Return-Path: Received: from [24.25.9.100] (HELO ms-smtp-01-eri0.southeast.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0) with ESMTP id 814767 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 04 Nov 2005 12:04:54 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.100; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 (cpe-024-074-025-165.carolina.res.rr.com [24.74.25.165]) by ms-smtp-01-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id jA4H46We018468 for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2005 12:04:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001301c5e161$c5332d70$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Rusty's next project dilemma was Re: Another Run - with Questions Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 12:04:08 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0010_01C5E137.DC159520" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C5E137.DC159520 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MessageThe only valid reason, I hear was in order not to embarrass Tracy = {:>). But, then building the same aircraft again could be a bit of a = drag as well. Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Russell Duffy=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 10:25 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Rusty's next project dilemma was Re: Another = Run - with Questions Ok, Rusty, I'll ask. What makes the Xl more attractive to you than an = RV-8? Not a bad aircraft from what I read, but don't think it can really = compare to bang for buck of an RV-8? Curious minds want to know.=20 Hi Ed, Well, all you have to do is wait a few hours, and the RV-8 will be = back in the lead :-) I didn't really intend to bog the list with this = stuff, but since you asked, and since it is rotary related... The Zenith 601XL is a nice plane by all accounts, and it's Sport Pilot = legal. I don't have any foreseeable requirement for a SP plane, but = realistically, it's all I ever needed for the type flying I do. My = primary interest in the XL is that it's almost ideal for a single rotor = engine installation. The cowl is big, and they allow up to 300 lbs FWF. = In fact, they have an O-235 engine option, which weighs in at slightly = more than 300 lbs I think. HP requirement is 100-125. Performance is = the max allowed (plus some I suspect) for SP, and it's a nice looking = plane, simple to build, etc. =20 The biggest drawback is the price of the kit, particularly when you = add all the options. You could build an RV-X airframe for a couple = thousand cheaper, if you used a standard kit (which I wouldn't). I also = much prefer centerline seating, and the XL is only available in side by = side. =20 In my opinion, the RV-8 is the very best experimental plane every = designed. I loved flying the one I had before, but felt guilty about = the money I had tied up in it, particularly when I realized that I could = make money by selling it. With a Renesis engine (maybe turbo), it would = be a great plane, though resale would suffer. On the other hand, I = wouldn't have nearly as much money in it, so I wouldn't feel as guilty, = and I'd have something to tinker with, which would make me want to keep = it longer. =20 With a Lycoming, inverted oil, and a CS prop, the RV-8 is an awesome = plane, and it would be a better investment than my 401K has been. I = would have to decide if I wanted to build it to maximize what I'd make = on resale, or whether I would be happy to break even eventually. The only other sticky issue with the RV-8 is that I'd hate to = embarrass Tracy by ordering a kit now, and having it flying before he = flies his :-) Sorry you asked yet :-) =20 Cheers, Rusty (just kidding Tracy, please don't sabotage my EC-2 ) ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C5E137.DC159520 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
The only valid reason, I hear was in order not = to=20 embarrass Tracy {:>).  But, then building the same aircraft = again could=20 be a bit of a drag as well.
 
Ed
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Russell=20 Duffy
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 = 10:25=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Rusty's next=20 project dilemma was Re: Another Run - with Questions

Ok, Rusty, I'll = ask. =20 What makes the Xl more attractive to you than an RV-8? Not a bad = aircraft from=20 what I read, but don't think it can really compare to bang for buck of = an=20 RV-8?
Curious minds want to know. 
 
Hi=20 Ed,
 
Well,=20 all you have to do is wait a few hours, and the RV-8 will be back in = the lead=20 :-)    I didn't really intend to bog the list with this = stuff,=20 but since you asked, and since it is rotary=20 related...
 
The=20 Zenith 601XL is a nice plane by all accounts, and it's Sport=20 Pilot legal.  I don't have any foreseeable requirement for a = SP=20 plane, but realistically, it's all I ever needed for the type flying I = do.  My primary interest in the XL is that it's almost = ideal=20 for a single rotor engine installation.  The cowl is big, and = they allow=20 up to 300 lbs FWF.  In fact, they have an O-235 engine = option, which=20 weighs in at slightly more than 300 lbs I think.  HP=20 requirement is 100-125.  Performance is the max allowed (plus = some I=20 suspect) for SP, and it's a nice looking plane, simple to build, = etc. =20
 
The=20 biggest drawback is the price of the kit, particularly when you add = all the=20 options.  You could build an RV-X airframe for a couple = thousand=20 cheaper, if you used a standard kit (which I wouldn't).  I also = much=20 prefer centerline seating, and the XL is only available in side = by=20 side.   
 
In my=20 opinion, the RV-8 is the very best experimental plane every=20 designed.  I loved flying the one I had before, but felt guilty = about the=20 money I had tied up in it, particularly when I realized that I could = make=20 money by selling it.  With a Renesis engine (maybe turbo), it = would be a=20 great plane, though resale would suffer.  On the other hand, I = wouldn't=20 have nearly as much money in it, so I wouldn't feel as guilty, and I'd = have=20 something to tinker with, which would make me want to keep it=20 longer.  
 
With a=20 Lycoming, inverted oil, and a CS prop, the RV-8 is an awesome = plane, and=20 it would be a better investment than my 401K has been.  I would = have to=20 decide if I wanted to build it to maximize what I'd make on resale, or = whether=20 I would be happy to break even eventually.
 
The only=20 other sticky issue with the RV-8 is that I'd hate to embarrass Tracy = by=20 ordering a kit now, and having it flying before he flies his=20 :-)
 
Sorry you=20 asked yet :-) 
 
Cheers,
Rusty (just=20 kidding Tracy, please don't sabotage my EC-2 = <g>)
 
 
= ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C5E137.DC159520--