RV-6 or RV-6A questions.
NAv8or
aerobatics and cross country capable single kit. So far, we are leaning
towards the RV-6. If anybody out there has an RV-6 or 6A, we would love to get
your opinions on the bird.
Also, what advantages does the tailwheel version bring to the table? From
reading the specs, the trike only loses 50fpm of climb and 1 knot of cruise
speed.
M
River - Xtreme Aviation
I'm no expert, I want you to know that...But I have strong opinions on the RV
series. They should NOT be considered aerobatic in my opinion. A friend of mine
has lost more than 4 friend if I remember right, trying to do aerobatics in the
RV. After flying an RV myself, and getting to know it a very little, I wouldn't
want to get it above 3 Gs...My life and my opinion only. It got explained to me
in detail one time but I kinda forgot the specific reasons that aerodymanically
and structually it shouldn't be aerobatic. There are more than a few guy on
this NG that have RVs, and they sound like they love them. I LOVE the
RV-6...Great airplane to do x-c in and an all around fun airplane. About the
most I'd do in an RV is roll it. I've heard horor stories from reliable sources
of RVs going down in weather, not exceeding 4 to 5 Gs in the turbulence. I've
heard lots of stories.
I hope this doesn't start a flame war, but I've heard from a very knowledgable,
solid, and respectable source that RVs just shouldn't be aerobatic...And this
is coming from someone who has been doing aerobatics longer than I've been
alive.
As far as the RV, I think its a wonderful airplane! Badwater Bill has one and
it cruises at 180mph on 8gph and its a real ball to fly! I wouldn't stear you
away from the RV series at all, I just wanted to share my opinion about the
aerobatics aspect of it.
Thanks,
River
"Xtreme...Life is too short not to be!"
In memory and honor of Allen Barklage...One of the greatest pilots to ever set
foot on this earth!
John Ammeter
Aviation) wrote:
>>My wife and I are considering a future (probably two years) purchase of an
>>aerobatics and cross country capable single kit. So far, we are leaning
>>towards the RV-6. If anybody out there has an RV-6 or 6A, we would love to
>>get
>>your opinions on the bird.
>>
>>Also, what advantages does the tailwheel version bring to the table? From
>>reading the specs, the trike only loses 50fpm of climb and 1 knot of cruise
>>speed.
>>
>>M
>>
>
>I'm no expert, I want you to know that...But I have strong opinions on the RV
>series.
"I don't know anything about the airplane but I have an opinion - - -"
Why should we consider your opinion worth anything??
>They should NOT be considered aerobatic in my opinion. A friend of mine
>has lost more than 4 friend if I remember right, trying to do aerobatics in the
>RV. After flying an RV myself, and getting to know it a very little, I wouldn't
>want to get it above 3 Gs..
Maybe you shouldn't fly the RV. Maybe it's not for you but it is for
thousands of other Pilots, some with thousands of hours. BTW, the
plane is rated for +/- SIX G's with ultimate fail point of NINE G's.
Why limit yourself to 3 G's?? I don't recommend you make a practice
of pulling more than 3 or 4 G's; you don't need more than that to do
any maneuver you might want to do.
.My life and my opinion only. It got explained to me
>in detail one time but I kinda forgot the specific reasons that aerodymanically
>and structually it shouldn't be aerobatic.
You 'kinda forgot' why it's not aerodynamicly and structually unsound
but you willing to shout to the world that it's an unsafe airplane.
Damn, River, get some sense and read what you're saying!!
There are more than a few guy on
>this NG that have RVs, and they sound like they love them. I LOVE the
>RV-6...Great airplane to do x-c in and an all around fun airplane. About the
>most I'd do in an RV is roll it. I've heard horor stories from reliable sources
>of RVs going down in weather, not exceeding 4 to 5 Gs in the turbulence. I've
>heard lots of stories.
>
We've all heard stories. And that is what most of them are, too.
Just Stories we tell to inexperienced people. Shit, you want to hear
about the time I was dodging the treetops at 210 MPH or maybe the time
I shot pictures while flying solo and banked the plane up to 80
degrees while doing so??
The RV is a responsive airplane and it is very easy to get into a
situation where you find yourself aimed at the ground and gaining
speed. You can do the same thing in a Spam can and break it, too.
You do know what that stick or wheel really is, don't you? That's the
remove wings lever if you f**k up and aren't paying attention to what
you're doing. It's also the 'let's go out and have some fun' lever,
too.
>I hope this doesn't start a flame war, but I've heard from a very knowledgable,
>solid, and respectable source that RVs just shouldn't be aerobatic...And this
>is coming from someone who has been doing aerobatics longer than I've been
>alive.
>
I suggest you talk to someone else besides your 'respectable source'.
Don't go badmouthing a product because someone told you it was bad and
you don't even remember why it's supposed to be bad.
>As far as the RV, I think its a wonderful airplane! Badwater Bill has one and
>it cruises at 180mph on 8gph and its a real ball to fly! I wouldn't stear you
>away from the RV series at all, I just wanted to share my opinion about the
>aerobatics aspect of it.
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>
>River
>
>"Xtreme...Life is too short not to be!"
>
>In memory and honor of Allen Barklage...One of the greatest pilots to ever set
>foot on this earth!
John Ammeter
Seattle WA
USA
http://members.home.net/ammeterj/
1975 Jensen Healey
RV-6 (sold 4/98)
EAA Technical Counselor
NRA Life Member
Dave Hyde
GOES!
River - Xtreme Aviation wrote:
> I'm no expert,
OK, we've established that. My credentials are available should the
need arise.
>They should NOT be considered aerobatic in my opinion.
Exactly WHAT, pray tell, do you base that on? Hopefully something more
than hearsay.
>I wouldn't want to get it above 3 Gs...My life and my opinion only.
Why 3g? Have you taken one higher than 3g? What did you see/feel/hear
about that caused you to set 3g as your limit? In my whopping 1.0 hr of
RV-6 time I only got to about 3.5g, and that was for a brief period, but
I certainly saw and felt nothing to indicate that going higher was
unsafe...particularly when one reviews the testing that's been done on
them. What details do you have of structural failure of -6's? I know
of NONE, but that's typically why one establishes a g, rather than
airspeed or angle of attack limit - which you have done.
> It got explained to me in detail one time but I kinda forgot the
> specific reasons that aerodymanically and structually it shouldn't
> be aerobatic.
That's flat-out bull. There are things to be aware of, like the
airplane picks up speed rapidly with the nose low, which you need to
keep in mind doing vertical maneuvers or dishing out of rolls, and it's
not stressed for abrupt maneuvers like snaps, but to say it's not
capable of and suitable for 'backyard' acro (i.e. non-competitive
knocking around) is very misleading.
To couch it in:
>I'm no expert...A friend of mine...if I remember right...my opinion >only. It got explained to me...but I kinda forgot the specific >reasons...I've heard...I've heard...
does nothing to absolve yourself of responsibility for backing up your
publicly-posted opinion.
Dave '22 units and heavy buffet' Hyde
na...@brick.net
KBoatri144
archives of building and flying experience, etc. When you access the RV
archives, you will will find answers and opinions which will address any
question you might have on the RV series.
FWIW, I have searched the NTSB archives and have found NO structural failures
of RV-6's or 6a's. With 1000 or so 6's flying, this should be a good indicator
of a sound design.
KB
Rich Ahrens
Sigh. There he goes again. Rather than another flamefest, can I just
suggest to NAv8or that he do a little background check on WingBrat
before deciding how big a portion of salt to consume before basing any
decisions on his opinion?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Rich Ahrens | Homepage: http://www.visi.com/~rma/ |
|r...@visi.com |-----------------------------------------------|
|"In a world full of people only some want to fly - isn't that crazy?" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Barnhart
>I'm no expert, I want you to know that...But I have strong opinions on the RV
With all due respect Jordan, you don't know enough about RVs to make that
statement.
The *facts* are that the RV-6 is stressed to plus and minus six G's at
a reduced aerobatic gross weight of 1375 pounds. The RV-8 wing was recently
tested to Part 23 standards for aerobatic aircraft, and came through with
flying colors. Richard VanGrunsven is one of the most conservative designers
and flyers I know. He *designed* the airplane for sport aerobatics.
If your intent is to perform hard, competition aerobatics, then you should
consider a different airplane. Van himself will tell you that. But if you
want an airplane that make performing sport aerobatics *fun*, then the RV is
great.
Best Regards,
Dave Barnhart
RV-6 N601DB
Jerry Springer
>
> >aerobatics and cross country capable single kit. So far, we are leaning
> >towards the RV-6. If anybody out there has an RV-6 or 6A, we would love to
> >get
> >your opinions on the bird.
> >
> >Also, what advantages does the tailwheel version bring to the table? From
> >reading the specs, the trike only loses 50fpm of climb and 1 knot of cruise
> >speed.
> >
> >M
> >
>
> has lost more than 4 friend if I remember right, trying to do aerobatics in the
> want to get it above 3 Gs...My life and my opinion only. It got explained to me
> in detail one time but I kinda forgot the specific reasons that aerodymanically
> this NG that have RVs, and they sound like they love them. I LOVE the
> RV-6...Great airplane to do x-c in and an all around fun airplane. About the
> most I'd do in an RV is roll it. I've heard horor stories from reliable sources
> of RVs going down in weather, not exceeding 4 to 5 Gs in the turbulence. I've
> heard lots of stories.
>
> solid, and respectable source that RVs just shouldn't be aerobatic...And this
> is coming from someone who has been doing aerobatics longer than I've been
> alive.
>
> it cruises at 180mph on 8gph and its a real ball to fly! I wouldn't stear you
> away from the RV series at all, I just wanted to share my opinion about the
> aerobatics aspect of it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> River
>
of the four people that you supposedly know that died doing aerobatics? You can't
just throw out statements and not back them up because it then makes you look like you do
not know what you are talking about and I might add that you DON'T know what you are
talking about. What the hell does it mean you have heard horror stories about RV's going
down in weather, not exceeding 4 to 5 G's in turbulence? What does that mean? Many
different makes of aircraft have gone down because of weather so what was your point?
My guess is that ever who is telling you this does not have a clue what they are talking
about or are building a competitors aircraft.
Why don't you tell me who your source is so I can decide if they are creditable or not.
The facts are many people do aerobatics in RV-6's including me and there has never been a
inflight breakup of a RV-6. Only one RV-4 has ever broke in flight doing aerobatics
when it lost part of a stabilizer and there is some question if it was built correctly and
the possibility that it went into a tail slide which could have caused it to break.
The RV-8 breakup is a mystery but the airplane has been tested extensively since then
and a fault can not be found with the design. There were some RV-3 breakups but each time
it was being flown outside of the design parameters.
Of course you did say that it was your opinions but give facts with your opinions.
--
Jerry Springer|RV-6 First Flight 7/14/89|Hillsboro,OR|jsf...@teleport.com
River - Xtreme Aviation
I really shouldn't have made that post, but I felt like it. I really don't know
jack shit about RVs. And it was not ME who knew those people who died in RVs.
For all I know, they could be stressed to +/- 20 Gs. Van says +6 -3. All I know
is hear say information. I've talked to enough people I feel like I know a
little about them...Notice, I said little.
You guys should really stop cutting me down. Everytime I make a post I get shot
down. If BWB or Wantajaw wrote this, you guys would lay off. I don't want to
get other people involved, but the person who I'm refering to knows his shit,
and knows a hell of a lot about aerobatics, designing, and about the friends
he's lost in RVs trying to do aerobatics. When I made this post, it was an
informed opinion. I know a couple RV-4 pilots who say RVs aren't the best for
acro. With a 200mph airplane, you can easily exceed those G limits.
In any case, just ignore my first post. I don't feel like getting into this
when no matter what I say, I'll get shot down. Not to mention I don't want to
name my "source" which you guys will take as no credibility, which is
understandable. So, just ignore my post. Its my opinion, and I go on the info I
have available to me.
Sorry,
John Ammeter
Aviation) wrote:
>OK guys, you win.
>
>I really shouldn't have made that post, but I felt like it. I really don't know
>jack shit about RVs. And it was not ME who knew those people who died in RVs.
>For all I know, they could be stressed to +/- 20 Gs. Van says +6 -3. All I know
>is hear say information. I've talked to enough people I feel like I know a
>little about them...Notice, I said little.
>
>You guys should really stop cutting me down. Everytime I make a post I get shot
>down. If BWB or Wantajaw wrote this, you guys would lay off. I don't want to
>get other people involved, but the person who I'm refering to knows his shit,
>and knows a hell of a lot about aerobatics, designing, and about the friends
>he's lost in RVs trying to do aerobatics. When I made this post, it was an
>informed opinion. I know a couple RV-4 pilots who say RVs aren't the best for
>acro. With a 200mph airplane, you can easily exceed those G limits.
>
Wingy, the big difference between you and those two is that they
wouldn't ever make a post like you did. First you say you don't know
jackshit about the RV and then you say they aren't safe to fly.
I don't care who told you what. I'm telling you that a second hand
opinion based on hearsay isn't worth anything. You go out there and
get the experience, fly the hours, fly the planes. Then you can make
an informed opinion. But, by the time you do all that you will,
hopefully, have gained maturity and wisdom (not necessarily found
together, BTW) and won't make that kind of post.
You're not 50 years old, broad shouldered and covered with hair. Quit
trying to act like you know more than you really do. Remember you're
still only 16 years old. Granted, you've got more experience in
aircraft than I did at that age but you still don't know jackshit
compared to most of us here.
Try asking our opinions, ask us what we think about the RV, ask us
what airplane is best for cross country, best for mild acrobatics and
can be built relatively inexpensively.
>In any case, just ignore my first post. I don't feel like getting into this
>when no matter what I say, I'll get shot down. Not to mention I don't want to
>name my "source" which you guys will take as no credibility, which is
>understandable. So, just ignore my post. Its my opinion, and I go on the info I
>have available to me.
>
>Sorry,
>
Now you're going to crawl off and sulk?? Damn, kid, stick up for
yourself. Realize you're not going to be right all the time and admit
you screwed up. BUT, Quit Whining!!
John
John H Ousterhout
> All I know is hear say information. I've talked to
> enough people I feel like I know a little about
> them...Notice, I said little.
> You guys should really stop cutting me down. Everytime
> I make a post I get shot down. If BWB or Wantajaw
> wrote this, you guys would lay off
Your half-assed apology (while still defending the crap you
wrote) is pathetic,
BWB and Wanttaja would never write a bunch of hearsay like
you just did. They would have done their research and
posted verifiable facts.
You've been this route before (wiht Captain Zoom) and then
found out that your "source of information" wasn't exactly
truthful. If you check out your source this time I'll bet
you find that he is just repeating some second hand tales
and has no specifics.
Note that the originator of this thread did not say
"competition areobatics".
- John Ousterhout -
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
River - Xtreme Aviation
>yourself. Realize you're not going to be right all the time and admit
>you screwed up. BUT, Quit Whining!!
>
>John
I'm not whining, I'm pissed off. And I remember putting in my first post, "its
MY opinions and I'm NO expert!!!" Ok, maybe I'm not no 50 year old fart, so
what. Maybe I don't know everything there is to know...I admit that, and I have
about 300 times in the past. What makes me upset is that no matter what I'm
talking about or what I'm doing, I'll never be able to contribute anything
good. I'm just a little kid that doesn't know jack shit to you guys. My point
is, I know I don't know everything, or even close to you guys, but that doesn't
mean I don't know anything...I bet there may be a few things I know that you
guys don't. Everytime I make a post, you guys think I'm trying to be like you,
or act like an expert. I'm NOT! Maybe my posts sound like that, but you should
have understood by now that thats how my posts come out. BWB is a prick on the
net but a nice guy in real life. (shhhh) The thing is, I felt I had something
to contribute. Now I know to not open my mouth anymore on anything. You guys
know more about RVs than I probably ever will. I felt I had a point to make
from my point of view. I wouldn't stress an RV much more than I would a C-150.
I might try a little more, like a roll, but thats about it. Like I said in the
first post, that is ME only. You guys might try a tailslide...So you have that
to say about your opinion. Me, I'd be a little more conservative with an RV.
And about being right all the time, I know that...No one is right all the
time...Except BWB, he is perfect so he doesn't count. I could be throwing this
was out of proportion, but MY feelings are that *I* wouldn't do much acro in an
RV. Thats all I meant to say.
River - Xtreme Aviation
>wrote) is pathetic,
>
--Wasn't meant to be an apology. It was meant to say :I throw in the towl,
already."
>BWB and Wanttaja would never write a bunch of hearsay like
>you just did. They would have done their research and
>posted verifiable facts.
--If Bob Hoover told them RVs were dangerous to try acro in, I think they would
listen. Not that Bob Hoover told me this stuff, in fact, he is probably more
qualified than Bob Hoover is to say what he did.
>
>You've been this route before (wiht Captain Zoom) and then
>found out that your "source of information" wasn't exactly
>truthful. If you check out your source this time I'll bet
>you find that he is just repeating some second hand tales
>and has no specifics.
--I bet otherwise.
>
>Note that the originator of this thread did not say
>"competition areobatics".
>
--True...If it will make you feel better inside, I'll go get some facts.
>- John Ousterhout -
Jbeck
not capable of and suitable for 'backyard' acro (i.e. non-competitive
knocking around) is very misleading.
In reference to the RV6, or rather the RV8, are any of them stressed to
safely do a snap roll?
Rich Ahrens
> down.
No, every time you post unsubstantiated bullshit, you get shot down.
> If BWB or Wantajaw wrote this, you guys would lay off.
More bullshit. First, they'd never post the kind of crap you're being
taken to task for. Second, if they did, you can bet they *would* be
called on it. Witness the discussion with BWB about the history of PCs
right now (not that his mistaken memory was even in the same category as
your stuff). Finally, if they're mistaken and called on it, they
acknowledge it. You, on the other hand, just whine incessantly and tell
us how pissed off you are.
> I don't want to
> get other people involved, but the person who I'm refering to knows his shit,
> and knows a hell of a lot about aerobatics, designing, and about the friends
> he's lost in RVs trying to do aerobatics.
And we have only your word on this.
> When I made this post, it was an informed opinion.
No, when and if *he* said it, it was an informed opinion. Coming from
you, it's nothing more than hearsay. Try to understand the difference.
> So, just ignore my post. Its my opinion, and I go on the info I
> have available to me.
And it is utterly valueless to the guy who asked the question, given the
lack of substantiation and in the face of contradiction from far more
knowledgeable and experienced posters. If your source won't stand by his
opinion publicly or even allow you to name him, *his* info is valueless
as well.
Kevin Horton
(NAv8or) wrote:
>My wife and I are considering a future (probably two years) purchase of an
>aerobatics and cross country capable single kit. So far, we are leaning
>towards the RV-6. If anybody out there has an RV-6 or 6A, we would love to get
>your opinions on the bird.
>
>Also, what advantages does the tailwheel version bring to the table? From
>reading the specs, the trike only loses 50fpm of climb and 1 knot of cruise
>speed.
>
>M
First off, let me state my bias - I am an RV-8 builder. I chose the RV
series because I wanted to do cross country flying, and mild aerobatics.
The RV is a good choice for this mission.
They gain speed fairly quickly if you leave the nose pointed down hill,
but most "cross country" homebuilts do that. If they had too much drag,
they would be too slow for cross countries.
They do have quite a low wing loading, which gives low stall speeds, and
will improve the chances of surviving an off-airport landing. But, this
means they are not a good choice for snap type manoeurves. Pulling full
aft stick puts a lot of g on the aircraft unless you are quite slow. The
wing loading is low enough that you are above the manoeuvring speed most
of the time, so you need to understand that if you pull too hard on the
stick you can pull too much g and pull the wings off. Many cross country
aircraft are the same way.
The aircraft are stressed for 6g, but not at the normal gross weight. You
will need to build a light aircraft to be able to have two people on board
at Van's recommended aerobatic gross weight.
The flight characteristics are reputed to be superb. I have flown over 60
types of aircraft, from light aircraft to jet fighters, airliners, etc,
and at first impression I rate the RV as one of the top three I've flown,
from a flight characteristics point of view. Cavaet - I only have had
about four flights in RVs, so I haven't been able to check all the corners
of the envelope yet.
There are lots of RVs flying (over 2100), so you should be able to snag a
ride from someone. But beware, if you take a ride, you'll build or buy
one.
Take care,
--
Kevin Horton
khorton...@cyberus.ca (remove _nospam from address)
No JPI stuff in my aircraft! - http://www.cyberus.ca/~khorton/nojpi.html
Jerryb
Please take and use Dave Barnhart's Rule on everything you post. I think
your
creditability will go up as fast at the Berkut(sp).
Put yourself in the questioners place..he may be a newbee..and takes your BS
as fact. Others, that do not know you, may do this as well.
I know you are too young to remember the old "Dragnet" series on TV, but the
one trite statement was "The Facts, Just the Facts".
Please re read your rantings at least five times before hitting that "Send"
key.
Try and put yourself in the readers place and see how your post may sound
to him. Remember, he wants factual information and not hearsay.
Jerry Bryan
River - Xtreme Aviation <wingm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990626174237...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
> OK guys, you win.
>
> I really shouldn't have made that post, but I felt like it. I really don't
know
> jack shit about RVs. And it was not ME who knew those people who died in
RVs.
> For all I know, they could be stressed to +/- 20 Gs. Van says +6 -3. All I
know
> is hear say information. I've talked to enough people I feel like I know a
> little about them...Notice, I said little.
>
> You guys should really stop cutting me down. Everytime I make a post I get
shot
> down. If BWB or Wantajaw wrote this, you guys would lay off. I don't want
to
> get other people involved, but the person who I'm refering to knows his
shit,
> and knows a hell of a lot about aerobatics, designing, and about the
friends
> he's lost in RVs trying to do aerobatics. When I made this post, it was an
> informed opinion. I know a couple RV-4 pilots who say RVs aren't the best
for
> acro. With a 200mph airplane, you can easily exceed those G limits.
>
> In any case, just ignore my first post. I don't feel like getting into
this
> when no matter what I say, I'll get shot down. Not to mention I don't want
to
> name my "source" which you guys will take as no credibility, which is
> understandable. So, just ignore my post. Its my opinion, and I go on the
info I
> have available to me.
>
> Sorry,
Bruce A. Frank
If BWB or John W. did make such a broad statement we would ask for
exactly the same source authentication. I am not on your case but you
shoot from the hip a lot. When you do that you have to expect pot-shots
from the rest of the gunslingers on the street.
River - Xtreme Aviation wrote:
>
> OK guys, you win.
>
> I really shouldn't have made that post, but I felt like it. I really don't know
> jack shit about RVs. And it was not ME who knew those people who died in RVs.
> For all I know, they could be stressed to +/- 20 Gs. Van says +6 -3. All I know
> is hear say information. I've talked to enough people I feel like I know a
> little about them...Notice, I said little.
>
> You guys should really stop cutting me down. Everytime I make a post I get shot
> down. If BWB or Wantajaw wrote this, you guys would lay off. I don't want to
> get other people involved, but the person who I'm refering to knows his shit,
> and knows a hell of a lot about aerobatics, designing, and about the friends
> he's lost in RVs trying to do aerobatics. When I made this post, it was an
> informed opinion. I know a couple RV-4 pilots who say RVs aren't the best for
> acro. With a 200mph airplane, you can easily exceed those G limits.
>
> In any case, just ignore my first post. I don't feel like getting into this
> when no matter what I say, I'll get shot down. Not to mention I don't want to
> name my "source" which you guys will take as no credibility, which is
> understandable. So, just ignore my post. Its my opinion, and I go on the info I
> have available to me.
>
> Sorry,
>
> River
>
> "Xtreme...Life is too short not to be!"
>
> In memory and honor of Allen Barklage...One of the greatest pilots to ever set
> foot on this earth!
--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
BAF...@worldnet.att.net Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|
*------------------------------**----*
\(-o-)/ AIRCRAFT PROJECTS CO.
\___/ Manufacturing parts & pieces
/ \ for homebuilt aircraft,
0 0 TIG welding
While trying to find the time to finish mine.
RobertR237
(River - Xtreme Aviation) writes:
>
>OK guys, you win.
>
It's not about who wins or looses, it's about the credibility of someone to
make a statement such as you made. There may come a time when you have that
credibility but not yet.
>I really shouldn't have made that post, but I felt like it. I really don't
know
>jack shit about RVs. And it was not ME who knew those people who died in RVs.
>For all I know, they could be stressed to +/- 20 Gs. Van says +6 -3. All I
know
>is hear say information. I've talked to enough people I feel like I know a
>little about them...Notice, I said little.
>
When in that position, your best move is to let those who know from a first
hand standpoint respond to these questions. They are the ones who are then in
a position to backup their opinions with supporting facts.
>You guys should really stop cutting me down. Everytime I make a post I get
>shot down.
I don't think anybody is trying to cut you down Jordan, but they are trying to
teach you how not to stick you foot in your mouth.
> If BWB or Wantajaw wrote this, you guys would lay off.
Maybe, maybe not. If they had wrote the same comments, I am quite sure there
would have been some who would have questioned them to explain their comments
and justify their conclusions.
> I don't want to
>get other people involved, but the person who I'm refering to knows his shit,
>and knows a hell of a lot about aerobatics, designing, and about the friends
>he's lost in RVs trying to do aerobatics. When I made this post, it was an
>informed opinion. I know a couple RV-4 pilots who say RVs aren't the best for
>acro. With a 200mph airplane, you can easily exceed those G limits.
>
>In any case, just ignore my first post. I don't feel like getting into this
>when no matter what I say, I'll get shot down. Not to mention I don't want to
>name my "source" which you guys will take as no credibility, which is
>understandable. So, just ignore my post. Its my opinion, and I go on the info
>I have available to me.
>
>Sorry,
>River
Jordan, you have been around long enough to realize by now that no statement
such as you made will go totally unchallanged. It had nothing to do with you
personally but has everything to do with your credibility to reach such
conclusions. I think that you have come a long way in the last year but your
journey has just begun and you have a long way to go before your opinions will
carry the weight you would like. If it's any consolation, I seriously believe
that time will come.
Bob Reed http://robertr237.virtualave.net/
KIS Cruiser in progress...Oshkosh 2000 by Gosh! or a 2001 Oshkosh Odessy ;-)
"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and Slide on the
Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
Dave Barnhart
You wrote:
>...What makes me upset is that no matter what I'm
>talking about or what I'm doing, I'll never be able to contribute anything
>good. I'm just a little kid that doesn't know jack shit to you guys. My point
>is, I know I don't know everything, or even close to you guys, but that doesn't
>mean I don't know anything..
I understand EXACTLY how you feel, Jordan. Thirty years ago, when I was your
age, I had the same problem. I finally got the following rule through my
thick head, and I still live by it today:
"When it comes to making a statement of fact (or one that could be interpreted
as a statement of fact), unless I'm damn sure of my facts, and can
substantiate them, I keep my mouth shut."
You have no idea how many times in RAH I've deleted a response before sending
it because it didn't meet that rule.
If you follow that rule, you'll find yourself:
1. Speaking a lot less
2. Embaressing yourself a lot less
3. When you *do* speak, people will *listen*
Best Regards,
dave Barnhart
RV-6 N601DB
John Ammeter
<jer...@point.total-web.net> wrote:
>River,Wingy, Jordan,Wingman150 or whatever,
>
>Please take and use Dave Barnhart's Rule on everything you post. I think
>your
>creditability will go up as fast at the Berkut(sp).
>Put yourself in the questioners place..he may be a newbee..and takes your BS
>as fact. Others, that do not know you, may do this as well.
>I know you are too young to remember the old "Dragnet" series on TV, but the
>one trite statement was "The Facts, Just the Facts".
>Please re read your rantings at least five times before hitting that "Send"
>key.
>Try and put yourself in the readers place and see how your post may sound
>to him. Remember, he wants factual information and not hearsay.
>
> Jerry Bryan
Ya know, for a 'lurker' you do pretty good. Maybe you oughta post
more often, buddy.
GRay
> to him. Remember, he wants factual information and not hearsay.
>
> Jerry Bryan
*Blink*
Fact on usenet?
Oh, dear. <G>
--
GRay-
Kill the extra "g" for mail.
Alex Yeilding
>OK guys, you win.
>
>I really shouldn't have made that post, but I felt like it. I really don't know
>jack shit about RVs.
>snip
>So, just ignore my post. Its my opinion, and I go on the info I
>have available to me.
>
>Sorry,
>
>River
Okay, that said, there probably was a nugget of truth hidden behind
River's original words. If one were buying or building a plane FOR
AEROBATICS (as the primary mission), the RV is probably not the right
choice. I think Vans and the plane's most ardent supporters would
tell you that. It is an all-pupose plane that is good for
recreational or sport aerobatics. Some might compete in it in lower
competition categories, but that is still not its design goal.
There is a good piece titled "an aerobatics epistle" (or something
similar) by VanG himself on the vansaircraft web page, which might
give some insight on aerobics in an RV.
--
Alex
Transpose first two letters of return address to reply by email.
Alex Yeilding
>I'm not whining, I'm pissed off.
Get a life. What's there to be pissed off about?
> Maybe I don't know everything there is to know...I admit that, and I have
>about 300 times in the past. What makes me upset is that no matter what I'm
>talking about or what I'm doing, I'll never be able to contribute anything
>good.
Not true. If you post based on your knowledge rather than uninformed
opinion, I'd bet the reaction would be quite different.
Victoria Deaton
>I'm not whining, I'm pissed off. And I remember putting in my first post, "its
>MY opinions and I'm NO expert!!!" Ok, maybe I'm not no 50 year old fart, so
>what. Maybe I don't know everything there is to know...I admit that, and I have
>about 300 times in the past. What makes me upset is that no matter what I'm
>talking about or what I'm doing, I'll never be able to contribute anything
>good. I'm just a little kid that doesn't know jack shit to you guys.
We can only go by what you post here. And what tends to come through
is unsubstantiated opinion that you heard from someone you know, etc.
>Everytime I make a post, you guys think I'm trying to be like you,
>or act like an expert. I'm NOT! Maybe my posts sound like that, but you should
>have understood by now that thats how my posts come out.
Then change "the way your posts come out". Back yourself up with cites
and quotes or at least some substantiation of some form. When you
can't, but are busting at the seams to say something, don't post until
the thread hits the datum line the separates solid info from the
inevitable RAH "IMHO" stuff. What you are doing is putting a huge
bulls-eye on your forehead and then popping up like a Whack-a-Mole at
the state fair. RAHians are good at Whack-a-Mole.
>The thing is, I felt I had something
>to contribute. Now I know to not open my mouth anymore on anything.
We go through this routine time and time again, it seems. Folks here
are trying to keep you from being a Basshole Jr. before you end up in
killfiles. They point out (either gently or with the tact of a sledge
hammer) an error--mostly in judgement in how you choose to state your
position or in a lack of verifyable confirmation--and you get pissed.
Hell, I'd get pissed if I got beat regularly with a mallet, too. Then
you repeat the process. I don't know what kind of flight training
materials you're using (for that matter, I don't know where you are in
your flight training) but please take a look at Human Factors. I know
for a fact that the new Jepp IFR/Commercial text has a nice section on
it. Look at the part about hazardous attitudes in decision-making. See
if you can spot any parallels that are causing these spats on RAH.
> You guys
>know more about RVs than I probably ever will. I felt I had a point to make
>from my point of view. I wouldn't stress an RV much more than I would a C-150.
That's fine to have an opinion. But it might not hurt to say why.
Hearsay counts very little, though. Did you fly one and watch the
wings flop around? Were you having trouble holding top rudder in a
knife-edge because it fell off? Did you hear rivets go ka-pow when you
were doing cuban 8's? Did you go look at a plane and see wrinkles
around the wing root and a pale pilot describe what had just happened?
Do you have in your hand an SB? Did Greg Feith whisper something in
your ear?
There's a letter that went out to the Sonerai owner/builders in 83 (I
think...I'm too lazy to get the plans) that clarified what was going
on in relation to aerobatics and 10 Sonerai crashes. Now, if I was
looking for the same info on the Sonerai instead of the RV, and you
had quoted from that, hell, I wouldn't care if you were a PP or not,
Bob Hoover (either one of them) or not. You don't have to be an ATP.
Just useful. I'd be saying, Gee, that Wingy fetched some great
information for me! He's sharp!
>I might try a little more, like a roll, but thats about it. Like I said in the
>first post, that is ME only. You guys might try a tailslide...So you have that
>to say about your opinion. Me, I'd be a little more conservative with an RV.
Nothing wrong with being conservative as a pilot. Far better to sneak
up on limits than taunt them. Newton has a pretty good track record.
>MY feelings are that *I* wouldn't do much acro in an
>RV. Thats all I meant to say.
Qualify it as such and you're a bit better off. Leave out the hearsay.
But understand that even as such, you're going to get blown off by
folks who are looking for BTDT info. When someone says they've got T34
time courtesy of the USN, it gives me a big clue to keep my mouth
shut, even though I've researched the hell out of sportplanes like the
RV, MM, and Sonerai. I just don't have the specific know-how to add
something useful.
>River
Be at peace with yourself, and where you are in your young life. Look
at it like a flying lesson. Noone is assaulting Wingy, just pointing
out that your technique needs work. Folks here are saying "wingy,
you're flaring too soon."
WHAM.
"Wingy, you're flaring too soon."
WHAMMMM
"Uh...Wingy...."
It's nothing personal. Folks are just trying to bring you along.
Victoria
Sonerai II
River - Xtreme Aviation
This I can say I know...
The Vans don't spin well. I've heard many, many pilots tell me that. A spin is
a competition qualifier. The Vans is a very fast airplane and also loses energy
quickly. This will hamper the ability to do good, or even half way good
maneouvers. For an airplane like the RV, you "should" have a constant speed
prop to get max performance at different parts of the routine seeing as how the
RV performs. There have been a couple RVs that have "tried" to compete. The
problem is, they are too fast and go through the box too quickly. They build up
too many Gs to stay in the box while doing manouvers, and the RV bleeds off
energy so fast that it takes the airplane too much time to regain its
speed/energy to stay in the box...I've HEARD a lot of times that they have to
spend a lot of time climbing to stay in the box...They are too fast and heavy
and don't have enough power to stay competitive in the box. Like a Citabria or
Decath., they aren't over powered...They rely on using the slow speed and "cub"
like characteristics to keep in the box and perform their routine without
losing too much altitude. Something like a DR-109 or a Pitts, you have the
power to climb and the airplanes don't lose as much energy because they have
more power to pull them up the hill and they are built/designed to lose as
little energy as possible.
Hope this makes sense...
Jerry Springer
> >
> >I really shouldn't have made that post, but I felt like it. I really don't know
> >jack shit about RVs.
>
> >snip
>
> >So, just ignore my post. Its my opinion, and I go on the info I
> >have available to me.
> >
> >Sorry,
> >
> >River
>
> Okay, that said, there probably was a nugget of truth hidden behind
> River's original words. If one were buying or building a plane FOR
> AEROBATICS (as the primary mission), the RV is probably not the right
> choice. I think Vans and the plane's most ardent supporters would
> tell you that. It is an all-pupose plane that is good for
> recreational or sport aerobatics.
No one is arguing that there are not better aerobatic airplanes although
I have had a aerobatic pilot fly my RV-6 and do a aerobatic routine, it is one of
the most graceful flying feelings there is.
The beef with Wingy is that he was basically saying that they were not safe
to fly over 3 g's and he would not ever put his life on the line by flying more
g's than that. Someone not knowing who Wingy is and not knowing the circumstances
could easily reach a conclusion that RV-s are unsafe to do aerobatics in.
He took the approach that he knew someone that said they were not good for aerobatics
and this was the best aerobatic pilot in the world but he would not say who it was
to let people know if there was any credence to his statement or not.
Jerry Springer
>
Dammit Wingy once again you spout off about something you don't know about
and once again you say "you have been told or heard". RV's spin fine and well I might add,
The RV-6 rotates very rapidly which can be startling to some but the other
RV's spin fine. BTW have you ever seen Van do a aerobatic routine in his RV-4?
(I didn't think so). Maybe you should watch it before stating all your unfounded facts.
Give it up pal I have been flying my RV-6 for ten years and have over a thousand hours
in RV's so don't come here and try to bullshit. In case you don't think I am qualified
I got my PPL in high school (1965) before I got a drivers licensee, and have been instructing
since 1976.
--
Rich Ahrens
> BS that goes on in RAH and he reads for useful info purely. You may as well
> consider him to be non-existant because I refuse to name him...
I do consider him non-existent - another of your inventions, in fact.
> I don't feel comfortable
> doing acro in an RV, or any other "sport acro airplane". I believe acro was
> meant to be done in acro airplanes. I am looking forward to a life full of
> aerobatics and it has become my "passion" if you will. I havn't nearly
> scratched the surface of acro let alone aviation as a whole.
In fact, as I recall, you're barely a solo student, aren't you? Your
acro experience consists of what, sitting there while someone else
drives the beast? So why should anyone consider your opinion or comfort
level to have any validity at all?
> Like I said, I havn't
> even begun to understand aerobatics, but after doing a few, I know how it feels
> on my body and I know what the airplane must be going through.
Now that has to be the most ridiculous thing you've said yet. We all
know how you would feel pouring avgas down your cakehole, so let's not
put any in an RV lest it get a tummy ache too...
> A GeoMetro is a great all around
> car...its a little quick bugger, good gas milage, a little small inside but
> comfortable, but you would never try racing one...
I can't wait to hear what Van thinks of hearing his creations called the
Geo Metro of aircraft.
> Jordan "Trying to make sense" Morgan
Try again. The hole is getting deeper by the minute.
Jerry Springer
>
> >aerobatics
> >and this was the best aerobatic pilot in the world but he would not say who
> >it was
> >to let people know if there was any credence to his statement or not.
>
> BS that goes on in RAH and he reads for useful info purely. You may as well
> punk, I just won't involve him. I remember a little more about what he told
> me...I think it had a lot to do with loading upi the Gs more, not about it
> structually. PERSONALLY, I wouldn't do acro in an RV. I don't feel comfortable
> doing acro in an RV, or any other "sport acro airplane". I believe acro was
> meant to be done in acro airplanes. I am looking forward to a life full of
> aerobatics and it has become my "passion" if you will. I havn't nearly
> depends on an airplane that was build by someone else. Even if I built an RV
> myself, I'm no stress engineer, I don't know what it would handle. I just
> believe that acro should be left to true accro airplanes. Like I said, I havn't
> even begun to understand aerobatics, but after doing a few, I know how it feels
> not to be taken with a grain of salt. They are very dangerous...Stressful on
> you and the airplane. I remember Dan Rihn told me he quite competition because
> (one of the reasons) it is dangerous. He had a picture of him with all his
> buddies, and he looked at it one day and realized he was the only or one of the
> only ones left alive. Acro is serious shit. A GeoMetro is a great all around
> car...its a little quick bugger, good gas milage, a little small inside but
> easily. The RV can do some very minor acro, but what happens if you get too
> slow on a hammerhead and get into a tailslide...Then what? There was a post
> about an RV that came apart because they think it got into a tailslide. Shit
> happens...Pilots aren't perfect. That is all the more reason to be very catious
> doing acro in an RV. For me, its not worth it. That is what I was meaning to
> say. Too many things can happen, and *I* would never intentionally get myself
> into a position where if in a maneouver I could get into trouble fairly easily
> without the airplane being able to take any and all situations. Like I said,
> acro should not be taken as a light subject.
>
> Jordan "Trying to make sense" Morgan
YOU better not fly in any Cessna 150's any more Wingy remember the one that crashed
at your flight school? They are not safe they are to slow and to underpowered.
Jerry Springer
>
>
> True...I am not going to get this person in this debate. He already hates the
> BS that goes on in RAH and he reads for useful info purely. You may as well
> consider him to be non-existant because I refuse to name him...Not to be a
> punk, I just won't involve him.
Just a thought Wingy you said he came here for purely info, if that is the case why dosen't
he post some of that info about RV's here if he considers them unsafe for acro?
I would think that would be a very good reason for him to post that info here, don't you?
Specially if this person has some credentials
John H Ousterhout
> --Well, what would you call it? Its not a Mustang,
> not a Corvette, not a Viper, somwhere in between.
> Honda Accord?
I think a Corvette or Viper is a fair comparison with an RV.
They are about as high performance as you can get in an auto
that's not a race car and doesn't cost more than most
houses.
While not suitable for top level competition aerobatics, the
RVs (and many other airplanes) are suitable for aerobatics.
Airplanes designed for top level competition aerobatics are
not well suited for anything else, just as a race car is not
suited for anything else..
If what you've been writing about is top level competition
aerobatics, then say so. But you can say what you want
to do without unfairly damning the RV with hearsay.
Jerry Springer
>
> >crashed
> >at your flight school? They are not safe they are to slow and to
> >underpowered.
> >--
> >Jerry Springer
>
> it...And I don't have to stay in the box with it. Only a moron would ever
> consider a 150 for acro...Hell, even a 150 aerobat is out of the same class as
> a Decath or a Citabria. Wouldn't you agree? I think we're comparing apples and
> oranges here...Were talking about acro not normal everyday flying for most
> pilots.
>
> River
>
I guess the guy that I see fly a 150 aero routine each year at Arlington is a moron.
My post about better not fly a 150 was to try to show you how ridiculous your posts on
RV acro are.
Your instructor has never demonstrated a spin in a 150 to you? All my
students know how to recover from spins before I solo them, and of course to learn
recovery you have to first get into a spin.
Jerry Springer
>
>
> Anyway. The point of all this is that folks get in these things and
> wring them out. When they fold, it isn't necessarily because they're
> "not aerobatic".
>
> For more on the Sonerai: http://www.greatplainsas.com
>
> Cheers,
> Victoria
Good post with good facts Victoria, and the bottom line is any airplane
can be broken if not flown inside the design limits.
Jim Vandervort
You will have to write enough when school starts.
River - Xtreme Aviation <wingm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990627203327...@ng-fs1.aol.com...
> >He took the approach that he knew someone that said they were not good
for
> >aerobatics
> >and this was the best aerobatic pilot in the world but he would not say
who
> >it was
> >to let people know if there was any credence to his statement or not.
>
>
> True...I am not going to get this person in this debate. He already hates
the
> BS that goes on in RAH and he reads for useful info purely. You may as
well
> consider him to be non-existant because I refuse to name him...Not to be a
Jerry Springer
>
>
> I also have heard negative things about spins in RV's, but don't claim
> to KNOW anything about it. Let's see if an approach that lays out what
> I have heard and asks for clarification might not get a better
> response than your statement of what you "know". Watch and learn.
>
> RVers out there, there was a thread here several months ago about an
> experienced test pilot's rather harrowing experience spin testing an
> RV-6 or -6A. The impression that I got was that this was not isolated,
> and that Vans discourages spins in the -6 and -6A. What I had heard
> was that the shape or size of the fuse created more blanketing of the
> VS and rudder, making recovery dicey. I've heard that this is not the
> case with the tandems or -3, where spins are fast, but recovery
> "normal".
>
> Can anyone with actual experience shed any light on this?
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Alex
Alex as I said in a earlier post the RV-3 and -4 spin and recover easily with
normal spin recovery control inputs. the RV-6 also spins and recovers fine and
there are many RV pilots that are spinning their RV-6s'. The problem is that the
RV-6 spins in a very nose low attitude and spins very rapidly this in turn takes
more time to stop rotation and longer to recover which is very scary to some people.
River - Xtreme Aviation
Alex Yeilding
>What you are doing is putting a huge
>bulls-eye on your forehead and then popping up like a Whack-a-Mole at
>the state fair. RAHians are good at Whack-a-Mole.
ROTFLMAO
River - Xtreme Aviation
>
--Sure, why not. Believe whatever you want to. E-mail me privately and I'd be
happy to give the name. It is amazing...Because I have enough respect for a guy
not to use his name, people really think I'm making this shit up.
>> I don't feel comfortable
>> doing acro in an RV, or any other "sport acro airplane". I believe acro was
>> meant to be done in acro airplanes. I am looking forward to a life full of
>> aerobatics and it has become my "passion" if you will. I havn't nearly
>> scratched the surface of acro let alone aviation as a whole.
>
>In fact, as I recall, you're barely a solo student, aren't you? Your
>acro experience consists of what, sitting there while someone else
>drives the beast? So why should anyone consider your opinion or comfort
>level to have any validity at all?
No, I've had the controls at some minor acro. Next year I am planning on going
to full out acro school. I have a job I think I'll have in FL and I'm saving
for acro lessons...Will give me time in the cockpit to go for commercial. My
IFR rating will come. But acro is important to me...Maybe then I'll have some
real athority to talk.
>
>> Like I said, I havn't
>> even begun to understand aerobatics, but after doing a few, I know how it
>feels
>> on my body and I know what the airplane must be going through.
>
>Now that has to be the most ridiculous thing you've said yet. We all
>know how you would feel pouring avgas down your cakehole, so let's not
>put any in an RV lest it get a tummy ache too...
>
>> A GeoMetro is a great all around
>> car...its a little quick bugger, good gas milage, a little small inside but
>> comfortable, but you would never try racing one...
>
>I can't wait to hear what Van thinks of hearing his creations called the
>Geo Metro of aircraft.
--Well, what would you call it? Its not a Mustang, not a Corvette, not a Viper,
somwhere in between. Honda Accord?
>
>> Jordan "Trying to make sense" Morgan
>
>Try again. The hole is getting deeper by the minute.
River - Xtreme Aviation
>crashed
>at your flight school? They are not safe they are to slow and to
>underpowered.
>Jerry Springer|RV-6 First Flight
Why not? I'm noing acro in it...I'm not doing hammerheads...I'm not spinning
it...And I don't have to stay in the box with it. Only a moron would ever
consider a 150 for acro...Hell, even a 150 aerobat is out of the same class as
a Decath or a Citabria. Wouldn't you agree? I think we're comparing apples and
oranges here...Were talking about acro not normal everyday flying for most
pilots.
Victoria Deaton
>There's a letter that went out to the Sonerai owner/builders in 83 (I
>think...I'm too lazy to get the plans) that clarified what was going
>on in relation to aerobatics and 10 Sonerai crashes.
Clarification: wasn't 10 crashes (that sounded high when I hit the
send button but it was too late).
From the Monnett Experimental Aircraft, Inc., letter dated Nov 11 83,
it references 4 crashes in **10** years.
Sorry...got the numbers transposed in my head. I picked up the plans
and POH and re-read everything and in the light of the RV aerobatic
questions, I thought this might be worth putting on the list. For
those of you unfamiliar with the Sonerai II, in its original form it's
a midwing, taildragger, 2-place VW powered sport plane. (in other
incarnations it's a single seater, or low wing, or tri-gear, or
stretch variant).
And while I've got it here in front of me...these are some quotes:
"Fact: All four accidents were a result of aerobatic related flight.
(By FAA definition)
Fact: One accident involved a spin or spiral in/after a series of
aerobatic maneuvers. It was determined the pilot suffered
incapacitation prior to the aircraft striking the ground.
Fact: Another accident occured when a wing folded during a high "G",
low level turn on a high turbulence day
Fact: Two of the four accidents were the result of high speed and/or
sharp, high "G" pull up s which caused a wing to yield and ultimately
fail.
Fact: Of the four accidents, only one involved the builder/pilot. Two
where (sic) at least the third owners. The remaining one ws a pilot
who "borrowed" the aircraft to "ring it out"(sic).
Fact: None of the pilot had purchased or read the Sonerai flight
manual. Maneuvering speed and gross aerobatic weight were evidently
disregarded.
Fact: Of the three failures due to overload, all involved
modifications, deviation from the plans, or excessive weights that
where (sic) contributory to th ewing failures. No two wings failed in
the same manner.
The list of contributory facts is much longer, but the point should be
clear. An airplane, especially a "clean one" like the Sonerai II or
RV-3 (I refer to a very parallel article in Sport Aviation, January,
1983) can be easily taken to its structural limits if its flight
envelope limitations are not respected!"
The log in one of the airplanes that had crashed indicated that a
number of aerobatic maneuvers had been performed including snap rolls,
which are a no-no in the Sonerai flight manual. It was also 80 pounds
overweight, empty compared to the average SII and 94 pounds heavier
than the prototype. With a 150 lb pilot and no fuel it was at the
aerobatic gross weight of 750 lbs. There was also a hint that the ASI
read "seriously low".
Before anyone gets the idea the Sonerai is a girlie-plane, the POH
says it's designed for limited aerobatic flight. The SI @750 lbs was
good to +6/-6, and the SII at 750lbs was good to +6/-4. Chandelles,
lazy eights, steep turns, spins, loops, aileron rolls, barrel rolls,
yeast rolls, and stalls (except whip stalls) were specifically
approved.
"The first test indicated that the standard wing would yield at 7.6
g's at 750 pounds gross weight. (1.6 g's avove the published 6 g's
limit load). At that point, however, the top spar cap would buckle
rearward in compression allowing the section to bend under the static
load. Ultimate load (9 g's) was diffiecult to obtain because of the
local buckling. It should be noted that the cross section modulus
analysis showed sufficient ultimate load strength, but the buckling
made that a moot point."
more on the resulting "modded" wing:
"in the final test, this wing panel was brought to a full 9 g's
loading. It not only sustained the load, but showed only a slight
deformation which would not compromise its flying characteristics.
This modification had brought the wing into the category of "super
strong" with a weight penalty of only a few pounds."
Victoria Deaton
>A GeoMetro is a great all around
>car...its a little quick bugger, good gas milage, a little small inside but
>comfortable, but you would never try racing one...You could kill yourself
>easily.
Bullshit. Now you're getting into my turf. I'll flog a Metro around a
track with the same abandon I run my 944S. One may be faster and more
composed, but they have one thing in common: they'll both go around
corners up until the point they don't. Cars is cars. Ever seen an R5
Renault? It started life as a LeCar. Who knows what playful evil lurks
in the mild little Geo? My racing instructor used to frustrate the
hell out of the Corvette drivers with a Ford Freakin' Fiesta.
Ever heard of a Saab 96? Saab 97? Two very unlikely cars for racing
but it never hindered me. (Actually, the early Saabs had a hell of
roadrace and pro rally history) Hell, I even placed 3rd an ice race in
my parent's 79 Plymouth Horizon 4-door. I borrowed it and didn't tell
them I was going to qualify in it. During that era, I couldn't afford
a pit crew so I did my engine and suspension work myself. I've been
trailbraking since before you were born because I was too poor to
afford "real" cars that handled, which means NOTHING is out of bounds
as a racer. Chest beating aside, DAMN, boy, just chill on the
analogies for a while. :-)
Victoria
Bob U.
>
>Before anyone gets the idea the Sonerai is a girlie-plane, the POH
>says it's designed for limited aerobatic flight. The SI @750 lbs was
>good to +6/-6, and the SII at 750lbs was good to +6/-4. Chandelles,
>lazy eights, steep turns, spins, loops, aileron rolls, barrel rolls,
>yeast rolls, and stalls (except whip stalls) were specifically
>approved.
>
>Victoria
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yeast Rolls?
Sounds like an infection to me. <g>
Bob U.
Alex Yeilding
>This I can say I know...
>
>The Vans don't spin well. I've heard many, many pilots tell me that.
Of course, saying you know it doesn't make it so <g>.
I also have heard negative things about spins in RV's, but don't claim
to KNOW anything about it. Let's see if an approach that lays out what
I have heard and asks for clarification might not get a better
response than your statement of what you "know". Watch and learn.
RVers out there, there was a thread here several months ago about an
experienced test pilot's rather harrowing experience spin testing an
RV-6 or -6A. The impression that I got was that this was not isolated,
and that Vans discourages spins in the -6 and -6A. What I had heard
was that the shape or size of the fuse created more blanketing of the
VS and rudder, making recovery dicey. I've heard that this is not the
case with the tandems or -3, where spins are fast, but recovery
"normal".
Can anyone with actual experience shed any light on this?
Thanks.
David
>> But understand that even as such, you're going to get blown
>> off by folks who are looking for BTDT info.
That's a new one to me, Victoria, what's "BTDT"?
David
PS Too damn many folks in this group signing themselves
David. Guess I'll have start adding something more, or
risk mistaken attributions.
David
N82GT
Alex Yeilding
>>I can't wait to hear what Van thinks of hearing his creations called the
>>Geo Metro of aircraft.
>
>--Well, what would you call it? Its not a Mustang, not a Corvette, not a Viper,
>somwhere in between. Honda Accord?
>
I'd vote for Porsche Boxter or BMW Z-3. A fun, capable vehicle, which
I could run around a road racing course and have a blast, and [with
more driving skill than I have] could race quite well "in class", or
which I could load a couple of suitcases and drive 250 miles for a
weekend trip. I also can use it to run to the grocery store, don't
worry if it starts raining, and can even drive on badly pot-holed
roads as long as I'm careful.
The RV's look to me to follow that pattern. Good at lots of things,
but not the best at any of them. If you want acro, get a Giles or
Pitts <g>; if you want cross-country speed, get a IV-P; if you want
back-woods capability, get one of the bush planes, etc. Kind of like
saying the Boxter is not a Humvee, top fuel dragster, formula racer,
or LS400, each of which is better at what they do best than is the
Boxter.
Need I say it? This is opinion only, stated for fun, and I'd welcome
comment. If anyone wants to offer any equally worthless analogies,
just try to offer rationale to give some hope of pedagogical value!
Alex Yeilding
>Were talking about acro not normal everyday flying for most
>pilots.
>
River, note this quote from the original message:
>My wife and I are considering a future (probably two years) purchase of an
>aerobatics and cross country capable single kit.
You've shared your uninformed opinion on the aerobatic capabilities of
RV's. Do you have equally valid information you could share about the
cross-country capabilities of a Pitts, DR, or Giles? What have been
your experiences in cross country flight in these planes? Pros and
cons, range, baggage capacity, comfort for extended flights,
stability, etc.?
Victoria Deaton
>Victoria wrote a bunch of good stuff, as usual, including
>
>>> But understand that even as such, you're going to get blown
>>> off by folks who are looking for BTDT info.
>
>That's a new one to me, Victoria, what's "BTDT"?
>
>David
"Been there, done that".
Or was it bench-tested diagonal themocouplings? I forgot. :-)
Victoria
Bob U.
Hmmmm.
Could Chuck S. be shipping Muzzleloader to ,,,,,
bench-testing diagonal themocoupling geeks?
Bob U.
Alex Yeilding
>The problem is that the
>RV-6 spins in a very nose low attitude and spins very rapidly this in turn takes
>more time to stop rotation and longer to recover which is very scary to some people.
Okay, there are lots of -6 drivers who regularly spin their mounts.
But I'm also under the impression that there are lots of -6 drivers
who are high-time and/or ex-military pilots whose piloting skills are
way beyond average. Would you characterize spins in a -6 as an
"expert-only" maneuver, or one that an "average" pilot could master
and learn to enjoy with a moderate amount of instruction? (I know,
there are lots of very competent pilots who prefer to keep the blue on
top, and nothing above was intended to imply otherwise.)
Charles K. Scott
nav...@aol.com (NAv8or) writes:
> Also, what advantages does the tailwheel version bring to the table? From
> reading the specs, the trike only loses 50fpm of climb and 1 knot of cruise
> speed.
>
> M
There's really no right or wrong here NAv8or, some people like
taildraggers and others would prefer to do without them. Add up the
pros and cons and make up your own mind. Or better yet, see if you can
fly in a version of either, that should help you decide. I'll bet the
company would fly you in both.
Corky Scott
Charles K. Scott
wingm...@aol.com (River - Xtreme Aviation) writes:
> OK guys, you win.
>
> I really shouldn't have made that post, but I felt like it. I really don't know
> jack shit about RVs. And it was not ME who knew those people who died in RVs.
> For all I know, they could be stressed to +/- 20 Gs. Van says +6 -3. All I know
> is hear say information. I've talked to enough people I feel like I know a
> little about them...Notice, I said little.
>
> You guys should really stop cutting me down. Everytime I make a post I get shot
> down. If BWB or Wantajaw wrote this, you guys would lay off.
River, read your first sentence after your "concession". You say you
shouldn't have made the post but did anyway because "I felt like it."
Does that make it OK? Most of us have learned by now that saying
things because we feel like it is a good way to get people unhappy with
you.
If I may be so bold as to speak for Mr. Wanttaja, he doesn't comment on
topics about which he knows nothing. When he does post, it's either a
very accurate explanation, with sources cited, or it's a very clever
play on words. The guy is a published author, y'know, he knows better
than to just blab because there's a keyboard in front of him.
And BWB, well let's just say he's our resident character. We expect
the odd and frequently hilarious post from him because he's so smart he
figured out how to retire early and has WAY too much time on his hands
and it's getting to him. Plus his ant poison is hard to find. He can
say the things he says because he has some credentials to back up his
life. You will too . . . someday. But it would be a good thing if you
remembered that this is a newsgroup populated by people who are older
than you and who have been around for a while and know a lot. They
aren't impressed with statements made without a factual basis. When
they hear that, they make negative comments and rightfully so.
Remember, you aren't just posting to a few friends, you have the
potential to reached thousands, if not hundreds of thousands worldwide.
It would be good to remember that once in a while.
Corky Scott
Rich Ahrens
> happy to give the name. It is amazing...Because I have enough respect for a guy
> not to use his name, people really think I'm making this shit up.
No, we think you're making it up because you've been caught using sock
puppets before. The only way I would want his name in private is if he
is willing to stand by his opinions in public. So I make no commitment
not to identify him. Still want to give me the name?
Dylan Smith
>. Who knows what playful evil lurks
> in the mild little Geo? My racing instructor used to frustrate the
> hell out of the Corvette drivers with a Ford Freakin' Fiesta.
Ever heard of the Mini? First sold in 1959 as a small car for fetching the
grocieries...by the mid 60's a top rally car in the Monte Carlo after John
Cooper did his business with it. They are still made today, unfortunately
not available in the US.
--
Dylan Smith, Houston TX.
http://www.icct.net/~dyls
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"
Paul Tidball
Paul Tidball
Luscombe 8A
Jerry Springer wrote in message <3776E131...@teleport.com>...
>River - Xtreme Aviation wrote:
>>
>> >YOU better not fly in any Cessna 150's any more Wingy remember the one
that
>> >crashed
>> >at your flight school? They are not safe they are to slow and to
>> >underpowered.
>> >--
>> >Jerry Springer
>>
>> Why not? I'm noing acro in it...I'm not doing hammerheads...I'm not
spinning
>> it...And I don't have to stay in the box with it. Only a moron would ever
>> consider a 150 for acro...Hell, even a 150 aerobat is out of the same
class as
>> a Decath or a Citabria. Wouldn't you agree? I think we're comparing
apples and
>> oranges here...Were talking about acro not normal everyday flying for
most
>> pilots.
>>
>> River
>>
>I guess the guy that I see fly a 150 aero routine each year at Arlington is
a moron.
>My post about better not fly a 150 was to try to show you how ridiculous
your posts on
>RV acro are.
>Your instructor has never demonstrated a spin in a 150 to you? All my
>students know how to recover from spins before I solo them, and of course
to learn
>recovery you have to first get into a spin.
>
>
>--
>Jerry Springer|RV-6 First Flight 7/14/89|Hillsboro,OR|jsf...@teleport.com
Victoria Deaton
>
> Victoria Deaton <boh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >. Who knows what playful evil lurks
> > in the mild little Geo? My racing instructor used to frustrate the
> > hell out of the Corvette drivers with a Ford Freakin' Fiesta.
>
> Ever heard of the Mini? First sold in 1959 as a small car for fetching the
> grocieries...by the mid 60's a top rally car in the Monte Carlo after John
> Cooper did his business with it. They are still made today, unfortunately
> not available in the US.
Ah, yes, the Cooper S. I've got a great shot of one at an ice race. I'll
see your Cooper S, and raise you one with an Saab Monte Carlo 850. Paddy
Hopkirk, Erik Carlsson...ah, the Rally Gods of yesteryear.
REAL Saabs have the stick shift on the column.
Victoria "Subaru RS wannabe" Deaton
Jim Vandervort
One fun little thing!!!
JimV.
Dylan Smith <dylan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7l8gq1$16eo$1...@ausnews.austin.ibm.com...
> Victoria Deaton <boh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >. Who knows what playful evil lurks
> > in the mild little Geo? My racing instructor used to frustrate the
> > hell out of the Corvette drivers with a Ford Freakin' Fiesta.
>
> Ever heard of the Mini? First sold in 1959 as a small car for fetching the
> grocieries...by the mid 60's a top rally car in the Monte Carlo after John
> Cooper did his business with it. They are still made today, unfortunately
> not available in the US.
>
Jerry Springer
>
> Jerry, it's a GAL, can't remember her name, though.... ;-)
>
> Paul Tidball
> Luscombe 8A
>
in a 150 look easy. Thanks for refreshing my memory.
Bob U.
>River - Xtreme Aviation wrote:
>> --Sure, why not. Believe whatever you want to. E-mail me privately and I'd be
>> happy to give the name. It is amazing...Because I have enough respect for a guy
>> not to use his name, people really think I'm making this shit up.
>
>No, we think you're making it up because you've been caught using sock
>puppets before. The only way I would want his name in private is if he
>is willing to stand by his opinions in public. So I make no commitment
>not to identify him. Still want to give me the name?
>
>
>|Rich Ahrens
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rich,
Through the grapevine, I hear about Wingy and his sock puppets as they
occur. He fools NO ONE.
It certainly leads to where men of honor fear to tread.
Just a word to the wise, Wingbrat.
Wake up !
Bob U.
Ed Sullivan
Sounds like Amelia Reid
EBS
J P Rourke
>dgla...@earthlink.net (David) wrote:
>>Victoria wrote a bunch of good stuff, as usual, including
>>
>>>> But understand that even as such, you're going to get blown
>>>> off by folks who are looking for BTDT info.
>>
>>That's a new one to me, Victoria, what's "BTDT"?
>>
>>David
>"Been there, done that".
>Or was it bench-tested diagonal themocouplings? I forgot. :-)
>Victoria
That reminds me of "TFTM", a skydiving term used in competition when trying to
land on a target. Ostensibly it means "Too Far To Measure", but for those of us
more adept at rationalizing, it stands for something else...
john *well that's where it was a minute ago* rourke
highflyer
>
> My wife and I are considering a future (probably two years) purchase of an
> towards the RV-6. If anybody out there has an RV-6 or 6A, we would love to get
> your opinions on the bird.
>
> Also, what advantages does the tailwheel version bring to the table? From
> reading the specs, the trike only loses 50fpm of climb and 1 knot of cruise
> speed.
>
> M
Well, then, clearly the tailwheel has an advantage of 50 fpm climb
and 1 knot of cruise speed!
It is an interesting fact, that not many people appreciate.
The tailwheel sticking out in the breeze is anything but streamlined
and DOES add some noticeable drag. That drag goes away when you
remove the tailwheel.
Of course, when you add a nose wheel you do add a bigger wheel sticking
out in the breeze. However, since the nose wheel is embedded in a
mass of air that is stirred into a high drag state already anyway by
the proximity of the prop spinning like crazy, the drag increment
added by the nose gear addition is not that much more than the drag
increments of an average tailwheel installation.
Now, if you spend a bit of effort cleaning up the tailwheel ...
HF
highflyer
>
> >...and it's not stressed for abrupt maneuvers like snaps, but to say it's
> not capable of and suitable for 'backyard' acro (i.e. non-competitive
> knocking around) is very misleading.
>
> In reference to the RV6, or rather the RV8, are any of them stressed to
> safely do a snap roll?
Actually, I question that statement as well. I don't see any structural
reason why a snap roll would be contraindicated for RV series aircraft.
That does not mean you should go out and do snap rolls in your RV-6.
There ARE some aerodynamic reasons that might indicate snap rolls
would not be a good idea.
The RV-6 has been found to have some less than perfectly desireable
SPIN behavior. A snap roll IS a spin. It is merely a spin forced
from an accellerated stall, usually at twice the unaccellerated
stall speed for the configuration. That makes it a 4G maneuver,
which is more than you need for all of the many aerobatic maneuvers
that I personally am still interested in performing. But then,
I am not into Lomcevaks and outside square loops! <g>
In this case, I would be more concerned about the spin behavior in
a snap roll than the G limits of the structure. Besides, a full
deflection aileron roll in an RV-6 is quicker than a snap roll in
my Stinson Reliant, ( which was originally certified for snap rolls!)
HF
highflyer
>
> get other people involved, but the person who I'm refering to knows his shit,
> and knows a hell of a lot about aerobatics, designing, and about the friends
> he's lost in RVs trying to do aerobatics. When I made this post, it was an
> informed opinion.
Bullshit. Poor little Wingy, everybodys is picking on him.
Are you paranoid or what. I can assure you, if BadWater or I or
Ron or ANYONE posted such arrant and unwarranted NONSENSE we would
be questioned exactly as thoroughly as you were.
It is clearly obvious that the information you posted is WRONG.
You claim an anonymous source who if of high repute. You don't
identify the source so that we can decide the repute for ourselves.
Instead we have to evaluate your anonymous source who is supposed
to be an expert on YOUR pronouncement of what the source told you.
If you have correctly reported what your anonymous source said, then
your anonymous source has NO idea what s/he is talking about in this
regard and is forming opinions based on a total lack of significant
data, but is merely breezeing about a poorly formed opinion.
If you have NOT correctly reported what your anonymous source said,
then the error lies in your misunderstanding.
Either way, you post was inaccurate, incorrect, and unsupported.
No one gets away with that on this news group, Wingy. NO ONE.
HF
highflyer
>
>
> MY opinions and I'm NO expert!!!" Ok, maybe I'm not no 50 year old fart, so
> what. Maybe I don't know everything there is to know...I admit that, and I have
> about 300 times in the past. What makes me upset is that no matter what I'm
> talking about or what I'm doing, I'll never be able to contribute anything
> good. I'm just a little kid that doesn't know jack shit to you guys. My point
> is, I know I don't know everything, or even close to you guys, but that doesn't
> mean I don't know anything...I bet there may be a few things I know that you
> guys don't.
You may be pissed off, Wingy, but you are still whining. No, you are
not as experienced as everyone else on this newsgroup. So what.
You only get in trouble when you stick your neck out and make an
authoritative pronouncement about things you really don't know anything
about.
That is NOT to say there are not some things you DO know. We would
respect what YOU do KNOW. Unfortunately, what we know is based on
our experience, not on hearsay and hangar bullshit. If we made some
grandiose pronouncement based on one of the hangar flying stories we
have all heard and told to others, we too would appear rather silly.
We don't DO that. When one of us makes a pronouncement it is based
on OUR experience, or on reproducible data and we invite you to
contest our results.
You make some rediculous pronouncement that is total bullshit on the
face of it, and then get mad and blame us for treating you like a
child. When you do that you are ACTING like a child. When you act
like a child do NOT be surprised if you are treated like one.
I am sorry, Wingy, but that is the way it IS.
Now if you made a post that WAS based on your knowledge and on YOUR
experience, rather than someone elses, perhaps you would not be so
set upon. Try it! <g>
HF
highflyer
>
> Victoria Deaton wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Anyway. The point of all this is that folks get in these things and
> > wring them out. When they fold, it isn't necessarily because they're
> > "not aerobatic".
> >
> > For more on the Sonerai: http://www.greatplainsas.com
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Victoria
>
> can be broken if not flown inside the design limits.
>
Exactly. The reason that I do NOT recommend the RV's for a serious
IFR platform and weather flying has NOTHING to do with its structure
or its strength. That is ample for any kind of reasonable weather
flying. It has, rather, to do with pilots and the way they fly the
airplane on instruments.
A good instrument airplane does everything slowly and in a stately
way! If I let go of the controls to fold a chart, or get out an
approach plate, it should just kind of sit there doing whatever it
was doing for a LONG time until I return my attention to my scan.
An airplane like the RV series, is designed to be quick, responsive,
and generally FUN to fly. A good instrument airplane is slow, rather
phlegmatic in response, and generally boring to fly. But easy to
fly on instruments.
In an airplane like an RV-6 in IMC a brief inattention can put you in
a surprisingly unusual attitude. Such an attitude often yields an
inverted descent and a very rapidly rising airspeed. The RV-6 is a
clean little beastie, and can build up some alarming airspeeds in a
surprisingly short time. If you find yourself going three hundred
miles an hour straight down at around fifteen hundred feet AGL you
have a SERIOUS decision to make, and a very limited time to decide.
You have to choose between hitting a very hard surface at a very
high speed, or pulling a VERY high G loading, WELL PAST the design
limit to avoid impact with the terrain. I know my choice would be
to pull like heck and HOPE that the stress analysis was conservative.
That is better than flying into the ground at 300 per and hoping that
somehow you won't "splat." There may only be one chance in a
thousand that the wings won't clap hands, but that is still better
odds than what you git hitting the ground at 300 per going straight
down. It is NOT a good choice to face, and a very expensive price
to pay for a brief period of inattention.
Notice that the entire scenario does NOT imply ANY shortcoming in
the airplane. The airplane fulfils it design mission wonderfully
well. It is merely that flying heavy weather was NOT in its design
mission. The better job a designer does of fitting a design to its
mission, the more likely it is that an application that uses it
OUTSIDE that mission will be less than a good fit.
BadWater Bill owns both a P210 and an RV-6. Ask him which one he
would rather FLY. Then ask him which one he would rather fly on
INSTRUMENTS. That is WHY he has two different airplanes! <g>
HF
highflyer
Oh no, Bob. They are wonderful with dinner. I also like them
with cinnamon and sugar. <g>
HF
highflyer
>
> >competition categories, but that is still not its design goal.
>
> This I can say I know...
>
> a competition qualifier. The Vans is a very fast airplane and also loses energy
> quickly. This will hamper the ability to do good, or even half way good
> maneouvers. For an airplane like the RV, you "should" have a constant speed
> prop to get max performance at different parts of the routine seeing as how the
> RV performs. There have been a couple RVs that have "tried" to compete. The
> problem is, they are too fast and go through the box too quickly. They build up
> too many Gs to stay in the box while doing manouvers, and the RV bleeds off
> energy so fast that it takes the airplane too much time to regain its
> speed/energy to stay in the box...I've HEARD a lot of times that they have to
> spend a lot of time climbing to stay in the box...They are too fast and heavy
> and don't have enough power to stay competitive in the box. Like a Citabria or
> Decath., they aren't over powered...They rely on using the slow speed and "cub"
> like characteristics to keep in the box and perform their routine without
> losing too much altitude. Something like a DR-109 or a Pitts, you have the
> power to climb and the airplanes don't lose as much energy because they have
> more power to pull them up the hill and they are built/designed to lose as
> little energy as possible.
>
> Hope this makes sense...
>
> River
>
That makes much more sense than your original post on the topic.
HOwever, it begs the question. There IS no box to say within if
you are not doing competitive aerobatics. I think EVERYONE will
agree that the RV-6 is NOT a good mount for aerobatic competition
and arresti maneuvers. That does NOT mean it is not a lot of fun
to do sport aerobatics with the airplane and it does NOT mean that
it is poorly designed.
The RV-6 does MUCH better at competition aerobatics than the
Cessna P-210. <g> As I mentioned earlier, when you attempt to
apply any airplane for a task that is outside the designer's
mission statement, it is liable to be less than perfect. The
better the job done by the designer in MEETING that mission statement
the more likely the airplane is to be less than perfect at an
unrelated mission with different requirements.
Therefor, what you say here is valid, but in this case, irrelevant.
HF
highflyer
>
> >
>
> --Sure, why not. Believe whatever you want to. E-mail me privately and I'd be
> happy to give the name. It is amazing...Because I have enough respect for a guy
> not to use his name, people really think I'm making this shit up.
>
You still don't understand do you? If you posted that "the earth
is flat" and you have that information from the worlds leading
astronomer who shall remain nameless ...
We would clearly assume that you either complete misunderstood what
you were told, or took it completely out of context rendering it
false and misleading, or that your supposed source was a leading
candidate for the local asylum.
I am perfectly willing to give your source the benefit of the doubt
and assume that you completely misunderstood him or took some statement
that is perfectly valid in one context and misapplied it in another.
HF
Alex
>Actually, I question that statement as well. I don't see any structural
>reason why a snap roll would be contraindicated for RV series aircraft.
>
>That does not mean you should go out and do snap rolls in your RV-6.
>There ARE some aerodynamic reasons that might indicate snap rolls
>would not be a good idea.
HF:
FYI, from the horse's mouth. In a newsletter article, reproduced on
their web page, VanG says:
>One maneuver conspicuously absent from the above list is the
>Snap Roll. This is a maneuver I feel that the RVs are not well
>suited for because high G forces are needed to produce a brisk
>snap roll. The low stall speed, and thus low maneuvering speed,
>of the RVs limit the speed range in which snap rolls can be
>performed. The good stall characteristics of the RV’s rectangular
>wing planform are not compatible with the asymmetric stall
>requirements of snap rolls. Our advice is to ignore snap rolls
>unless you have the counsel of a really great aerobatic instructor
>who is also very familiar with RVs. A careless approach to snap
>rolls can overstress the airframe and cause structural failure.
Unless this is liability lawyer talk, it sounds like snaps in an RV
are only for the expert.
A
..
: Now, if you spend a bit of effort cleaning up the tailwheel ...
Some of you may recall that, in the late 70's Van's RV-3 sported a wheel
pant on the tailwheel. :-) Cute, but I wonder how long it lasted on grass
strips.
- A
: HF
Bob U.
wrote:
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Yeast Rolls?
>> Sounds like an infection to me. <g>
>>
>> Bob U.
>
>Oh no, Bob. They are wonderful with dinner. I also like them
>with cinnamon and sugar. <g>
>
>HF
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hard of hearing is an old fart diease.
Hard of seeing is too???
I said IN-fection.. not CON-fection !!!!!! <g>
Bob U.
Bob U.
>FYI, from the horse's mouth. In a newsletter article, reproduced on
>their web page, VanG says:
>
>>One maneuver conspicuously absent from the above list is the
>>Snap Roll. This is a maneuver I feel that the RVs are not well
>>suited for because high G forces are needed to produce a brisk
>>snap roll. The low stall speed, and thus low maneuvering speed,
>>of the RVs limit the speed range in which snap rolls can be
>>performed. The good stall characteristics of the RV’s rectangular
>>wing planform are not compatible with the asymmetric stall
>>requirements of snap rolls. Our advice is to ignore snap rolls
>>unless you have the counsel of a really great aerobatic instructor
>>who is also very familiar with RVs. A careless approach to snap
>>rolls can overstress the airframe and cause structural failure.
>
>Unless this is liability lawyer talk, it sounds like snaps in an RV
>are only for the expert.
It's not liability lawyer talk.
Key on...
LOW STALL speed.
Cut a couple of feet off the wings to increase the stall speed, safe
snaps would improve a bunch while much of everything else probably
would head south down Archie Bunker's terlet.
Bob - I just pulled a WINGY - U.
Jbeck
>
>>One maneuver conspicuously absent from the above list is the
>>Snap Roll. This is a maneuver I feel that the RVs are not well
>>suited for because high G forces are needed to produce a brisk
>>snap roll. The low stall speed, and thus low maneuvering speed,
>>of the RVs limit the speed range in which snap rolls can be
>>performed. The good stall characteristics of the RV’s rectangular
>>wing planform are not compatible with the asymmetric stall
>>requirements of snap rolls. Our advice is to ignore snap rolls
>>unless you have the counsel of a really great aerobatic instructor
>>who is also very familiar with RVs. A careless approach to snap
>>rolls can overstress the airframe and cause structural failure.
>
HF & Alex:
Thanks for the response. I have been to the site several times, and I do
not recall reading that (actually, I just got back from rummaging around in
there, and still missed it--the only article I found was on the RV8
demonstrator that _____) Was this a blanket statement for all RV's? Or,
just the RV6?
***Side note: The reason for my interest--I'm not too sure at this stage
how serious I am, but I have toyed with the idea of building an airplane.My
own personal wants are 1) something for x-country in style 2) something for
gentlemans aerobatics. The RV's seem to fit the bill (and my personal
preferance is the RV8). Realisitically, I am probably 4 - 6 yrs from such
an endeavor. I learned aerobatics in a 7KCAB...the snap roll was the one
manuever which I never mastered (my recoveries left a lot to be desired).
HF--Lomcevaks peek my interest (I hear they are not so bad from the
cockpit)...but only in the right airplane.
Ray Jarvis
> River - Xtreme Aviation wrote:
> >
> > >I do consider him non-existent - another of your inventions, in fact.
> > >
> >
> > --Sure, why not. Believe whatever you want to. E-mail me privately and I'd be
> > happy to give the name. It is amazing...Because I have enough respect for a guy
> > not to use his name, people really think I'm making this shit up.
> >
>
Hey Wingbrat!
Consider this screen you are now looking at as a "HUD" (Head Up Display).
As in all instrument flying "Read, Analise, Disseminate and React Acordingly.
These guys (Including Vicky) are giving you some great "Heads-Up" information here
and maybe your reading it, but I fear the other criteria are not coming through in
your posts!
All these guys have been around a while and have put a few hours of aviating under
their belt, unlike yourself who has just a few hours of pilotting!
There is a big difference between a pilot and an aviator, however I'll let you work
that one out!
If you wish to succeed in an aviation career, take a hint and get your head outta the
ducks bum and grow up a little, especially when you post to the world!
Here endeth the lesson!!
Frank van der Hulst
> Well, then, clearly the tailwheel has an advantage of 50 fpm climb
> and 1 knot of cruise speed!
And it looks better too!
And, with a full-swivel tailwheel, you can maneuvre in tighter space
on the ground.
> The tailwheel sticking out in the breeze is anything but streamlined
> and DOES add some noticeable drag. That drag goes away when you
> remove the tailwheel.
Or when you fair the tailwheel (or at least, goes away mostly). Van's
sells a tailwheel fairing as an optional extra. I don't know whether that
fairing is compatible with the now-standard full-swivel tailwheel.
Frank.
--
fra...@ee.cit.ac.nz Frank van der Hulst
My home page is http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~frankvdh
Thomas Velvick
wrote:
>River - Xtreme Aviation wrote:
>>
>> >I do consider him non-existent - another of your inventions, in fact.
>> >
I always wondered if Wingman was a real person or if he was an
internet persona of Bill's. Has anyone actually met him? Apologies
to River if I have offended you. Are you going to be at Pville West?
Regards,
Tom Velvick
finishing my RV-6 fusilage
Alex
>not recall reading that (actually, I just got back from rummaging around in
>there, and still missed it--the only article I found was on the RV8
>demonstrator that _____) Was this a blanket statement for all RV's? Or,
>just the RV6?
>
Try <http://209.52.184.209/sections/pdf/aerobatic_epistle.pdf>
If that doesn't do it, follow the links for aerobatic epistle from
<http://www.vansaircraft.com/index.shtml>
Bob U.
>>River - Xtreme Aviation wrote:
>>>
>>> >I do consider him non-existent - another of your inventions, in fact.
>>> >
>
>
>I always wondered if Wingman was a real person or if he was an
>internet persona of Bill's. Has anyone actually met him? Apologies
>to River if I have offended you. Are you going to be at Pville West?
>
>
>Regards,
>Tom Velvick
>finishing my RV-6 fusilage
I have met Wingy at SnF.
And yes, he IS a persona of Bill's. <g>
P.S. Sorry Wingdood.
I just couldn't pass this up ! ;+{
Cheers,
Bob U.
highflyer
>
> highflyer <high...@alt.net> wrote:
>
> >Actually, I question that statement as well. I don't see any structural
> >reason why a snap roll would be contraindicated for RV series aircraft.
> >
> >That does not mean you should go out and do snap rolls in your RV-6.
> >There ARE some aerodynamic reasons that might indicate snap rolls
> >would not be a good idea.
>
> HF:
>
>
> >One maneuver conspicuously absent from the above list is the
> >Snap Roll. This is a maneuver I feel that the RVs are not well
> >suited for because high G forces are needed to produce a brisk
> >snap roll. The low stall speed, and thus low maneuvering speed,
> >of the RVs limit the speed range in which snap rolls can be
> >performed. The good stall characteristics of the RV’s rectangular
> >wing planform are not compatible with the asymmetric stall
> >requirements of snap rolls. Our advice is to ignore snap rolls
> >unless you have the counsel of a really great aerobatic instructor
> >who is also very familiar with RVs. A careless approach to snap
> >rolls can overstress the airframe and cause structural failure.
>
> are only for the expert.
>
Alex,
When you take out the Lawyer liability talk, it says that snap rolls
aren't too hot in the RV-6 because the entry speed is quite low and
it doesn't stall cleanly. That is true for a lot of airplanes,
even including the AcroSport! <g>
HF
highflyer
Can I have your Cinnamon Rolls next year then? <g>
HF
highflyer
That is a problem. Especially with a rollerskate wheel for a
tailwheel like some of the Formula 1 guys use. Personally I
prefer a ten inch Scott and let the drag nibble me a bit. <g>
( Actually I have a ten inch 'Goodrich' with a 10 SC tire that
costs a fortune to replace! )
HF
Jbeck
>Try <http://209.52.184.209/sections/pdf/aerobatic_epistle.pdf>
>If that doesn't do it, follow the links for aerobatic epistle from
><http://www.vansaircraft.com/index.shtml>
>--
>Alex
Alex:
The first link worked great! Thanks...can't believe I missed that!
Bob U.
>> >
>> >Oh no, Bob. They are wonderful with dinner. I also like them
>> >with cinnamon and sugar. <g>
>> >
>> >HF
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Hard of hearing is an old fart diease.
>> Hard of seeing is too???
>>
>> I said IN-fection.. not CON-fection !!!!!! <g>
>>
>> Bob U.
>
>Can I have your Cinnamon Rolls next year then? <g>
>
>HF
N - O !
Bob U.
Dave Hyde
> When you take out the Lawyer liability talk, it says that snap rolls
> aren't too hot in the RV-6 because the entry speed is quite low and
> it doesn't stall cleanly.
It can also be read to say that in order to get a clean snap you'd have
to impose unacceptable loads. Hardly lawyer talk.
Dave 'cross-control' Hyde
na...@brick.net
highflyer
>
> highflyer wrote:
>
> > When you take out the Lawyer liability talk, it says that snap rolls
> > aren't too hot in the RV-6 because the entry speed is quite low and
> > it doesn't stall cleanly.
>
> It can also be read to say that in order to get a clean snap you'd have
> to impose unacceptable loads. Hardly lawyer talk.
>
>
Well, it is just a reiteration of the same thing. The maximum
entry speed for a snap roll is determined by the stall speed in
level flight. The "normal" entry speed for a snap roll is twice
the stall speed. The load on the aircraft is the square of the
ratio of the entry speed to the stall speed. At twice the stall
speed the load required to yield the required stall to enter the
maneuver is four G's, which is reasonably safe in any airplane.
At 2.45 times the stall speed the G loading required to initiate
the stall at entry needed to snap roll is 6 G's. That is the
design limit of the aircraft.
Let's say the typical RV-6 stalls at 50 mph, which is not at all
unusual in my experience with the type.
That would give a NORMAL entry speed for a snap roll at 100 mph.
At 122.5 mph you hit the structural design limit to initiate the
roll. At any speed above that you are exceeding the structural
limits.
With any airplane, when your entry speed to a maneuver that requires
a stall break to accomplish gets much above twice the level flight
stall speed, the transient G loadings go up very rapidly and breakup
of the airplane can happen quite quickly.
They are just different ways of saying the same thing. He said that
by the time you get enough speed to get a sharp stall, don't do it
or you will exceed the design limit. That speed limit is about 120
miles per hour. About 105 knots. And slower is better structurally.
HF
scottg
>The flight characteristics are reputed to be superb. I have flown over 60
>types of aircraft, from light aircraft to jet fighters, airliners, etc,
>and at first impression I rate the RV as one of the top three I've flown,
>from a flight characteristics point of view.
Kevin,
Just out of curiosity, what are the two other aircraft in the top
three?
Scott Gesele N506RV (RV-6A)
( I don't care what the "know-it-all-little-sh*t" say's, aerobatics
are a blast in an RV)
Kevin Horton
Actually, it should have been top four, but I forgot about my one flight
in a Hawker Hunter. The other two are the Mudry CAP 10 (about 12 flights)
and the Canadair CT-114 Tutor (the aircraft flown by the Snowbirds). I've
got about 800 hrs (I think, my logbook is at work) in the Tutor. I never
got a chance to fly any of them back-to-back, so it is hard to say which
is best, but they all were pretty darn great.
The Hunter and the Tutor are both really talk to you when you are
manoeuvring hard, as you can feel a very progressive buffet well before
the stall. It makes it easy to get the most out of the wing.
The Tutor is an absolute blast to do aeros in - you can easily do a
"vertical eight" (immelman, followed by an immdediate loop, followed by a
split S). In the winter you can even do a "snowman", which is a "vertical
eight" with an extra loop on top, so you've made three circles, one on top
of the each other (that top loop is a bitch though, you need to use half
flap, and you practically fall over the top).
I remember the CAP 10 as being a lot like an RV, but with a lot more
rudder power, and perhaps a bit lighter stick forces. Heavier though, so
not as good a performer.
I can't wait to get my RV-8 in the air. Got to go back in the basement
and dimple some more wing skin holes.
--
Kevin Horton
khorton...@cyberus.ca (remove _nospam from address)
http://www.cyberus.ca/~khorton/rv8.html
http://www.cyberus.ca/~khorton/nojpi.html - No JPI stuff in my aircraft!