- Mar 13, 2008
- Upper midwest in a house
Complete, easy to understand documentation for construction, uses standard homebuilding processes with tools typically in the amateur builder's shop. Can be built in a reasonable period of time. Once completed, plane with good stability and control, reasonable takeoff, climb and landing performance. Comfortable cockpit - something that would be enjoyable to fly vs being a challenge and a chore.Define "Better"
You are oversimplifying the point.Turd's point was that no matter how well it flies, there is something better out there. He's correct, but the same can be said of every airplane ever built (ever).
What I said was there are better alternatives; meaning documentation, build support and a reasonably good flying plane when done. I've studied the Flivver, inspected it closely, considered what it would take to build one. Talked to the museum curator about drawings. I'd put it on par with a Skyote. Relatively simple looking plane that is incredibly difficult to produce. If someone says they are more interested in the history, how it was built and can it be duplicated with not much interest in flying, I'd say go for it. If someone says I want to build a plane where build time is not greater than life remaining and they want to spend as many hrs as possible trying to wear it out when done, there are better alternatives.Right now, I am looking at a Hi-Max, but I think the Flivver could be a really cool (second) project. It's a good looking little plane, has nice classic lines, and acceptable performance - could use a bit more power or a bit less weight, but what plane can't?