experimental help

[skydad]

Can the Jabiru be fit into a Sonex Onex? Probably would be even cheaper than a Waiex. I've been to the Sonex plant, and although not a fan of their looks they do seem to be very well designed aircraft. I do like the Onex though. it does have a slightly more sporty look than both the sonex or Waiex.

There was a Sonex at a local fly in a couple of months ago with a Jabiru 3300. Sure did sound good on takeoff.

 

[cluttonfred]

Sonerai is a great choice and definitely doable at that price if you keep everything light and simple and do it yourself. A basic Sonerai II wouldn't be much more. Add all the bells and whistles, though--full electrics, pretty lights, starter, fancy panel, etc.--and you could easily double the price.

Another option you might consider is the RANS S-9 or S-10 though with a four-stroke 912 either of them would be a lot more expensive than a Sonerai with a VW.

 

[1Bad88]

I saw this one on fleebay and thought about this thread:

Smyth SIDEWINDER Homebuilt Experimental Aircraft Kit & Plans Mostly Unbuilt in Aircraft | eBay Motors

I thought that it is a good deal and is supposed to be stressed for 9 g's

 

[64wing]

Why not build a DR109? Two seats, pretty quick and stable, and capable of more aerobatics than you will be able to handle in the first few years of ownership seeing as you don't have your ticket yet. A similar bird would be the Laser Z2300. Or you could convince your lady to learn to fly and build a pair of Pitts ...or break up with her lol jk

 

[Max Torque]

A suggestion, if I may....

Concentrate on getting your license, building time and if you want to do aerobatics, do it in a rental plane for a bit before jumping into a building a plane...especially a plane as you described. I've watched many a freshly minted pilot go thru the aerobatics stage then, after a few months or so, moving on to other types of flying. Many eventually end up with more of a SUV type, fast flyer (point A to B fast) or bush plane.

 

[TFF]

Aerobatics is such a relative thing to each person. 99% of all pilots never do a loop or a roll. Of competition aerobatic pilots, ones who actually go to contests, there is less than 1000 world wide. Bang for the buck you cant beat a single seat biplane; there are 80% done projects for sale for $2000; the joke is 80% to go. You may find a MM for that but a lot less of them. Spend the money on lessons and tailwheel training; move to spin and the aerobatics. Sometimes some can be combined. To get the license you will not be doing aerobatics, so dont let that slow you down.

 

[Jay Kempf]

I guess my g limitations and expectations are too high. Loops. Snap rolls are something i would like to be able to do. Nothing like oracle sean tucker though. Hahaha.
Thanks for the info man.

Any sort of snap maneuver and any sort of snap tail slide combo is a very special category of airplane. 7 G's is another sort of out of the box number. The aerobatic category is plus/minus 6 G's design and so 9 G's ultimate by doctrine, that meaning the regs put a 50% margin on the 6 G operating limit. So I guess what that means is as you are approaching 9 G's you have a higher probability of bending something permanently. If you just picked 7 G's out of a hat I would do some more research on that number before making that a limitation on a design you select. As far as snap rolls the tail boom becomes the problem. Almost no homebuilts other than ones intended for unlimited competition are built to do that sort of maneuver every day and you shouldn't feel safe using most of the homebuilts to move into that world.

However that being said, most homebuilts combined with an inverted oil and fuel system can do all but snapping maneuvers and high negative maneuvers. Maybe you should look at building an ulimited aerobatic sort of design like a laser and then also making it comfy enough for some cross country too. If you want two places well that is going to limit the field. Wasn't the Piel Emeraude the basis of the CAP 10 series? That could be a contender. If you don't want wood I am not sure what to suggest. Most of the early aerobatic airplanes had wood wing spars with tube fuselage.

 

[bmcj]

However that being said, most homebuilts combined with an inverted oil and fuel system can do all but snapping maneuvers and high negative maneuvers.

I think that statement might be a bit too broad. I'd say "most aerobatic rated homebuilts". True, in experienced hands (like Bob Hoover), most planes can perform aerobatics safely, but non-rated aircraft might not tolerate the heavy-handed control of a novice.

 

[rpellicciotti]

I suggest you take a look at the Panther. It is within your budget and does most of what you want to do. As an extra feature, it is also trailerable.

FlyPanther.net