YAWASIGT - Yet Another What Aircraft Should I Get Thread

Salty said:
Creative suggestions appreciated. I could almost sum up my requirement as a fixed gear experimental turbo Mooney. A velocity would cover it except for the retracts and runway issues.

1. SEL
2. Experimental
3. Minimum 2 seats
4. Fast (negotiable but is a high priority)
5. Reasonably economical (IE: No 400+ HP or turbine kind of insanity)
6. Baggage space for 2 normal sized suitcases
7. Good performance in high DA (turbo ok)
8. Fixed tricycle gear
9. Can handle 2000 foot paved runways without feats of bravery (grass of same length is a nice plus)
10. Useful load min 700 lbs
Click to expand...
I met a guy yesterday who flies his family of four around in a Caravan. That would meet almost all of your requirements.
 
Lindberg said:
I met a guy yesterday who flies his family of four around in a Caravan. That would meet almost all of your requirements.
Click to expand...
slow, but good on him. Put air conditioning on the thing and some wicked well-streamlined pants, and why not. :D
 
bflynn said:
RV-7/9 if you want side by side seating, 8 if you don’t. 7A/8A/9A if you want a nose dragger.

The 7 and 8 models should have an O-360, in the 170 kt range. I think the O-320 is the largest for the 9, 150 kts.
Click to expand...

My 9A has an io-360. Great short field performance. I cruise 155 knots LOP using a little less than 7gph at 10k. Fits two suitcases. Useful load 650 pounds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
www.kitplanes.com

Lockwood’s Rotax-powered RV-9 Debuts - KITPLANES

If you wander by the Rotax display at AirVenture, you might notice a Van’s RV-9A with an impressive nose job. Under the extended fiberglass is a turbocharged Rotax 915 in place of the usual four-cylinder Lycoming, a modification program run by Lockwood Aviation in Florida. Lockwood is, of...
www.kitplanes.com www.kitplanes.com

"As you’d expect, the high-altitude performance could be impressive; Lockwood thinks 200 knots true is possible at the engine’s critical altitude."
 
Voloce (vuh-LOH-chay) 400.
1. SEL
2. Experimental
3. 4 seats
4./5. 203 KTS @ 18,000 ft on 12 GPH
6. PLENTY of space
7. I Believe that the specs quoted above are with an IO-390, so decent high DA performance, although they do offer a 360HP engine that would make it even better. Ridiculous power to weight ratio for that size plane)
8. Fixed Trike
9. Should handle a 2000 ft strip JUST fine!
10. Useful load (I'll have to look it up later)
11. 800 hour build time with the ultrafast build kit (about $140k all in with engine, interior, avionics, etc.)

(Can you tell what I'm looking at right now...?)
 
Did I miss the budget?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
farangutan said:
www.kitplanes.com

Lockwood’s Rotax-powered RV-9 Debuts - KITPLANES

If you wander by the Rotax display at AirVenture, you might notice a Van’s RV-9A with an impressive nose job. Under the extended fiberglass is a turbocharged Rotax 915 in place of the usual four-cylinder Lycoming, a modification program run by Lockwood Aviation in Florida. Lockwood is, of...
www.kitplanes.com www.kitplanes.com

"As you’d expect, the high-altitude performance could be impressive; Lockwood thinks 200 knots true is possible at the engine’s critical altitude."
Click to expand...
Or with a 916 one would guess. FADEC may win the day yet.
 
Fine, Salty.

Since you practically and literally saved my hide not long ago, I’m going to suggest:

A Velocity 173RG.

220HP.

I Can deliver it in the color of your choice and with your preferred avionics :)

Not as tricky as a lancair but it comes with 2 more seats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
farangutan said:
www.kitplanes.com

Lockwood’s Rotax-powered RV-9 Debuts - KITPLANES

If you wander by the Rotax display at AirVenture, you might notice a Van’s RV-9A with an impressive nose job. Under the extended fiberglass is a turbocharged Rotax 915 in place of the usual four-cylinder Lycoming, a modification program run by Lockwood Aviation in Florida. Lockwood is, of...
www.kitplanes.com www.kitplanes.com

"As you’d expect, the high-altitude performance could be impressive; Lockwood thinks 200 knots true is possible at the engine’s critical altitude."
Click to expand...
180 KTAS is the VNE for the RV9.
 
flyingpreacher said:
Voloce (vuh-LOH-chay) 400.
1. SEL
2. Experimental
3. 4 seats
4./5. 203 KTS @ 18,000 ft on 12 GPH
6. PLENTY of space
7. I Believe that the specs quoted above are with an IO-390, so decent high DA performance, although they do offer a 360HP engine that would make it even better. Ridiculous power to weight ratio for that size plane)
8. Fixed Trike
9. Should handle a 2000 ft strip JUST fine!
10. Useful load (I'll have to look it up later)
11. 800 hour build time with the ultrafast build kit (about $140k all in with engine, interior, avionics, etc.)

(Can you tell what I'm looking at right now...?)
Click to expand...
IO390 with a prop 65K
Paint 15k
Avionics 50k
interior 10k
Total 140K, how much is the kit??
 
Jeff767 said:
IO390 with a prop 65K
Paint 15k
Avionics 50k
interior 10k
Total 140K, how much is the kit??
Click to expand...
They have the full breakdown on their website (can't access it right now because it's blocked on this network). I think the specs were with the IO-390, but the price breakdown has the AeroMomentum AM20T.

Regular kit is $54,700
Fast build kit is $74,700
 
flyingpreacher said:
They have the full breakdown on their website (can't access it right now because it's blocked on this network). I think the specs were with the IO-390, but the price breakdown has the AeroMomentum AM20T.

Regular kit is $54,700
Fast build kit is $74,700
Click to expand...
They are using engine pricing from years ago! Prices are almost double now.
 
Jeff767 said:
IO390 with a prop 65K
Paint 15k
Avionics 50k
interior 10k
Total 140K, how much is the kit??
Click to expand...
Been watching that brand a while. I’ve seen an ad with one flying example for sale and numerous ones with a rendered in CAD plane. Never have been able to get a good idea of how many are out there tho. Do they have a booth up this year I wonder?
 
Jeff767 said:
They are using engine pricing from years ago! Prices are almost double now.
Click to expand...
Point of order: One doesn't have to get a new engine. I know that gets me kicked out of the pRidE in oWnErsHip cult, but it's still a valid option.
 
Salty mentioned a velocity but wants fixed gear. Why not a fixed gear 173?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Llk said:
Salty mentioned a velocity but wants fixed gear. Why not a fixed gear 173?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
It’s an option, but not great for shorter fields.
 
A fast plane. The OP has no need for a slow aircraft, as he intends to go in harm's way. (I don't care, that statement never gets old to me.)

So 80% Spitfire kit! http://www.campbellaeroclassics.com/id56.html

Only 320 HP... and if you imagine it sitting the other way around, it might almost look like a tricycle.
 
Salty said:
Creative suggestions appreciated. I could almost sum up my requirement as a fixed gear experimental turbo Mooney. A velocity would cover it except for the retracts and runway issues.

1. SEL
2. Experimental
3. Minimum 2 seats
4. Fast (negotiable but is a high priority)
5. Reasonably economical (IE: No 400+ HP or turbine kind of insanity)
6. Baggage space for 2 normal sized suitcases
7. Good performance in high DA (turbo ok)
8. Fixed tricycle gear
9. Can handle 2000 foot paved runways without feats of bravery (grass of same length is a nice plus)
10. Useful load min 700 lbs
Click to expand...
Velocity's website implies you can get a fixed gear version SE or XL. Claims to have a landing distance of 1500 feet. You lose some cruise speed with the fixed gear version but it meets the benchmarks you listed.
 
It's not arriving, it's the getting out of restaurant that's always the challenge. Heck these guys made made internet perennial fame by illustrating my point. :D
 
And just when I thought I knew all the types out there I come across a thread like this...!
 
hindsight2020 said:
It's not arriving, it's the getting out of restaurant that's always the challenge. Heck these guys made made internet perennial fame by illustrating my point. :D
Click to expand...
I seem to recall that the C17 landed 10 feet from the end of the runway at Peter O. Knight but took off with 1000 feet to spare.
 
asicer said:
I seem to recall that the C17 landed 10 feet from the end of the runway at Peter O. Knight but took off with 1000 feet to spare.
Click to expand...
That's because they modded the fuel/pay load in a way that it would have made Doolittle feel like a p^&*%. My fac buil lawnmower would climb like a scalded ape too if I removed all seats and just put 5 gallons on the left tank and sit on a milk crate. The landing they made was a realistic mission landing weight. Try that with a realistic mission takeoff weight.....
 
hindsight2020 said:
That's because they modded the fuel/pay load in a way that it would have made Doolittle feel like a p^&*%. My fac buil lawnmower would climb like a scalded ape too if I removed all seats and just put 5 gallons on the left tank and sit on a milk crate. The landing they made was a realistic mission landing weight. Try that with a realistic mission takeoff weight.....
Click to expand...
Whatever happened to JATO…
 
And if it were a C-130 rather than a C-17, the pilot would have said "What's the BFD, sir?"

So back to the OP's question, I believe between those two aircraft, the C-130 is much more GA airport friendly. Although it makes my Spitfire 90% replica seem positively reasonable by comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top