Higher performance homebuilt for a relative noob

[Posthumane]

I'm looking to sell my C172 and I've been contemplating what to replace it with. I definitely want something with just two seats, but I'm still undecided if I want something fast and efficient, or a low-n-slow sight seeing plane. If I get something slow, like a Challenger ultralight, champ, or cub, I have the option of landing almost anywhere so I can do a lot more "exploring". However, I'm not sure I would enjoy getting passed by cars on the highway when there's a headwind (which is always, around here).

The other line of aircraft I've been looking at is the fast/efficient homebuilts such as the Rutan designs. There is, for example, a nice looking Quickie Q200 for sale down in the states for a great price. I think with the cost of the import I would still be well under what my current plane is worth. I would like to get some people's opinion on this aircraft. Would it be easy enough for a low time pilot (just over 200TT) to adapt to something with fairly high landing speeds like the Quickie? Where would I get training/checkout on this kind of plane in southern Alberta? The one I'm looking at is a tri-gear version, but I would be open to the tail dragger set up as well. Anybody here fly one of these and can give pointers on what to consider?

Other planes I'm considering include the Long-EZ, KR-2, Sonex, CH601 HD(S), etc. If anyone has any thoughts on those, I'd love to hear. Also, if anyone would be willing to take me up on a flight in any similar 2 seat homebuilt, I would love to see how various planes fly. I'm happy to cover the costs of fuel, etc.

[Beefitarian]

Find the COPA flight near you. http://www.copanational.org/flights.cfm They're the guys building and flying that sort of thing.

[Tailwind W10]

May I also recommend visiting with your local EAA Chapter 1410 in High River?
http://www.eaahighriver.org/
Jack Dueck is one of our Canadian EAA reps, he's based in Calgary and is an RV builder.

I'm partial, but may I suggest you add the Wittman Tailwind to your list. It may look somewhat pedestrian compared to others you've listed but the performance is equal to the best built RVs. Built resonably well, it'll give you an honest 170-200 knots cruise on 160HP. I'm several years away from finishing mine, but you see them on Barnstomers now and again.

If you don't already know, you'll have to jump through a few hoops to bring a homebuilt across the border, so do your homework!

Cheers
Gerry
Edmonton
EAA chapter 30

[Beefitarian]

Oh, man. I'm sorry, the eaa guys were the ones I meant.

[Posthumane]

Thanks for the tips. I have looked at the Tailwind and it is certainly a contender.

I am a member of the local COPA flight, and there are a couple of guys building RVs there, and one guy flying a Long-EZ. I haven't gotten a flight in the EZ yet, and not sure if I'll be able to as the owner may not be flying much longer due to medical issues. I guess it won't hurt to ask.

I'll definitely check out the EAA. I know there is a fair bit to go through with importing a homebuilt but I'm not intimately familiar with the process yet so it would be good to talk to someone who has done it. There are a few nice airplanes that come up for sale in Canada occasionally, but some of the prices in the US right now just can't be beat.

[Beefitarian]

Someone summon Colonal Sanders. He was telling me it's easier to import a homebuilt because they are under easier regulations. Just so you know this will probably be put in the right forum if you think it was erased. Go to the board index and scroll down near the bottom to find the homebuilder's forum.

[Tailwind W10]

For the most part it's not difficult to do, but when one goes to register it, it's basically grounded till the flight permit is issued. There's also a couple of pitfalls that will smite the unwary. If you want to import an incomplete homebuilt you're subject to the pre-cover inspection, which has been eliminated in the US. Any closed-up components will have to be opened up for inspection. If a box spar is assembled by the original kit manufacturer it will be approved as-is, if it was assembled by the builder, then it will also have to be opened up. A completed airplane can not be registered in Canada unless it's had a minimum of 100 hours of flight logged before importing. I'm not sure if you'd get away with flying it in Canada under US registration to finish up the hours, could get sticky.

I'm sure there's more details but those are the highlights.

Gerry

[robertsailor1]

If you have any questions about importing a homebuilt I can probably help you..PM me if you like. Consider resale value when your buying a homebuilt, if they are well built some are very easy to resell while others are tough.

[Posthumane]

Thanks tailwind and robertsailor, I may have more questions down the line. I was aware about the pre-cover inspections and am avoiding any aircraft with less than 100 hours for that reason. In order to fly the N registered aircraft I would have to get an FAA pilot permit, and then could fly it in either the US or Canada, but I'd prefer no to do that if possible.

The reason I posted this in the Flight Training forum was because I want to get people's opinion on the training/experience required to transition to one of these types of airplanes from a C172. I know it varies from one plane to another, and one person to another, but some general thoughts would be good. I guess the checkout/instruction doesn't have to be with an actual "flight instructor" but rather by anyone who is experienced with the type.

For reference, I have just over 200 TT, day/night VFR. Most of my time is in a 1960 172 A, some on later model 172's, and about 13 hours on a taildragger ultralight (Merlin EZ).

[Tailwind W10]

I'm a lot lower time than you, so it seems odd giving advice. Anyway, the usual thing offered on the Tailwind yahoo group is to get some time in a Citrabria or Champ if you can. The ground handling is apparently very similar. I believe the same advice would hold for RVs, and problably any other long-standing taildragger homebuilt design. The homebuilts that have stood the test of time are generally good flying airplanes and time in a venerable Champ will serve you well. Is there still a Citabria for rent based in Springbank? If you'd be looking at an RV, I believe the factory offers transition training. Might be worth looking into.

There's no reason a 200 hour pilot couldn't handle a homebuilt. The more popular ones are that for a reason, they fly very nicely. You might also consider getting some time in a DA20 out at Springbank. I did the bulk of my training and flight test on one, the C172 handles like a truck in comparison. I expect you'd like it, and the basic stick-and-rudder handling will be more representative of lighter handling homebuilts, not to mention spending some time with a stick instead of a yolk.

Cheers
Gerry

[tyndall]

Make sure you know exactly what you want the plane for. On one hand you are looking for the slowest thing with wings, on the other you are looking for a pavement only cruiser. All while wanting to get rid of your plane that fits perfectly between both categories.

[Colonel Sanders]

I want to get people's opinion on the training/experience required to transition to one of these types of airplanes from a C172

I do a lot of this kind of training. Oddly, one of the biggest factors is your
age. At the risk of enraging people here, it's a fact that you learn quicker
when you're 20 than when you're 60. Really. Sorry about that.

The younger you are when you learn a hand-eye co-ordination skill,
the easier it is for you, and the less time it will take.

Other related experience can help. Some people understand vehicles
in motion (motorcycles, boats, cars, airplanes) and some people don't.
It's amazing how many skilled pilots also ride motorcycles, or sail boats,
for example.

And of course, your genetics. Some people just have a head start
on it, others don't. It really doesn't matter what the slope of your
individual learning curve is - far more important is your persistence
when you don't do it perfectly the first time, and deflate your ego
in the process. Most pilots have monstrous egos - ask any one of
them, and each and every one will tell you that they are well above
average, which is a statistical impossibility. And they don't react
well, when they find out that they are not a supernatural phenomenon.

Sigh.

Persistence pays off. All else is rubbish. If you want it, you will get it.

I wrote an article about this, a while back, when I was banned from
the board for a few months. Worth what you paid me for it:

http://tinyurl.com/84kj55f

[Big Pistons Forever]

Buy an RV. A proven good design with lots of good examples for sale.

[Colonel Sanders]

Yes. Get a nosewheel RV. You won't wreck it, and it
will have higher resale value, because no one can fly tailwheel
any more.

[Shiny Side Up]

Buy an RV. A proven good design with lots of good examples for sale.

And specifically there are a lot of guys building them in Alberta. I would second the idea that you should go to the meeting in High River if this is the path you want to go. Mind you I think you should buy DH's 3/4 scale mustang, just because that would be pretty cool. The only problem I could see with looking for an RV is that most of the ones I know of are people's babies, and you'll be looking to spend more on one than you'll get out of your 172. If you're on a tighter budget, you probably won't be saving much money.

[Shiny Side Up]

Yes. Get a nosewheel RV. You won't wreck it, and it
will have higher resale value, because no one can fly tailwheel
any more.

Not so sure on that - the resale value. You might have a harder time reselling it with a tailwheel, but I'd bet dollars to donuts you'd be able to sell it for more. Lots of dudes with a lot of money in Alberta these days and there is a market for it.

[Adam Oke]

Yes. Get a nosewheel RV. You won't wreck it, and it
will have higher resale value, because no one can fly tailwheel
any more.

Eesh. I'm hoping you are being completely sarcastic in this post. I'm blown away that the Colonel, of all people, would steer anyone away from a taildragger.

I'm not sure how much reading you have done on the RV types, but nose gear collapse is becoming more and more problematic with the A models. Granted that low time pilots smacking the nose down is probably a contributing factor. But the fact of the matter is that the majority of homebuilt owners are low time pilots, and nose gear failure is becoming more and more frequent. It is apparent that it is a weak point in design, and more aftermarket modifications are coming about to rectify the issue.

With equal skill in both models, I would say you more apt to wreck an A model RV.

[Colonel Sanders]

My heart will always go to the taildragger:



but my wallet would unfortunately always choose the nosewheel:



Weird thing is that I googled those photos, and know both of those
guys. I put the front left cylinder on the top one, and sold the bottom
one my old hangar back in 1992.

Tailwheel aircraft are unfortunately going the way of fabric, biplane,
aerobatic, and radial engine. Fire-breathing-dragon museum pieces
that pilots are afraid to fly. Their era is quickly coming to a close.

http://i.imgur.com/bBBms.jpg

Sigh.

nose gear collapse is becoming more and more problematic with the A models

Funny you mention that. I know a guy who did that at night in a
nosewheel RV. I thought it was a freak occurrence, like this:



PS Is that a (tailwheel) red & white Jodel in the background? I did my first aerobatics
in a Jodel back in the 1960's. That's long bloody time ago.

[robertsailor1]

keep in mind that your coming from a 172 which next to the aircoupe is probably the easiest and most forgiving aircraft in the world to fly. some homebuilts have very high wing loading and many of them require good stick and rudder skills, not that you can't learn to fly them but depending on your choice it may not be a walk in the park. make sure that you get proper training. there are some excellent designs out there these days and some great values. the 172 is a wonderful all around aircraft but as budd davison said they really designed this aircraft to the weakest link in the pilot chain. my personal advice would be a low and slow tail wheel..they are fun as hell and like you said you can get in and out of tight spots, they are economical to own and you never quit learning. once you've mastered them you will transition to most of the others with less effort.

[Posthumane]

Make sure you know exactly what you want the plane for. On one hand you are looking for the slowest thing with wings, on the other you are looking for a pavement only cruiser. All while wanting to get rid of your plane that fits perfectly between both categories.

Indeed, there is a certain amount of soul searching or whatnot that I have to do to decide. The practical part of me says that the faster airplane will be more useful when I actually travel to visit family/friends around alberta, of which I do a certain amount, or exploring various airports. The other type of flying I do is just getting up in the air and putting around the area or doing some circuits, and really almost any airplane would be good for that (with lower fuel burn being better). The thing with the 172 is that, being in between, it doesn't do either one very well. It is heavier on fuel use than the quick planes I'm looking at, but I don't feel comfortable landing it on a patch in a farmer's field. My other motivation for getting away from the 172 is that I want something in the amateur built category so I can do a certain amount of maintenance and possibly modification down the road with less paperwork burden.

Oddly, one of the biggest factors is your
age. At the risk of enraging people here, it's a fact that you learn quicker
when you're 20 than when you're 60. Really. Sorry about that.

Well, I'm in my 20's still for a bit, so I guess I have it good there. And I do ride motorcycles, used to race cars a bit, and am hoping to get a sailboat sometime in the not too distant future. I'll have a read through your article, it seems quite interesting. Too bad I'm rarely out in Ontario, otherwise I'd come by your place for some training.

Buy an RV. A proven good design with lots of good examples for sale.

Most RV's are priced a little high for me, unfortunately. I've seen a few RV-4's which come close to what I want to spend, and I like the tandem seating so I would consider one if I could get it for about $30k all in, but that's unlikely. There are a few partial projects floating around for sale in Alberta, but I think I'll have to put off building until I have a bit more free time in my life.

keep in mind that your coming from a 172 which next to the aircoupe is probably the easiest and most forgiving aircraft in the world to fly. some homebuilts have very high wing loading and many of them require good stick and rudder skills,

Yep, this is why I'm a bit hesitant on the higher performance ones. Not that I can't learn, but I certainly would want to get more training and experience with them before I will feel comfortable. On the other hand, if the plane I buy is significantly slower than the 172 I have now, it is unlikely I will use it for traveling with the GF so it would end up being just an occasional weekend flyer.

[GGCC]

Yes. Get a nosewheel RV. You won't wreck it, and it
will have higher resale value, because no one can fly tailwheel
any more.

I can Colonel....

[AirFrame]

Yes. Get a nosewheel RV. You won't wreck it, and it
will have higher resale value, because no one can fly tailwheel
any more.

The sad reality is that the more people keep spouting the "taildraggers are hard to fly" myth, the less people will want to learn to fly them. It's really not hard to fly a tailwheel aircraft. Any difficulty someone has flying one can almost certainly be attributed to poor initial instruction in nose wheel aircraft... I know more than a few Cessna-trained pilots who haven't a clue what their feet are for.

[robertsailor1]

another consideration is to buy a bugsmasher on the owner maintenance program, allows you to do your own work and keeps your costs down.

[Colonel Sanders]

Any difficulty someone has flying (a tailwheel aircraft) can almost certainly be attributed to poor initial instruction in nose wheel aircraft

Of course! But that's exactly the training everyone receives these days.

It's really not hard to fly a tailwheel aircraft

This is a silly statement. Anything is easy if you know how - including playing musical instruments or fluently speaking several different languages.

I might also mention that there are tailwheel aircraft, and then there are tailwheel aircraft. A few hours in a cub or champ in NO WAY prepares you for a Pitts, or say a Gee Bee replica.



Let's be brutally honest. Most people struggle trying to master a docile
nosewheel light trainer, and as mentioned above, frequently can't even
do that, and end up wiping the nosewheel off by approaching too fast, or
trying to teach themselves how to handle a PIO.

99% of pilots simply don't have the time or interest, to master such
an old-fashioned machine as a tailwheel/fabric/biplane/radial engine.

Either they're airline-bound, in which case they want a plastic nosewheel
trainer with two square yards of coloured glass in the panel, or they're
recreational PPL's, who generally will never get enough flight time in a
compressed enough interval, to develop any decent stick & rudder skill.

Remember that 60% of all lightplane accidents occur during takeoff
and landing, and generally under not very challenging conditions.

And you really think they're up for the additional task of keeping
it straight on the runway?!

[AirFrame]

I might also mention that there are tailwheel aircraft, and then there are tailwheel aircraft. A few hours in a cub or champ in NO WAY prepares you for a Pitts, or say a Gee Bee replica.

I agree with you on that. But if you're buying your "first" tailwheel airplane, it's unlikely that you'll look at something that complex. A Cub, Champ, Citabria, Cessna 120/140, etc. would all be good starter tailwheel airplanes. Coupled with the right instructor, the risk of damage to you or the aircraft would be quite low.

As with most instruction, the attitude of the student and instructor will go a long way towards determining the results of the training. If the student is there just to tick that item off his list, or if the instructor is just there to chock up another hour in his log, it will take forever to learn to fly a tailwheel. The student will think tailwheels are the devil that can't be tamed, and the instructor will think it's impossible to teach people to fly them. Those who do learn through that situation will think waaaaaay too much of themselves for having lived through it.

I wanted only to fly tailwheels from the start, because I liked the look of tailwheel aircraft over nosewheel. I was lucky to have an instructor who loved flying, not the idea of getting into the left seat of a 777 someday. That added up to me thinking that handling a tailwheel is nothing special, just another skill that can be learned as a pilot.