LeSving wrote:
But to (b)log the progress is in most respect a very useful thing
My plan is that public exposure for doing no work for months will keep me motivated! 
Only time will tell!
LeSving wrote:
PS: Maybe a Rotec or a Verner would fit?
Possibly, but my aim is to avoid as many mods as possible to prevent any big hold-ups. The LAA says approved engines are C-90, O-200, O-235, O-320 or 912 ULS. Whatever I do it’ll be one of those.
I’ve seen the picture of your RV in another thread. It looks stunning.
Stickandrudderman wrote:
Having bought a half share in a plans built Falco I can only say that my admiration for those that can complete the task is huge and my admiration for those who can complete it well are enormous.
I would love to build a Falco, but the space required is just beyond me. And in fairness, so is the effort. I think the Fury is probably the best possible overall compromise for me.
Having bought a half share in a plans built Falco I can only say that my admiration for those that can complete the task is huge and my admiration for those who can complete it well are enormous.
Jon_Mercer wrote:
I’ve made the probably foolish choice to blog my progress, and you can find that blog here.
That looks very nice indeed. I also made that foolish choice, and sometimes it feels really foolish after a month or two with no progress. But to (b)log the progress is in most respect a very useful thing, because it is an excellent place for pictures when discussing with other builders.
A plans built is real hard core/old school though, and good luck.
PS: Maybe a Rotec or a Verner would fit?
I don’t think there’s any prospect of climbing on top in a Fury! A friend who flies one has said he seldom goes much above 1500 ft. Although that might not give him much scope for aeros.
If you’re not at altitudes, those advantages are equally available from engines less expensive.
Even for 1-h-flights you can choose to climb on top with 1000 fpm. You also don’t have to bother about short grass rwys with an upslope in hot temperatures :-)
The 914 is a fine engine, but rather expensive. And indeed its main advantage – strong performance at altitude – might be less relevant in a plane intended for flights of one hour typically.
I would consider the 914 Turbo which is more expensive, but known to have great performance at altitude. In an investigation of an accident of a Stemme S 10 VT they found the engine producing about 125 hp. The 914 would always be my favourite choice – or the announced 915 of course :-)
Hi folks, thanks for the interest.
It’s a massively daunting undertaking, to scratch build a plane from plans. I hope I’m up to it.
I’m undecided about engine, but that might well be a decision that’s some way off. The 912 is an option that allows quite clean lines on the nose and is apprived by the LAA. A bit of me is also seduced by the potential climb rate of putting a 150 HP O-320, though…
I’ve just spoken to someone today who has agreed to act as inspector, so that’s how early in the process I am.
I’ve been re-reading Aeroplane Affair quite a bit, although John Isaacs seems to make light of the work he put in to complete first the Fury and later the Spitfire.
How’s the RV10 coming along, Carl? They are huge aeroplanes, but look fantastic. I don’t have the room (or finances) to contemplate one!
Me! Me! me! ;)
RV10 in Sussex
