08 Nov 2025, 17:54 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Can Experimentals save General Aviation? Posted: 12 Aug 2014, 13:15 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 05/11/10 Posts: 13353 Post Likes: +13186 Location: Indiana
Aircraft: Cessna 185, RV-7
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The refineries are making a nice profit on AvGas. There will be a new fuel in 3-4 years (Avidyne years but still). Nothing to see here...move along.  Are they? Not sure I believe that. But even if the refineries are, the FBO's aren't. And if there were a way to have affordable, unleaded avgas we'd have it already. I couldn't care less what they can do for "not much more than we're paying now." It'll have to be cheaper, much cheaper, to have an effect. Which is why I think the future belongs to Rotax and Pratt. But I was pretty worried about Y2K, so here's hoping my prognosticating is as bad as always! 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Can Experimentals save General Aviation? Posted: 12 Aug 2014, 14:09 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26338 Post Likes: +13085 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Rotax 912. Mogas at training bases. Or maybe diesel? Better yet, electrics.
Cmon dude. Where are all these Rotax planes? There are 10's of thousands of trainer Cessnas sitting on ramps. Your suggestion will cost more than continuing AVGAS or sims. It's not gonna happen that suddenly everyone stocks up on ROTAX planes.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Can Experimentals save General Aviation? Posted: 12 Aug 2014, 14:17 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 02/13/10 Posts: 20345 Post Likes: +25359 Location: Castle Rock, Colorado
Aircraft: Prior C310,BE33,SR22
|
|
Username Protected wrote: So....what's a Rotax TBO? 600-700 hrs?  A new Rotax 912 TBO is 2000 hours / 15 years.
_________________ Arlen Get your motor runnin' Head out on the highway - Mars Bonfire
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Can Experimentals save General Aviation? Posted: 12 Aug 2014, 14:22 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 03/23/11 Posts: 14604 Post Likes: +6786 Location: Frederick, MD
Aircraft: V35A TC
|
|
now....that's nice. too bad they don't have a 350HP version..... Username Protected wrote: So....what's a Rotax TBO? 600-700 hrs?  A new Rotax 912 TBO is 2000 hours / 15 years.
_________________ Views represented here are my own.....and do not in anyway reflect my employer's position.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Can Experimentals save General Aviation? Posted: 16 Aug 2014, 07:30 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 05/11/10 Posts: 13353 Post Likes: +13186 Location: Indiana
Aircraft: Cessna 185, RV-7
|
|
|
I'm a big experimental fan. In fact, I've been looking around for something to do in my new, big garage and an airplane project might fit the bill nicely. I'm really interested in the RANS S-7, KitFox, and some others that would get into backwoods strips or maybe go on floats.
But when they get discouraged, homebuilders say things like this: Before I'm done, I will have spent $80,000 and a thousand hours' work on this Highlander. Other than the build experience (which I could've gotten with a boat or kitchen cabinets), what am I getting that I couldn't have gotten for the same money in a Super Cub? Or less money in a Maule?
Fellow experimental fans, what's the answer to that?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Can Experimentals save General Aviation? Posted: 16 Aug 2014, 07:46 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 08/24/13 Posts: 804 Post Likes: +562 Company: Retired Location: Farmersville, TX
Aircraft: 2007 RANS S-6ES
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Before I'm done, I will have spent $80,000 and a thousand hours' work on this Highlander. Other than the build experience (which I could've gotten with a boat or kitchen cabinets), what am I getting that I couldn't have gotten for the same money in a Super Cub? Or less money in a Maule?
Fellow experimental fans, what's the answer to that? Don't build because you want to fly... Build because you want to build. The journey IS the destination. If you just want to FLY an experimental, find one for sale and buy it. I will be building an EAB because I have dreamed of doing so since I was a 16-year-old... My girlfriend's dad was building a Sonerai IIL in his garage. He gave me a stack of EAA Experimenter and AOPA Pilot magazines that I literally wore out re-reading... I already have an extremely capable and comfortable plane to fly. The one I build will be to scratch that "gotta build it myself" itch!
_________________ Jim Parker 2007 Rans S-6ES
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Can Experimentals save General Aviation? Posted: 16 Aug 2014, 08:01 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/06/11 Posts: 2930 Post Likes: +1675 Location: Missouri
Aircraft: C-120 RV8
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I'm a big experimental fan. In fact, I've been looking around for something to do in my new, big garage and an airplane project might fit the bill nicely. I'm really interested in the RANS S-7, KitFox, and some others that would get into backwoods strips or maybe go on floats.
But when they get discouraged, homebuilders say things like this: Before I'm done, I will have spent $80,000 and a thousand hours' work on this Highlander. Other than the build experience (which I could've gotten with a boat or kitchen cabinets), what am I getting that I couldn't have gotten for the same money in a Super Cub? Or less money in a Maule?
Fellow experimental fans, what's the answer to that? First, it isn't necessary to spend all the big bucks on a homebuilt and be upside down in you project. I am doing it. Building is an enormous amount of work. Depending on the level of workmanship you want to achieve, plan on spending many more hours than those touted by some manufacturer. Just because some dude can build an airplane in 1,000 hours, it might take you 2,500. Plan accordingly. The advantage of homebuilding is that after a part is done, you get to sit back and admire the work you have done. Pride in workmanship. Building is not for everyone (sometimes not me ) but it is very rewarding if you are so inclined. Robert
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Can Experimentals save General Aviation? Posted: 16 Aug 2014, 09:22 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 08/15/11 Posts: 2609 Post Likes: +1212 Location: Mandan, ND
Aircraft: None currently
|
|
So...we have the R182, it is a great traveling machine and stable when you need to shoot an approach. 152 kts, get you from point a to b quick enough. But, I cant put it on floats or skis or... Now I can get a cub, champ or pacer on floats, but then I need an A&P to switch from wheels to floats. But, this has real appeal... http://www.bush-planes.com/Kitfox.html. I can keep it at the lake, fold the wings and drag it up to the shop for storage. And one of the coolest factors (for me) is you can put this engine on it... http://www.rotecradialengines.com/0RotecR2800/R2800.htm. So can do stuff like this with a certified plane, unless you have loads of dough. Even then you are building an unknown. This is a known. While I love my factory built plane, E-AB planes have breathed a lot of life into what I consider GA. I think there are two parts to GA that don't always get recognized. Us, and corporate. I like "us"...
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Can Experimentals save General Aviation? Posted: 16 Aug 2014, 09:42 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/31/10 Posts: 13626 Post Likes: +7758 Company: 320 Fam
Aircraft: 58TC
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I'm a big experimental fan. In fact, I've been looking around for something to do in my new, big garage and an airplane project might fit the bill nicely. I'm really interested in the RANS S-7, KitFox, and some others that would get into backwoods strips or maybe go on floats.
But when they get discouraged, homebuilders say things like this: Before I'm done, I will have spent $80,000 and a thousand hours' work on this Highlander. Other than the build experience (which I could've gotten with a boat or kitchen cabinets), what am I getting that I couldn't have gotten for the same money in a Super Cub? Or less money in a Maule?
Fellow experimental fans, what's the answer to that? It you want a real answer to this, ping Roger Johnson. He built a Long EZ from plans, blocks of foam, and rolls of fiberglass 30 years ago in the garage. He still has the plane and its awesome. I am going to build, but it will be after my kids are all older and too cool for dad.
_________________ Views are my own and don’t represent employers or clients My 58TC https://tinyurl.com/mry9f8f6
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|