4 seaters to stay away from
Christopher Hastings
should stay away from?
Why?
Thanks,
C Hastings
beginning pilot
Ron Hansen
your belt going low and slow on the mules before you start riding the big
stallions.
Ron (still on a pony) Hansen
Christopher Hastings wrote in message
<387083BA...@worldnet.att.net>...
Capt.Doug
completion of his project? Remember, military jocks start training in jets.
D.
Ron Hansen wrote in message
Kevin O'Brien
tuc...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Are there any kits out there, 4-seaters, preferably faster (150+) that I
> should stay away from?
There are a finite number of 4-seater kits but they run the gamut from
bush planes (Zenair 801, Murphy Rebel) to fast pressurised cruisers
(Lancair IV-P). I had previously heard of _one_ kit manufacturer that
had problems, however I have been corrected on that, and there's nothing
out there that has red flags waving.
With a few exceptions, most of the 4-seat kit makers had years of
experience with smaller planes before making their first 4-seater. If
the aeroplanes were bad they never would have made it to four seater
stage.
Some fast 4-seaters that people DO recommend:
Lancair ES, IV, and IV-P (very good. Expensive. Hold value well for
an experimental. The IV-P is a hard build).
Express (several variations, compare to Lancair ES)
Velocity (canard, several variations, real good company)
AeroCanard (evolution of the plansbuilt Cozy. There is a dedicated
Cozy list out there to look into if you are interested in the a/c.)
CompAir (various numbered models. Ugly but she has a good
personality).
Seawind (amphib, tight 4-place. Read the competing websites on this
one -- and no, this is not the plane I dissed here before).
I'm sure there are more. I have had firsthand testimonials from builders
of the first three. These are all composite, and all except the CompAir
are a bit tight for those far over FAA standard size.
BD-4. Another 'ugly but a good personality' plane.
This is tube and rag construction. An older design. Like the
tri-pacer,it's maligned by everyone who hasn't flown or owned one. Loved
by all who have. (I _think_ someone is still making kits. Eh?)
I can't think of any other 4-place kitbuilts that meet your
requirements. I'm sure others will. And as I said, I can't think of any
to stay away from. When you near a decision, post your shortlist. You
will find _someone_ here is building or flying the planes you're
considering.
cheers
-=K=-
Capt.Doug
take me to P'ville in his new toy, a T-28).
D.
>BOb U. wrote in message
>Not way back in the 1900's. <g>
>They didn't use to when the T-34 and T-28 were alive and well in >primary.
Nothing is sacred in this new millennium.
BOb U.
>So negative....How about if he gets appropiate training before the
>completion of his project? Remember, military jocks start training in jets.
>
>D.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not way back in the 1900's. <g>
They didn't use to when the T-34 and T-28 were alive and well in primary.
Nothing is sacred in this new millennium.
Bob - USAF 60G - U.
Ross Harvey
They still don't. In fact, since their piston trainers were
grounded, I believe the AF now sends trainees to private
flight schools to get a PP now like everyone else.
ross
Roger Halstead
old fashioned prop planes (even if some are turboprops) and they are turning
the primary training over to civilian contractors last I heard.
--
Roger (K8RI)
N833R CD-2 (World's Oldest Debonair?)
http://users.tm.net/rdhalste
"Capt.Doug" <Capt...@theworldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:84ttb7$8or$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
> So negative....How about if he gets appropiate training before the
> completion of his project? Remember, military jocks start training in
jets.
>
> D.
>
highflyer
>
> Are there any kits out there, 4-seaters, preferably faster (150+) that I
> should stay away from?
> Thanks,
> C Hastings
> beginning pilot
years in the EAA, many of which I have been a designee, technical
counselor,
and now, flight advisor, I have seen many horror stories.
Beginning pilots become enamoured with some pretty little airplane that
goes
like the blue blazes and you can work on yourself. They spend thousands
of
dollars and several years of their lives, possibly wrecking their
marriages,
building a superhot airplane.
Then they get it finished, fly it and wreck it on one of the first few
flights. If they don't wreck it they scare themselves so badly that it
never flys again.
Many of these aircraft require a level of proficiency that few pilots
ever
acquire and fewer still can maintain.
You best bet for an inexpensive four place aircraft is something like
the
lowly Piper Tri Pacer. You can buy one for the price of a new car and
fly it for years. In the process you will learn a GREAT deal about
flying and about yourself in the air. Then you will be able to look a
lot more dispassionately at the homebuilt options.
I doubt that is what you wanted to hear, and I suspect you won't listen,
but that is the best advice I can give you.
Given that, of the four place homebuilts that are available, I would
recommend the Bearhawk for a beginning pilot. It is a lot of airplane,
roughly comparable to a Cessna 185 or a big Maule. BUT, it is the least
likely of the lot to eat your lunch before you learn to fly it, in my
far from humble opinion. :-)
--
HighFlyer
Highflight Aviation Services
mark....@sciatl.com
The BD-4 is an aluminum erector set made up of 1/16" angle stock rather
than tubes. Also, it is skinned with sheetmetal rather than fabric.
You are absolutely right in that only an owner would not consider it an
ugly plane.
FWIW,
Mark Napier
www.fastlanta.com/~napierm/bd4/bd4.htm
In article <kevin-EC48E2.19393004012000@[205.252.14.134]>,
Kevin O'Brien <ke...@useorganisationasadomainname.com> wrote:
> In article <387083BA...@worldnet.att.net>,
> tuc...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
<snip>
>
> BD-4. Another 'ugly but a good personality' plane.
>
> This is tube and rag construction. An older design. Like the
> tri-pacer,it's maligned by everyone who hasn't flown or owned one.
Loved
> by all who have. (I _think_ someone is still making kits. Eh?)
>
<snip>
> cheers
>
> -=K=-
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Kevin O'Brien
<richar...@riley.net> wrote:
> > The [Lancair] IV-P is a hard build).
> So is the straight L IV.
The IV-P is in a whole other class. I know two guys (with a regular -IV
under their belt already) who found it a proper bitch kitty. For
example, the door required 800 hours. (First time I visited them they
had 500 in it and thought it about done). They thought it was an order
of magnitude harder than the unpressrised plane. They do speak well of
parts quality and of Lancair people, values and support. They were early
adopters and so had to deal with a lot of change orders.
> > Express (several variations, compare to Lancair ES)
> The design has been through several companies.
Quite true. Started to be a certified didn't it? Chequered history, I
know of no derog on the current owners.
> > CompAir (various numbered models. Ugly but she has a good
> >personality).
> I'd call it conventional, but not ugly.
It looks like a Porter wearing one of your Berkut's skin like Hannibal
Lecter.
> There's the Stallion, a high wing that uses the L IV landing gear and
> the L ES wing, a steel cage and composite skin.
Yeah, actually I don't know why I forgot this, my father has looked at
these as possible replacements for his T210 (now for sale). Good plane,
good design, designer is Martin Hollmann. Another complex and drawn out
build though.
>Defiant,
not kit built and as you point out plans are no longer available.
> > BD-4. Another 'ugly but a good personality' plane.
> >
> >This is tube and rag construction.
>
> Nope, it's aluminum extrusion angle and skin. The original had a
> strange molded plug wing skin, with a chem milled tube spar.
Quite correct. The early kits had a wing, if I recall correctly, made up
of fibreglass modules that went together side-by-side; each module was
like a little wing tank, two ribs became its sides, the top and bottom
were the surfaces of the wing
> Speaking of Rag and Tube, there's the V6 STOL and the Bearhawk.
Plans-built. We were talking about kits primarily -- I think.
cheers
-=K=-
Bob Romanko
Dear Fellow "Rookie" Pilot:
I agree with HF, but then if you follow ANY of my posts, you'll see that I
ALWAYS agree with HF! It's easy, because he's probably the only sane
man in this group, and I haven't seen one post from him yet that didn't
make sense. I respect him and his opinions, and you should take his
advise to heart. Most of the other folks on this group are degenerates
who have been totally corrupted by the likes of Badwater Bill. It's a
sickness. How HF avoided contracting the disease I'll never know.
I'm a VERY low-time pilot, and I think it's important to know your own
personal limitations. I'd have to be a flaming idiot to try flying a
200 mph plane. Things happen VERY quickly at that speed, and if
your logbook is as thin as mine I can promise you would have great
difficulty keeping up with the plane.
I'm building a Bearhawk. I've seen both planes, sat in them, and even
though it's a plans-built airplane, it really won't take much longer to make
than a kit. Think about it. If a kit takes you 2,000 hours to build, and a
plans-built takes 3,000 what the heck is the difference? I mean, if your
willing to spend 2,000 hours on a plane, another 1,000 hours is nothing.
Folks who put in an auto conversion instead of a certified engine spend
that much time (and sometimes more) just getting their powerplant
squared away. The other advantage of a plans-built airplane is that
you spend the money as you go, and it almost always is a cheaper
way to build. A Bearhawk is NOT rocket science. It's about as simple
as you can get. There are a few of the parts you may not want to tackle
yourself, such as the aluminum fuel tank (I can weld 4130, but I firmly
believe that voodoo is involved in gas welding aluminum).
I'm doing EXACTLY what HF recommended to you. I'm looking now
for a 150/160HP Tri-Pacer to fly while I build my Bearhawk. When I'm
ready to hang my engine, I'll sell the plane and have enough money to
buy a Lycoming (from Bob Barrows) PLUS my instruments! This does a
few good things for me: First, I'll be able to fly. Sure, I should spend that
time building, but I like flying as much as building, so I'm going to have
my cake and eat it too. Second, I think that having a plane while I'm
building will take the pressure off the project. I can see myself getting
frustrated with the building because I want to fly so much. Having a plane
will allow me to build at a steady, but more laid back pace. Third, it's
insurance that the money will be there for the big-ticket items, like the
engine and instruments. I could probably go on and on, but I'm sure by
now you're getting the picture.
Choose a Bearhawk, buy a Tri-Pacer, keep flying, build steady.
Just my humble, accurate opinion.
Bob "Just as Humble as HF" Romanko
High-Time "Stick and Rudder" Reader
Builder Bearhawk #399
PP-ASEL, A&P, AOPA, EAA
Based at Charlottesville, VA (CHO)
HornetBall
Bob?). Good design, excellent kit, fair support, woeful advertising.
Bob Romanko
thread like flies on Zoom! Yup...I looked at the KIS myself. The $30,000 for
the kit scared me off. Nice folks to talk to, the package they mail you is first
class, and the plane speaks for itself. Very impressive numbers. Besides
the price, the other problem with the KIS is it isn't a Bearhawk.
Bob Romanko
HornetBall wrote in message <20000106104911...@ng-cm1.aol.com>...
highflyer
> > >completion of his project? Remember, military jocks start training in jets.
> > >
> > >D.
> > Not way back in the 1900's. <g>
> >
> > They didn't use to when the T-34 and T-28 were alive and well in primary.
> > Nothing is sacred in this new millennium.
>
> They still don't. In fact, since their piston trainers were
> grounded, I believe the AF now sends trainees to private
> flight schools to get a PP now like everyone else.
>
> ross
That's funny. I do know quite a few eagar young men who got their
ab initio training in Tweetybirds, then moved on to the Talon, and
from there to their operational mount.
However, a goodly number of the eagar young men who commence the program
fail to make it to their commencement excercises! Also, they ARE full
time pilots and are expected to fly considerably more every month than
the average joe who has to pay for his own flying! :-)
BOb U.
>You want sacred, old man? I'll show you sacred! (If I can get my friend to
>take me to P'ville in his new toy, a T-28).
>
>D.
>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That would be absolutely awesome, Doug.
Perhaps you have another friend with a T-33?
And another with a T-38? <g>
My logbook has T-28 time dating back to April 28, 1959.
It would be delicious just to sit in your friend's time machine and reminisce.
Ain't I just a blubbering romantic?
BOb - old man - U,
>>BOb U. wrote in message
BOb U.
>BOb U. wrote:
>>
>> "Capt.Doug" <Capt...@theworldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >So negative....How about if he gets appropiate training before the
>> >completion of his project? Remember, military jocks start training in jets.
>> >
>> >D.
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> They didn't use to when the T-34 and T-28 were alive and well in primary.
>> Nothing is sacred in this new millennium.
>
>grounded, I believe the AF now sends trainees to private
>flight schools to get a PP now like everyone else.
>
> ross
Ross,
Private flight schools? <g>
SURPRISE.
My primary pilot training goes back to 1959.
Spence Air Base, Moultrie GA was the place.
Spence was a CIVILIAN CONTRACT school....
As were all the all of the USAF primary pilot training bases of the era.
The president of it was Bevo Howard, a well known EAA Hall of Famer today.
He and his Jungmeister would periodically put on great shows for all us Cadets.
Ditto for the Blue Angels.
Yes, Blue Angels.
The Thunderbirds were too busy to make our graduation !!! <g>
BOb U.
Capt.Doug
BOb U. wrote in message
>Perhaps you have another friend with a T-33?
>And another with a T-38? <g>
Don't I wish! The T-38 causes erotic notions to take control of me.
>My logbook has T-28 time dating back to April 28, 1959.
>It would be delicious just to sit in your friend's time machine and
reminisce.
He retired this year and I may very well be able to talk him into flying up
there. I'll give you forewarning.
D.
Cy Galley
Academy. When my daughter went there, they were Cessna T-41 (2 place 172).
Capt.Doug wrote in message <84ttb7$8or$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>So negative....How about if he gets appropiate training before the
>completion of his project? Remember, military jocks start training in jets.
>
>D.
>
RobertR237
(HornetBall) writes:
>
>One aircraft that hasn't been mentioned yet is the KIS Cruiser (where are you
>Bob?). Good design, excellent kit, fair support, woeful advertising.
>
>
I am here but sometimes I fear that I sound like a walking advertisement for
the KIS Cruiser. I will say that the more I work on my Cruiser the more I
appreciate the design and the kit. I have compared the useful load of the
completed Cruiser to other kits and to production aircraft and it is better
than nearly all of them, especially when you consider the engine size.
Thanks for mentioning it, and when are you going to stop by?
Bob Reed http://robertr237.virtualave.net/
KIS Cruiser in progress...Oshkosh 2000 by Gosh! or a 2001 Oshkosh Odessy ;-)
"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and Slide on the
Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
RobertR237
<rom...@nospam.virginia.edu> writes:
>
>Hey Hornetball, you're right! Where is Bob Reed? He should be all over this
>thread like flies on Zoom! Yup...I looked at the KIS myself. The $30,000
>for
>the kit scared me off. Nice folks to talk to, the package they mail you is
>first
>class, and the plane speaks for itself. Very impressive numbers. Besides
>the price, the other problem with the KIS is it isn't a Bearhawk.
>
>Bob Romanko
>
>
He's been busier than a one armed paper hangar. ;-)
Now about that Bearhawk. Great looking aircraft but it's a different mission
requirement and different taste in high/low wings.
BOb U.
>
>BOb U. wrote in message
>>That would be absolutely awesome, Doug.
>>Perhaps you have another friend with a T-33?
>>And another with a T-38? <g>
>
>
>Don't I wish! The T-38 causes erotic notions to take control of me.
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hmmmmmm.
Hate to settle for dull over-the-counter VIAGRA, myself.
Thanks to Charlie Black from another thread......
http://www.airwarbirds.com/t38.htm
SALES OFFICE 1-727-934-8968
TRADES CONSIDERED
I don't travel in 3.5 million dollar circles, but perhaps you do?
Maybe we could even pool our resources?
Or... get all of rah to chip in a few bucks or take up a collection at PJY 2000.
Maybe nephew BWB, will buy it out of petty cash.
BOb U
highflyer
>
> In article <20000106104911...@ng-cm1.aol.com>, horne...@aol.com
> (HornetBall) writes:
>
> >
> >One aircraft that hasn't been mentioned yet is the KIS Cruiser (where are you
> >Bob?). Good design, excellent kit, fair support, woeful advertising.
> >
> >
>
> I am here but sometimes I fear that I sound like a walking advertisement for
> the KIS Cruiser. I will say that the more I work on my Cruiser the more I
> appreciate the design and the kit. I have compared the useful load of the
> completed Cruiser to other kits and to production aircraft and it is better
> than nearly all of them, especially when you consider the engine size.
>
> Thanks for mentioning it, and when are you going to stop by?
>
> KIS Cruiser in progress...Oshkosh 2000 by Gosh! or a 2001 Oshkosh Odessy ;-)
>
The KIS does indeed look like a good bet for anyone who wishes to build
in
glass and has a mission profile that is appropriate.
Some of the things I look for in a homebuilt before I recommend it to
the
average builder are:
A well defined operational envelope with no quirks either in the
envelope
or near the boundaries.
A landing speed of sixty miles per hour or less. Higher landing speeds
are common and can be dealt with easily, but DO require improved landing
areas and may require a fair amount of recurrent training and
proficiency.
Most weekend pilots experience difficulty maintaining high levels of
proficiency.
Even with over a thousand hours in my usual ride, I still let it scare
me from time to time and I have a great deal of difficulty keeping my
proficiency up to par. I don't fly nearly as well now as I did when
I was thirty years old and flying every day.
A comfortable cockpit that allows the pilot to fly the airplane without
serious distraction. Many of the early homebuilts were sadly lacking in
this area.
A building technology that gives an amateur builder a good chance to
build to the specification without requireing facilities that cannot
be duplicated in the average builders workshop.
I also usually would try to encourage the prospective builder to take
a close look at his/her mission profile, and check the fit against their
chosen design. Often a builder chooses a design because it is "neat"
rather than because it is appropriate for them. Ideally, the chosen
design will be BOTH appropriate and neat! :-)
RobertR237
>
>The KIS does indeed look like a good bet for anyone who wishes to build
>in glass and has a mission profile that is appropriate.
>
>Some of the things I look for in a homebuilt before I recommend it to
>the average builder are:
>
>A well defined operational envelope with no quirks either in the
>envelope or near the boundaries.
>
This one area where the KIS Cruiser is very near the top in it's class.
>A landing speed of sixty miles per hour or less. Higher landing speeds
>are common and can be dealt with easily, but DO require improved landing
>areas and may require a fair amount of recurrent training and
>proficiency.
>Most weekend pilots experience difficulty maintaining high levels of
>proficiency.
>
This is a problem with many production aircraft and weekend pilots as well. It
can only get worse with high performance and/or flight sensitive aircraft
rather they are homebuilt or production.
>Even with over a thousand hours in my usual ride, I still let it scare
>me from time to time and I have a great deal of difficulty keeping my
>proficiency up to par. I don't fly nearly as well now as I did when
>I was thirty years old and flying every day.
>
>A comfortable cockpit that allows the pilot to fly the airplane without
>serious distraction. Many of the early homebuilts were sadly lacking in
>this area.
>
Early Homebuilts? Hell, many of the current homebuilts suffer from the same
problem although they are showing improvement.
>A building technology that gives an amateur builder a good chance to
>build to the specification without requireing facilities that cannot
>be duplicated in the average builders workshop.
>
I can most definately say that the KIS Cruiser does meet that goal. I have
thus far done quite well with little more than a drill press, bandsaw, dremel,
and a few hand tools. With the new Polyfiber roll on primer I won't even need
a paint sprayer until I am ready for final coats.
>I also usually would try to encourage the prospective builder to take
>a close look at his/her mission profile, and check the fit against their
>chosen design. Often a builder chooses a design because it is "neat"
>rather than because it is appropriate for them. Ideally, the chosen
>design will be BOTH appropriate and neat! :-)
>
>--
>HighFlyer
The last part is probably the best advice we can give a potiential builder. I
would hasten to add though to not be short sighted in determining your mission
requirements. Look down the road some to determine what your requirements will
be by the time you complete your project. What will be your requirements then
and during the subsequent years of flying. It's a shame to spend years
building only to find that by the time you finish, you have no use for the
finished plane.
When I started looking many years back I was far more attracted to those fast
and sexy designs such as the Long EZ, Glasair, and Lancair. They were what I
wanted but when I got down to my real needs, I realized that they would not
fill my long term mission. I wanted a plane that was easy to fly but would
still offer a bit of fun as well. By the time I would finish my aircraft it
would probably be just me and my wife so a two place might be enough except we
want to take some extended cross country trips and don't want to have to skimp
on the luggage. My daughter and probable future son-n-law (a pilot) also love
to fly so four on board will be fairly frequent too.
As HF mentioned, I also wanted an aircraft that a weekend pilot would not get
behind when flying. It shouldn't be so expensive to operate that the $100
hamburger costs $200 either. The fact that I will be able to hang in there
(cruise speed wise) with the local Van's Air Force won't hurt my feelings
either. I also didn't want to have to spend several thousand hours in the
building process. The KIS can resonably be built in less than 1500 hours build
time if you keep to the plans and don't make any extensive custom
modifications.
The important things are to know your mission requirements. your flying
capabilities, your building capabilities, and your flying frequency. Fit the
plane to your requirements and capabilities and you should be OK. If you do
plan for IFR, fly you intended aircraft under the hood for a while and see how
the workload is. Don't be caught up in what is sleek and cool but not useful.
Bob Reed http://robertr237.virtualave.net/
KIS Cruiser in progress...Oshkosh 2000 by Gosh! or a 2001 Oshkosh Odessy ;-)
"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and Slide on the
Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
Philip Lester
Richard Riley <richar...@riley.net> wrote in message
news:6n5zOMYz548xQS...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2000 19:39:30 -0500, Kevin O'Brien
> <ke...@useorganisationasadomainname.com> did speak thus :
I
> >> should stay away from?
> >
> >bush planes (Zenair 801, Murphy Rebel) to fast pressurised cruisers
>
> guy with a made from a Confederate Flag) claims 4-6 seats, but 4 is
> more realistic.
>
> >(Lancair IV-P). I had previously heard of _one_ kit manufacturer that
> >had problems, however I have been corrected on that, and there's nothing
> >out there that has red flags waving.
> >
> >With a few exceptions, most of the 4-seat kit makers had years of
> >experience with smaller planes before making their first 4-seater. If
> >the aeroplanes were bad they never would have made it to four seater
> >stage.
> >
> >Some fast 4-seaters that people DO recommend:
> > Lancair ES, IV, and IV-P (very good. Expensive. Hold value well for
>
> So is the straight L IV.
>
>
> The design has been through several companies.
>
> > AeroCanard (evolution of the plansbuilt Cozy. There is a dedicated
> >Cozy list out there to look into if you are interested in the a/c.)
> >personality).
>
> I'd call it conventional, but not ugly.
>
> >one -- and no, this is not the plane I dissed here before).
>
> on the market any more - Defiant, Adventurer, Cirrus VK30, and (if I
> can even say it with a straight face) the Prescot Pusher.
>
> >
> >I'm sure there are more. I have had firsthand testimonials from builders
> >of the first three. These are all composite, and all except the CompAir
> >are a bit tight for those far over FAA standard size.
> >
> >
> >This is tube and rag construction.
>
> Nope, it's aluminum extrusion angle and skin. The original had a
> strange molded plug wing skin, with a chem milled tube spar.
>
> >tri-pacer,it's maligned by everyone who hasn't flown or owned one. Loved
> >by all who have. (I _think_ someone is still making kits. Eh?)
>
>
> >
Jonnyjmpup
4 place wood retract/or fixed cruise is stated at 150,alsoJodel designs fit
needs, all wood, formerly production aircraft in France