Chosing the RV-6

See the RV-6 Specifications             .

     After two years of research, and soul searching my own needs I finally narrowed it down four different designs: the Europa (a rotax powered retractable monowheel British design), the Banbi MCR-01 (a rotax powered, fast, light, non-aerobatic French Design), the Lancair 320 and the Van's RV-6 which both use larger, expensive certified engines with high maintance costs and large fuel burns.  The rotax would be much more economical in the long run.  At this point, I really needed to think about the company and its service.  More importantly, I needed to take a test flight - try each plane on for fit.  Here is a table showing a summary of my thoughts.  Not included in this table, although it should have been, is the Rans S-16.  Im not really sure why I dropped the S-16 off my scan, as it is a nice in-between that could have been the best of both worlds.  If anyone likes the fast, aerobatic, 2-place SBS kit arena, dont forget to take a look at the Rans S-16(their website is on my links page).

*Lancair discontinued the 360 for the newly introduced (and hot!) Legacy 2000.  I'm not sure about the costs of the new plane but is able to accept very large motors and has an improved wing shape, but I hear it is less aerobatically adept, mostly a x-county plane.  My visit to Lancair was just weeks before announcing the Legacy 2000, but I heard not a word about it on my factory tour.  Afterword, it gave me a real sense that I had been mislead, as they were trying to get rid of the last 320's in stock.  In a sense I understand.. but still. 1. Approximate costs of Quick-build airframes at the time I made my purchase. 2. Recommended engine, of course others are always possible 3. MY estimate of complete firewall forward installations, ranging from new OEM priced to used Lycs but only new Rotax prices(not many used Rotax are available and I would hesitate to use one anyway, TBO is only 1200hrs.). 4. A 1-10 scale of how feasible I feel an alternate engine would be based on W&B considerations, gross limits, cowling size, available alternates, and factory or other builder experience with alternates.   5. My 'cut thought the bull' estimate of what I think most builders can expect for max cruise at altitude (in mph). 6. Payload numbers are published, but I cant remember them, this is what I remember as the jist.

So it's time to go flying!!  It just so happened that a friend of mine, Tommy, wanted to go climb Mt Hood last June (99).  I figured while I was in Portland, I would take a tour of my two favorite Kit plane manufacturers.  Talk about a fantastic few days.  One morning I am watching the sun rise from the top of Mt. Hood (see picture), the next I am flying in an RV.  I rented a 172 at a small field just north of Portland and Tommy (a Navy T45 instructor pilot) flew over to PDX to pick up my step Dad who flew in for the adventure.  (The General Aviation Company at PDX is a very posh facility with friendly people).  We then flew out to Van's little grass strip (my first grass landing since pilot training, but there was plenty of space for our near-gross 172).  What can I say, the people were great, the company was great, and the planes....  The 6's were down getting ready for Osh., so I had to 'settle' ;-) for a ride in the back of the 8A.  WOW!  really does handle just like a T34C (not the Bravo).  I also took a sit in the torn apart 6A in the hangar and it felt comfortable as was the 8 for my 6'2" 190lbs.

Then it was a beautiful 1.5 hr flight down to Redmond to visit Lancair.  Providing an equally friendly and pleasant atmosphere, and planes that were even more beautiful.  I saw the Tigress, and the ES and a L-IV and a couple of 360's.  Slightly different nitch from the Van's aircraft, and the performance is better too.  I love the looks the the smooth curves that the composite make possible, and the shape.  The test flight was similar to my flight in the 8A earlier the same day.  Except for the slightly higher numbers showing up on the ASI, handling was very similar: stick forces, hands-off trim, noise level, responsiveness.  The one big difference was that I felt a little cramped.  I fit and all, but my knees touched the panel, I had less elbow room and I couldn't quite relax.  It wasnt uncomfortable or anything, but I could tell that on a long cross country I would get a little uncomfortable.  So this was the deciding factor for me.  I also like the simplicity of the fixed gear on the RV, so that is about an even trade for the extra speed from the retract.  I prefer to work with metal, so that is an even trade for the better looks of the composite.  I like that Vans didn't charge for a test flight, while Lancair charged $100 (says a lot about the way the company does business - and from my discussions with several RV and Lancair builders, this is truly an accurate reflection).  But in the end, the deciding factor was the fit.

    So now the fuselage is in my Grandmother's garage, and one wing is with Ron while I am gone on deployment to Japan.  In the mean time I am researching my next move... selecting a power plant.