Quantcast

Evans VP-1... Worth Building?

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,631
Location
Memphis, TN
It’s only worth it if you are happy with it.
It will get you in the air just fine.

For minimalist airplane with performance I think the Tennie Too is better. It is just as utilitarian. It would depend on the kind of field being flown out of. They both compete for the same spot in vw aviation.

As fine of designs the VP and T2 are, I personally would move up to a Flybaby for all wood plane. It’s a little bigger, a little more standard, a little more universal.
 

ejcheli

Active Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2019
Messages
40
Location
Montana
I personally would move up to a Flybaby for all wood plane. It’s a little bigger, a little more standard, a little more universal.
I do absolutely love the Flybaby... looks great, classic design, but it would increase costs compared to a VP-1. Its on the list for sure, but it would require me to be "all in" I think. Would probably need to be stored in a hangar.
 

Wanttaja

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
1,564
Location
Seattle, WA
I do absolutely love the Flybaby... looks great, classic design, but it would increase costs compared to a VP-1. Its on the list for sure, but it would require me to be "all in" I think. Would probably need to be stored in a hangar.
The wood cost would probably be close to the same, but hardware and engine costs will be higher for a Fly Baby. Fly Baby can't use a VW, so you'd be needing to buy a small Continental engine, which will be more expensive.

However, the Continental will have a strong advantage reliability-wise. It's certainly possible to assemble a reliable VW, but statistics show many builders aren't up to the task. There's nothing more expensive than an unreliable engine.

Living in Montana, you're likely to be flying from some higher-elevation fields. You can install a C85 or even an O-200 on a Fly Baby to give the plane better performance.

Consider a Pietenpol as an alternative as well. It's designed as a two-seater, so you'd have a bit more margin when flying solo. Large base of folks building them, too...there are about 70 VPs in the FAA register, 160 Fly Babies, but about 300 Piets.

Whatever you chose, if it's wood, plan on putting it in a hangar.

Ron Wanttaja
 

jedi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
2,161
Location
Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
The wood cost would probably be close to the same, but hardware and engine costs will be higher for a Fly Baby. Fly Baby can't use a VW, so you'd be needing to buy a small Continental engine, which will be more expensive.
.........
Whatever you chose, if it's wood, plan on putting it in a hangar.

Ron Wanttaja
You sound like a good candidate for the VP-1 except for the fact that you live in Montana. A VP-1 is a great plane for the flat lands with long mild low wind summers with lots of beautiful fields to fly over. It is not so great for following a meandering mountain stream.

The cost of storage is a major factor in finding the right plane. Cost of a hanger for a home built VP-1 and a new Beechcraft Bonanza G36 are pretty close to the same although the best airport may be a lot different.

Think about what field you will fly from and what max price you can be happy with? Not just initial price but operating and storage costs versus utility.

For certain you do not want the G 36. That is a good thing. But a similar example can be applied to the VP versus the Fly Baby or any other example.

Follow the Ranger thread and comment. The VP is not the best choice if there is not a landable field below you. It needs a landing spot that will not result in an inverted rollout.
 

MadProfessor8138

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
892
Location
Ekron,Kentucky
Victor Bravo......I wasnt talking about you spewing bs...i actually put a "lol" with that comment but spellcheck got me and i didnt realize it.
I was referring to the OP's viewpoint of already talking himself out of building a VP1 and just wanted justification for doing it.....at least that's how I read the post.

OP :
There's a few issues that would need to be addressed no matter what aircraft is built.

1. Transporting.....I've seen aircraft towed before but it never ends well after some time has elapsed.
Wheel bearings burn up,control surfaces get damaged from airflow,pot holes take a toll on the airframe and the drivers today are pretty reckless....wonder how an insurance claim of that nature would play out?
Trailering would have a few issues as well but it is possible.....I think a custom trailer would probably need to be built to accommodate the width of the gear ?
Not sure about the gear measurements though so I could be wrong.

2. Building.....if you've built rc aircraft then you are a great candidate to build a full size aircraft.

3. Materials....wooden aircraft are increasingly becoming more difficult to build due to availability of suitable materials.
Research to see if there have been other types of wood used in the construction that may be locally available to you.

4. Cost....vw engines are getting pricey now days and so is wood.

If you decide that the VP1 isn't right for you there are many other options out there that will fit your needs.
The Flybaby was mentioned......I happen to have the plans for the ultralight version of the Flybaby if you're interested in that plane.
Actually,I have about 30 sets of plans and I'm sure one of them would be what you're looking for.....shoot me a PM and I will send you a list of what I have.

Quick edit.....you expressed interest in the VP2...if I'm not mistaken,I have VP2 plans.

Kevin
 
Last edited:

don january

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
2,852
Location
Midwest
Beings I'm just East of you in the flat lands and building a plane kinda up your alley of taste. You ask if the VP-1 is worth the effort to build and I'd say certainly. Personally I'd rather see a MI Mini Ace or a Fly-Baby then a VP-1 over head but that's me. TFF has a good insight about what material is used for your buildmini ace 3.jpg Alum is a good way to go up north and we don't have a very long glue period for building so rivets are a plus. A place to keep a wood plane up here is a issue but no more then any other plane and that's were the Mini Ace would be a problemmini ace.jpg The Wing is One piece and you can't fold but I suppose a person could remove wing but then you have 27ft. to put away. What ever way you go I hope the build is fun and your satisfied with the plane when it's done.
 

cdlwingnut

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
May 25, 2015
Messages
497
Location
Iowa
I looked at the VP-1 when trying to decide what to build, I still have plans. The only thing that took it off my list was the fact that I came across my rotax 503. I also there have been a lot of them built and flown.
 

Wanttaja

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
1,564
Location
Seattle, WA
.I happen to have the plans for the ultralight version of the Flybaby if you're interested in that plane.
What is that? Any photos or three-view?
It's called the "Ultrababy"...it's basically a small ultralight that's a ~7/8 scale Fly Baby. Uses a half-VW, but not really Part 103 legal since it has an empty weight of 300 pounds. The plans show Pete's original Fly Baby on the cover, not the Ultrababy itself. Here's the Ultrababy:



Wikipedia says ~60 plans sold, one airplane built.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane's_Hangar_Ultrababy

There's a guy selling (probably pirated) plans on Ebay, on a CD.

Ron Wanttaja
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
11,773
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
It's called the "Ultrababy"...it's basically a small ultralight that's a ~7/8 scale Fly Baby. Uses a half-VW, but not really Part 103 legal since it has an empty weight of 300 pounds. The plans show Pete's original Fly Baby on the cover, not the Ultrababy itself. Here's the Ultrababy:
Thanks Ron.

Had not previously heard of the Ultra Baby.


BJC
 

MadProfessor8138

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
892
Location
Ekron,Kentucky
Yep,that's the one.....couldnt remember the name Ultrababy though.....geeze,I'm getting old...lol

I had always wondered why it was said to be an ultralight when it clearly wouldn't make the weight limit.

Anyways.....I have plans for it.

Kevin
 

Winginitt

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2019
Messages
176
Nice little airplane. I would look at how hard or how easy the wing folding is. If it is difficult or time consuming, I would consider whether it could be redesigned to work easily and quickly. While this doesn't seem like a deal breaker, it actually is a very important consideration. Folding wings can be made to work quickly and easily. Once your airplane is complete and you can store it quickly and easily,you will love that you took the time to get this feature right. Remember also that if the wings contain fuel, you have to accomodate that weight when folding. If you really want to keep flying expenses in check, an efficient folding wing and an enclosed trailer are the way to go. If you cannot make this planes folding wing "exceedingly easy", I would then consider other designs.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
8,376
Location
USA.
Friend of mine bought a VP-1 from a person that I knew and watched the build. Flown a year and set for several years because of medical problems. My friend had me to disassemble the engine and check for rust from setting those years. I overhauled the 1600 cc engine since I had it apart (no rust). I never flew it but did several trips down the runway and back flying in ground effect in checking the engine. It was flown almost every weekend for over a year and then sold because wanting a 2 place airplane so he could take his wife. He really liked the VP-1 and so do I. Cruised at 75 mph and climbed good on the 1600 cc VW engine. Fun airplane.
FritzW can tell you all about the VP1.
 

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
9,369
Location
CT, USA
I've always liked the VP. Some random comments, I've never flown a one:

The 103 "restrictions": yes, there are some limitations, but with that comes freedom not found in any other class: no pilot certificate, no required inspections, no minimum altitude, etc.

The VP-1 isn't an ultralight, but the mission is the same: fly around for fun on a nice day.

Does the VP have folding wings? If so, I wasn't aware of that.

Folding wings is OK of if it's fast (15 minutes or less) and takes only one person. Otherwise, you won't fly much.

Look also at the Minimax and related designs, and also the Fisher line for simple wood designs.

Here's a pirep on the VP-2:
http://airbum.com/pireps/PirepVP-II.html
 

ejcheli

Active Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2019
Messages
40
Location
Montana
Part 103 seems amazing but it clearly was designed for the 5 foot something guys that weigh ~165lbs. I know they can carry more but it's just pushing the upper limit IMO. I'm 6'3" and even at my lowest, I'm still ~205 lbs. LSA just seems more optimal, but I do love the idea of Part 103.
 
Top