AFAIK, there's no certified airplane approaching the combined speed and economy of a Glasair or an RV. Of course, it doesn't matter how fast those two seats are moving if you need a third seat!

I built an RV6 tail many years ago. The homebuilders' boards would often have threads opposite this one. They'd say, "for half the cost of the airplane I'm building, I could get a Mooney and be flying next week." It's absolutely true. The trick, as Todd points out, is to let someone else do the building. Unfortunately, that means you have to trust a builder. It didn't go so well for John Denver.....

As "homebuilt" becomes synonymous with "RV," the accident rate will go down. Historical data will include White Lightnings, Questairs and Gee Bees. Even the original Glasair was reported (by Budd Davisson, IIRC) to be negatively stable in pitch. They've come a long way.

Good points Stuart. Although, John Denver killed himself by not switching fuel tanks. He also only had a 30-minute checkout in the plane.

With all of the good "professional" shops out there now that assemble and inspect homebuilt airplanes you can be assured of a good build with a proper inspection. One reason I bought the Glasair was due to it's design. It is probably not a sleek as a Lancair, but it is much stronger. You can literally walk on the wing to the end and jump up and down. +9 and -6 Gs. You cannot break one. Go to YouTube and watch some of the vertical 8 aerobatics, inverted loops, etc. There has never been a Glasair broken up in flight. In fact, the yellow arc does not begin until 240 knots. Redline is 300. Show me another piston single that is overbuilt to those standards.

If you need 4 seats buy a RV10. Better yet, buy a Glasair and send the other two on the airlines, because if you are going any real distance you are not putting 4 adults, bags and fuel in a V-tail anyway. Now that my kids are 150 lbs each - even with my wife at 125 and me at 185 we are 75 lbs over gross and about 1/2" aft CG in the Vtail with 75 lbs of bags. In the RV10 you can put 4 real adults and enough fuel to go 900 NM with no CG worries. Nothing probably flies a sweet as a V-tail, though.

Yeah, running out of fuel at 50' and not paying attention while you attempt to switch tanks in an unfamiliar aircraft sucks ... no matter who built the plane.

Todd,

Are the engine overhauls any cheaper for an experimental?

Matt

Anyone aware of popular 5 or 6 seat experimentals? I have t seen any.

Yes and no. You can buy a "Clone" IO-360 or 540 for about 30% less than factory. You can also rebuild the engine slightly cheaper and use more high performance parts to give you better fuel economy and power. The Lightspeed electronic ignition is worth about 10% fuel savings and more horsepower. 10.5:1 pistons help also. You just have more options. You can also buy props that are built for the way you intend to fly.

The Comp Air 10 is probably the best choice. It has a cabin 5 foot wide by 13 foot long. It will hold up to 8 people. STOL takeoff performance and 180+ MPH cruise. Turbine power. A good one can be bought for under $200k.

Todd- that seems to be the only one. Seems to have mixed (not a lot though) reviews. Thanks.

Comp Air, Epic both have options for it.
Lancair Evolution has a few people you have built 5 seat versions. Look for the author of X-Plane for an example.

I know one other company planning/considering a six seat kit. They are still a couple years out I think.

Tim

Murphy Moose.

I think it is probably a pretty good plane, but they are so ugly I don't think I could own one.

http://velocityaircraft.com/airplane-models-xl5.html

Though this may not meet your definition of "popular". There are always a bunch of them at Oshkosh.

This is a solid, fast airframe.

http://velocityaircraft.com/airplane-models-xl5.html

Though this may not meet your definition of "popular". There are always a bunch of them at Oshkosh.

This is a solid, fast airframe.

This is the benefit plus the negative of the experimental stuff. All those parts have not had to jump through the hoops of certification that validates that they meet the design criteria required. I'm sure many, if not most, do. But you the builder or owner are the one required to figure out whether they do.

The safety record of experimentals is, in part, due to all that freedom. The "just enough rope to hang yourself with" cliche kind of fits.

I think it's a great deal for the right person. But there are plenty of people out there who will either throw anything at their airplane willy-nilly without doing any kind of engineering analysis when it's required or whatever. So I encourage people to simply really think through whether it's the right thing for them and their personality. Personally I think it requires a good deal of self-discipline.

Trade offs. Old airframes with multiple owners, expensive parts, avionics, and fuel? Or newer airframe, newer technology, lower priced parts, avionics, and fuel? Looked at a Zenith home build at my local field today. Dynon Glass with 2 axis autopilot, their synthetic vision, engine monitoring for less that a Garmin 650??? This category has my attention....

New airframe, proven avionics, lower fuel burn, electronic ignition....if it fits the mission what am I missing?

Peace,
Don