>>1979540Turn key is one of my goals. I am not trying to target Rutan, but more along the lines of Cessna, Piper, Diamond, or Tecnam. Kit planes have their niche, but not everyone is willing to fly an aircraft that somebody else has made and it would be especially discouraging to lower time pilots, who would most probably be ill suited to handle a pusher prop/canard-equipped aircraft.
This is a good thought, though, and something to consider. The idea seems less likely to succeed when you consider used aircraft.
>>1979542I thought that pine would be much cheaper in the long run as a material. The other issue is fabric, I would need to research that, but many fabrics have been used and with the advent of man-made fabrics, there are even more options available, with the main problems being things like strength.
The problem with the engine is R&D, here are the manufacturers I can think of that are readily avilable:
Continental
Lycoming
Rotax
Jabiru
Aerovee/Revmaster
FlyCorvair
The big problem I see is the cost of Continental and Lycoming engines, but at the same time, they are the most trusted and account for the vast majority of aircraft engines. Rotax comes in at a distant third and is mostly relegated to ultralight and light sport applications.
As I am sure you are aware, there is an AvWeb video covering this in good detail.
Naturally, there is great risk in developing a new GA aircraft engine that is affordable to own and operate, but there could be great reward for doing it. I will just let Rotax's success be a sign that even if the engine that is developed is employed practically, it will only be a modest one. At least considering that the first Rotax engines were available in the United States on self-launching gliders and ultralights since the late 1980s. 35 years and 10000 engines makes for a little under 300 engines/year versus Continental about 1000 engines/year (this might not be entirely accurate, since this is just a calculation and not data).
