extension systems. Lots of different opinions. RV's are much more popular with a lower stall speed and more forgiving. Glasair for cross country travel. RV for kick around fun. Lots of fellow RV owners. not many fellow Glasair owners. Miss the Glasair and think about it often. called the current owner once to chat. climbing in is like sliding your foot int a slipper.

I've had my G1 for almost five years now. Great airplane. I plan 175kts at 8GPH. It's roomy with one person (I can stretch out and move around per say on those 4+ hour trips), good for two small-medium sized people, holds more weight than you can fit in it (650 useful load with full fuel). I'm 5'10"/150lb.

I upgraded the panel a few years ago with a Garmin G3X system. Great IFR platform with the autopilot. You have to stay on top of it if you hand fly.

Build quality is the biggest variant between aircraft. The Glasair II's and III's are much more consistent as more of the kit was pre-molded/assembled. The G1's the builder had to do a lot more detail work.

I can't think of another aircraft that you can operate for ~$100hr that provides the same performance.

That is a gorgeous panel, Dan! She is a pretty bird!