banner
banner

08 Nov 2025, 17:54 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Greenwich AeroGroup (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 180 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Can Experimentals save General Aviation?
PostPosted: 12 Aug 2014, 09:13 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13085
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
No more AVGAS would mean no more flight training.

Could full motion sims solve this problem long term?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Can Experimentals save General Aviation?
PostPosted: 12 Aug 2014, 09:28 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/22/09
Posts: 5643
Post Likes: +1120
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Aircraft: 1977 A36
Boy, I leave y'all alone for one day and here comes the gloom and doom. 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. :bat:

_________________
It is possible to fly without motors, but not without knowledge and skill.WW


Top

 Post subject: Re: Can Experimentals save General Aviation?
PostPosted: 12 Aug 2014, 13:15 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




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. :bat:

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! :cheers:


Top

 Post subject: Re: Can Experimentals save General Aviation?
PostPosted: 12 Aug 2014, 14:09 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Can Experimentals save General Aviation?
PostPosted: 12 Aug 2014, 14:15 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/23/11
Posts: 14604
Post Likes: +6786
Location: Frederick, MD
Aircraft: V35A TC
So....what's a Rotax TBO? 600-700 hrs? :sad:

_________________
Views represented here are my own.....and do not in anyway reflect my employer's position.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Can Experimentals save General Aviation?
PostPosted: 12 Aug 2014, 14:17 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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? :sad:

A new Rotax 912 TBO is 2000 hours / 15 years.

_________________
Arlen
Get your motor runnin'
Head out on the highway
- Mars Bonfire


Top

 Post subject: Re: Can Experimentals save General Aviation?
PostPosted: 12 Aug 2014, 14:22 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/23/11
Posts: 14604
Post Likes: +6786
Location: Frederick, MD
Aircraft: V35A TC
now....that's nice. :clap:

too bad they don't have a 350HP version.....
Username Protected wrote:
So....what's a Rotax TBO? 600-700 hrs? :sad:

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

 Post subject: Re: Can Experimentals save General Aviation?
PostPosted: 12 Aug 2014, 14:32 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/19/12
Posts: 4044
Post Likes: +1793
Location: Belton, TX (KTPL)
Aircraft: 1968 Bonanza E33
100hp from 82 cu in. Wonder how a bigger design would fare?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Can Experimentals save General Aviation?
PostPosted: 12 Aug 2014, 14:41 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/22/12
Posts: 2478
Post Likes: +1019
Aircraft: G36 turbo normalized
I'm one of those optimists that thinks the best days of aviation are still ahead. Most of the 1st world countries have suffered since 2006 but we will come out of this like we always do. Business people want to make money and a plane is another tool in the tool box to make money.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Can Experimentals save General Aviation?
PostPosted: 16 Aug 2014, 07:30 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Can Experimentals save General Aviation?
PostPosted: 16 Aug 2014, 07:46 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Can Experimentals save General Aviation?
PostPosted: 16 Aug 2014, 07:47 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/13/10
Posts: 20345
Post Likes: +25359
Location: Castle Rock, Colorado
Aircraft: Prior C310,BE33,SR22
Stuart,

You can also buy a flying/completed version of those E-AB planes if that's the model you really want. I don't have the ability to commit the time to building one, so I bought one.

When you buy a flying Experimental, you basically get all the labor for free and some additional discount off the actual costs of the build. You have to get a knowledgeable inspector to do the pre-buy.

_________________
Arlen
Get your motor runnin'
Head out on the highway
- Mars Bonfire


Top

 Post subject: Re: Can Experimentals save General Aviation?
PostPosted: 16 Aug 2014, 08:01 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Can Experimentals save General Aviation?
PostPosted: 16 Aug 2014, 09:22 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: Can Experimentals save General Aviation?
PostPosted: 16 Aug 2014, 09:42 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 180 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next



Postflight (Bottom Banner)

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

Jump to:  

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

.puremedical-85x200.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.rnp.85x50.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.v2x.85x100.png.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.mcfarlane-85x50.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.holymicro-85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.8flight logo.jpeg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.Aircraft Associates.85x50.png.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.performanceaero-85x50.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.aerox_85x100.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.AeroMach85x100.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.garmin-85x200-2021-11-22.jpg.
.KingAirMaint85_50.png.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.Elite-85x50.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.suttoncreativ85x50.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.b-kool-85x50.png.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.Plane AC Tile.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.ocraviation-85x50.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.BT Ad.png.
.tat-85x100.png.
.sarasota.png.
.LogAirLower85x50.png.