Groundlooper wrote:
Not trying to hijack the thread, but doesn't taking a certificated airpane into the experimental category imposed a lot more restrictions on where and when it can be flown than one that was built as an experimental???
BCP Poser

I think you can take a pile of certified parts from different models of certified aircraft and build an experimental aircraft and fly it with no more restrictions than any other experimental. But if you for instance just put an auto engine in a certified aircraft then it would not be an aircraft built primarily for "personal education or recreational purposes." That pretty much defines the normal experimental category. The aircraft was still originally built by the manufacturer for the purpose of sale. That aircraft may be experimental in nature but will fall under the more restrictive use of Experimental Exhibition. I don't know where the tipping point is on how many parts need to be changed.

Canada has another class of experimental planes for those with older certifieds that don't want to put up with unfindable or prohibitively expensive parts. They can take a certified plane and modify or fabricate those parts and do the work on it themselves. I believe once in that category they cannot go back. I know one man in B.C. who added several feet of wing to a salvaged 180 and will fly it in that category. It is somewhat similar to the St. Just Super Cyclone. (Which I also dreamed about for a while.)

The two seater of my dreams was the Montaigne Mountain Goat STOL.
Specs and performance here. http://www.bushplanes.com/specification ... mance.html Unfortunately not in production yet.

What Skystrider wrote about the number of hours invested to build a plane weighed heavy in my decision to go with the quick build option. I got a bonus that year when for promotional purposes the company offered a factory assist free for the first three kits sold.

2 seat 100hp I vote Carbon Cub EX kit.



http://www.cubcrafters.com/carboncubex

Time to derail this thread....speaking of Carbon Cub EX's, the 210hp prototype is for sale from a guy I know, if Zane wins the lotto, or anyone else has plenty of spare cash lying around..PM me.

This is a great little highlander Zane (pic 5 is a must see! )

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_ ... +LSA+.html

Another consideration is if Erin has interest in building as well. That could significantly reduce build time. Pump out a few kids and get them on the assembly line!

Or, if you don't want to wait 9 months, adopt from an orphanage. Great thing about that is you can just put them on a plane back to Russia, or wherever, when you're done.

Does this mean the new BCP interface is going to take longer?

mountainmatt wrote:This is a great little highlander Zane (pic 5 is a must see! )

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_ ... +LSA+.html

Going to look at this one tonight. Don't mention it to Erin, okay? It's ummm...a surprise.

GroundLooper wrote:Does this mean the new BCP interface is going to take longer?

No, new BCP is higher priority (look how much I sacrifice for you! hahaha.) Still waiting for some software projects to mature for that one. It's not just interface, it's tons of new features.

Making money was priority #1 in 2010, which is why BCP 2.0 has suffered.

I could act like an A&P/AI and go check it out with you Zane.

Zane.
I have not built an airplane myself, though have thought about doing it some day.
If you plan on putting skies or floats on at some point you can't beat horse power.
In the LSA class 100 hp you may find at altitude and gross wieght 100 hp is not
going to cut it. I'm not promoting anything here but H.O. Aircraft in Mn. is putting
a 210 hp in the super cub. I think the sportsmen 2+2 with that power plant would
make a good one step up from LSA. And a good performing two place with camping
gear or family day flyer. Remember you can always pull the power back to save some
fuel. Good luck in your search.
46TCRFT

i do respect the fact u want to build one zane, but there has never been a better time i've seen to buy a certified bird for a deal than now...old 172/182's, nice ones are total bargains and solid birds. without a ton of work, can do short/soft work too...around 50K for one and hold it's value for sure....jo

Let me state this one more time It's not about saving money. There's no price on freedom. Almost.

I do have a question for my LSA class flying brethren: courierguy, emflys, taildrgfun, newkid...

Would you guys trade your birds straight across for a good condition Skywagon or the like given the opportunity? I have a feeling the answer is No.

One more thing-- take note that this thread is in the Kitplanes and Homebuilding forum, not Types. Lots of opinions in here from people who haven't built and apparently aren't interested in building. Good points, just too rational. You guys are smart. I'm not looking to make sense.

About the only plane I would trade for is a Bearhawk right now, but would probably come to my senses. If my wife loved to fly with me all the time and wanted our young daughters to as well, I would probably go through with it.

Still, I only burned 23 gal on my flight from N. CA to JC last year. Mogas. Maybe it is about saving money?

It would be hard to move away from Experimantal for me. I love the ability to make changes I see fit.

But hey, that's just me!

does anything make sense about owning/building an airplane....!?

editing

"Going to look at this one tonight. Don't mention it to Erin, okay? It's ummm...a surprise. "

Which one are you going to look at? I'll take the two you don't want!!!

Okay, back on topic. I totally understand why you are looking at the homebuilts and it is also the reason I am going that route. I purchased a Murphy Rebel kit many years ago (have a wrecked one also) and will eventually complete it. I like the build process along with the freedom to modify as I like without having big brother looking over my shoulder and it costing several thousand dollars for basically a piece of paper. (STC) Yes, I realise the STC holder spent lots of time and money to obtain it but sometimes it is just sensleless due to the way the FAA does things.
I looked at all the kits before I bought and what I didn't like about all the Avid's, Kitfox, Rans etc was that they were on the light side and meant more for the occasional flyer. Most of them are "tight" inside and not much lugage space. I was able to fly in Si Smiths beautiful Rebel and I was impressed. It handled like an exotic sports car and was a blast to fly.
Things have changed somewhat over the years since I bought but most of these small planes are a handful when the wind gets much over 5-10 mph. I sat down and did pretty much what EZ-Flap said to do....made list of wants and needs vs. what I would actually do and the pros and cons. I then listed all the aircraft that fit the majority of these needs and for me the Murphy Rebel always came up on top as the overall best choice. There are more choices now then when I was first looking but I still think it would be hard to better the Rebel unless a guy had WAY more money and then my choice might be the Carbon Cub. I did look at it when it first came out but I was definitely "put off" by their attitude when I tried talking to them. They seemed to have the attitude of "I'm better than you" and it was a big factor in my negativity towards them. Just a person opinion of course but that is one heck of a plane they have developed although the price is astronomical.
WW

Keith's point on wind is good. So many of these 2 person kit planes stay parked when the wind blows even moderately. A friend has a kitfox, a pup, and an avid, all three on floats in the summer. The only time he is comfortable flying is when its damn near glass calm on the lake. He recently bought a champ on floats and last summer I saw him out a whole lot more since he wasn't nearly as wind limited. He's now wanting to sell all 3 of the experimentals. So he's one that went from exp back to certified. Twas me building experimental, I would definitely go with a cub knock off since there is such a huge parts market out there, and the design has proven itself over the last 60 years. the -12 is a comfortable plane and average sized people can actually get in and out of them without greasing up first.

Speaking from experience, your choice of a kit provider needs to include how financially stable the company is. I bought a kit in '91 and 4 years later they were broke. There is a long list of kit providers that have gone under and hurt buyers.
Make sure the directions are completed and come with the kit, yah I didn't get any. Make sure you get all the parts with out back orders.
Don't believe the kit plane magazine articles. They glorify the facts in order to sell magazines.
All in all I think kit plane providers have evolved a lot over the past 20 years. So has the price. My kit was $16,500 and included everything except paint and engine.

When someone recommends a particular kit I would like see approximate costs minus the engine, so to compare.
I want to build another Plane. Experimental is the only way to fly! And building is a blast.

I think if you want to fly buy a flying plane and accept the imperfections of them. Use your valuable time to make money and pay for the inefficiencies. If you want to build you can pick up a lot of kits in many stages of construction that have thousands of hours into them already. I have scratch built my Long Ez from plans and still have it. It was an incredible amount of time and energy to construct and occupies most of your waking thoughts. The satisfaction and confidence I gained from building and flying the plane lasted for years and I still stand on that success in projects I take on now. If you just want to limit the FAA involvement in your airplane and do some necessary changes to the design then get a good certified plane that meets your needs and make to change that you want, then get a special airworthiness certificate experimental. It can be done. The office of no and the red tape can be overcome only slightly faster than building a completely new kit. You can make mods with plans to return the aircraft to the original TCDS and retain the value of the aircraft when you want to sell. Since I have 2 other business to run now and don’t have enough of me anymore to play with the FAA so Ive handed over 90% of the work to a private company on the 206 turbine conversion. There are a few other mods I want to do once we get the word experimental is on the side.

Hey Zane get one of the turboprop compairs! tail-dragging compair 7 looks good.

Zane:
I'm sure you will be getting lots of "get this -or that " it's a super Swiss army knife with no bad habits" etc. Best thing IMHO is get FLYING airplane like a champ or cub -It'll be several years before you have to worry about more seats-maybe. If you decide to build a Swiss army knife airplane remember that this is a long and arguably process . 97% percent of all the experimental aircraft are NOT COMPLETED by ORIGINAL buyer. Light wing loading will lift out in surprising small clearings > Light Sport is questionable if it's worth the effort .I know a number of the respondents here will give there own views. Lots of "4 place" experimental are little more than a 2 place with a small back seat for kids -maybe up to 11-13 yrs. I have a BD-4 that has been sitting in my Grand Mothers barn for 30 years(not done or flying) -I also had another BD-4 that set in my driveway for some time -2nd one had flown prior to me acquiring it . Lots of choices I'd say have something to fly while you work on your other project(s). Keep it simple .