VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > RV General Discussion/News
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 11-07-2014, 12:19 AM
stinson pilot's Avatar
stinson pilot stinson pilot is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: North Bend, Wa
Posts: 75
Default

I wouldn't discount the Sonerai in your price range. I've owned one, built one.
Great flying airplanes, sporty, cheap on gas and just plain fun.

What the guys told you about knowing what you're getting into holds just as true with the Sonerai. There are bad ones, good ones and very good ones.

Remember that you're on a Vans forum...these guys are a bit biased, and rightly so! But they've given you good advice to apply to whatever you look at.
__________________
Doug
1947 Stinson 108-2
Steen Skybolt
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-07-2014, 07:02 AM
HIIFLY's Avatar
HIIFLY HIIFLY is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Brighton, Pa. 15066
Posts: 277
Default

I would like to suggest to you to keep getting more information on all the Experimentals available for sale , join EAA , search out forums on the models that interest you most and do exactly what you did here , Ask Questions about them . Then when you go to buy , Hire someone who knows that particular aircraft to do a Good PreBuy inspection . It will save you money and problems in the end . Good Luck to you !
__________________
14 planes owned ,11 bought ,3 built .
RV-8 N808H ,Sold
RV-6 Sold 😔
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-07-2014, 09:19 AM
rph142's Avatar
rph142 rph142 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Walnut Creek CA
Posts: 474
Default

Where are you located in northern CA? My RV-3 is based out of KCCR in concord CA if you want to take a look at it. For $15K your best bet would be a 1/3 - 1/4 share in something.
__________________
Rob Holmes
www.myrv3.com
N59LG
The minimum number of planes one should own is one. The correct number is n+1, where n is the number of planes currently owned. This equation may also be re-written as s-1, where s is the number of planes owned that would result in separation from your partner.

- Veluminati
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-07-2014, 11:04 AM
Brundlefly Brundlefly is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: northern california
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stinson pilot View Post
I wouldn't discount the Sonerai in your price range. I've owned one, built one.
Great flying airplanes, sporty, cheap on gas and just plain fun.
Yeah, I keep coming back to the Sonerai, it is hard to beat it for bang for the buck aspect. It seems kind of like a poor mans RV4. But is it a good plane for a low-time pilot in terms of safety? For that matter is the RV4 safe for a low-time pilot. I would really love to have the RV4, I'll have to either save up for that or look at a partnership.

Perhaps the way to go is by a Sonerai complete, and start building the RV4. I can kind of pay-as-you-go on the RV4.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-07-2014, 11:11 AM
Brundlefly Brundlefly is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: northern california
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rph142 View Post
Where are you located in northern CA? My RV-3 is based out of KCCR in concord CA if you want to take a look at it. For $15K your best bet would be a 1/3 - 1/4 share in something.
Hi, I'm north of you in Lakeport K1O2. Thanks for the offer, when I can get down that way maybe I can private message you to see if you will be around to show it.
Thanks.

Last edited by Brundlefly : 11-07-2014 at 11:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-07-2014, 11:22 AM
Mike S's Avatar
Mike S Mike S is offline
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dayton Airpark, NV A34
Posts: 14,324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brundlefly View Post
Hi, I'm north of you in Lakeport K1O2.
We are flying to Willows for brunch tomorrow---arriving around 11---I can show you an RV 10.

I know you are not looking at a 10, but it may give you ideas as to how these things are put together.

Might get some other RVs to join the festivities even????
__________________
Mike Starkey
VAF 909

Rv-10, N210LM.

Flying as of 12/4/2010

Phase 1 done, 2/4/2011

Sold after 240+ wonderful hours of flight.

"Flying the airplane is more important than radioing your plight to a person on the ground incapable of understanding or doing anything about it."
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-07-2014, 03:47 PM
Ed_Wischmeyer's Avatar
Ed_Wischmeyer Ed_Wischmeyer is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 772
Default "Safe" airplane

There will be lots of discussion as to the relative significance of these elements, but here are some elements in homebuilt safety:
- go / nogo decision making, based upon absolutely all factors
- stick and rudder skills at the moment of flight. Lots go into this.
- handling qualities of this individual airplane
- airworthiness of the airframe, engine, fuel system, electricals, etc

You dont have FAR23 to protect you so you have to manage that extra risk - you and your support team. On a per flight hour basis, I figure homebuilts are six times as dangerous as spam cans. It can be worth it...

Ed
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-07-2014, 04:14 PM
ijustwannafly's Avatar
ijustwannafly ijustwannafly is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Colorado
Posts: 243
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed_Wischmeyer View Post
There will be lots of discussion as to the relative significance of these elements, but here are some elements in homebuilt safety:
- go / nogo decision making, based upon absolutely all factors
- stick and rudder skills at the moment of flight. Lots go into this.
- handling qualities of this individual airplane
- airworthiness of the airframe, engine, fuel system, electricals, etc

You dont have FAR23 to protect you so you have to manage that extra risk - you and your support team. On a per flight hour basis, I figure homebuilts are six times as dangerous as spam cans. It can be worth it...

Ed
six times as dangerous? I would be interested to see how you arrived at that conclusion. Did you base this off of some statistical data that you could provide us?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-07-2014, 04:21 PM
Ed_Wischmeyer's Avatar
Ed_Wischmeyer Ed_Wischmeyer is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 772
Default Stats

Ron Wanttaja has done the best statistical analysis there is on homebuilt safety. Note that I did not say good, for the quality of the raw data is poor. I don't recall how I came to my personal conclusions, but on an airplane-year basis, homebuilts are about 15% worse. Per flight hour, six times.

This is really no surprise - for all the money spent on certification etc, you'd expect a considerable improvement in safety, like, say, six times...
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-07-2014, 05:11 PM
jrs14855 jrs14855 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lake Havasu City AZ
Posts: 2,127
Default Safety

There is no accurate data regarding EAB accident rate that can be used to calculate EAB safety vs certificated aircraft.
One of the many problems is that until very recently ALL Experimental aircraft accidents were lumped together.
One glaring example of this, IIRC a 2011 fatal. Republic Seabee, originally powered by a Franklin engine. Aircraft was re engined with a Chevy derived V8 engine. Aircraft was illegally recertified as EAB. This accident was part of the years total EAB fatals that the NTSB had a hissy fit about.
As I have posted before, I split the 2011 EAB fatal accidents into two categories, high performance and low performance based on the approximate cruising speed of the first V tail Bonanza's. ALL high performance EAB accidents that year were loss of control. At least a couple of high performance fatals involved alcohol or drug use.
Lets take a couple of examples: a ratty old Piper Tri Pacer, built in the mid fifties. These airplanes frequently have SERIOUS rust problems in the welded steel structure. Compare this to a pristine RV--. Would any sane person suggest that the RV is not ten or more times safer than the Tri Pacer.
Now consider the low performance. There are relatively new design EAB aircraft that appear to have an abnormally high accident rate. There are the very old EAB aircraft such as the Baby Ace and Pietenpol. Many of these are fine safe aircraft. A few are unairworthy junk waiting for a time and place to kill someone. I believe that a significant number of these have not had a condition inspection for years.
So the bottom line is that NO ONE has a clue what the true EAB accident rate is compared to factory aircraft.
I have been flying EAB aircraft for over 50 years. I have had one fender bender due to a control system failure, but I have never hurt myself in an EAB aircraft.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:42 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.