Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:
Hiperbipe is indeed a 2 place.
Gotcha. Sounds like you found a design niche!
My Falconar F-12 , 2 or 3 place, is rated at +9 and -6 at 1600 lbs with a GW of 1800 lbs. Can be built taildragger, tri-gear, or RG. My F-12 was a taildragger. Could do anything that you can do with a RV-6. Fun airplane and good for traveling.
challenger_II
Well-Known Member
And didn't rattle and oilcan when manouvering! Gotta LOVE wood!
20,000+ RV kits sold and 10,000+ completed and flying....
(Thats the mic drop moment)
(Thats the mic drop moment)
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2021
- Messages
- 183
Fuji-200 is a cross country capable aerobatic 4 seat aircraft if you can find one or a YAK-55 if you can feed the round pots!
Zenith 601/701. Small footprint for a T-hangar or even a simple shed or at worst, a carport.
The 4 seat Yak ?!? This has gone from the aircraft for the "Common Denominator" to the aircraft for the "Comrade Proletariat"! 
The Antonov An-2 can carry ten or twelve common denominators to Burning Man as well....
The Antonov An-2 can carry ten or twelve common denominators to Burning Man as well....
challenger_II
Well-Known Member
At 50 gallons an hour (don't ask about the oil consumption!)...
Bud and Ross Granley fly (flew?) a nice airshow in a Yak 55 and a Yak 18T, the four seat version of the 18.
BJC
At 50 gallons an hour (don't ask about the oil consumption!)...
Hey!! On an AN-2 the oil is not consumed. OK: it is spit out through the exhaust but technically that is not consumed .
If it were consumed, the oil droplets would not land on the laundry hanging out to dry on the approach to Final
Found memories of a blue AN-2 in the South of Poland , sat at its controls, parked N2501A under its wings, its top wing is ondulated too.
Buying an AN-12 would be a bad bad idea... but then bad can turn in such degree of bad that is becomes good .
1000 HP on AvGas, a flywheel starter the co-pilot has to wind to exhaustion, a bi-plane with a toilet and cargo for either 5 VIPs, 7 paratroopers or a lot of chemicals. Go anywhere, land anywhere, drink gasoline faster than a cow water... what is not like?
Tiger Tim
Well-Known Member
To clarify, the idea of a common denominator was to try and home in on a no-more-excuses, ‘shut up and build’ type of airplane. While it slides in at a bunch more expensive than I was picturing, Toobuilder has a pretty valid point on nominating the RV-8 to fit the bill. It has twice the seats and twice the power of what I was imagining but I t’s pretty okay at a bunch of different stuff, can be had a little at a time, has excellent support and the things routinely get finished and fly lots. Those last two points are pretty telling of the whole design, IMO. As an added bonus as near as I can tell they actually have decent resale value too.
challenger_II
Well-Known Member
Then I suppose the Common Denominator is One that can afford a $60,000 to $100,000 airplane.
Most of us would be considered less-than common, then.
Most of us would be considered less-than common, then.
challenger_II
Well-Known Member
Flying has always been an expensive endeavor. Making it manageable to One's financial position has been a challenge for over a hundred years, now.
Homebuilt airplanes have been a hedge on the expense since the 1920's: just peruse through the old Flying and Glider manuals for a reference.
Back in the late 1920's and through the 1930's, those Big Plane boys flying the WACO's and Travel Airs looked down their collective noses at the less financially capable folks for piddling with those tiny Aeronca C-2's and such.
Today, it is much the same: the RV drivers and the like think that they own the world, and those tinkering with something slower, made of wood and fabric and such are beneath contempt. These attitudes are what squashes innovation, and positive progress towards having an airplane for that "Common Denominator".
In the morning I am gonna go drag out my 1932 vintage Longster II and go scare the rabbits. Might not go very fast, but the ride is good, the view is excellent, and I WILL BE in the air.
Nuff said.
Homebuilt airplanes have been a hedge on the expense since the 1920's: just peruse through the old Flying and Glider manuals for a reference.
Back in the late 1920's and through the 1930's, those Big Plane boys flying the WACO's and Travel Airs looked down their collective noses at the less financially capable folks for piddling with those tiny Aeronca C-2's and such.
Today, it is much the same: the RV drivers and the like think that they own the world, and those tinkering with something slower, made of wood and fabric and such are beneath contempt. These attitudes are what squashes innovation, and positive progress towards having an airplane for that "Common Denominator".
In the morning I am gonna go drag out my 1932 vintage Longster II and go scare the rabbits. Might not go very fast, but the ride is good, the view is excellent, and I WILL BE in the air.
Nuff said.
There was a time, not very long ago, when owners / drivers of TC aircrsft looked down on all E-AB aircraft. Today, they look with envy at the performance, configuration, and maintenance cost advantage of E-AB.
People who let other peoples’ attitudes “squash innovation” never will own an airplane.
BJC
TFF
Well-Known Member
While many a RV are 100k, most think of it as all the money right then and fly tomorrow. While not cheap, a kit, a used engine with fixed pitch prop and basic instruments will add up, but it will take at least ten years to build.
That puts it up at $350 a month. Still while not cheap, there are plenty out there paying that much a month for car insurance for something pretty and shiny, and they still have the car note for that pretty. Counteract with used car, but on still funneling money into a different hobby they think is more important.
Homebuilt, it’s supposed to take time to build. It’s supposed to be a primary hobby not a back hobby. It’s not instant gratification.
It is way cheaper to buy something that flys. Build a scratch built Cub with no legacy parts. Skybolt from plans? T-18 or Mustang II? Bearhawk? EZ? You won’t build those for less than the RV. Not really. It might feel like $3K of tubing is a cheap fuselage, but after fittings, controls and everything a fuselage needs, is it cheaper?
Can you build a cheaper plane? Sure. You do start paring back with some sort of performance. Finishing someone’s project is the cheapest way. Let them take the depreciation hit.
While my interests are in different places, it’s hard to deny the truth of the RVs.
That puts it up at $350 a month. Still while not cheap, there are plenty out there paying that much a month for car insurance for something pretty and shiny, and they still have the car note for that pretty. Counteract with used car, but on still funneling money into a different hobby they think is more important.
Homebuilt, it’s supposed to take time to build. It’s supposed to be a primary hobby not a back hobby. It’s not instant gratification.
It is way cheaper to buy something that flys. Build a scratch built Cub with no legacy parts. Skybolt from plans? T-18 or Mustang II? Bearhawk? EZ? You won’t build those for less than the RV. Not really. It might feel like $3K of tubing is a cheap fuselage, but after fittings, controls and everything a fuselage needs, is it cheaper?
Can you build a cheaper plane? Sure. You do start paring back with some sort of performance. Finishing someone’s project is the cheapest way. Let them take the depreciation hit.
While my interests are in different places, it’s hard to deny the truth of the RVs.
Don't share the view about the RV-jockeys. RV's are a reaction to the ruthless exploitation in General Aviation (that being aluminium build airplanes) RV's are not modern yet are in some way a proof that even when Innovation is buried in concrete, It will find a way out.
Wood is yesteryear: no contempt to it , just a material gone out of grace because it was outperformed and there was better. And as such no new craftsmen were schooled while the old ones slowly take off West. Now is the time of aluminum yet its successor is already here.
The discussion about "common denominator" circles always around the same hot potato: money. However there is a deeper question: is there for society a more-value to more people flying? Of that I am not certain.
I consider my flying to be the greatest expression of personal freedom, so your “deeper question”, for me, may be restated and generalized as “Does society benefit by more people exercising and enjoying personal freedom?”
My answer is “Yes”. I wish that other areas of the world cherished personal freedom more. It would make for a better world.
This reminds me of the discussion here Flight Helmets?
BJC
I am inclined to the affirmative answer because of the word Freedom. Freedom comes with doing it your way, gaining skills which can be applied in others domains, making something out of nothing and thus generating wealth / contributing the society.
However Freedom has its limits as there is an oscillation between Freedom- Security. The more cynical in me says the most can not bear the responsibility of Freedom and are but too happy to exchange it for Security, for not having to Think. I bump my head regularly to that.
There is also another "little" thing: keeping things in perspective in a kind of moral way.
Is one right to sell something for 100-1000 times its intrinsic value just because the circumstances allow to get away with it? Stupid Greed will not hesitate to do so, Smart Greed however... Smart Greed transforms easily into Stupid Greed, I still have to witness the opposite.
As to other parts of the World having to cherish personal freedom more, that comes from an "american" view on how an better World is supposed to look. The USA and the World have both found out the hard way that not everybody subscribes to that view.
Will check Flight Helmets
Blue Skies
