Another great interview at Hanger 13 Bryan. Glen has built one sweet aircraft that looks really fun to operate. I can see this aircraft design becoming one of the more popular home builds after all his changes are incorporated. The only tooling I could see would be a small box-break inside your work area to bend all the smaller pieces and have the larger wing components formed at another sheet metal shop. Glen has built one beautiful aircraft that he can surely proud of. It’s nice to see these builders on you channel because we may never had have the opportunity to review a builder like Glen in such a relaxed setting like Hanger 13. To bad we didn’t get a chance to see his VW power plant setup. Bryan I would really be interested if you could ask Glen for some pic’s of his VW setup and post them on your site for a follow up? The way Glen explained his plug firing setup has to be extremely reliable from a safety aspect. Great builder interview Bryan and as I mentioned before please keep these hidden treasures coming.
Happy to see the 7 flying, congrats Glen! Another difference with the Revmaster is the 4th bearing on the crank snout that is also oiled, more support for the crank. Other VW aircraft conversions do not have that extra bearing and was a problem in the past, doesn't seem to be the case anymore, but I like to have the extra assurance.
Nice job! Warms the cockles of my cold heart to see another new aircraft with VW propulsion. I have been playing in the 1/2 VW space throughout the pandemic and really appreciate what these little prewar engines can accomplish with some modern tech thrown at them.
Great video throughout, Bryan! I like your "opening sequence" shots and music for Hangar 13. Glen B. is a great resource for those of us with R2300 engines. Looking forward to your future videos.
I’m with him on the mixing 100LL with non-ethanol auto fuel. I do 3-4 gallons auto fuel and 1 gallon 100LL. Seems to be a good mixture for my plane (and even lawn mowers.
A fine presentation for a nice homebuilt design. I have 2 notes about the VW engine talk however-- the interviewer asked about differences between the Revmaster conversion and other VW aircraft conversions (of which there are about 3). The builder did not answer that question, instead answered by comparing Revmaster to a normal VW car engine. This leads me to think that Thatcher Inc. has a sweetheart deal with Revmaster, and didn't want to say the truth, which is that all those VW aircraft conversions are basically the same. I'm not knocking a sweetheart deal, it's a standard business practice, leading to good things. But he missed an opportunity to talk about the only real difference with Revmaster, and my 2nd note: Revmaster has designed a nice beefy thrust bearing at the front of the crankshaft, something not found on their competitors. This is a big deal because the original VW design was not made to have that area be a stress point. Too bad it was overlooked in this interview.
Thank you for bringing up some of the finer points. I truly wish the "Conversation" could run much longer with even more detail. But... then you wouldn't (some or most) wouldn't bother to click on an hour long video here on UA-cam. So there is always a struggle to get as much "meat" of the info into a storyline less than 20min long. :-) Thank you for your support!
True. But they designed the CX series against the RevMaster, so the balance, engine mounts and cowling are set to go. Joe at RevMaster is a vw engine guru.
Hah! Well... these interviews happened so quickly back-2-backl I didn't have time to take delivery of something NEW. Thanks for your attention to detail. You will make a fine Builder! :-)
One problem with Thatcher aircraft.... One wants to have all of them. The CX4 must be delightful. The 5 is for two with the excellent visibility left and right, and the 7 looks like a more sociable cruiser. All of them are sleek and good looking too.
I like your shows, keep on doing them. I have interviewed hundreds of people on medical TV local cable shows, may I suggest not saying "tell us a little bit about XYZ" instead say "what is XYZ". Less annoying. Keep up the good work. By the way if you ever want to do a show on the principle of I follow roads here's an article I wrote and I'd be glad to be interviewed..... I have an RV 12 hangared in Novato California. ON THE ROAD AGAIN IFR --I FOLLOW ROADS by Dr. Cyrus Thomas Imagine being able to say that for the rest of your private flying career, "should my engine ever fail I have a road beneath me". No more wondering if you're poised for a ditching into a lake or the ocean, no more looking for clearings in forested areas, and no more hunting for flat spots in hilly and mountainous regions. Pilots assuage themselves that they are safe because they are always looking for possible landing sites, but they can't resist the temptation to fly in a straight line to their destination...after all that's what planes are for, crow-flying to save gas and time, getting every ounce of utility from the machine as you can. And ignoring safety a little bit? Some pilots follow roads some of the time. They might state that if their engine quits they have a 60% chance of being over a road. Watching aviation videos, I always know when the pilot is not over a road as their right hand nervously alternates touching the throttle and mixture knobs. I propose that with self-discipline the percentage of time we are over roads can be 100%. It's not that difficult. All farmland is interspersed with service roads...so you can relax over farmland...but you might prefer to land on a service road between the farmland itself instead of finding out at 1/8th of a mile before the fence that you've just set up to land in a wine vineyard! Ouch! All mountain passes have roads for cars, large lakes are mostly surrounded by roads, freeways connect all major cities and rural deserted areas are usually traversed by BLM service roads. But get-there-itis is a powerful force. Let me ask, why save time if you love flying? You will only get there sooner and terminate the flight early, robbing yourself of the joy of flight. Flight paths following roads are likely 15% longer than how the crow flies...so a 200$ flight now costs 230$...is it worth the peace of mind? I’ve been flying this way for years and for me it is worth it. I used to fly a Lake amphibian and I always followed rivers (IFR) affording me safe emergency water landing opportunities. Now I'm in an RV12. My wife gives me her full endorsement for the "I follow roads" type of flying. Is there any wonder? If you're receiving flight-following, your air traffic controller probably does not have highways on his radar screen, so unless he lives in the area, then when you tell him or her that you are following the 580 south, they may come back with simply, "stay clear of class Charley and Bravo airspaces" because they may have no idea where the 580 is! It would be better to say, "direct KDVO, direct KCCR, direct KLVK" or rather, "we're flying direct Gnoss Field, to Buccanan, then Livermore". Safe pilots carry Personal Locator Beacons should they crash land in the boonies, be they wooded or desert. They file flight plans so someone will find them. I've read that 40% of the time, for various reasons, ELTs do not go off when they should. Flight Following is a great idea, even when flying the I-land-on-roads method but communication will likely be lost while descending. However, ATC will have a general idea of your location should you be heading downward. I do not own a PLB (Personal Locator Beacon). In an emergency, even if only over a rural road, as I am descending and attempting a restart, I'll tell Flight Following where I am, squawk 7700, activate the ELT and land on a road. Filing a flight plan with Flight Service in order that ATC knows where you are becomes necessary if Flight Following is not available. On my tablet's Personal Flight Planning app, using sectionals, I plan flights from airports to lat/long waypoints, to airports, to lat/long waypoints again, etc... Every line of the flight plan is over a highway or road. Sometimes I have to refer to a road map app. I then can usually find the same roads on the sectional. I save the flight route on-line and then, in flight I use my cellphone mounted to the left window to follow my flight path on the same app, availing the other glass panels for portraying terrain, traffic, weather, direct navigation, closest airports etc. Having the cellphone close to me, portraying my route, is nice because I am often enlarging the map to see smaller roads. I remember the day when I first realized that, should I ever have an off-runway landing, I could be 100% sure there will be on a road beneath me...because I promised myself there would always be one within reach. It was so comforting...it changed my whole reaction to the dangers involved. I've experienced two complete engine failures and fortunately each time landed at an airport. Consequently, I have low faith in engines conceptualized in 1935 and hardly improved since. So, I will now only fly a modern liquid cooled, low CHT engine with a light weight propeller, but that's the subject of a different safety article. Some sight-seeing is compromised by this method of flying, but not all is lost. Flying around mountain tops in the Cascades, for example, is still possible. Even though you might not be directly over a road as you are sight-seeing the mountain tops, know that you just need to be able to glide to a road...but with the IFRoads method you always know where the roads are (due to pre-flight preparation) and your map confirms it. Face it, at least out west, much of our country is barren. Even an off-road landing you can walk away from can put you so far from civilization that you could parish attempting to find help. I almost did die once. After a successful off-road landing in the desert sand I walked for six hours to the remote airport I was flying to, with little water. I had to guess where the airport was. Wished I had followed a road.
@@ToyManFlyer1100"...Tell me, I'll be delighted to know your thoughts..." Obviously I don't know, therefore the question, how am I supposed to know, you idiot? I didn't design the airplane and you get all defensive for no reason, it could be the main spar and carry some of the controls as well but I don't know, it sure looks kind of uncomfortable being right in front of the seats but I don't know that either, I've never seen that airplane in my life, let alone sit on it GTFO if you don't have a valid or proper answer.
Revmaster is under 10k and probably another 10k for materials. Then the price of whatever avionics or gauges you use. I added up all my materials I'll need for my build and it was under 10k but I'm sure it can creep up. Very rough ballpark estimate.
Plans built is the cheapest way to go. I did about a years research on kits, planes, and various plans built planes. The CX series is a sweet one, all aluminum construction, steel nose leg, steel engine mount, great handling characteristics says everyone who flies them. Easy to maintain, low cost engine. But you have to balance time to build with your goals.
If this plane can fly with him and a passenger you are up to 3 people considering the extra weight penalty he has for his size . Note that I am saying this not as a criticism of him (no disrespect)
I think you have the question backwards. Why spend 2 or 3 times more on an RV if you can get roughly the same performance and utility from a CX-7? I'm comparing the Kitplanes Buyer's Guide numbers for CX-7 and RV-12. I do trust the Vans numbers a little more, and then of course there is the aspect of build time and Van's kit quality and completeness (firewall forward!) versus scratch built.
@Martin Kaufmann I think we (as Aviation Enthusiasts and in a small Family of Aviators could quite possibly user nicer words that "SHUT UP" here... yes??? To your point... I try to pride myself in doing just that most of the time (asking the question, and often off camera actually, and then being silent to let the guest speak). But... as the "presenter" or "interviewer" you also have to lead the conversation. I often have what I call "The Aviation Conversation" several times per week and it can last 40min-60min easily. Also... when speaking on camera there is a certain amount of "pressure" to keep the conversation going with no to little lapse in between speaking. Sometimes "accidentally" two people start to speak at the same time and it make take a few seconds to acknowledge this and stop... more so than in a normal conversation if you and I were speaking off camera. We appreciate your support here... and we take every effort to listen, learn and pivot where needed to make this better and better as each "season" passes. So thank you for your support here.
Martin, start your own channel and do interviews the way you want. And, stop your whining about how others do it. Bryan is doing an outstanding job, producing great quality material for the aviation community.
Another great interview at Hanger 13 Bryan. Glen has built one sweet aircraft that looks really fun to operate. I can see this aircraft design becoming one of the more popular home builds after all his changes are incorporated. The only tooling I could see would be a small box-break inside your work area to bend all the smaller pieces and have the larger wing components formed at another sheet metal shop. Glen has built one beautiful aircraft that he can surely proud of. It’s nice to see these builders on you channel because we may never had have the opportunity to review a builder like Glen in such a relaxed setting like Hanger 13. To bad we didn’t get a chance to see his VW power plant setup. Bryan I would really be interested if you could ask Glen for some pic’s of his VW setup and post them on your site for a follow up? The way Glen explained his plug firing setup has to be extremely reliable from a safety aspect. Great builder interview Bryan and as I mentioned before please keep these hidden treasures coming.
This is a smashing episode about a homebuilding legend. Well done.
Thank You. I appreciate your support.
@@ExperimentalAircraftChannel aaaaaaaaas
Glen Bradley is a delight to watch and listen to. This CX-7 is a great idea for kit builders. LOVE the cost.
So great to see the 7 flying.
Yes! Thanks for stopping by today!
Thanks for what your doing! There are so many of us that want to get back to flying.
Love the Hanger 13 videos! Well done Brian.
Happy to see the 7 flying, congrats Glen! Another difference with the Revmaster is the 4th bearing on the crank snout that is also oiled, more support for the crank. Other VW aircraft conversions do not have that extra bearing and was a problem in the past, doesn't seem to be the case anymore, but I like to have the extra assurance.
Like the new format. Looking forward to what comes next Bryan.
Thank you! This isn't totally "New" meaning not each episode. Only for when people can stop by the Hangar. :-)
Nice job! Warms the cockles of my cold heart to see another new aircraft with VW propulsion. I have been playing in the 1/2 VW space throughout the pandemic and really appreciate what these little prewar engines can accomplish with some modern tech thrown at them.
Thank You. Yes... interesting mechanics for sure. Sounds really awesome with the 4 exhaust runner too!
A trick: watch movies on Flixzone. I've been using it for watching all kinds of movies these days.
@Morgan Fabian definitely, have been watching on flixzone for months myself :D
Great video throughout, Bryan! I like your "opening sequence" shots and music for Hangar 13. Glen B. is a great resource for those of us with R2300 engines. Looking forward to your future videos.
Thank You... Yes that was a fun creative opener for sure. Thank You for the feedback. Good to see interest in this area of Aviation :-)
Great episode!
Really nice and informative interview. Glen also did a great job.
I’m with him on the mixing 100LL with non-ethanol auto fuel. I do 3-4 gallons auto fuel and 1 gallon 100LL. Seems to be a good mixture for my plane (and even lawn mowers.
Good format and great reasoning...they come to you!
Well presented ...Thanks
Well done, excellent video!! Really fun to see the Thatcher CX7 in action!
Thank You! I have been following it for a few years now. Great to see it completed for sure!
Very nice!!!💙
Hello my friend. Thank You!
Very informative. Thanks
Love the Thatcher it looks like a great plane. Will the CX-7 plans be available in Taildragger as well
Great format
Been waiting on this video for ever!
Great! Thanks for taking the time to watch!
I want one what a beautiful airplane
Great guest
Thank You! It was truly an enjoyable conversation for sure!
A fine presentation for a nice homebuilt design. I have 2 notes about the VW engine talk however-- the interviewer asked about differences between the Revmaster conversion and other VW aircraft conversions (of which there are about 3). The builder did not answer that question, instead answered by comparing Revmaster to a normal VW car engine. This leads me to think that Thatcher Inc. has a sweetheart deal with Revmaster, and didn't want to say the truth, which is that all those VW aircraft conversions are basically the same. I'm not knocking a sweetheart deal, it's a standard business practice, leading to good things. But he missed an opportunity to talk about the only real difference with Revmaster, and my 2nd note:
Revmaster has designed a nice beefy thrust bearing at the front of the crankshaft, something not found on their competitors. This is a big deal because the original VW design was not made to have that area be a stress point. Too bad it was overlooked in this interview.
Thank you for bringing up some of the finer points. I truly wish the "Conversation" could run much longer with even more detail. But... then you wouldn't (some or most) wouldn't bother to click on an hour long video here on UA-cam. So there is always a struggle to get as much "meat" of the info into a storyline less than 20min long. :-) Thank you for your support!
True. But they designed the CX series against the RevMaster, so the balance, engine mounts and cowling are set to go. Joe at RevMaster is a vw engine guru.
Well done!
Thank You! I appreciate you!
Awesome interview, enjoyed it.
Still loving that custom mic 😁
Hah! Well... these interviews happened so quickly back-2-backl I didn't have time to take delivery of something NEW. Thanks for your attention to detail. You will make a fine Builder! :-)
One problem with Thatcher aircraft.... One wants to have all of them. The CX4 must be delightful. The 5 is for two with the excellent visibility left and right, and the 7 looks like a more sociable cruiser. All of them are sleek and good looking too.
Good stuff Maynard
Thank you!
Great video.
Thank You! I appreciate your feedback.
Can we purchase plans for the Thatcher CX5? or kit?
Nice airplane it’s appears what would happen if a Grumman tiger and a navion had a baby.
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Thanks Alex
When will we see a flight test?
I like your shows, keep on doing them. I have interviewed hundreds of people on medical TV local cable shows, may I suggest not saying "tell us a little bit about XYZ" instead say "what is XYZ". Less annoying. Keep up the good work. By the way if you ever want to do a show on the principle of I follow roads here's an article I wrote and I'd be glad to be interviewed..... I have an RV 12 hangared in Novato California.
ON THE ROAD AGAIN
IFR --I FOLLOW ROADS by Dr. Cyrus Thomas
Imagine being able to say that for the rest of your private flying career, "should my engine ever fail I have a road beneath me". No more wondering if you're poised for a ditching into a lake or the ocean, no more looking for clearings in forested areas, and no more hunting for flat spots in hilly and mountainous regions.
Pilots assuage themselves that they are safe because they are always looking for possible landing sites, but they can't resist the temptation to fly in a straight line to their destination...after all that's what planes are for, crow-flying to save gas and time, getting every ounce of utility from the machine as you can. And ignoring safety a little bit?
Some pilots follow roads some of the time. They might state that if their engine quits they have a 60% chance of being over a road. Watching aviation videos, I always know when the pilot is not over a road as their right hand nervously alternates touching the throttle and mixture knobs. I propose that with self-discipline the percentage of time we are over roads can be 100%.
It's not that difficult. All farmland is interspersed with service roads...so you can relax over farmland...but you might prefer to land on a service road between the farmland itself instead of finding out at 1/8th of a mile before the fence that you've just set up to land in a wine vineyard! Ouch! All mountain passes have roads for cars, large lakes are mostly surrounded by roads, freeways connect all major cities and rural deserted areas are usually traversed by BLM service roads.
But get-there-itis is a powerful force. Let me ask, why save time if you love flying? You will only get there sooner and terminate the flight early, robbing yourself of the joy of flight. Flight paths following roads are likely 15% longer than how the crow flies...so a 200$ flight now costs 230$...is it worth the peace of mind? I’ve been flying this way for years and for me it is worth it. I used to fly a Lake amphibian and I always followed rivers (IFR) affording me safe emergency water landing opportunities. Now I'm in an RV12. My wife gives me her full endorsement for the "I follow roads" type of flying. Is there any wonder?
If you're receiving flight-following, your air traffic controller probably does not have highways on his radar screen, so unless he lives in the area, then when you tell him or her that you are following the 580 south, they may come back with simply, "stay clear of class Charley and Bravo airspaces" because they may have no idea where the 580 is! It would be better to say, "direct KDVO, direct KCCR, direct KLVK" or rather, "we're flying direct Gnoss Field, to Buccanan, then Livermore".
Safe pilots carry Personal Locator Beacons should they crash land in the boonies, be they wooded or desert. They file flight plans so someone will find them. I've read that 40% of the time, for various reasons, ELTs do not go off when they should. Flight Following is a great idea, even when flying the I-land-on-roads method but communication will likely be lost while descending. However, ATC will have a general idea of your location should you be heading downward. I do not own a PLB (Personal Locator Beacon). In an emergency, even if only over a rural road, as I am descending and attempting a restart, I'll tell Flight Following where I am, squawk 7700, activate the ELT and land on a road. Filing a flight plan with Flight Service in order that ATC knows where you are becomes necessary if Flight Following is not available.
On my tablet's Personal Flight Planning app, using sectionals, I plan flights from airports to lat/long waypoints, to airports, to lat/long waypoints again, etc... Every line of the flight plan is over a highway or road. Sometimes I have to refer to a road map app. I then can usually find the same roads on the sectional. I save the flight route on-line and then, in flight I use my cellphone mounted to the left window to follow my flight path on the same app, availing the other glass panels for portraying terrain, traffic, weather, direct navigation, closest airports etc. Having the cellphone close to me, portraying my route, is nice because I am often enlarging the map to see smaller roads.
I remember the day when I first realized that, should I ever have an off-runway landing, I could be 100% sure there will be on a road beneath me...because I promised myself there would always be one within reach. It was so comforting...it changed my whole reaction to the dangers involved. I've experienced two complete engine failures and fortunately each time landed at an airport. Consequently, I have low faith in engines conceptualized in 1935 and hardly improved since. So, I will now only fly a modern liquid cooled, low CHT engine with a light weight propeller, but that's the subject of a different safety article.
Some sight-seeing is compromised by this method of flying, but not all is lost. Flying around mountain tops in the Cascades, for example, is still possible. Even though you might not be directly over a road as you are sight-seeing the mountain tops, know that you just need to be able to glide to a road...but with the IFRoads method you always know where the roads are (due to pre-flight preparation) and your map confirms it.
Face it, at least out west, much of our country is barren. Even an off-road landing you can walk away from can put you so far from civilization that you could parish attempting to find help. I almost did die once. After a successful off-road landing in the desert sand I walked for six hours to the remote airport I was flying to, with little water. I had to guess where the airport was. Wished I had followed a road.
👍
What's the deal with that big tunnel for the sticks in front of the seats?
Ummm, so where are the controls rods/ cables 'spose to go, huh...?? !!!... Tell me...I'd be delighted to hear your thoughts....
@@ToyManFlyer1100"...Tell me, I'll be delighted to know your thoughts..." Obviously I don't know, therefore the question, how am I supposed to know, you idiot? I didn't design the airplane and you get all defensive for no reason, it could be the main spar and carry some of the controls as well but I don't know, it sure looks kind of uncomfortable being right in front of the seats but I don't know that either, I've never seen that airplane in my life, let alone sit on it GTFO if you don't have a valid or proper answer.
That is where the center section of the wing spar resides.
Cost to build one??
Revmaster is under 10k and probably another 10k for materials. Then the price of whatever avionics or gauges you use. I added up all my materials I'll need for my build and it was under 10k but I'm sure it can creep up. Very rough ballpark estimate.
@@wesvasher thank you
I believe Glen mentioned sub $30k with essential gauges and instruments etc. Thanks for stopping by! :-)
Plans built is the cheapest way to go. I did about a years research on kits, planes, and various plans built planes. The CX series is a sweet one, all aluminum construction, steel nose leg, steel engine mount, great handling characteristics says everyone who flies them. Easy to maintain, low cost engine. But you have to balance time to build with your goals.
Unfortunately unless you have a local supplier for aluminium shipping is crazy high now.
If this plane can fly with him and a passenger you are up to 3 people considering the extra weight penalty he has for his size . Note that I am saying this not as a criticism of him (no disrespect)
What does this get you that a Van's design doesn't? VW power?
I think you have the question backwards. Why spend 2 or 3 times more on an RV if you can get roughly the same performance and utility from a CX-7? I'm comparing the Kitplanes Buyer's Guide numbers for CX-7 and RV-12. I do trust the Vans numbers a little more, and then of course there is the aspect of build time and Van's kit quality and completeness (firewall forward!) versus scratch built.
CX7 and RV7 similar performance?? No way. CX 110-120, RV7 170-200.
@@marcumb I was comparing it to the RV-12, not the -7.
The host is still interrupting the answers. The host is answering his questions in advance. Stop that!
This presenter should not interrupt the answer, not answer the question themselve, simply shut up and wait!
@Martin Kaufmann I think we (as Aviation Enthusiasts and in a small Family of Aviators could quite possibly user nicer words that "SHUT UP" here... yes??? To your point... I try to pride myself in doing just that most of the time (asking the question, and often off camera actually, and then being silent to let the guest speak). But... as the "presenter" or "interviewer" you also have to lead the conversation. I often have what I call "The Aviation Conversation" several times per week and it can last 40min-60min easily. Also... when speaking on camera there is a certain amount of "pressure" to keep the conversation going with no to little lapse in between speaking. Sometimes "accidentally" two people start to speak at the same time and it make take a few seconds to acknowledge this and stop... more so than in a normal conversation if you and I were speaking off camera. We appreciate your support here... and we take every effort to listen, learn and pivot where needed to make this better and better as each "season" passes. So thank you for your support here.
Martin, start your own channel and do interviews the way you want. And, stop your whining about how others do it. Bryan is doing an outstanding job, producing great quality material for the aviation community.
@@PARTner91 this is far below outstanding.
Can we purchase plans for the Thatcher CX5? or kit?