Van's RV-9 prototype crash
Jerry Springer
>
> I just read on Van's website about the RV-9 crash. Anyone have any details??
> That is so sad....
To early for details yet, but at this point it does look like a weather
related accident.
Jerry Springer
Hillsboro, OR
jsf...@teleport.com
Mkraus01
MNeume3675
goes they were trying to turn around and find better weather and flew into the
ground. That part of Arkansas can be 2000 - 3000 MSL. The plane was not IFR
equipped.
This was very depressing news for me because I am a new RV6A builder and had
just met Bill the day before at an RV fly-in in Red Wing, MN. He seemed very
personable and knowledgeable. I asked a question during the forum and Bill
responded with what seem to be sincere and genuine interest.
My respect to Bill and his son's family. Their loss is felt by more people
than they will probably ever know.
Mike
tdb...@my-deja.com
covered the accident. Witnesses (all non-pilots)
said it was extremely foggy at ground level, less
than 1/4 mile visibility. They also said it
sounded like it was circling and possibly running
rough.
My respects also go to their family and friends.
I didn't have the chance to meet Bill but talked
to an RV owner that did and had nothing but good
things to say.
Troy
In article <20000418222532.27812.00002243@ng-
fe1.aol.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
El Roto
Here's the URL to the NTSB preliminary report:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/FTW/00A113.htm
My sympathies to the families and friends of these gentlemem.
--
Steve G.
Tracy R Reed
>Here's the URL to the NTSB preliminary report:
>http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/FTW/00A113.htm
Sounds like they flew into IMC conditions with a non-IFR equipped plane.
A classic case of poor judgement, right?
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
BOb
>'El Roto' <el_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>Here's the URL to the NTSB preliminary report:
>>http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/FTW/00A113.htm
>
>Sounds like they flew into IMC conditions with a non-IFR equipped plane.
>A classic case of poor judgement, right?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Possibly, but the father and son that really knew cannot tell us.
I've heard there were NO GYROS on board, so I find it difficult to believe that
reasonable minds would intentionally push forward into IMC...
Especially, a father taking such a risk with his son's life.
To me, this is incomprehensible.
I prefer to think they had a malfunction that lead to this horrible tragedy.
BOb U.
assa9
Thats fat city, where I come from
assa9
"Tracy R Reed" <tr...@freeside.ultraviolet.org> wrote in message
news:slrn8hcpai...@freeside.ultraviolet.org...
> 'El Roto' <el_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >Here's the URL to the NTSB preliminary report:
> >http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/FTW/00A113.htm
>
> Sounds like they flew into IMC conditions with a non-IFR equipped plane.
> A classic case of poor judgement, right?
>
Charles K. Scott
tr...@freeside.ultraviolet.org (Tracy R Reed) writes:
> Sounds like they flew into IMC conditions with a non-IFR equipped plane.
> A classic case of poor judgement, right?
Not sure yet. There were some preliminary reports that the engine
sounded rough and that the fog was low. It's possible that engine
problems forced them down into the fog, not that they deliberately flew
into IMC without instruments.
It's always wise to withhold judgement until all the facts are in.
Corky Scott
El Roto
tr...@freeside.ultraviolet.org (Tracy R Reed) wrote:
> 'El Roto' <el_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >Here's the URL to the NTSB preliminary report:
> >http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/FTW/00A113.htm
>
plane.
> A classic case of poor judgement, right?
>
Seeing as how there's no way to know what was going through the minds
of these gentleman at the time and lacking any data on possible engine
problems, a glib dismissal of this accident as "a classic case of poor
judgement" is very presumptuous.
BOb
>Good, Grief, they had 400 feet ceilings.
>Thats fat city, where I come from
>
>assa9
Making you a glib........ fat assa9, then ?
BTW, no 400 foot ceiling, rather....
weather was FOGGY and they estimated that the VISIBILITY less than 400 feet.
BOb U.
Jerry Springer
>
> >'El Roto' <el_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>Here's the URL to the NTSB preliminary report:
> >>http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/FTW/00A113.htm
> >
> >Sounds like they flew into IMC conditions with a non-IFR equipped plane.
> >A classic case of poor judgement, right?
>
> Possibly, but the father and son that really knew cannot tell us.
>
> I've heard there were NO GYROS on board, so I find it difficult to believe that
> reasonable minds would intentionally push forward into IMC...
> Especially, a father taking such a risk with his son's life.
> To me, this is incomprehensible.
>
> I prefer to think they had a malfunction that lead to this horrible tragedy.
>
> BOb U.
Bob is your email good if the *invalid* is removed?
Or send it to my email.
Jerry
Kevin O'Brien
r.r....@att.invalid. (BOb) wrote:
> they estimated that the VISIBILITY less than 400 feet
Well, if you're going into IMC sans gyros, having IMC all the way to the
ground would be merciful in a way.
Just another reminder that in our little world a simple mistake or
oversight or instant of rotten luck CAN kill you. :(
cheers
-=K=-
Dave Barnhart
>A classic case of poor judgement, right?
You *could* be right. The psycologists have a term they call "Sudden Lapse of
Judgement (SLOJ)". I suppose it could have happened to Bill, but I kind of
think not. Witnesses said they heard the plane "sputtering" and "cutting out"
(I quote those phrases from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette article).
Bill struck me as a pretty cautious guy, so I'm betting that they had an
engine problem that forced them down into IMC. (Is there any way we can find
out what the tops of the overcast were in that area at that time?)
Best Regards,
Dave Barnhart
Dave Gregory
instruments in the RV 8 he was flying and he said Van was against them
putting instruments in because he didn't want them flying in bad weather.
It seems like there has been a lot of accidents with demo / proto planes in
the last few years - Lancair, Cirrus, RV 8 & 9.
Tracy R Reed <tr...@freeside.ultraviolet.org> wrote in message
news:slrn8hcpai...@freeside.ultraviolet.org...
> 'El Roto' <el_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >Here's the URL to the NTSB preliminary report:
> >http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/FTW/00A113.htm
>
> Sounds like they flew into IMC conditions with a non-IFR equipped plane.
> A classic case of poor judgement, right?
>
Tracy R Reed
>I was at a fly in last summer and asked the Van's representative about the
>instruments in the RV 8 he was flying and he said Van was against them
>putting instruments in because he didn't want them flying in bad weather.
He doesn't wany ANY of his kits flying in bad weather or just that particular
plane? I'm still working on my PP-ASEL but I have an eye on owning my own plane
and a kitplane looks like a very cost effective way to do it. I definitely
intend to get IFR rated so I'm going to want an IFR equipped plane. If IFR in
an RV is discouraged, that could put it out of the running.
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
If Microsoft built cars instead of software, the airbag system would say
"Are you sure?" before going off.
Jerry Springer
>
> >
> >He doesn't wany ANY of his kits flying in bad weather or just that particular
> >plane? I'm still working on my PP-ASEL but I have an eye on owning my own
> >plane
> >and a kitplane looks like a very cost effective way to do it. I definitely
> >intend to get IFR rated so I'm going to want an IFR equipped plane. If IFR in
> >an RV is discouraged, that could put it out of the running.
> >
> >--
> >Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
>
> ifr platform in my opinion. www.teamrocketaircraft.com
> its loosely based on a rv4
>
> i have the orginal kit number 000
>
> chris
Totally disagree the Rocket is not any better a platform for
IFR than an RV and even may be worse as it is a faster aircraft.
I would not even suggest you build an RV for IFR as you are a
low time pilot, while it can be done and many people do I
would not recommend it.
Jerry
over 1000hrs in RV's
CW9371
Dave Barnhart
>intend to get IFR rated so I'm going to want an IFR equipped plane. If IFR in
>an RV is discouraged, that could put it out of the running.
You can do IFR in an RV, it's just a lot of work. For IFR, you want a highly
stable platform, something that is going to stay where you pointed it for
minutes at a time while you refold the map, study the chart, etc. You want
something with a high wing loading so you don't get bounced around so much.
RVs on the other hand, are highly responsive HANDS ON airplanes, and they are
light.
If you are talking about 'light' IFR, climbing through a layer on departure to
get to VFR on top, or descending through a layer to get to your destination,
then I'd have no trouble doing that in an RV.
'Hard' IFR, spending hours in the clouds with some turbulence thrown in? Nope
Not for me, thank you.
I'll admit, I have not flown a lot of different types, and I don't have a lot
of time in Actual IFR conditions, but the nicest airplane I've ever owned for
IFR was my V35 Bonanza.
Best Regards,
Dave Barnhart
RV-6 N601DB
Dave Hyde
> You might want to look at the f1 rocket as its a better
> ifr platform in my opinion.
I find that hard to believe. RV's are not the best IFR airplane by any
stretch, but I sure don't see what the changes to convert an RV into a
Rocket would do to improve IMC handling. What, in your opinion, makes
it 'better'?
Dave 'Ah've 'ad worse' Hyde
na...@brick.net
CW9371
then a RV 4 or 8.
BOb
>> >He doesn't wany ANY of his kits flying in bad weather or just that particular
>> >plane? I'm still working on my PP-ASEL but I have an eye on owning my own
>> >plane
>> >intend to get IFR rated so I'm going to want an IFR equipped plane. If IFR in
>> >an RV is discouraged, that could put it out of the running.
>> >
>> >Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
>>
>> the rv works for ifr. You might want to look at the f1 rocket as its a better
>> ifr platform in my opinion. www.teamrocketaircraft.com
>> its loosely based on a rv4
>>
>> i have the orginal kit number 000
>>
>> chris
>
>IFR than an RV and even may be worse as it is a faster aircraft.
>I would not even suggest you build an RV for IFR as you are a
>low time pilot, while it can be done and many people do I
>would not recommend it.
>
>Jerry
>over 1000hrs in RV's
Ahh.
The voice of reason, perspective and experience speaks in Jerry.
The RV-9 MIGHT be the best of the RV bunch if you are thinking IFR.
One should remember these are SPORT planes with sport plane stability.
This kind of stability makes the workload much higher in IFR than say a C172.
Maybe this is why they are putting autopilots in RV's? <g>
BOb U.
Jerry Springer
>
> well I can try to find the article again but basically the rocket is stabiler
> then a RV 4 or 8.
Please do or let me know were it was written.
BOb
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Arrrgh !!!!
Don't ya just hate it when this happens.
On one hand, we have a live pilot/instructor/builder of an RV with a 1000 hours
in type and an unknown magazine reference that gives greater weight to an
article of some questionable merit that exists somewhere else, concerning
nuances of IFR flying in a Harmon Rocket versus an RV-x..
Getting ones ducks lined up before challenging a respected RV dood that has
first rate credentials, experience and info, would seem to be a very good idea.
Pretty much, the Rocket has a higher wing loading due to more weight and less
wing to carry it. So....
Even if it can be proven that the Rocket is marginally MORE STABLE than an RV-4,
neither can be considered very good choices for IFR flight. Period.
The average low time pilot will have his hands full flying a responsive plane
like this...... ***_ VFR_*** with or without an instrument rating.
Flying the average 'rental IFR slug' in no way prepares one for the delightful
handling and responsiveness of an RV.
CW, you may have kit 000....
Which doesn't sound exactly like the greatest of ideas,
But you don't sound like you have stick time in an RV or hard IFR experience.
If I am wrong....
NEVER MIND. <g>
BOb - not too stable myself - U.
highflyer
>
> >Sounds like they flew into IMC conditions with a non-IFR equipped plane.
> >A classic case of poor judgement, right?
>
> Judgement (SLOJ)". I suppose it could have happened to Bill, but I kind of
> think not. Witnesses said they heard the plane "sputtering" and "cutting out"
> (I quote those phrases from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette article).
>
> Bill struck me as a pretty cautious guy, so I'm betting that they had an
> engine problem that forced them down into IMC. (Is there any way we can find
> out what the tops of the overcast were in that area at that time?)
>
> Best Regards,
> Dave Barnhart
I had thought that the overcast was actually quite high, with reasonable
visibility. However there was ground fog in the lowlying areas. That
means that they would have been flying under an overcast where the high
ground was perfectly visible, but with streaks of fog in the low areas.
This is not unusual VFR conditions in Arkansas and southern Missouri,
and I have flown many times in that area under those conditions with
no gyros aboard. No problem.
An engine problem could cause you grief if you were over a foggy area
when it ceased to provide adequate power. Some of the visible terrain
is not terribly amenable to a forced landing. The fog can really fool
you, because it is often thin. Say visibility in the fog is 400 feet
and the fog layer is 100 feet thick, not at ALL unusual. You can look
down through the fog and easily see a choice landing spot. As long
as you are well above the fog visibility is great and you can see
the ground. However, as you descend on final approach you find
yourself looking through the fog horizontally instead of vertically
and you white out and can't see a bloody thing. If you don't have
enough power to climb up and go somewhere else, and you are committed
to land you are skunk bait. You are suddenly doing a CATIII landing
with no services into an obstructed field. AND no options. You have
already spent your altitude.
Ground fog, especially a relatively thin ground fog, can be a deadly
trap. Been there, done that, fortunately I had enough power available
to climb back up and go elsewhere. It really bugs you to see an
airport perfectly clearly when you fly over and be TOTALLY unable
to actually LAND on it.
Understand, I don't know for an instant that what happened in this
particular case was anything like this. All I know is that I have
been in that situation, and it is extremely misleading and it would
be really easy to commit to a landing and have the world disappear
on short final.
--
HighFlyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Rich Shankland
Being a wood airplane driver, I hate to admit that I have a friend who built
a (sob) RV-4 - which has an autopilot. However, the aileron stick force is
so light that the autopilot has petit mall seizures trying to maintain
straight & level. He has been working with the autopilot maker for over six
months trying to sedate the little sucker.
Fly it by hand in hard IFR? BWAHAHAHA
Rich Shankland
BOb <mailto:r.r....@att.invalid> wrote in message
news:391d42bb....@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
CW9371
>>
>> well I can try to find the article again but basically the rocket is
>stabiler
>> then a RV 4 or 8.
>
>Please do or let me know were it was written.
>
>
Well you can always ask mark fredricks for it since it was his plane that was
used for the article
chris
CW9371
>Even if it can be proven that the Rocket is marginally MORE STABLE than an
>RV-4,
>neither can be considered very good choices for IFR flight. Period.
>
>
Basically all i said was the rocket was more stable then a 4 or and 8.
I didnt say either was good for IFR flight.
I know some pilots that dont think a plane is for ifr flight unless it has 4
engines
I never said I said I had hard ifr time, nor do i want it. I just said that is
was stightly better. JEEZ
in regards to kit 000 it was going to be the factory demo aircraft so, i dont
think theres any problems. Its the exact same as the first 8 kits they sold.
Slight cosmetic difference between the lastest kits.
Pete
tone down the stick a little.
-Pete
"Rich Shankland" <cap...@nospam.harbornet.com> wrote in message
news:%UAS4.36$ED3...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
Rich Shankland
flying along with the stick dithering, tho.
Rich
Pete <pet...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5UDS4.21232$55.4...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
BOb
>
>Basically all i said was the rocket was more stable then a 4 or and 8.
>I didnt say either was good for IFR flight.
>I know some pilots that dont think a plane is for ifr flight unless it has 4
>engines
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jeez.
Let me refresh your memory, Chris.
Here is what really went on IN CONTEXT......
>>intend to get IFR rated so I'm going to want an IFR equipped plane. If IFR in
>>an RV is discouraged, that could put it out of the running.
>>Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
>the rv works for ifr. You might want to look at the f1 rocket as its a better
>ifr platform in my opinion. www.teamrocketaircraft.com
>i have the orginal kit number 000
>chris
Hopefully,Tracy can sort your TRUE MEANING out.
I'm still wondering how much RV and instrument time you have.
You address this issue like you know these RV's first hand, but no longer
mention this is a magazine's opinion that you parroting.
BTW...
Your 4 engine remark is just additional dumb bravado.
Bob U.
Brian Rauchfuss - PCD
Dave Barnhart <da...@davebarnhart.com> wrote:
>...
>If you are talking about 'light' IFR, climbing through a layer on departure to
>get to VFR on top, or descending through a layer to get to your destination,
>then I'd have no trouble doing that in an RV.
>
>'Hard' IFR, spending hours in the clouds with some turbulence thrown in? Nope
> Not for me, thank you.
When I was taking my IFR ground school, the instructor strongly recommended
only doing 'light' IFR as long as we were in small aircraft of any sort.
I haven't decided whether to add basic IFR to my Europa.
Brian
Dave Hyde
> Basically all i said was the rocket was more stable then a 4 or and 8.
> I didnt say either was good for IFR flight.
What you said was "look at the f1 rocket as its a better
ifr platform in my opinion"
I'd like to see the article that you base you opinion on. Since you've
got one, can you explain what mods were done to the Rocket that make it
(as you claim) more stable?
Dave 'barn' Hyde
na...@brick.net
Rich Shankland
Old school flyer (licensed but not current for IFR - can't spell GPS).
Decides to enable Emeraude to legally file "light IFR". Spends all kindza
bucks to add -
Gyros
VOR/LOC
Vacuum pump
Regulator
Marker Beacon
Prognosis: Will kill self if actual IFR is encountered.
Penalty: Fly VFR carrying 30 pounds of unneeded equipment.
Next Time:
Basic VFR Panel
Real nice GPS in middle of panel.
Navaids* (or better) autopilot for emergencies.
Rich Shankland
PP-COM-INSTR-CFI-SEL-OLDFART
*I put one in the Emeraude. Best thing since night baseball.
Brian Rauchfuss - PCD <brau...@fm.intel.com> wrote in message
news:8ffcgn$9...@news.or.intel.com...
> snipped a bunch of good thoughts. . .
Jerry Springer
as a rock with Navaids wing leveler.
Jerry Springer
Well because I don't think to much of mark fredricks or anyone
that makes a deal with someone than does not stand by their word
as mark did with John Harmon, I guess I well not be asking
him for the info. It was your story I just asked where I could
find it. I was really interested in who wrote it and what they
based their facts on. I could see it being a tad bit more
stable as it has a shorter wing but it is also 50 mph or so
faster. The original person that asked about flying IFR
does not even have a PPL yet he said he was working on it.
My opinion is that a low time pilot and high perfomance
airplane flying IFR is not a good combination.
Rich Shankland
He does have the Navaids. This may well be an isolated instance, as the
Emeraude flies wonderfully using the same system.
Note to builders who won't spend at least 6 hrs/6 mos to remain proficient:
Buy the Navaids.
Note to builders who want to relax and have fun on cross country flights:
Buy the Navaids.
Note to anybody who needs to refold a sectional after leaving the pattern;
Buy the Navaids.
I LUV that sucker! I cain't wait until they get altitude hold.
P.S. I have no monetary interest in Navaids.
Rich
Jerry Springer <jsf...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:391B5894...@teleport.com...
El Roto
FWIW, I've hopped over the IFR/VFR fence for my Europa project so
many times now I think there are some insomniacs out there who
are counting me in their sleep instead of sheep.
I have pretty well settled on VFR, although I was very primed to
go IFR early on. The thing is, I don't want to take a plane
designed as a VFR cruiser and hook up a bunch of avionics to make
it otherwise. The panel's pretty tight, so unless you go with an
HSI(which I just can't afford), you might very well need to
design a new panel without the snack tray or come up with a
non-standard instrument layout. I'm not too thrilled by either
of those choices.
Add to that the added power demands of the extra boxes plus a
heated pitot and you're looking at a bigger alternator...it's
just too much extra stuff for me. (I'll have an artificial
horizon and a strobe/position/nav kit since I love night flight.)
My wife and I have decided if we absolutely have to be someplace
we'll prolly fly commercial anyway, so other that getting stuck
by weather (which can happen if you're IFR too, what with icing
and all), I don't see any real drawbacks to our Europa being VFR.
Just my opinion, of course.
Steve G.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
James & Shalise Cash
I add the adjective, because you seem to have so many. I simply could not
help but point out the hypocrisy of this post. You have been grilling
this poor guy for "written" articles, and "facts" that substantiate his
"opinion" that the rocket is more stable. Well, it's his opinion. Whether
it is because of the higher wing loading, or just his personal experience,
or just the way the guy puts his pants on in the morning, it's just his
opinion.
Just, as it is your "opinion" that Mark Fredrick did not stand by his word
with Harmon. Do you have an article to support this claim? Is there any
report you could provide the news group? Because, if you don't, it sounds as
if you are close to liable? Here's a guy, trying to get a company off the
ground, and you bash him as not "standing by his word." I think you ought
to support that kind of statement with facts, not "opinion."
Jimmy "Not the one in Montana because he has no internet, I'm in Texas" Cash
PS: If you respond, please do it here, and not via e-mail, thanks.
"Jerry Springer" <jsf...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:391B5A9C...@teleport.com...
Jerry Springer
>
> Dear Jerry "Get a life" Springer,
> I add the adjective, because you seem to have so many.
to figure it out.
>I simply could not
> help but point out the hypocrisy of this post. You have been grilling
> this poor guy for "written" articles, and "facts" that substantiate his
> "opinion" that the rocket is more stable. Well, it's his opinion.
I've been grilling him? Well that shows how much you have been paying
attention, he said that he could show an article about the difference
in stability and I said "please do." Where is the hypocrisy in that?
>
> Just, as it is your "opinion" that Mark Fredrick did not stand by his word
> with Harmon. Do you have an article to support this claim? Is there any
> report you could provide the news group? Because, if you don't, it sounds as
> if you are close to liable?
Close to liable? Boy I am scared now. I don't think you or any of f1
want
to go there. I do have the facts and the terms that were agreed to.
>Here's a guy, trying to get a company off the ground, and you bash him
>as not "standing by his word." I think you ought to support that kind
>of statement with facts, not "opinion."
I think that you should talk to the designer of the Harmon Rocket...
I HAVE.
>
> Jimmy "Not the one in Montana because he has no internet, I'm in Texas" Cash
> PS: If you respond, please do it here, and not via e-mail, thanks.
Don't worry I have no desire to respond to you in private email.
Jerry Springer
>
> >Well because I don't think to much of mark fredricks or anyone
> >that makes a deal with someone than does not stand by their word
> >as mark did with John Harmon, I guess I well not be asking
> >him for the info.
>
> dishonest. If you have facts, spit them out, if you dont shut up. Don't trash
> someones reputation cause you dont like them or you heard this or that about
> them.
Have you talked to JH? If not then you shut up ok.
> It was your story I just asked where I could
> >find it.
>
> No its not my story. I said it was a published article about the harmon
> rocket. The rocket that was used was Marks.
And once again I well ask who wrote it and were is it written so
I can read it? Where is the grilling in asking about an article
you said had the explanation?
>
> I was really interested in who wrote it and what they
> >based their facts on. I could see it being a tad bit more
> >stable as it has a shorter wing but it is also 50 mph or so
> >faster.
>
> Actually you can caught the power back and fly it slower. THe cruise speed is
> 230 versus 200+ for the RV8. THats only 30 mph difference.
Well I fly my RV-6 at 180 thats 50 mph difference.
>
> The original person that asked about flying IFR
> >does not even have a PPL yet he said he was working on it.
> >My opinion is that a low time pilot and high perfomance
> >airplane flying IFR is not a good combination.
>
> I never said it was. If i said that please show me. All I said was that the
> f1 rocket was better as a IFR platform then the rv series.
And I never said you said that, I was giving my opinion about low time
pilots and high performance airplanes.
>
> Chris Wilcox
> F1 rocket 000
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Pete
As a potential Europa builder, I'd be interested to know how stable the
europa is as an IFR platform (being small, light, with a relatively light
wing loading).
I already had it fitted up in my head with a nice S-tec two axis system 30,
a Sandel, and a Garmin 430, second alternator, heated pitot ......oh....
wait a minute.... that would cost more than the plane itself.
Shure would be one nice lookin' panel tho.
-Pete
"Brian Rauchfuss - PCD" <brau...@fm.intel.com> wrote in message
news:8ffcgn$9...@news.or.intel.com...
> In article <LxnS4.49752$g4.13...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> When I was taking my IFR ground school, the instructor strongly
recommended
> only doing 'light' IFR as long as we were in small aircraft of any sort.
>
Dave Hyde
[snipped for brevity, not content]
> Old school flyer (licensed but not current for IFR - can't spell GPS).
...
> Prognosis: Will kill self if actual IFR is encountered.
> Penalty: Fly VFR carrying 30 pounds of unneeded equipment.
I for one appreciate this post and your honest assessment.
I've waffled on the RV panel so much I've got griddle marks.
I'd like to pretend I'd have the time and money to stay current enough
to go IMC in an RV, but a post like this is a reminder that being
conservative is often a sign of a better and more skilled pilot.
Thanks.
Dave 'goo no-go' Hyde
na...@brick.net
CW9371
>that makes a deal with someone than does not stand by their word
>as mark did with John Harmon, I guess I well not be asking
>him for the info.
Just cause you and Mark dont get along is no reason to infer he did something
dishonest. If you have facts, spit them out, if you dont shut up. Don't trash
someones reputation cause you dont like them or you heard this or that about
them.
It was your story I just asked where I could
>find it.
No its not my story. I said it was a published article about the harmon
rocket. The rocket that was used was Marks.
I was really interested in who wrote it and what they
>based their facts on. I could see it being a tad bit more
>stable as it has a shorter wing but it is also 50 mph or so
>faster.
Actually you can caught the power back and fly it slower. THe cruise speed is
230 versus 200+ for the RV8. THats only 30 mph difference.
The original person that asked about flying IFR
>does not even have a PPL yet he said he was working on it.
>My opinion is that a low time pilot and high perfomance
>airplane flying IFR is not a good combination.
I never said it was. If i said that please show me. All I said was that the
f1 rocket was better as a IFR platform then the rv series.
Chris Wilcox
F1 rocket 000
>
>
>
>
>
Dave Hyde
> All I said was that the f1 rocket was better as a IFR
> platform then the rv series.
You said it was a better IFR platform and it was more stable. I'd like
to read this article you keep referring to. Who wrote it and where was
it published?
Dave 'I say again' Hyde
na...@brick.net
Ben Sego
> report you could provide the news group? Because, if you don't, it sounds as
> if you are close to liable? Here's a guy, trying to get a company off the
I think you're liable to mean libel. Not that I think you're liable for errors
in hastily prepared usenet post, but it seemed worth correcting.
Ben 'ever helpful' Sego
Ben Sego
> Just cause you and Mark dont get along is no reason to infer he did something
> dishonest.
There must be some reason for our Jerry Springer to infer it, since that action
takes place within his own head. There might, however, be no reason for him to
_imply_ it. That might be what you meant.
Ben 'helping us all "jus' get along"' Sego
Jerry Springer
Watch out Dave you well be accused of "grilling him"
The only reference I can find to that is on the Rocket list
and it is a qoute from Mark to someone on the list. There is
an article on Marks web page written for SA I think and all it says
is how well the Rocket compares to the RV's :)
Jerry
Pete
I'll have to see how much if any extra coin I have at the time.... maybe in
a couple of years the toys will have become somewhat cheaper (?).
Cheers!
Pete
"El Roto" <gopackN...@sprintmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:1fb5acfe...@usw-ex0104-028.remarq.com...
CW9371
>Have you talked to JH? If not then you shut up ok.
>
Yes i have talked to jh and I almost bought a harmon rocket but john had no
interest in a qb
>And once again I well ask who wrote it and were is it written so
>I can read it? Where is the grilling in asking about an article
>you said had the explanation?
And how many times do i have to say i read and it and i passed on it to a
friend. I no longer have it.
>Well I fly my RV-6 at 180 thats 50 mph difference.
>>
RV 4or 8 is a direct comparison to a rocket a rv 6 isnt. Also the person in
question asked about a Rv8
CW9371
>to read this article you keep referring to. Who wrote it and where was
>it published?
I dont have it anymore. There was no reason for me to keep it. How many times
do i have to say I no longer pocess the article. I do remember that the
aircraft in question was mark fredricks rocket. I am sure he can tell you who
wrote and probaby provide you with a copy of it.
Kevin O'Brien
<cap...@nospam.harbornet.com> wrote:
> BOb..............
>
> Being a wood airplane driver, I hate to admit that I have a friend who
> built
> a (sob) RV-4 - which has an autopilot. However, the aileron stick force
> is
> so light that the autopilot has petit mall seizures trying to maintain
> straight & level. He has been working with the autopilot maker for over
> six
> months trying to sedate the little sucker.
>
> Fly it by hand in hard IFR? BWAHAHAHA
>
Stick force is adjustable to a degree, as is stability, again to a
degree, in the construction process... the 'default' for RVs has been
the light, responsive forces you describe.
Few sport aeroplanes are fun to fly in nasty IMC. Come to think of it
nasty IMC isn't much fun to fly in, full stop.
A lot of people want a plane to be 'all possible things' which is not
possible! There's a bookshelf full of reasons an Extra doesn't look like
a Super Cub. Yes you can set up a plane for sport acro and for IFR
operations, but it will necessarily be compromised in one or both of
those functions.
The RV series is fairly close to the balanced ideal. They are biased
towards the sport end, while most certified a/c that you think of as
cloud-busters are strongly biased towards stability.
cheers
-=K=-
Jerry Springer
>
> >
> >Have you talked to JH? If not then you shut up ok.
> >
>
> Yes i have talked to jh and I almost bought a harmon rocket but john had no
> interest in a qb
I WAS REFEREING TO THE SITUATION BETWEEN HIM AND MARK.
> >And once again I well ask who wrote it and were is it written so
> >I can read it? Where is the grilling in asking about an article
> >you said had the explanation?
>
> And how many times do i have to say i read and it and i passed on it to a
> friend. I no longer have it.
>
> >Well I fly my RV-6 at 180 thats 50 mph difference.
> >>
>
> RV 4or 8 is a direct comparison to a rocket a rv 6 isnt. Also the person in
> question asked about a Rv8
Following is the post the person posted about flying IFR
don't see RV-8 in the text.
***begin text****
He doesn't wany ANY of his kits flying in bad weather or just that
particular
plane? I'm still working on my PP-ASEL but I have an eye on owning my
own plane
and a kitplane looks like a very cost effective way to do it. I
definitely
intend to get IFR rated so I'm going to want an IFR equipped plane. If
IFR in
an RV is discouraged, that could put it out of the running.
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
***end text****
Lets agree to disagree on this one Chris, while I have talked
to John Harmon about the agreement made between him and Mark
I have no business talking about it in a public forum. I apologize,
my personal feeling about Mark should not enter into weather
an airplane is a good IFR platform or not.
I well make this statement for Tracy Reed who asked the question
about IFR.
Any high performance custom built aircraft is not a good
platform for IFR for any low time pilot. IMNSHO.
Jerry
Rich Shankland
imply that the RV-series fall short of performing their intended mission
because they don't offer C-17 stability. :^)
However your statement that, "The RV series is fairly close to the balanced
ideal" is dependent on one's "ideal". Certainly they are economical,
reasonably good looking (except for that Hershey bar wing), well designed,
fast, slow, somewhat aerobatic, and easy to build. But, since we are
responding to the question of the usefulness of an RV as an instrument
platform for a low time pilot, it is my opinion that it would be foolish
consider such a use.
Low time pilots most always become high time pilots as long as the number of
trials exceed the number of errors by one. (Lord knows I've been lucky once
or thrice!) I just would hate to see a low-timer jump in the deep end of the
pool with a ducky life ring that _wants_ to do a aileron roll.
Rich
Kevin O'Brien <ke...@useorganisationasadomainname.com> wrote in message
news:kevin-71C7F0.15260112052000@[205.252.14.134]...
Dave Hyde
> Stick force is adjustable to a degree, as is stability, again to a
> degree, in the construction process...
Adjusting stick force is easy in RV's - just change the stick length and
accept all the attendant problems, like smaller deflections with larger
forces and vice versa. What do you have in mind when you mean stability
is adjustable? I can think of a few relatively easy ways to get a
slight increase in longitudinal stability, but at the cost of other
problems. Lateral-directional stability is a whole 'nuther kettle of
fish.
Dave 'derivatives' Hyde
na...@brick.net
CW9371
>about IFR.
>Any high performance custom built aircraft is not a good
>platform for IFR for any low time pilot. IMNSHO.
>
I agree with u
chris
Dave Gregory
mean that it was a conservative approach to employee safety so if a plane is
not IFR equiped it will not be flying in IFR conditions.
Tracy R Reed <tr...@freeside.ultraviolet.org> wrote in message
news:slrn8hjq9k...@freeside.ultraviolet.org...
> Dave Gregory <dave_g...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I was at a fly in last summer and asked the Van's representative about
the
> >instruments in the RV 8 he was flying and he said Van was against them
> >putting instruments in because he didn't want them flying in bad weather.
>
> He doesn't wany ANY of his kits flying in bad weather or just that
particular
> plane? I'm still working on my PP-ASEL but I have an eye on owning my own
plane
> and a kitplane looks like a very cost effective way to do it. I definitely
> intend to get IFR rated so I'm going to want an IFR equipped plane. If IFR
in
> an RV is discouraged, that could put it out of the running.
>
> --
> Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
> If Microsoft built cars instead of software, the airbag system would say
> "Are you sure?" before going off.
Kevin O'Brien
Yeah, I was really thinking of longitudinal stability. Brute force
approach: Move CG forward, more stability. Move it aft, less.
Couldn't agree more about 'other problems'. A forward CG affects
everything. While it makes stalls harder to come by and easier to
recover from (in extreme cases you might find a true stall impossible
because you have insufficient elevator authority) it also makes cruise
flight less efficient, and that elevator authority problem can suck some
of the safety out of landings a couple or three dfferent ways...
conversely the further aft the CD is the more likely the a/c is to
diverge from the path and the more difficult to recover from departure
from controlled flight. You will frequently hear about an a/c at aft CG
that on stall or spin recovery abruptly departed in the opposite
direction. This is why the caution (mentioned in another thread) in the
P-51 -20 enjoining spins with fuel in the fuselage tank (which produces
an aft CG condition).
People can check this out themselves. A lot of common GA aeroplanes are
easy to snug up to the ends of the CG envelope. Both the C-150 and the
PA-32 series can be right on the edge with a couple of beefy pilots and
reduced fuel -- many PA-32s actually will be outside the envelope. By
and large the forward CG limit is set in flight testing by the need for
enough elevator authority to stall at landing, the aft one by the amount
of instability that can be handled by the average pilot (remember, all
pilots are above average, so when compared to other pilots we're just
average [grin]).
Now, stick force. One of the problems with changing stick force by
changing the length of the stick is that you may only want to change the
forces in one axis, and taking a hatchet to the stick changes both. You
could also change the stick force in a specific direction by changing
the mechanical advantage of the linkage to those specific controls. I'm
not familiar with the mechanical design of the RV, but if it's pushrods
and bellcranks you can fabricate a new bellcrank. If it's small-Cessna
style cables, you can move the attachment point on the stick nearer or
further in relation to the stick's fulcrum. If this were done right it
would change your proportional deflection but need not alter your
ultimate deflection, right?
Finally, there are very few things anywhere in aircraft design where one
can alter ANY discrete parameter without trading something off. There's
never a free lunch, just sometimes a tab you don't mind paying.
cheers
-=K=-
'Little knowledge. Dangerous thing.'
Ed
because you no longer are tempted to fly into IMC, or are you safer with the
gyros in case you accidentally go into IMC despite your best efforts to
avoid it?
With the speed and range of the RV series, I'd lean towards the latter.
Dave Gregory <dave_g...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zydT4.116$754....@news.uswest.net...
Dave Hyde
> Yeah, I was really thinking of longitudinal stability. Brute force
> approach: Move CG forward, more stability. Move it aft, less.
Unfortunately this is not the axis I hear most people referring to when
they say RV's are not ideal for IFR.
[snip control mod list]
And after all that, changing control characteristics does zip for
stability, and little for workload in IMC.
Dave 'open loop' Hyde
na...@brick.net
Brian Rauchfuss - PCD
Pete <pet...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Brian,
>
>As a potential Europa builder, I'd be interested to know how stable the
>europa is as an IFR platform (being small, light, with a relatively light
>wing loading).
In my test flight I was pleased with how stable it was - it went the direction
I pointed it without wandering all over the sky, and I could bump the stick
without it deciding to do a spiral dive. At the same time it did what I
wanted (I was too chicken to do a roll, but going to >60 degrees was nice and
fast) with appropriate levels of stick force. I realize that a test like
this is not quite the same as being in IMC but I think I would be confident
that I could fold a map and still be stable when I look up.
Brian
Pete
-Pete
"Brian Rauchfuss - PCD" <brau...@fm.intel.com> wrote in message
news:8fpuln$b...@news.or.intel.com...
Ed Wischmeyer
> >europa is as an IFR platform (being small, light, with a relatively light
> >wing loading).
>
> In my test flight I was pleased with how stable it was - it went the direction
> I pointed it without wandering all over the sky, and I could bump the stick
> without it deciding to do a spiral dive.
Testing in smooth air is not enough -- you also want to test in
turbulence, for there are different lessons to be learned. For example,
one popular very light aircraft in continuous light turbulence
demonstrated a very fast Dutch roll mode that neither I nor the demo
pilot could corral. Other planes may react to turbulence by assuming
bank angles much larger than you would see in a spam can.
BTW, I really like the Europa, and think that it may be acceptable for
IFR as well as light aerobatics. Haven't tried it under the hood in
turbulence, though...
Ed Wischmeyer
PS. Few glass airplanes change anything after the molds are made. The
Europa is the only plane I know of in which the size of the vertical
tail was *reduced* on the basis of flight testing.
--
NOTE: 5% of messages sent to me don't make it, so use a return receipt to
insure delivery. The phone company system drops packets.
- - - - - - - -
Ed Wischmeyer
Web page: http://members.aa.net/~edwisch
Email: edw...@aa.net