Page 1 of 1

Thinking about building a Comp 6

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:45 pm
by nsinger
I have been shopping kits for a while, and I recently learned about Aerocomp and the Comp 6. On paper, the Comp 6 looks like an almost ideal combination of low required build-time, speed, available load and mission flexibility. The only hesitation I have is that no one in our EAA chapter has any experience with the company or the airframe. There don't seem to be many kits built and I think it is a drawback to start the project without an active community of builders. What is the real scoop on this company? What is their customer service like? What have the main problems been, and have they left anything unresolved?

Cheers!

 ~ Neil [EAA 186, Manassas, Va]

Thinking about a comp 4

PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 5:34 pm
by ajay
I would be very interested in a Comp 4, meets my mission profile much better - high wing, short field performance, float capable, etc.  But the biggest refrain is the lack of available biulder community.  I was surprised recently to find this forum, however, underwhelmed by the list response.  Since you posted a year ago, did you get any of your questions answered?  Did you decide to go the AeroComp route? Certainly haven't found a body of negative reports, but it sure would be nice to connect with a builder community who have experience and lessons learned.

ajay

PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:18 pm
BUILDERS BEWARE!!!!!  I can share a two year ordeal of mistakes and critical engineering errors all courtesy of Aerocomp.  My situation probably won't be resolved without taking Ron Leuck and Stephen Young to court. In spite of them I like the aircraft kit and am looking forward to getting it up. It would have been up already but for the following. I bought my CA6 kit about 3 1/2 years ago. Over two years ago I paid Aerocomp $1150.00 for an engine mount. It arrived in a couple months and looked nice...except it was for a widebody and a tail dragger in spite of my telling them what kit I bought and I seriously doubt they sell so many CA6 that customer names get confusing. I sent it back. About six months later the same mount arrived again. This time all looked well and I put it aside for a few. When I tried to mount my engine I discovered one of the mount supports was off by 3/4" and angled. I also noticed that my engine mount location was 6" lower than the pictures on Brain Toner's website of his CA6 with the same IO-520 as mine.?????????  I asked Ron about this and he profusely apologized and said my mount location was wrong.  Ron blamed Stephen Young and said he would get it fixed immediately. Ron was so believeable that I even paid the shipping back to him and included a template from my engine so he could get the mount location correct this time. Had that mount location not been screwed up I would have tried to complete mine with the engine 6" low. I saw it looked way to low when I got it and asked Stephen Young about it. Stephen said "it's correct just cut the cowl to fit and re-laminate around it". I'm not an engineer but I know bull when I hear it so I started investigating and discovered Brian Toner's page on my own.   As for quality assurance. My hardware package was missing a bunch of little stuff. The hefty aluminum carry-through I-beams were all cut to long for a widebody and had to be machined down by me (better than too short anyway). Engineering support????  HAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAA HAAAAAA.  

As I stated in spite of Ron and Stephen Young I like the kit and look forward to finishing. I just discovered this blog and will check frequently for any questions or replies. If anyone else is building a CA-? in the NW let me know, we can share ideas?  [/b]

PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:23 pm
by ajay
Hey Joel,

Thanks for the reply.  I would be surprised if you got anyone else to respond on this blog, unfortunately, seems to be a bit dead in regards to Aerocomp activity. I wish there was a user community out there?  I have had a few email exchanges with Aerocomp over the last six months, one took them 3 months to respond, but most have been responsive.  I let them know about a month ago I was a motivated buyer, nevertheless, my biggest fear remains lack of available builder community to tap into.  One question I asked was why did the recent "Kitplanes" yearly kit review publish the biuld time as 2000 hours when previous info indicated 600 hours?  There response "2000 hours is for the turbine kit",  surely a turbine isn't a whopping 1400 additional hours, your thoughts?    I'm probably a bit too dependant on the virtual community and prefer to communicate that way.  Hey, CA builders may very well be perfectly happy with the in-house aerocomp builder support, but that is a big unknown for me and unless I can get about 5 solid builder references then I remain on the fence and leaning towards the competition that may not meet my mission requirements as well, (eg., Bearhawk and rv10).  

Hope you get your CA6 flyin soon, it does look like an impressive kit.

aj

A FLYING 6

PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:43 am
by TIM
HEY GUYS KEEP POSTING YOUR EXPERIENCES, PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS WITH YOUR COMPAIRS.  I HAVE A SIX THAT I HAVE BEEN FLYING FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS. ITS DOWN NOW FOR AN ENGINE SWAP. IN MY OPINION GO FOR THE WIDE BODY. I HAVE THE ORIGINAL ONE AND ITS LESS WIDE THAN A 182. ALSO I AM LOOKING AT REDESIGNING THE FLAP SYSTEM. ALSO THESE THINGS WEIGH TOO MUCH!. MINE IS 2100 EMPTY! THE BUILD TIME IS LONG AND I HAVE HEARD THAT IT TAKES A LOT OF TIME TO JUST PUT THE WINGS TOGETHER.. IT ALL ADDS UP. ON THE UP SIDE THE CRAFT SEEMS VERY STRONG. I HAVE HEARD THAT THE 4/6 WAS THE BEST FLYING MODEL THEY MADE. THE CG'S ARE OUT ON THE LARGER MODELS. THERE ARE A LOT OF BUILDERS THAT HAVE BEEN PISSED AT THE FACTORY AND AS FAR AS I KNOW THIS WEB SITE IS THE ONLY BUILDERS FORUM TALKING ABOUT IT.
KEEP AFTER IT AND LETS GET SOME MORE SAFELY IN THE AIR THIS SUMMER!
TIM

PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:45 pm
by mv8550z
:?: I am interested in building a comp 8.  I have seen the limited input.  Are the newer Kits in better shape?  Anyone with experience with the factory builder?

OWNER OF A COMP 4

PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:30 pm
by JACK
I have been around aerocomp for years.I understand a lot of the issues with mr steve young,as of about 4 months ago mr steve young was seperated permanently from aerocomp. This should make a lot of builders happy.  ron lueck is now in charge i belive . I am a lot more comfortable with mr young gone.

As for my aercomp the last control surface changes were made about a month ago. I had problems getting the tail down with out
power. now it lands and takes off as good as i can ask for.My 14 year old son is starting lessons in it.
Oh by the way it has an empty weight of 1800 lbs the straight wing IO540 84"hartzell 3 blade prop climb is about 1450  and cruise
is about 150
There is an assist program there at merrit island run by steve darrow do your wings in a few days

PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 8:59 pm
Hey Jack,

That's great that you have been around Aerocomp for years and understand many of the problems with Steve Young. The fact that Steve Young is gone doesn't correct the broken promises made by Ron Lueck. Three days after creating Compair Ron told me he was terribly sorry that my engine mount was incorrect and promised that "he" (not Steve Young or Aerocomp) would fix it immediately. Months later Ron said, sorry your deal was with Steve Young and Aerocomp neither of which have anything to do with me. Well, look at the facts :

1) Compair and Ron Lueck still advertise using the Aerocomp name and website, the website says, Steve Young recently "retired" and we changed names to Compair. This insinuates an uninterrupted business standing behind customer satisfaction and builder support.

2) My product quality complaint was dumped to the side by Ron who claimed Compair is a new and seperate business and that I should take my problem up with Steve Young.

Which is it Ron?  I want my engine mount that I paid for more than 2 years ago and your company (Aerocomp/Compair) built wrong 3 times. You said you needed my engine to get it right so I left my engine with you for months. You said "I'm sorry we built it for a wide body, tail dragger when you told us you have a standard width tricycle gear". You said I'm sorry Steve Young told the welder to mount your engine more than 5" too low".  I paid cash immediately as soon as you asked me. It's been years and my mount is still sitting on the floor in your shop in florida, I don't even have that unusable blob of tube back. I have copies of all the related bills of sale and e-mails from Ron Lueck. I will post them if anyone is interested.

   I WOULD STRONGLY ADVISE ANYONE CONSIDERING COMPAIR TO LOOK AT OTHER KIT MANUFACTURERS  

CompAir 6

PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:46 pm
by blakecarlisle
We have a CompAir 6, taperwing, tailwheel in NW Oklahoma.  We've flown 300 hours in the past two years.  Engine is O-470 240hp and needs more!  Have Grove aluminum landing gear, scott tailwheel, and  pushrod ailerons.  The plane has less than advertised cruise performance w/ the small engine, but we tend do burn around 13-14 gal/hr @ 130 kts.  Very pleased with the load carrying ability of the CompAir.  Last summer 3 men, full (70 gal) fuel, all the gear that would fit(tent, ice chest, chairs...), and 107 degree temperature at departure...still got off the ground, OSH bound!!    If anyone has questions or is in there area and would like a ride.  post a reply!

Currently Building Compair 7

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2007 11:07 pm
by Dear Old Dad
Hi everyone:

I am sorry to hear about the issues some of are having with Compair.  I have had several, but they seem to be slowly correcting them.  They answer my questions rather slowly via email, but I got to know a few of the worker bees there and they let me call them from time to time.  The assembly manual they provided is confusing so the phone calls to clarify things really help.  The manual appears geared toward turbine, but I am installing a Lycoming 540 with tricycle gear for a wide body, tapered wing CA-7 (that is basically an options-loaded CA-6).  Bought a bunch of the upgrades and the pricing is confusing as they change things from time to time.  This is my first attempt at building, but it has been fairly easy so far.  The thing that is killing me is all the sanding.  I had planned on finishing most of the build in my garage, but apparently that is against my community rules and regs.  I found that out when I set up a ventilation fan the other day, then received a letter requiring removal.  Not sure what my next step is right now.  Wife really wants me to sell, but I am looking for a cheap indoor space.  Suggestions welcomed.  Anyway, one message asked how the builder assist program was.  While I could not afford the program, there are two guys building one there now and they seemed to be happy with the program.  I think they have had a few supply and demand problems, but they are not too far behind schedule.  I think the product is very good, but be ready to be patient.  I cannot speak to the engine mount issue one builder is going through, but from hearing only one side it seems Compair should give him the right engine mount right away.  

Hope this at least helps some of you.  As a final note I must say, that this is the only way I could afford a brand new plane set up the way I want it with a new avionics package and a new engine.  If I can find a way to finish it, there will be another plus...I will not have to pay and wait for a mechanic for most matters.  Best wishes.

Compair for sale & Arlington

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:44 am
by Jim
I've had my Compair 4HP for a little over 2 years.  I did not build it but improved it (including Dynon EFIS) and made it safe.  For those that don't know, the CA4HP is dimensionally identical to the CA6.  It just has less glass in the tail so is limited to 250HP instead of the CA6's 300HP.  It has a certified Franklin/PZL 220HP (95 hours since new) and McCauley C/S prop (95 hrs since O/H), IFR equiped/ILS, Scott 3200 tailwheel.  Does 142+ mph on 9.6 gph; carries 4 heavy people & 61 gal fuel. 1850 empty, max gross 2850 (can increase with new struts).  It is currently on Grove gear and 8.50 tires, but will be putting it on it's Amphibious floats after I return from Arlington.  Asking $70K; would sell the 2850 Amphib superfloats with rigging separately.  

In the 2 years I have tried to deal with Aerocomp/CompAir, I have learned that it's a wast of time to call them.  You're on your own.  For the guy needing the engine mount -- I wish you the best of luck.

I'll be at Arlington Sat/Sun July 14/15 2007.  If anybody wants to look or talk come on by.  Jim Dunn, cell 509-220-6996.  N. Idaho.