Suggestions for suitable homebuilt ideas...

[Grem]

I'm not entirely sure that this is in the right place on the forum. If not, I apologise.

Does anyone know if there's a homebuilt aircraft that even approaches ticking all the boxes below:
Aerobatic - (doesn't have to be rated for +/-500g(!) just to be able to do the basics)
Two seats,
Metal,
Plans-built,
Doesn't cost £'billions to build!

However I am flexible...

It would be nice to have two-seats for obvious reasons, but I keep glancing at the Midget Mustang which is only single-seat (although there is the Mustang II, but my personal feeling is the side-by-side configuration spoils the Mustang look).
Personally I prefer tandem configuration, although I know there are advantages to side-by-side (such as easier to pass maps etc).

Why metal? Well I like working with both wood and metal, (currently helping somebody else build their wooden aircraft) but if I had a wooden aircraft, I'm concerned that I'd be panicking about keeping it outside if I had to for whatever reason.
If I'm being stupid, and there's no reason why leaving it outside would be any worse for wood than metal, then feel free to tell me!
I've not considered composites, as with those you'd need controlled humidity/temperature climates, and that's an extra hassle!

Why plans built? Well, being an engineer, I can't see myself being able to afford a lump-sum of £50k-odd, and would be happier having the option of building it as and when space/funds become available. I appreciate the engine will have to be a lump-sum, but not as much as engine+airframe. (Hence most of the aircraft detailed in the write-up section of the magazine I just skip - far too expensive!)
Even with the Midget Mustang, I've at least got the option of plans-build.
(As an aside, I don't know whether if I would complete a quick-build kit, whether I would feel that I had 'built' it, or just 'assembled' it, whereas building it from plans I think would give me a bigger sense of achievement). Dangerous to think that I know, as there's more of a chance of completing a quick-build kit, or just a basic kit, than over a plans-built.

I don't expect to find something that ticks all the boxes, but surely if I'm going to spend a lot of time and money on building an aircraft, there's no way I want to build one just because it was the first to catch my eye. It needs to be something I actually want to fly. (No poetry intended!)

I did notice that there's an aircraft coming out (although not UK-approved yet and don't know whether available to build from plans alone at this point in time) that's powered by a Rotax 912.
Would anyone happen to know if it even has a hope of coping with basic aerobatics, if it's powered by a 912?
The only reason I ask is, off the top of my head, I can't think of any aerobatic-approved homebuilt powered by that type. By all means shout at me if there is...

So...
Can anyone come up with some ideas for me to think about? I've been looking casually for a while, but not found anything.
I'm not asking for you to chose an aircraft, I'm just wondering whether there's something out there I've missed

[Brian Hope]

Hi Jason, you have the usual dilemma that many face in deciding what to build and need to carefully consider exactly what you want from an aeroplane. How important is aeros for instance? Do you actually want to fly aeros on a regular basis, even enter competitions, or is it just that the occasional loop or roll sounds like a good idea? If you want a serious aeros mount then there are far more choices in the steel tube/wood wing biplane plans building arena than there are all metal monoplanes. One solo monoplane that's fits the bill is the all wood One Design, several of which are now flying in the UK. As you say though, wooden aircraft do not like being left outside.
A Van's RV4 would tick all your boxes, and is available as a series of sub kits which makes it very affordable. The total kit airframe cost is currently $16,665 which includes engine mount, cowlings, canopy, undercarriage, wheels and brakes etc. You would be very hard put to build that from scratch for less. You can break that down to empennage $1325, wing $5775, fuselage $4110 and finishing kit $5455 so as to buy it in more affordable chunks over months or years.
I am not absolutely sure but I think you can also buy just the plans and build manual for about $275 and build from scratch but I really cannot see why anybody would want that extra hassle because as I say, you won't save any money and it will take you a great deal longer to build. There is a lot of support for Van's builders with the RV Squadron and any number of builder blogs, and they are a very well sorted aeroplane. If it has to be metal, two seat tandem and aerobatic I can't think of anything else that comes close.
For basic aeros many engines are not modified in any way, they simply cough and splutter a bit, maybe even stop, if subjected to too prolonged a period of inverted flight. I would expect that somebody somewhere in the world has come up with an inverted fuel and oil system for a Rotax 912 for more sustained aerobatic flight, if not then it might be an interesting technical exercise. The ULPower guys produce a very successful aeros conversion of their UL260i (the fuel injection system undoubtedly making that conversion a simpler exercise than would be the carburetted 912). There may well be gyroscopic considerations on a Rotax gearbox too that make it problematic. Again we come back to a basic question though, what do you want to do, spend your life re-inventing the wheel or use proven technology in proven airframes? There's certainly nothing wrong with the first option, that is how steps forward are made, but if all you want is a flyable aeroplane you are better off leaving such experimentation to others who get their kicks from such things.

[Rich Collins]

Hi Jason
I am actually building a Midget Mustang from plans and my reasons for choosing that as a project were similar to yours. I also would have preferred a two seater but when I analyzed the flying I had been doing in the two years prior to deciding which aeroplane to build, it turned out that the passenger seat of my ARV had only been occupied for about 6 hours out of 85.
I've so far bought all of the metal and hardware and a few other odds & sods and that's cost about £4000. Left to buy for the airframe are: undercarriage, canopy, fibreglass fairings & cowling, harness etc. - probably £3500 ish. I havn't decided which engine yet but the UL260 looks perfect. If I were to use that I think there would be not much change from £18,000 so the total cost looks like being around £25,500. I havn't included the cost of instruments because I already have them, but
depending on your choice that could add a significany amount.
A used 0-200 or O-320 would obviously reduce that figure and senior management (of the domestic kind) may insist that I start to think along those lines.
I havn't logged building time but I got the plans two years ago and I've been working on it for 19 months. Current progress suggests that the airframe will take another 2 years and then there's the firewall-forward.
I should mention that I'm semi-retired so probably get more time to build than some folk.
If you really want a two seater and none of the above puts you off, what about a Nexus Mustang ?

[Brian Hope]

Unfortunately the Nexus Mustang is not LAA approved. There was a potential UK builder a few years ago who was going to take care of the stressing calculations but he seems to have disappeared off the radar. Any prospective builder of the type would have to progress the design through LAA Engineering, likely to cost considerable time and money to get a full submission prepared. As a first time builder, wanting to keep finances under tight control, is that a route you would wish to take?
Rich's projected airframe cost is interesting - around £7500. At the current exchange rate the RV4 kit works out at about £10,500. I cannot help feeling that £3K is a small sum (in aircraft terms) for having all the parts you need, most of them formed to shape and pre-drilled, all weldments completed etc etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm a great fan of scratch building and for some of us it is the answer for getting the aircraft we want, and for fulfilling the desire to make everything yourself. However, if you want an aeroplane to fly more than you want the fulfillment of a much longer term and more technically challenging build project, think very carefully about going the scratch built route. Most people take three or four years to build a Vans from a kit, some much longer, and without doubt Vans make some of the very best kits out there. Completeing a kit is a huge achievement in itself and my guess is that is only 50% of the effort required for scratch building the same aeroplane.

[Harry Hopkins]

Jason,

I strongly recommend the Van's series. OK, they're not plans built but you couldn't buy the materials for the cost of a Van's kit. The kits include everything (every last nut, bolt, washer and rivet) to build an airframe but exclude: engine, prop, instruments, wiring, upholstery, toold and paint. They are usually bought in increments, starting with the tail feathers (empenage in American), so the cost gets spread out over time.

If you watch the ads you'll be able to pick up a part-life engine for a reasonable price, together with secondhand instruments. They don't have to have fancy upholstery: ours has seats of foam, bought from the local supplier, cut with an electric carving knife (50p from a car boot sale) and glued together. The minimum legal instrument fit is surpringly modest: ASI, altimeter, rev counter, oil pressure and compass, if memory serves me. Of course, we all add extras but you don't have to.

I was part of a small group who built our own a/c and then syndicated it for low running costs.

Go for it.

Harry

[Grem]

Wow. Many thanks for your replies. I never thought I'd get as detailed replies as those!

Just to answer those questions...
I suppose I'm more inclined to edge towards sacrificing the second seat, for something cleared for aerobatics.
Reason being, is if I wanted to take someone else up, I can hire out the 'usual' club aircraft for those as-and-when situations.
However, if one evening I wanted to have a quick wizz and throw the aircraft around and be back down in time for tea, then I can't think of anywhere where you can hire aerobatic aircraft (solo).
Having said that, if I can have two seats and still perform aerobatics, then great.
The RV series has appealed to me before now, (although I used to find it a little tedious turning to the projects section of the magazine, only to find it full of RVs and Europa's! - Then I found out why! It certainly sounds like the most appropriate for my purposes.)
I have been looking at RVs for a while now, as they do tick most of the boxes, but I don't know whether I'd prefer to build an aircraft that's that 'little bit different' on the flight-line, rather than an aircraft that's surrounded by others of the same type.
However it would be SO much easier building a highly-popular aircraft and therefore find there's more help and information than you can wish for!
I've heard that the RV8 isn't that much more expensive to build than the RV4. Is that really true? If so, is there much call for the RV4 when there's the RV8?

What's the Midget Mustang like to build then?

Many thanks for the replies.

[mike newall]

RV8 - Thread closed...........

[Grem]

Cheers Mike, ...when I said 'Many thanks for the replies', I actually meant the useful ones...

[Nigel Hitchman]

Jason,
good luck with your choices. come to the Rally in Sept and see what is out there, or go to Oshkosh in a couple of weeks if you can.
There is a good reason why the project News pages featured a lot of RVs (and no I wasnt biased when I did it, I published everything I got!) and similarly why the parking areas at fly-ins are often full of RVs.. Vans produce a great aircraft, it does what it says in the advertising, the kits are very well done as are the plans/manuals and there is a lot of builder support out there, from Vans, or from various internet groups.
There is an awful lot to do even with a Vans quickbuild kit, its not like some of those new european LSA kits where everything is virtually complete. You dont have to have a quickbuild kit either, if you dont want to, you can get the basic kit with nothing assembled, but I belive except the RV-3/4 most of the parts are cut to size and pre-drilled. However, if you look at the cost of a quickbuild kit, compared to the hours it will take to do the work, then you have to ask yourself what your priorities are. If you really want to do the building then fine, but as the hourly rate works out so cheap, it might be a much better investment spending the time doing a bit of overtime and pay for the quickbuild kit. It was 10 years ago, but I think the quickbuild option on my RV6 was worth about us$5 per hour!

Will you really want to go and rent the club Cessna when you have got your own aircraft? Wouldnt you rather have those two seats so you can take your family and friends for a ride, do some touring with someone else (also many single seaters have very little baggage capability, so even if you go on your own, maybe a 2 seater is better.

good luck!

[Grem]

Some more good points there, thank you.
(Oh, and yes, I believe you weren't biased, especially now I see the reasons behind why the Vans aircraft are so popular!)

I have been wondering, if I'd spent time and money making my own kit, whether I'd still want to hire out the usual cessna/PA28 club aircraft.
Plus, to be honest, the lack of luggage space in a single-seater did slip my mind, so it does make more sense to get two seats.
I can certainly see the logic in the quick-build kits, although personally I have just as much fun building as flying, so I don't think I'll be going down that route (at this point in time, anyway).

I'd love to visit the rally in September, and will do what I can to get there, although because I live in the Southwest it just may end up being a little far. It's annoying, because I can never seem to find much going on like that, down here. I hope there is though.

[Bill McCarthy]

Grem,
If members can get to the rally from as far afield as the Outer Hebrides and the Shetland Islands (and from Australia, in the past), surely distance from the "south west" should be no barrier. I'll be there again this year - and its a 1700 mile round trip drive. I must try to bum a flying lift from some of the members down in Inverness this time. It is a great rally and you will see more suitable designs for you that you can shake a stick at.

[Nigel Hitchman]

Jason,

have you joined the Devon strut? Loads going on with them, they seems to have fly-ins or something every couple of weeks and lots of people come to the rally from that area, maybe you can scrounge a lift!
They have their main fly-in at Dunkeswell Aug 13/14 that might be a good start, if the weather is good!

[Grem]

Ah! I didn't realise that. That sounds like a good plan! Thanks Nigel.

Plus yes Bill, I appreciate that there are bound to be people that visit the rally all over the world, however there is the 'other half' to consider too!
Like I said, I'll try and go. It would be good to fly there, although as I don't have any form of IMC/IR, it may be a bit dodgy!

Thanks again.

[Brian Hope]

Grem, you won't need an IMC or an IR, we've arranged wall to wall sunshine for the entire weekend!
Seriously though, do not let anybody tell you you cannot fly long distance without an IMC, you certainly can and many LAA members do so every weekend. Plenty of us have been all over Europe with basic PPLs and non IMC equipped aeroplanes, it just takes commonsense, experience and sometimes a little flexibility.

[Grem]

Agreed Brian, although being a new pilot, I was sceptical before only a few months ago.
My confidence in my flying has certainly improved since flying further afield than I did a few months ago, although if I'm completely honest, there's still that slight nag in the back of my mind that questions what I would do if I went somewhere far, only to find the weather turned and I couldn't get back for, say, days.
Obviously having an IMC/IR, whilst I agree is not essential, is handy.

I've been comparing the RV8 to the RV4, but whilst I think the RV8 is stressed for +6/-3g, does anyone know what the RV4 is stressed for?
Also, does anyone know if the RV4 can have a sliding canopy?
It seems that the RV4 has better performance compared to the RV8 with the same engine, although it would be good to have rear throttle/pedals, which the RV4 doesn't have!
How does the cost compare for the RV4 and RV8? (Ballpark figures).
I know VANS have a cost estimator, although I never know how good these are.

Lastly for now, I looked at the list of aircraft cleared for aerobatics. Although not an immediate priority, could I request that it's checked and updated please?
I noticed the WAR FW190 was on there, although I read somewhere that the WAR FW190 is no longer cleared for aerobatics in this country. Is this true? By all means correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks again.