4 place homebuilts...

Sleek-Jet

Sleek-Jet

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Sep 27, 2007
Messages
158
Location
Tucson
Display Name
Display name:
Sleek-Jet
So I mulling over the idea of a 4 place home built.

I dearly loved my 182 and the performance is more than adequate. Actually my Mouse does pretty well, even if it is 15 knots slower, though there are some mods coming to boost that top speed at least into the Cherokee 180 range... we hope...

Anywho, I've been parusing 4 place homebuilts and the list is oddly short.

We've got the RV-10... metal, but it's a low wing, I like the ease of entry and the view with a high wing

The Lancair ES... composite, but again low wing, impressive performance for the hp on that one as well

The Lancair IV... like greased lightning, composite retract, but I'm not all impressed with the safety record... though I'm sure that has more to do with the loose nut behind the yoke (or rather side stick... :D )

The Pulsar/KIS 4 seater (can't remember the name)... composite, but low wing again...

And let's not forget the Zenair 612... though I've never seen one up close.

All three of these are realitvely fast, and one being WWII fighter fast.

Which brings me to the Murphy Super Rebel/Moose... almost identical performance to the big Cessna fixed gear airplanes (a bit better in most areas), lots of room inside, metal construction... and the engine choices are almost limitless...

Anyone built or flown one of the bigger Murphy airplanes?? I know a pilot that owns a Rebel, and he says it flies pretty much like you would expect a high wing 160 hp airplane to fly.
 
Last edited:
I've kicked around building a Velocity as well... but I'm not sure about canards to be honest. I'd want to fly one a bit before making that decision.
 
Anymouse said:
It looks like you've eliminated low wings, but if not, you might want to check out the Foxtrot. Only a few flying, but it looks promising.

www.teamtango.com
Click to expand...

Haven't completely eliminated them... it depends on how easy it is to get in and out of the airplane.

My significant other doesn't like getting into the Musketeer, but a Cessna is OK with her.

Is there any other pictures of the airplane??
 
Sleek-Jet said:
Haven't completely eliminated them... it depends on how easy it is to get in and out of the airplane.

My significant other doesn't like getting into the Musketeer, but a Cessna is OK with her.

Is there any other pictures of the airplane??
Click to expand...

Sure, click on the Website www.teamtango.com and then on the Foxtrot link. As I mentioned, there's not too many flying. Two for sure, and I think a third one may be airborne. If not, it should be soon.

Team Tango wanted to re-tool all their Tango parts before concentrating on the Foxtrot, so production lagged until recently.

EDIT: Just looked at the site again. Okay, the Foxtrot pictures are lacking. However, if you look at the bottom of the home page you'll see five aircraft. The two on the right are Foxtrots. One picture is on the Foxtrot page. There might be a couple others on the site, but you'll have to look for them. I don't thing they have any interior shots. Shoot them an email and they might be able to provide you with something.
 
Last edited:
How long (hour wise) did it take you to build your Tango2??

I'll drop them an email and see if they have any other pictures, can I drop your name in the email??
 
Last edited:
Roughly 500 hours. This does not include panel or any electrical work, firewall forward, interior or body work. All of this was farmed out.

More than likely you'll talk to Denny. Go ahead and let them know I pointed you their way. Maybe they'll buy me lunch at Subway or something.
 
OK... I dropped them a line.

I see that the parts and pieces are gelcoated in the molds, which is cool. One reason I've shied away from a composit airplane is all the freaking sanding you have to do to get them smooth enough to paint.
 
Sleek-Jet said:
OK... I dropped them a line.

I see that the parts and pieces are gelcoated in the molds, which is cool. One reason I've shied away from a composit airplane is all the freaking sanding you have to do to get them smooth enough to paint.
Click to expand...

You'll still need to do some sanding, but not anywhere near as much as you would with a Lancair or Velocity.
 
Sleek-Jet said:
Anyone built or flown one of the bigger Murphy airplanes?? I know a pilot that owns a Rebel, and he says it flies pretty much like you would expect a high wing 160 hp airplane to fly.
Click to expand...

I have, and I'll never do it again.

You can buy better aircraft than you can build.

Even when you want home builts.
 
Sleek-Jet said:
I've kicked around building a Velocity as well... but I'm not sure about canards to be honest. I'd want to fly one a bit before making that decision.
Click to expand...

IIRC, due to a poor accident rate, it's just about impossible to find insurance. Definitely check on that for any experimental you might consider, before spending any money.
 
NC19143 said:
I have, and I'll never do it again.

You can buy better aircraft than you can build.

Even when you want home builts.
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate more??

One of the big attractions to homebuilts is owner maint, and also the lower cost of non TSO'd/certified parts and equipment.

And it's not always easy to find an A&P that is willing to sign off work that an owner does on a certified airplane. I've come to find that those people can be few and far between. I'd go get my A&P, but the local CC only offers the classes during the day, no evenings. Even if they did, my eratic work schedule wouldn't allow me to attend enough class room hours to complete the course.

So for me, homebuilt is the best option.
 
Sleek-Jet said:
Care to elaborate more??

One of the big attractions to homebuilts is owner maint, and also the lower cost of non TSO'd/certified parts and equipment.

And it's not always easy to find an A&P that is willing to sign off work that an owner does on a certified airplane. I've come to find that those people can be few and far between. I'd go get my A&P, but the local CC only offers the classes during the day, no evenings. Even if they did, my eratic work schedule wouldn't allow me to attend enough class room hours to complete the course.

So for me, homebuilt is the best option.
Click to expand...

I helped a airport friend and old navy buddy completed his murphy rebel, The kit was made 60 miles north of here in Chilliwack BC. I made several trips to the factory, saw their manufacturing methods. I was not impressed.

The kit is not nearly as well made as the Vans kits are, their pilot holes are off position so when you try to cleco the parts up to finish drilling nothing fits.

After the project was finished the aircraft had a tinny sound when flown, the skins oil caned as they took stress, it gave me the creeps, and I only flew it once.

It took my friend over 2 years to build, and he ended up donating it to get a tax credit.

He now has a C-170 and loves it. which he bought for half the money he spent on the rebel.

Like I said I'd never get involved with the Murphy bunch again.
 
Coolest looking 4 place homebuilt I've looked into was the Zenair CH640. Just a cool damn airplane. But I've never seen one in person, nor flown one, so I can't comment on anything other than cool looks.
 
There's tons of 4 place home builts. Check out the AeroComp line, especially the Comp Monster 4 place. Also, get a subscription to Kitplanes mag right now, so you'll get the soon to be printed annual directory of Kitplanes available.

I would probably buy commercial certified if anything available would fill my STOL amphibious mission profiles, but nothing available does, so I must do a home built. I'd certainly rather fly than build.
 
Last edited:
Dave Krall CFII said:
There's tons of 4 place home builts. Check out the AeroComp line, especially the Comp Monster 4 place. Also, get a subscription to Kitplanes mag right now, so you'll get the soon to be printed annual directory of Kitplanes available.

I would probably buy commercial certified if anything available would fill my STOL amphibious mission profiles, but nothing available does, so I must do a home built. I'd certainly rather fly than build.
Click to expand...

I've never seen an Aerocomp up close... from the pictures one thing I don't like is that the doors don't come all the way down to the floor. Don't know if there is a reason for that or not, or if the doors could be modified (i.e. is there some serious structure in there??). A large sill like that might make it harder to get in and out of... I'd have to crawl around in and on one to get a better idea.

Thanks for the input Tom, I didn't realize that the Murphy kits were of that "level" of quality...

And thanks everyone else for the ideas...
 
Last edited:
No one has mentioned the Barrows Bearhawk (yeah, THAT Bob Barrows).

The following is very fanatic but still fairly sane. Be warned, there is lots of OT stuff in the active Yahoo! group, you'll think you joined a right wing gun group

Good STOL, float capable, tube+rag and alum. Barrows only sells plans, kits available through a different company.

Big enough to sleep in, 1/2+ ton useful load, endurance longer than my bladder.
 
I am thinking a 4-5 place amphib.......
 
Sticky1 said:
I am thinking a 4-5 place amphib.......
Click to expand...

It's bad enough that I own a boat in AZ... let alone an amphib... :D

Maybe if I lived in Havasu or somewhere closer to the River... :yes:
 
I built and fly an Zodiac CH640. It's a nice, well designed kit, from a good, established company. The plane flys well, has a good useful load, and decent performance. Here's a pic before I put the wheelpants on.
 

Attachments

  • Plane1.JPG
    Plane1.JPG
    79.5 KB · Views: 71
N621j said:
I built and fly an Zodiac CH640. It's a nice, well designed kit, from a good, established company. The plane flys well, has a good useful load, and decent performance. Here's a pic before I put the wheelpants on.
Click to expand...

Nice looking bird. That red one looks good too!! :D

How long have you had it flying?
 
Anymouse said:
Nice looking bird. That red one looks good too!! :D

How long have you had it flying?
Click to expand...
Ha! The green ones been flying since 1954. Mine has been flying for about 2 1/2 years (575 hours).
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
OK, here is one just for you. It is a C-180 clone with increased performance. STOL and nice cruise speeds.

Super Cyclone....my heart beats fast.

View attachment 9866View attachment 9867View attachment 9868View attachment 9869

http://www3.sympatico.ca/st-justaviation/
http://www.pilotfriend.com/experimental/acft6/50.htm
Click to expand...

These are cool planes, however, it IS a C-180, so the build is everybit as complicated. These are not a "First Build" plane, not by a long shot, and it takes two people to build most of them. I know an old guy who built one, and I'd buy it from him before I'd buy a factory 180 on quality of build issues alone, but this is a guy who's been building since WWII, and his wife put's in almost as many hours as he. He also had a some issues with getting stuff from the factory in Canada and he was making a bunch of his parts from raw stock. This is a guy though with a complete sheet metal shop including English Wheel, sheer and break, plus TIG, mill & lathe.
 
Henning said:
These are cool planes, however, it IS a C-180, so the build is everybit as complicated. These are not a "First Build" plane, not by a long shot, and it takes two people to build most of them. I know an old guy who built one, and I'd buy it from him before I'd buy a factory 180 on quality of build issues alone, but this is a guy who's been building since WWII, and his wife put's in almost as many hours as he. He also had a some issues with getting stuff from the factory in Canada and he was making a bunch of his parts from raw stock. This is a guy though with a complete sheet metal shop including English Wheel, sheer and break, plus TIG, mill & lathe.
Click to expand...
They have a quick build kit......I think. Also, with the larger engine it is comparable to the C185.
 
There is also the Sportsman 2+2. I know almost nothing about this airplane except that it's more like 2 plus a couple kids in the back, because they mention the back-seaters need to be under 5' tall.

I do like the regular 2-place GlaStar but again, no warranties implied by my mention of the 2 + 2!

Here is the link to the Sportsman:
http://www.glasairaviation.com/kitcontentsportsman.html
 
So I received the pictures of the Foxtrot4... looks interesting.

One thing I like is the gull wing doors come all the way down to the top of the wing, so there is no large sill to climb over to get in the airplane. I've been told if two doors are available, that a low wing is OK...

So Andy, how much elbow room do you have in your Tango?? The fourplace airplane looks like it is as wide, or maybe even a bit widder than the Tango2.
 
I'm pretty sure the Foxtrot is a bit wider than the Tango. Not sure how much though. The Tango has 44" if I recall. Six of those inches is for the control tunnel. Good elbow room on the inside, you won't be rubbing shoulders with your passenger. The outside hasn't bothered me. I didn't install an armrest either. My knee works good for that.

I know it's a bit of a trip, but there's a fellow in the Houston area that has a Tango. Let me or Denny know if you happen to get out that way. Maybe you can check his out.
 
I recently spoke to a builder of a Murphy Moose who was VERY negative on the kit as it came from the factory. He is actually building 2 simultaneously, with a buddy. I was surprised, as I thought Murphy was pretty good. He showed me several areas on the airframe where design shortcomings required some pretty substantial fixes. Obviously, a second-hand report. Still, I was pretty surprised.

The RV10 sounds great, until you convert MPH into KTAS. Stallion looks great too, but I've been hard-pressed to find any real-world documentation. the 2+2 Sportsman does look nice, but 2+2 isn't 4. Then again, what 4 place aircraft really does hold 4? Maybe the Found Expedition. I liked everything I saw at the AOPA except the somewhat-awkward headrest. I'm dubious about that airplane's comfort level for front-row folks for more than an hour or so.
 
flyersfan31 said:
I recently spoke to a builder of a Murphy Moose who was VERY negative on the kit as it came from the factory. He is actually building 2 simultaneously, with a buddy. I was surprised, as I thought Murphy was pretty good. He showed me several areas on the airframe where design shortcomings required some pretty substantial fixes. Obviously, a second-hand report. Still, I was pretty surprised.

The RV10 sounds great, until you convert MPH into KTAS. Stallion looks great too, but I've been hard-pressed to find any real-world documentation. the 2+2 Sportsman does look nice, but 2+2 isn't 4. Then again, what 4 place aircraft really does hold 4? Maybe the Found Expedition. I liked everything I saw at the AOPA except the somewhat-awkward headrest. I'm dubious about that airplane's comfort level for front-row folks for more than an hour or so.
Click to expand...

A 182... :D

It's comming down to maint. right now. I want something I can legally work on and maintain... I do not have a route to do that on a certified airplane, and I'd have to quit my job to go back to school for my A&P. So, it's going to be homebuilt. My desire for a high wing is only for ease of entry into the cabin. As I really don't buy into the highwing/low wing debate for the flying that I do. Nor is STOL really important... I fly off 7000 feet of ashpalt, I can put up with a little longer take off and landing roll. :D

Previously, I had decided on building a Saturday afternoon sport airplane (Pitts), but the g/f has turned the corner and thinks that traveling in our own airplane is the way to go... and I'm not one to argue with a lady. :blowingkisses:

Andy, maybe on one of you next coast to coast cross countries, I can persuade you to stop here in AZ so I can get a ride in your airplane...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top