Looking for some discussion here to help me make a choice.
For some background, I'm currently an inactive PPL who hasn't flown for about 35 years. I'm approaching retirement now, and it's either going to be build an airplane, build a boat, or sit in my Lazyboy recliner in front of the TV and die.
Back when I was flying, before a wife and house and multiple car payments and kids and life insurance, etc. came along, I really enjoyed flying - most of which was going up on a weekend and stooging around the local airports in rental Cessna 150s and Piper Warriors, etc. I did get a tailwheel endorsement in a Citabria. But at that point my priorities were re-prioritized and aviation fell off the bottom of the list.
So now I'm looking at homebuilts. In truth I never stopped looking at homebuilts. But for now I have it narrowed down to two, maybe three, designs:
1. Hummel H5
2. FFP Classic
3. FFP Avenger
My situation would be that I would most likely do all of my flying solo, as my wife is petrified of going up beyond the second step of a stepladder. All of this aviation would be committed off of paved runways, as I don't even know of any grass strips that I could base the plane at. Also whatever I build would have to sit outside.
I would really like to go with a tailwheel design, especially a biplane (hence the FFP Classic). But my practical side leans towards the Hummel H5 because it's all metal, so it would shrug off sitting outside, and it is available in a tri-gear configuration. But it doesn't seem to have much baggage capacity.
But I really, really like the FFP Classic (I've always had a soft spot between my ears for biplanes), especially if I built it so as to have a large baggage hold in lieu of the front cockpit. I envision throwing some camping gear in the airplane and heading off for a fly-in weekend, pitching my tent in the shade of the wing. Probably couldn't do that with the H5 or the Avenger.
The Fisher Avenger is kind of the dark horse in this race. It's built for the "larger" pilot, which is good as I'm a pretty big guy, but doesn't have much baggage capacity either. But on the downside it has rigid landing gear. However, on the up side, it has rigid landing gear! My conflict here is that the rigid landing gear may make the airplane less "bounce-prone" on landing - does that make sense?
But the fly in the ointment is the tailwheel gear. My time in a couple of Citabrias semed to indicate that managing the tailwheel gear was not too difficult as long as you kept the nose pointed in the direction that the airplane was moving, and kept the tail behind thee. But I never had too much experience in crosswind operation. Recently I bought an old copy of the Richard Bach book "Biplane", and was dismayed to see that his first landing after buying the biplane and starting on his coast-to-coast flight wiped the right gear leg off of the thing and tacoed one of his wheels. He suffered another ground loop later on, too, IIRC, although with less damage. And this was an ex-Air Force F84 and F86 pilot who had previously restored and flown a Fairchild 24!
So, I think my question comes down to this: Can an old pilot of less than superhuman abilities and sub-lightning reaction times handle a tailwheel airplane? Is a slower landing speed airplane, say 35 mph instead of 45 mph, easier to handle? (Something about the yaw force being related to the square of the velocity, according to Mr. Langewisch.) But at most modern airports with multiple runways at various angles, do you really experience strong crosswinds and high angles? How PO'd would the management be if you missed the pavement entirely and just landed alongside on the grass? Is it feasable to store a fabric covered wood frame biplane outside, considering using modern covering systems and a good waterproof cockpit cover?
I'd like to have some discussion on these points if you all are willing.
For some background, I'm currently an inactive PPL who hasn't flown for about 35 years. I'm approaching retirement now, and it's either going to be build an airplane, build a boat, or sit in my Lazyboy recliner in front of the TV and die.
Back when I was flying, before a wife and house and multiple car payments and kids and life insurance, etc. came along, I really enjoyed flying - most of which was going up on a weekend and stooging around the local airports in rental Cessna 150s and Piper Warriors, etc. I did get a tailwheel endorsement in a Citabria. But at that point my priorities were re-prioritized and aviation fell off the bottom of the list.
So now I'm looking at homebuilts. In truth I never stopped looking at homebuilts. But for now I have it narrowed down to two, maybe three, designs:
1. Hummel H5
2. FFP Classic
3. FFP Avenger
My situation would be that I would most likely do all of my flying solo, as my wife is petrified of going up beyond the second step of a stepladder. All of this aviation would be committed off of paved runways, as I don't even know of any grass strips that I could base the plane at. Also whatever I build would have to sit outside.
I would really like to go with a tailwheel design, especially a biplane (hence the FFP Classic). But my practical side leans towards the Hummel H5 because it's all metal, so it would shrug off sitting outside, and it is available in a tri-gear configuration. But it doesn't seem to have much baggage capacity.
But I really, really like the FFP Classic (I've always had a soft spot between my ears for biplanes), especially if I built it so as to have a large baggage hold in lieu of the front cockpit. I envision throwing some camping gear in the airplane and heading off for a fly-in weekend, pitching my tent in the shade of the wing. Probably couldn't do that with the H5 or the Avenger.
The Fisher Avenger is kind of the dark horse in this race. It's built for the "larger" pilot, which is good as I'm a pretty big guy, but doesn't have much baggage capacity either. But on the downside it has rigid landing gear. However, on the up side, it has rigid landing gear! My conflict here is that the rigid landing gear may make the airplane less "bounce-prone" on landing - does that make sense?
But the fly in the ointment is the tailwheel gear. My time in a couple of Citabrias semed to indicate that managing the tailwheel gear was not too difficult as long as you kept the nose pointed in the direction that the airplane was moving, and kept the tail behind thee. But I never had too much experience in crosswind operation. Recently I bought an old copy of the Richard Bach book "Biplane", and was dismayed to see that his first landing after buying the biplane and starting on his coast-to-coast flight wiped the right gear leg off of the thing and tacoed one of his wheels. He suffered another ground loop later on, too, IIRC, although with less damage. And this was an ex-Air Force F84 and F86 pilot who had previously restored and flown a Fairchild 24!
So, I think my question comes down to this: Can an old pilot of less than superhuman abilities and sub-lightning reaction times handle a tailwheel airplane? Is a slower landing speed airplane, say 35 mph instead of 45 mph, easier to handle? (Something about the yaw force being related to the square of the velocity, according to Mr. Langewisch.) But at most modern airports with multiple runways at various angles, do you really experience strong crosswinds and high angles? How PO'd would the management be if you missed the pavement entirely and just landed alongside on the grass? Is it feasable to store a fabric covered wood frame biplane outside, considering using modern covering systems and a good waterproof cockpit cover?
I'd like to have some discussion on these points if you all are willing.
