Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Sonex Traitor?
- Thread starter mrblob
- Start date
- Status
Rhino889
Well Known Member
David Paule
Well Known Member
As an RV-3B builder who has a friend that built a Sonex Xenos, I'll take a shot at this.
The Onex will have pre-punched homes and a computer-developed design, with parts that cleco together. With the RV-3B, you'll have to locate and drill almost all the holes yourself. Both airplanes have pre-built spars, and the RV-3B can have quick-build wings.
The RV-3has a bubble canopy and the Onex doesn't.
The Xenos upper wing surface definitely ripples during normal 1 g flight. I regard it as both unslightly and unaerodynamic. While I can't say if that carries to the Onex, it's a sign of poor design.
The RV-3B plans are old school prints. It's mostly all there with some looking. The build manual is decent but it's more of a big picture thing than a detail guide. The Xenos plans are considerably more clear and more of a step-by-step thing. My friend took as long to build his Xenos as I'd expect to with the RV-3B (except that I'm very slow so it'll take longer for me). But the ease of building doesn't seem to carry through to a faster building experience. Although the Onex will have fewer parts.
The RV-3B will use two to three times the fuel that the Onex will use. And the Onex can fold its wings while the RV-3B can't.
The Aero-Vee "carb," is a quirky thing, and the fuel tank of the Onex has a filler spout at the base of the canopy. Ugh. My friend is still sorting through the fuel system issues, in the plane's second summer flying. I am not impressed.
There's a substantial price difference between the two planes.
Bottom line - it you enjoy building and can afford it, build the RV-3B. If you don't or want it to be relatively easy, and if the price is a major factor and you don't mind risking the fuel system, get the Onex.
Dave
RV-3B, now on the wings
The Onex will have pre-punched homes and a computer-developed design, with parts that cleco together. With the RV-3B, you'll have to locate and drill almost all the holes yourself. Both airplanes have pre-built spars, and the RV-3B can have quick-build wings.
The RV-3has a bubble canopy and the Onex doesn't.
The Xenos upper wing surface definitely ripples during normal 1 g flight. I regard it as both unslightly and unaerodynamic. While I can't say if that carries to the Onex, it's a sign of poor design.
The RV-3B plans are old school prints. It's mostly all there with some looking. The build manual is decent but it's more of a big picture thing than a detail guide. The Xenos plans are considerably more clear and more of a step-by-step thing. My friend took as long to build his Xenos as I'd expect to with the RV-3B (except that I'm very slow so it'll take longer for me). But the ease of building doesn't seem to carry through to a faster building experience. Although the Onex will have fewer parts.
The RV-3B will use two to three times the fuel that the Onex will use. And the Onex can fold its wings while the RV-3B can't.
The Aero-Vee "carb," is a quirky thing, and the fuel tank of the Onex has a filler spout at the base of the canopy. Ugh. My friend is still sorting through the fuel system issues, in the plane's second summer flying. I am not impressed.
There's a substantial price difference between the two planes.
Bottom line - it you enjoy building and can afford it, build the RV-3B. If you don't or want it to be relatively easy, and if the price is a major factor and you don't mind risking the fuel system, get the Onex.
Dave
RV-3B, now on the wings
Guy at our airport has same experience with his Onex. He just circles the airport as he keeps working on the fuel system, not wanting to stray to far. He has been doing this every weekend for a year now.
I agree. This is looking very promising now. I would be more inclined toward an RV3 but LSA is a very real concern in my future.
Mile High Relic
Well Known Member
I like a lot of things about the Onex, and if I put my mind to it I might actually be able to build one, whereas I think an RV-3 would be beyond my ability. When it comes to considering the looks though, the RV wins the beauty contest by a long mile, IMO. I'll never build a Onex because to me, somehow, it just doesn't look right. Shallow I know, but I love the looks of almost all of the RV line.
My second plane will be a kitfox. I think they are perfect for their mission. Reasonably priced and to build. But, I don't care about aerobatics, so each his own.
ccsmith51
Well Known Member
I built a Sonex, and was in general happy with the design, ruggedness, and relative ease of the build.
I have been involved to some degree with the Panther since it's inception. I have helped fabricate the wings, panel, controls, etc. I flew chase on its first flight, and have flown close formation since then. I hope to fly it in the next month or so.
It is a very nice plane, will be easy to build, in either standard or LSA configurations. I don't know much about the One-X but I think that the Panther is in a different class than the One-X.
humptybump
Well Known Member
I like the RV-3 so I'm watching the Panther progress.
Don
Well Known Member
I have the same yearnings, but my wife is not too happy about it
Same problem here...but my leanings are toward a 3.
Last edited:
Tony Spicer
Well Known Member
Not sure just how to keep this non-RV thread going without drawing the ire of a moderator. So here's what I'm going to do:
That's Van hisself talking to Dan Weseman at S&F. Dan is the designer and builder of the prototype Panther. Van was impressed.
I'm involved with the Panther as a beta builder. I scratch-built a Sonex back in 1998. Then I build an RV-3 that was totaled at S&F in 2011. Then I rebuilt an RV-4. Then I saw a 3-view of the Panther and sold the RV-4. For me, it was LSA time. During the entire time I was building the -3, if I heard it once, I heard it 100 times- If Van would just do a QB -3 I would order one tomorrow. Don't think you'll ever see the QB -3, but have a look at the Panther and see if it just might work for you.
Three flight test reports have been published here, here and here. Dan sold his RV-4 to build the Panther. Bob Woolley, Panther beta builder and test pilot, currently flies an RV-4.
If that's not enough RV content, here's another photo from S&F.
That's Ron 'Smokey' Schreck, one of Team AeroDynamix' finest, trying the Panther on for size.
Tony
That's Van hisself talking to Dan Weseman at S&F. Dan is the designer and builder of the prototype Panther. Van was impressed.
I'm involved with the Panther as a beta builder. I scratch-built a Sonex back in 1998. Then I build an RV-3 that was totaled at S&F in 2011. Then I rebuilt an RV-4. Then I saw a 3-view of the Panther and sold the RV-4. For me, it was LSA time. During the entire time I was building the -3, if I heard it once, I heard it 100 times- If Van would just do a QB -3 I would order one tomorrow. Don't think you'll ever see the QB -3, but have a look at the Panther and see if it just might work for you.
Three flight test reports have been published here, here and here. Dan sold his RV-4 to build the Panther. Bob Woolley, Panther beta builder and test pilot, currently flies an RV-4.
If that's not enough RV content, here's another photo from S&F.
That's Ron 'Smokey' Schreck, one of Team AeroDynamix' finest, trying the Panther on for size.
Tony
Neal@F14
Well Known Member
Another neat looking single-seat LSA
I stumbled across another inexpensive single-seat experimental LSA, the Thatcher CX4 a couple days ago. I didn't even know they existed. You can built one as tailwheel or tri-gear.
www.thatchercx4.com
www.cx4community.com
They're also going to offer a 2-seat tandem version called the CX5.
There's apparently almost 40 of them built and flying already. One builder made a fastback version that looks even better.
Obligatory RV-related: They can use some RV parts in them, such as tailwheel components.
I stumbled across another inexpensive single-seat experimental LSA, the Thatcher CX4 a couple days ago. I didn't even know they existed. You can built one as tailwheel or tri-gear.
www.thatchercx4.com
www.cx4community.com
They're also going to offer a 2-seat tandem version called the CX5.
There's apparently almost 40 of them built and flying already. One builder made a fastback version that looks even better.
Obligatory RV-related: They can use some RV parts in them, such as tailwheel components.
Last edited:
Sam Staton
Well Known Member
Panther
I have had the pleasure of being relatively closely associated with Dan Wesemann for a few years, and I can tell you unreservedly, he is a class act. I also know some of his beta builders and they have VERY high words of praise for his attention to detail and commitment to a stellar product. If you are looking for a single-place airplane with Vans-like quality and spritely performance, you would not regret investigating the Panther. Just an interested by-stander. The Senior Domestic Advisor has already weighed in on this and said the -6 is enough.
I have had the pleasure of being relatively closely associated with Dan Wesemann for a few years, and I can tell you unreservedly, he is a class act. I also know some of his beta builders and they have VERY high words of praise for his attention to detail and commitment to a stellar product. If you are looking for a single-place airplane with Vans-like quality and spritely performance, you would not regret investigating the Panther. Just an interested by-stander. The Senior Domestic Advisor has already weighed in on this and said the -6 is enough.
I am seriously considering selling off my RV-12 sub kits and building a Onex. I love the -12 but I started building and then bought a Gobosh S-LSA. The -12 and Gobosh are very similar, save the removable wings. With that in mind I looked for something that was a little different and aerobatic. I don't want to go out and go nuts with the acro stuff but the ability to go out and do some minimal stuff sounds like fun.
I travelled to Oshkosh and attended the Sonex builders workshop. They are great people and I really enjoyed the weekend. I also of course think Van and his company are great and still very much like the -12. It is a tough choice but two of the same basic aircraft just doesn't make a lot of sense.
Carl
I travelled to Oshkosh and attended the Sonex builders workshop. They are great people and I really enjoyed the weekend. I also of course think Van and his company are great and still very much like the -12. It is a tough choice but two of the same basic aircraft just doesn't make a lot of sense.
Carl
David Paule
Well Known Member
Have you even flown an RV-12? It's got such great visibility and delightful handling that it's worth finishing and keeping.
It's an exceptional airplane.
Dave
It's an exceptional airplane.
Dave
Yes I flew the east coast demo plane and loved it. I have about 200 hours in the Gobosh and love it as well. I found the two to fly fairly similarly. The biggest difference was full flaperons on the -12 was a little more impactful than when I drop full flaps on the Gobosh. Again it is not that I don't like the -12. I just am at the point of ordering the finishing, avionics and engine kits. Those total about $50K. For $27K I can have a flying Onex. Selling the sub kits I have I can get part of that way there.
Carl
Carl
E. D. Eliot
Well Known Member
Go for it!
Just my opinion but I say 'go for it'. Heck, some of my best friends don't fly RVs!!! Build and fly what you want - not a traitorous act in my mind - that's why there are more flavors of ice cream than vanilla. Enjoy.
Just my opinion but I say 'go for it'. Heck, some of my best friends don't fly RVs!!! Build and fly what you want - not a traitorous act in my mind - that's why there are more flavors of ice cream than vanilla. Enjoy.
roadrunner20
Well Known Member
My friend has one the first flying Onex & He's based at my airport. His is powered by a Jabaru engine. Interesting design with the folding wings.
He's having lots of fun flying it.
He's having lots of fun flying it.
CSJohnson
Active Member
No Paul, You're Not a Traitor
I'm also considering a OneX build given the incredible economics. A solid performing and flyable airplane for what many spend on an engine for their RV.
135+ MPH cruise at 45 MPG using mogas and acro capable. Folding wings so can be transported on a trailer. Can be stored in a covered trailer or garage so no hanger expense. Operating expenses could hardly be any less.
I created a spreadsheet estimating the cost of building (shop equipment and tools included) a OneX and an RV-8 outfitted to my liking. OneX is $35,414, while the RV-8 is $95,676.
Build time is also significantly less with the OneX being 500-750 hours and the RV-8 being 2,000-2,500.
Low cost to build, time to build, and operating cost.
I would love to have a hanger with an RV-10 and an RV-8 (too big for a -3), but unfortunately that's just not realistic, at least not yet!
I'd be a first time builder, so the OneX might be a great stepping stone on my way to a future RV-8. And that's where I think Vans could really create a winner if they got into this part of the market. Imagine a Vans RV-X with similar cost and performance to the OneX but backed by Vans' engineering and reputation. It would allow first-time builders to join the Vans family with less cost and risk, and our investment in tools, time, and learning are directly applicable toward building one of the "bigger" of Vans' kits.
I'd rather fly higher, farther, faster, and with passengers, but ultimately I'd just rather be flying often!
My thought is to build a OneX as a step toward building an -8. Maybe when ready I could sell the OneX and use the proceeds to buy an ECi EXP IOX-370 Kit Engine!
Chris
I'm also considering a OneX build given the incredible economics. A solid performing and flyable airplane for what many spend on an engine for their RV.
135+ MPH cruise at 45 MPG using mogas and acro capable. Folding wings so can be transported on a trailer. Can be stored in a covered trailer or garage so no hanger expense. Operating expenses could hardly be any less.
I created a spreadsheet estimating the cost of building (shop equipment and tools included) a OneX and an RV-8 outfitted to my liking. OneX is $35,414, while the RV-8 is $95,676.
Build time is also significantly less with the OneX being 500-750 hours and the RV-8 being 2,000-2,500.
Low cost to build, time to build, and operating cost.
I would love to have a hanger with an RV-10 and an RV-8 (too big for a -3), but unfortunately that's just not realistic, at least not yet!
I'd be a first time builder, so the OneX might be a great stepping stone on my way to a future RV-8. And that's where I think Vans could really create a winner if they got into this part of the market. Imagine a Vans RV-X with similar cost and performance to the OneX but backed by Vans' engineering and reputation. It would allow first-time builders to join the Vans family with less cost and risk, and our investment in tools, time, and learning are directly applicable toward building one of the "bigger" of Vans' kits.
I'd rather fly higher, farther, faster, and with passengers, but ultimately I'd just rather be flying often!
My thought is to build a OneX as a step toward building an -8. Maybe when ready I could sell the OneX and use the proceeds to buy an ECi EXP IOX-370 Kit Engine!
Chris
Last edited:
The OneX is tempting considering the price. But, the low price is mostly due to the engine. If you want a real aero engine (Rotax/ULPower/Jabiru), the price suddenly jumps into the RV 3/4 range. Then, considering a real aero engine and the simplicity and practicality of the design/build, I must say the Panther looks more tempting.
The OneX is a really nice plane, but it only makes perfect sense if you are happy to fly behind that AeroVee.
The OneX is a really nice plane, but it only makes perfect sense if you are happy to fly behind that AeroVee.
Yes, but the RV-3 is about 7-8,000 cheaper than the RV-12. The RV-4 about 1-2,000 more expensive than a RV-3. An RV-3 wouldn't be much fun with an 80 HP AeroVee, but then again how much fun is an AeroVee altogether, even in a OneX?
Maybe the AeroVee is OK, but there is no way of knowing. Other VW conversions seem to run for years and years with no major problem, but I have not seen any info on the AeroVee.
Big maintenance price difference
There are lots of sonex's flying with lots of hours on the Aerovee. Nothing real unique about it. There are others like great plains and Revmaster. Same basic idea.
I know there is no comparison between my o-360 but with 10:1 pistons, electronic ignition, catto prop etc. its still very experimental.
Its mostly about what your comfortable flying behind. I flew several hundred hours behind a 1800 subaru engine on a zodiac 601hd.
I fly a legal eagle ultralight that has a 4 stroke generac engine spinning the fan. I love the sound of that thing.
As a price comparison, I just sold a teenie2 I had been flying the last couple years that had a revmaster 2100. I bought with some 30yrs on the engine and a question of whether it had the older cast or newer forged crank. The decision to rebuild was pretty easy when I broke it down by price.
New crank installed by Revmaster was less than a $1000.
Decided to replace all four pistons and jugs for under $400.
Valves and head work for around $150.
Fresh engine for under $2000. I wanted a project to tinker with and for under $10K including complete engine rebuild I had a flying airplane. There are cheap ways to enjoy flying.
There are lots of sonex's flying with lots of hours on the Aerovee. Nothing real unique about it. There are others like great plains and Revmaster. Same basic idea.
I know there is no comparison between my o-360 but with 10:1 pistons, electronic ignition, catto prop etc. its still very experimental.
Its mostly about what your comfortable flying behind. I flew several hundred hours behind a 1800 subaru engine on a zodiac 601hd.
I fly a legal eagle ultralight that has a 4 stroke generac engine spinning the fan. I love the sound of that thing.
As a price comparison, I just sold a teenie2 I had been flying the last couple years that had a revmaster 2100. I bought with some 30yrs on the engine and a question of whether it had the older cast or newer forged crank. The decision to rebuild was pretty easy when I broke it down by price.
New crank installed by Revmaster was less than a $1000.
Decided to replace all four pistons and jugs for under $400.
Valves and head work for around $150.
Fresh engine for under $2000. I wanted a project to tinker with and for under $10K including complete engine rebuild I had a flying airplane. There are cheap ways to enjoy flying.
CSJohnson
Active Member
Great Comments - Interesting Discussion
It really depends on one's preferred mission and ability to afford said mission. It's always a matter of balancing compromises. Per some of the previous posts, comparing the OneX:
RV-3: Can't fold/remove wings to trailer or store in off-airport home garage. Longer build time given un-drilled holes. Doable, but probably challenging for a newbie. Great airplane!
RV-12: Need two people to remove wings. Isn't aerobatic. Great airplane!
Panther: Not yet available as the prototype is still in Phase I testing. Great potential though and I'll be keeping my eye on it!
The OneX certainly isn't my dream plane, but is there anything else on the market that is aerobatic and can be built as quickly and relatively inexpensively, operated as inexpensively and from a company that has a good track record?
Something tells me that if Paul, myself, or most who frequent this forum do build a OneX, we'll ultimately join the repeat offender club and build an RV. But I have to admit, that right now, I just wanna fly!
Chris
It really depends on one's preferred mission and ability to afford said mission. It's always a matter of balancing compromises. Per some of the previous posts, comparing the OneX:
RV-3: Can't fold/remove wings to trailer or store in off-airport home garage. Longer build time given un-drilled holes. Doable, but probably challenging for a newbie. Great airplane!
RV-12: Need two people to remove wings. Isn't aerobatic. Great airplane!
Panther: Not yet available as the prototype is still in Phase I testing. Great potential though and I'll be keeping my eye on it!
The OneX certainly isn't my dream plane, but is there anything else on the market that is aerobatic and can be built as quickly and relatively inexpensively, operated as inexpensively and from a company that has a good track record?
Something tells me that if Paul, myself, or most who frequent this forum do build a OneX, we'll ultimately join the repeat offender club and build an RV. But I have to admit, that right now, I just wanna fly!
Chris
David Paule
Well Known Member
Then Why Build?
If you just wanna fly, don't build an airplane. Buy one that's flyable, airworthy, and won't need more than routine maintenance for a while. Get a good check out and have fun flying it.
THEN decide if you also want to build an airplane.
Flying an airplane is so different than building one. Both fun, but entirely different activities.
Dave
....But I have to admit, that right now, I just wanna fly!
Chris
If you just wanna fly, don't build an airplane. Buy one that's flyable, airworthy, and won't need more than routine maintenance for a while. Get a good check out and have fun flying it.
THEN decide if you also want to build an airplane.
Flying an airplane is so different than building one. Both fun, but entirely different activities.
Dave
CSJohnson
Active Member
Hi Dave - I was stealing a line from Sugar Ray's song and didn't intend for it to be taken literally. Good points though.
I definitely want to build, but relate to Paul's question about being a traitor as until recently I've always envisioned building an RV and really enjoy the community, including VAF, so it does feel sacrilege to consider a OneX.
Returning to economics, among the advantages of building is "pay as you go" and having the Repairman Certificate.
OK, I guess I do wanna do more than just fly!
Chris
mrblob
Well Known Member
Context
I threw this out there a little bit tongue-in-cheek, but it's certainly generated an interesting conversation. For me, I'm looking at this as a second airplane (first world problem). I have my RV-7 and fully intend to keep flying that. The appeal is really the idea of having a single seat plane that's a blast to fly locally. I'm frequently torn between the RV-3, Onex, Pitts S1, and Midget Mustang. I have no real interest in the ability to fly LSA (I'm 31 and healthy), and I'm not considering anything with more than one seat in this argument.
For the mission, and compared to an RV-3, I think I'd be into the Onex for 25% of the build time, 60% of the cost, 50% of the operating expense, and basically free storage (with folding wings, could tuck it next to the -7), and realize 80-90% of the fun. That's a worthwhile trade.
I'll still build a -3 someday. Just not sure when.
Somebody else on these forums had this equation in their signature:
The correct number of airplanes to own is n+1 where n is the current number owned. Alternatively, this could be s-1 where is s is the number that results in separation from one's spouse.
I threw this out there a little bit tongue-in-cheek, but it's certainly generated an interesting conversation. For me, I'm looking at this as a second airplane (first world problem). I have my RV-7 and fully intend to keep flying that. The appeal is really the idea of having a single seat plane that's a blast to fly locally. I'm frequently torn between the RV-3, Onex, Pitts S1, and Midget Mustang. I have no real interest in the ability to fly LSA (I'm 31 and healthy), and I'm not considering anything with more than one seat in this argument.
For the mission, and compared to an RV-3, I think I'd be into the Onex for 25% of the build time, 60% of the cost, 50% of the operating expense, and basically free storage (with folding wings, could tuck it next to the -7), and realize 80-90% of the fun. That's a worthwhile trade.
I'll still build a -3 someday. Just not sure when.
Somebody else on these forums had this equation in their signature:
The correct number of airplanes to own is n+1 where n is the current number owned. Alternatively, this could be s-1 where is s is the number that results in separation from one's spouse.
David Paule
Well Known Member
Another airplane that might be worth adding to the list is the Kolb Firestar. It's basically a single-seater with an optional jump seat. It's got significantly better visibility than the low-wing tractor airplanes.
It's fun and has very good short field performance. It's also very economical to own and fly. They've been around for a while and there's a Matronics forum that's pretty decent.
It's not fast, though. But you've got a fast airplane if you need one.
Dave
It's fun and has very good short field performance. It's also very economical to own and fly. They've been around for a while and there's a Matronics forum that's pretty decent.
It's not fast, though. But you've got a fast airplane if you need one.
Dave
Last edited:
He he.
So this means that n+1 = s-1 (alternate but equivalent truths)
re-arranging: s = n+2
Considering divorce does not happen at n = 1, this leaves us at divorce at s = 1 + 2 = 3. or:
n = 1 -> s = 3
n = 2 -> s = 4
and so on. Which means you can always add one more aircraft without being afraid your wife kicking you out. But you should never add two aircrafts at once.
But it also means:
n = s-2
which means if your wife kicks you out at s=2, then n = 0. If your wife kicks you out at s=3, then you can only have one aircraft (n=1) before trouble emerges.
hmmm
Relationship: It's Complicated
To further complicate your analysis, Stjørdal, recall that:
implies a causal relationship, but not the inverse.
So if one were to divorce first (while n = 0), then s becomes meaningless and n becomes (theoretically) unbounded.
Somewhat unintentionally, I'm in the middle of running that experiment at the moment, but I definitely do NOT recommend anyone attempt to replicate it . . . at least not for the sake of science.
Stephen
To further complicate your analysis, Stjørdal, recall that:
implies a causal relationship, but not the inverse.
So if one were to divorce first (while n = 0), then s becomes meaningless and n becomes (theoretically) unbounded.
Somewhat unintentionally, I'm in the middle of running that experiment at the moment, but I definitely do NOT recommend anyone attempt to replicate it . . . at least not for the sake of science.
Stephen
bhassel
Well Known Member
I started an ultracruiser, but confess I'm more of a kit person that a scratch builder. There were 26 pages of plans and that's pretty much it (actually they also have some video's/DVD's that are pretty old).
Those that are flying are well liked. One of our local guys and friends is David Roe (with a beautiful RV-8). He built a round cowl Hummelbird that was written up twice some years back. One write up was on the airplane (a work of art) and the other write up was on the engine. A local guru, shrunk a VW engine down so all 4 cylinders were in the round cowl. Two great stories about two really leading edge builders!
Any metal plane that attempts to meet the LSA requirements has pretty thin skin. The ultracruiser went one step further and was an attempt at being an ultralight, with a half VW engine. In all honesty I'm not sure they could actually make the weight requirements (even though the factory would contest that) I talked with one builder and asked about his empty weight (for an ultralight it's 254 pounds max). His response was, 'you mean the real weight or what I tell everyone?'.
They also have a model the M-5 I believe which is updated. I'd be remiss if I didn't also mention the BK Flier http://www.bkfliers.com/. This is a really well documented build and would come in under the price of a Onex.
As mentioned before the Panther looks pretty nice as well!
Bob
Those that are flying are well liked. One of our local guys and friends is David Roe (with a beautiful RV-8). He built a round cowl Hummelbird that was written up twice some years back. One write up was on the airplane (a work of art) and the other write up was on the engine. A local guru, shrunk a VW engine down so all 4 cylinders were in the round cowl. Two great stories about two really leading edge builders!
Any metal plane that attempts to meet the LSA requirements has pretty thin skin. The ultracruiser went one step further and was an attempt at being an ultralight, with a half VW engine. In all honesty I'm not sure they could actually make the weight requirements (even though the factory would contest that)
I talked with one builder and asked about his empty weight (for an ultralight it's 254 pounds max). His response was, 'you mean the real weight or what I tell everyone?'.They also have a model the M-5 I believe which is updated. I'd be remiss if I didn't also mention the BK Flier http://www.bkfliers.com/. This is a really well documented build and would come in under the price of a Onex.
As mentioned before the Panther looks pretty nice as well!
Bob
Realistically (although not very realistic atm) another airplane for me would be the OneX or rather the SD-1 The SD-1 can be built from scratch or several steps all the way up to ready to fly. It's cheap, flies like a god, reasonable, hardly bigger than a radio control model and flies good on a B&S or Kohler. They say you don't really fly it, you wear it.
KatieB
Well Known Member
If wife brings her own aircraft to the equation, one is not without emerging trouble. You just replace "divorce" with "bankruptcy."
By the way, +1 for Panther. Watch the flying videos!
ccsmith51
Well Known Member
And +1 on that +1!!!
See here for the latest video with audio:
http://flypanther.net/2013/05/08/what-is-it-like-to-fly-a-panther-ls/
Last edited:
Sam Buchanan
been here awhile
This has been an interesting thread but it has turned away from anything RV related. Those who are interested in the various aircraft now being discussed can find other forums dedicated to these planes.
Thread closed.
Thread closed.
- Status
