RV-4 Questions
William Murrish
in a Pitts. I am hooked. I would love to purchase a S-2A or
S-2B, but just don't see it happening due to the cost. I
have been considering building a Vans RV-4. I was wondering
what kind of experiences people in the news group may have
had building one. Is it worth the time and money? Also, how
would you rate its aerobatic capabilities. Would love to
hear any feedback to help make my decision.
Blue Skies Below,
Bill Murrish
Frank van der Hulst
Bill,
I'm building a far superior aircraft, the RV-6 :-)
From what I understand, RV's aren't very good for competition style
aerobatics. The problem is that they're not draggy enough... point them
downward and they accelerate quickly towards Vne. Having said that, I've
read somewhere about an RV-4 which was fairly successfully modified for
competition aerobatics. If you really want to get into acro, perhaps
look at an Acrosport, or maybe build your own Pitts?
Another comment you may come across -- "If you want to fly, buy". The
motivation to complete a longterm project must come from enjoying the
building process. If you don't enjoy it, its a *long* tunnel before you
get to fly. Of course, my end motivation is to get a plane to fly...
however, I've come to enjoy building in its own right.
It probably won't be much cheaper to build than to buy second-hand...
the big-ticket items (engine, avionics) can't be 'built' anyway. It's
certainly cheaper to buy if you value your time at more than a few
dollars per hour.
Whether its worth the time and money -- only you can answer that. And
then only *after* you've completed the project. It has been worth the
time and money to many RV owners. I suspect that there's probably at
least as many who've given up and sold part-completed kits.
If you want more information on RVs, you should subscribe to the RV-list
at http://www.matronics.com -- be aware that the lists are fairly
active, running to up to 100 messages per day.
HTH,
Frank.
KBoatri144
> I would love to purchase a S-2A or
>S-2B, but just don't see it happening due to the cost. I
>have been considering building a Vans RV-4.
Like Frank said, the RV-4 really isn't a good aircraft for serious aerobatics.
Also, depending on many factors (your weight, the plane's empty weight, etc),
you may have a hard time keeping under the recommended aerobatic weight with
two on board.
Something else to consider is that Van's is de-emphasizing the RV-4, and is
pushing the RV-8. This has had a negative impact on the value of RV-4's in the
marketplace, so you might pick one up at a good price.
If you're gonna build a tandem RV, you'll get far better resale value going
with an RV-8. Also, the RV-8 kit is far superior to the RV-4 kit, and will be
much easier to build.
Just a few of many factors to consider...
Kyle Boatright
S O BOb
>I am a private pilot and have been doing aerobatics training
>S-2B, but just don't see it happening due to the cost. I
>what kind of experiences people in the news group may have
>had building one. Is it worth the time and money? Also, how
>would you rate its aerobatic capabilities. Would love to
>hear any feedback to help make my decision.
>
>
>Bill Murrish
As an observer.....
RV's are in no measure aerobatic substitutes for Pitts S-2 type aircraft.
PERIOD.
Sadly, biplanes are no longer the hot ticket in IAC competition.
PERIOD.
RV3 BOb - PERIOD - U. <g>
Mike Ayling
time work to finish! Of course now, there have been many improvements to the
kit to speed up the building process...I elected to buy rather than build
for the simple reason that I didn't want to wait years to fly it and it is
by far the cheaper option (I got it for $70, 000 CDN and it cost him
$100,000 to build!). The drawback to this is you get someone else's dream
airplane, rather than a masterpiece of your own construction...There aren't
a lot of choices out there in the used homebuilt market, relatively
speaking. Once you decide what your requirements are, there will probably
only be half a dozen RVs that qualify. So inevitably, you'll end up having
to settle for something which costs an arm and a leg and isn't EXACTLY what
you want.
If I had the choice now, I'd definitely buy the RV8, although there are,
naturally, very few on the used market. The -4 is far too limited in CG and
gross weight. The -4 I bought has a 1078 lb empty weight. With myself (170
lbs) and full fuel, I'm only 100 lbs short of gross weight! So, unless
you're married to a Romanian gymnast, expect yourself and your passenger to
have to make lots of pee breaks on those long cross-countries (since you
can't have full fuel and be legal).
Aerobatic-wise...I'm a military and former Snowbird air display pilot, so I
can honestly say that you won't find a more pleasing acro airplane out
there. It's an excellent beginner's airplane as it is so agile, yet honest
and forgiving - a rare thing indeed and a testament to the designer. But,
like Frank said, it was never designed for competition aeros and any
inverted systems will only add weight. It's more of a Sunday afternoon,
gentleman's aerobat :-)
If it's serious aeros you seek, buy a S2A - it won't be any more than a
decent RV4. If you want to build, don't even consider the -4, go with
the -8.
Just an opinion :-) Good luck!
Mike
William Murrish <bmur...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:3A11F44A...@qwest.net...
CW9371
>decent RV4. If you want to build, don't even consider the -4, go with
>the -8.
>
>Just an opinion :-) Good luck!
>
one other option if you like the RV series is the F1 rocket.
www.teamrocketaircraft.com. THere is one used in an aerobatics show. Ken
Fowler is the pilot. There is a link to his site. However its not designed
for unlimited areo. Can do sportsmans just fine. ALso doesnt have a cg prob
and is designed for a IO 540
S O BOb
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is NOT in the RV series as far as the Van/factory is concerned.
The heavier F1 can carry it's extra weight because of it's CLIPPED RV-4 wing....
However, the weight of the IO 540 engine, gear, prop, stretched fuselage, etc.
does not a better aerobatic plane make.
One could get a BETTER aerobatic compromise by clipping a STOCK RV-4's wing.
I better quit this nonsense before someone thinks I'm related to Larry Xlax. <g>
BOb U.
highflyer
>
> I am a private pilot and have been doing aerobatics training
> in a Pitts. I am hooked. I would love to purchase a S-2A or
> S-2B, but just don't see it happening due to the cost. I
> have been considering building a Vans RV-4. I was wondering
> what kind of experiences people in the news group may have
> had building one. Is it worth the time and money? Also, how
> would you rate its aerobatic capabilities. Would love to
> hear any feedback to help make my decision.
>
The Pitts is a great uncompromising aerobatic mount.
The RV-4 is a wonderful airplane. It is great fun to fly. It will
do "gentleman's" aerobatics. For unlimited aerobatics it is not a
good choice. It is sufficiently clean to picks up speed quickly
when the nose is down. It can be easily overstressed if you allow
it to get going too fast.
If you want something comparable to a Pitts S-2 there are some out
there. The Skybolt was designed because Curtis would not sell LaMar
Steen the plans for the two place Pitts because he was planning on
certifying it. A Skybolt would be an excellent choice. Another
airplane that can be found relatively reasonably with first rate
aerobatic capabilities is the Marquardt Charger. I am not sure
which I would prefer. Also worth consideration is the Acroduster II.
Avoid the Acrosport, which has some inherant limitations that are
not immediately obvious. This is not to denigrate the airplane. It
is only that the design doesn't provide the sharp stall characteristic
required to do the stall maneuvers cleanly.
Most of the hard head knocking aerobatic monoplanes make the two place
Pitts look inexpensive!
I have seen some excellent examples of the Skybolt, the Charger, and
the Acroduster between thirty and forty thousand bucks. Not a bad
price for that category of performance. Unless you are really into
vertical maneuvers avoid the ones with the big engines. The increased
weight cuts into other areas of performance. All of the biplanes I
suggested were designed around the four cylinder Lycoming and that
engine gives a good compromise between flying characteristics and
performance. Just my opinion, mind you.
--
HighFlyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Kevin O'Brien
>
>I am a private pilot and have been doing aerobatics training
>in a Pitts. I am hooked. I would love to purchase a S-2A or
>S-2B, but just don't see it happening due to the cost.
Hi Bill
Thinking outside the box a bit, how about an S-1? Single seater Pittses can be
had for far less than their two seater brethren. And, for that matter, for less
than you would spend to build or even to buy an RV-4.
How important is that second seat to you? How much of your flying will be acro
(which is usually done alone, except during instruction, after all) and how much
$100burger-chasing (which is best enjoyed with one or more companions).
And... if most of your flying will be going places rather than doing acro...
will you be able to rent the Pitts solo?
cheers
-=K=-
Rule #2: The Earth always counts as big.
Glen
William Murrish wrote:
> I am a private pilot and have been doing aerobatics training
> in a Pitts. I am hooked. I would love to purchase a S-2A or
> S-2B, but just don't see it happening due to the cost. I
> have been considering building a Vans RV-4. I was wondering
> what kind of experiences people in the news group may have
> had building one. Is it worth the time and money? Also, how
> would you rate its aerobatic capabilities. Would love to
> hear any feedback to help make my decision.
>
> Blue Skies Below,
>
> Bill Murrish
One thing that seems pretty important to me is stalled performance, and
I've gotten the impression from one RV'er that they don't snap or do it
very reluctantly. It seems to me that anyone can do high speed
aerobatics, it's the inverted spins, loms etc. that show real
proficiency. Van does a pretty impressive routine though, I saw him do
some in an RV-4, no low speed stuff if I remember right. A Pitts S1C can
be gotten pretty cheap relative to a factory Pitts, not the best Pitts
but better than an RV maybe?
Glen
William Murrish
others onto aerobatics. Not sure about renting a Pitts solo, heard it was taboo so
that's why I want to build something that has 2 seats and is aerobatic. After
reading all the responses I have gotten I am seriously thinking of ditching the
ideas of a RV-4. The RV-8 sounds more feasible. I really need to fly one to make my
decision. I recently joined the EAA and the IAC. I am looking to join the local
chapter here in the Colorado Springs area. Thanks for your suggestion.
Kevin O'Brien wrote:
> In article <3A11F44A...@qwest.net>, William says...
> >
> >I am a private pilot and have been doing aerobatics training
> >in a Pitts. I am hooked. I would love to purchase a S-2A or
> >S-2B, but just don't see it happening due to the cost.
>
Dave Hyde
> one other option if you like the RV series is the F1 rocket.
Indeed. Why not ask the designer (Dick Vangrunsven) about
the 'additional features' the Rocket offers. Van's been
pretty free with his opinion in the past.
Dave 'stand well clear' Hyde
na...@brick.net
MNeume3675
crisper flying airplane. But everyone is right, the 8 kit is more advanced and
easier and the resale will be better. I'm building a 6 and plan on doing mild
aerobatics. The big problem I here with RV's and serious aerobatics is they
gain speed rapidly with the nose pointed down and you can quickly go over Vne
if your not careful!
Mike
CW9371
>It is NOT in the RV series as far as the Van/factory is concerned.
I ment to say similair construction, design, etc, yada yada yada. I talked to
a lot of the Van's guys at EAA and they all had nice things to say about the
F1. Its basically the step up from the 8 and Van doenst seem to want to go
there and why should he since its a very limited market compared the the 8 and
9.
>
>The heavier F1 can carry it's extra weight because of it's CLIPPED RV-4
>wing....
Actually the wing is not a Clipped RV 4 wing. Its very smiliar, but it is also
very different. There are also a lot of other differences.
>However, the weight of the IO 540 engine, gear, prop, stretched fuselage,
>etc.
>does not a better aerobatic plane make.
I only said it was another option and probably a better option then the 4 since
it doesnt have the CG problem of the 4. Also i mentioned the 540 since some
people like the vertical dimension the rocket adds. A 5000 fpm climb rate is
very impressive.
Well the prop on my should be the same weight as I am using a MT prop. My gear
should be lighter as its titanium.
>
>One could get a BETTER aerobatic compromise by clipping a STOCK RV-4's wing.
How do you figger. It would still have the CG problem of the 4. Or maybe I am
missing something here.
>I better quit this nonsense before someone thinks I'm related to Larry Xlax.
><g>
>
>
>BOb U.
>
But regards Rv or F1 rocket there still a great plane regardless of which way
you go.
chris
F1 builder
kit 000
CW9371
>the 'additional features' the Rocket offers. Van's been
>pretty free with his opinion in the past.
Van didn't design the F1 rocket. Or did you mean to say you should ask Van
about the F1 compared to the RV's.
There all good planes. Van and the RV workers say good things about the rocket
or atleast they did in oshkosh when i talked to them and Mark Fredricks the
designer of the F1 says good things about them.
S O BOb
<ke...@useorganisationasdomainname.com> wrote:
>In article <3A11F44A...@qwest.net>, William says...
>>
>>I am a private pilot and have been doing aerobatics training
>>in a Pitts. I am hooked. I would love to purchase a S-2A or
>>S-2B, but just don't see it happening due to the cost.
>
>Hi Bill
>
>Thinking outside the box a bit, how about an S-1? Single seater Pittses can be
>had for far less than their two seater brethren. And, for that matter, for less
>than you would spend to build or even to buy an RV-4.
>
>How important is that second seat to you? How much of your flying will be acro
>(which is usually done alone, except during instruction, after all) and how much
>$100burger-chasing (which is best enjoyed with one or more companions).
>
>And... if most of your flying will be going places rather than doing acro...
>will you be able to rent the Pitts solo?
>
>cheers
>
>-=K=-
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If Bill is anything like my son....
He will NOT settle for an S1, so I never mentioned it in my other post.
Gotta be a factory S-2X or nuthin' fer him.
He has no interest in single place aircraft.
PERIOD.
Hates flying alone, although like you say...
except for dual instruction a single place Pitt's is IDEAL if you have a beer
pocketbook and champagne taste and luv to fly green side up.
Strangely, it is NOT a compromise that some folks can live with.
S_O_B
Sweet ol' Bob U..
S O BOb
>>
>>It is NOT in the RV series as far as the Van/factory is concerned.
>
>I ment to say similair construction, design, etc, yada yada yada. I talked to
>a lot of the Van's guys at EAA and they all had nice things to say about the
>F1. Its basically the step up from the 8 and Van doenst seem to want to go
>there and why should he since its a very limited market compared the the 8 and
>9.
Since a Rocket is generated from an RV-4 kit, it is hardly a STEP UP from an
RV-8. If the Rocket was created from an RV-8, you might be on to something.
No matter, the mission of a ROCKET has nothing in common with any factory RV.
>>
>>The heavier F1 can carry it's extra weight because of it's CLIPPED RV-4
>>wing....
>
>Actually the wing is not a Clipped RV 4 wing. Its very smiliar, but it is also
>very different. There are also a lot of other differences.
The differences are mostly minor, other than beefing up for the added weight.
>>However, the weight of the IO 540 engine, gear, prop, stretched fuselage,
>>etc.
>>does not a better aerobatic plane make.
>
>
>I only said it was another option and probably a better option then the 4 since
>it doesnt have the CG problem of the 4. Also i mentioned the 540 since some
>people like the vertical dimension the rocket adds. A 5000 fpm climb rate is
>very impressive.
>Well the prop on my should be the same weight as I am using a MT prop. My gear
>should be lighter as its titanium.
The Rocket is all about vertical climb.
Everything else is compromised for it, in my book.
>>
>>One could get a BETTER aerobatic compromise by clipping a STOCK RV-4's wing.
>
>How do you figger. It would still have the CG problem of the 4. Or maybe I am
>missing something here.
Forgetting the CG bit for the moment....
Does a Rocket's aerobatic weight allow for two occupants?
With how much fuel?
How many G's +/-?
>
>But regards Rv or F1 rocket there still a great plane regardless of which way
>you go.
>
>chris
>F1 builder
>kit 000
Great planes, yes.....
Within the compromises of their design limits and missions.
For me, everything after the RV-3 series, is heading downhill.
Since this is what I own, what else would I say...
Especially since it is the truth?
To take care of the ONE seat problem, I have TWO.
Flying formation gives a passenger something to do.
S_O_B
Sweet Ol' Bob U.
Jerry Springer
>
> >Since a Rocket is generated from an RV-4 kit, it is hardly a STEP UP from an
> >RV-8. If the Rocket was created from an RV-8, you might be on to something.
> >No matter, the mission of a ROCKET has nothing in common with any factory RV.
>
> its on.
>
> chris
Yea SURE it is.
CW9371
its on. No RV parts are used at all. I think your thinking of the Harmon
Rocket.
It is a step up performancewise from the 8 and most F1 builders wanted a rv
type aircraft with more speed.
>The differences are mostly minor, other than beefing up for the added weight.
Actually the fueslage is different, the airfoil is different. The tanks are
bigger. The aircraft is longer and wider. THe skins are thicker for the extra
speed. The cg is different to account for the weight of the IO-540. Also
there is a much wider cg range then the rv4 or harmon rocket allow.
>The Rocket is all about vertical climb.
>Everything else is compromised for it, in my book.
>
why do you say that. Have you flown a F1. The rocket gives excellent vertical
climb and straight line speed. I havent flown in a 8 so i cant compare it to
that, but was similair to the 4 and 6 i was in. Handlinng is similair but
different. I like the rocket over the Rv series. My opinion and the opnion of
the rest of the people building them. You need to remember that the F1 rocket
was created by Mark Fredrick, who custom build, RV's and Harmon rockets for
people. He asked everyone what they liked and disliked and the F1 was the
result. Mark is also the gentleman who build and designed Bruce Bohannons
Exxon flying tigger climb plane. It was the last plane he build before he
started Team Rocket aircraft and the F1 rocket.
>
>Forgetting the CG bit for the moment....
>Does a Rocket's aerobatic weight allow for two occupants?
>With how much fuel?
>How many G's +/-?
>
Yes, it does. I of the red baron pizza pilots took it up with one of Marks
employees and flew his entire performance. He also did all the things the
rocket can do with a passeneger. I beleive the pilot was tom womack, not sure
on spelling.
published g rating is +6. -3 with ultimate of +9, -6. However testing shows a
much higher level, that will not be released so some idiot doesnt try to go out
and tries it and his building skills were not up to snuff and he dies.
>For me, everything after the RV-3 series, is heading downhill.
>Since this is what I own, what else would I say...
>Especially since it is the truth?
Well if you want something like that talk to Mark. Hes working on the idea and
well he did a damn fine job on Bruce Bohannans plane. However you have to
admit that it not feasable from the cost stand point to build a single seat
plane anymore.
chris
CW9371
>
>
ok jerry, just leave it alone.
chris
Jerry Springer
Or else what?
jerry
Mike Ayling
Unfortunately, once again a useful and interesting thread degrades into a
silly little bun fight...
Don't be discouraged Chris, the rest of us ARE here to learn and exchange
informed opinions.
Keep smilin :-)
Mike
Jerry Springer <jsf...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:3A152463...@teleport.com...
> Or else what?
>
> jerry
S O BOb
>published g rating is +6. -3 with ultimate of +9, -6. However testing shows a
>much higher level, that will not be released so some idiot doesnt try to go out
>and tries it and his building skills were not up to snuff and he dies.
>
Again, at what weight?
As for idiots, they either don't read or comprehend very much, so....
Published figures are meaningless to these wing remover jockies.
Aside from this, excess G's are many times traced to blown maneuvers.
Publishing REAL specs or understated phoney ones affect the outcome very little
where these mental midgets are concerned... unless you build to 12 G's or more..
>>For me, everything after the RV-3 series, is heading downhill.
>>Since this is what I own, what else would I say...
>>Especially since it is the truth?
>
>Well if you want something like that talk to Mark. Hes working on the idea and
>well he did a damn fine job on Bruce Bohannans plane. However you have to
>admit that it not feasable from the cost stand point to build a single seat
>plane anymore.
>
>chris
Van is still producing the RV-3.
No need to look elsewhere for a reinvented wheel.
It is enuff of a niche machine as is.....
without further narrowing the niche into a single seat F1at $$$$$$$$$$.
CS props, IO-360's have already been shoehorned into this elegant little bird...
destroying the intent of one of the most successful designers in the business.
Beefing up any well executed and successful design to take on more horsepower
than the original designer intended, is of DIMINISHING RETURNS.
However, there will always those adherents that think... MORE IS BETTER.
Nothing will dissuade them.... as is the case already being observed.
With that, I drop out of this intractable situation.
S_O_B
Sweet ol' Bob
CW9371
>> >
>> > chris
>>
>> Or else what?
>>
>> jerry
>
Jerry we all know you have a personal bias again Team Rocket for whatever
reason and comments like "or else what" make you look like a spoiled little
child who cant have there own way.
chris wilcox
F1 rocket kit 000
Jerry Springer
When some one makes a deal and breaks it, yes that makes me a little
biased.
Jerry
CW9371
>biased.
>
>Jerry
But then again you don't even know the whole story.
Kevin O'Brien
>
<sniiiip>
>He has no interest in single place aircraft.
>PERIOD.
>Hates flying alone, although like you say...
>Strangely, it is NOT a compromise that some folks can live with.
Don't think it's all that strange, Bob. Some folks can hang on to womenfolk and
all. And it's true that most people enjoy company.
I have always thought that I was *very* weird for being rather self-contained. I
have friends and enjoy them, but I am also perfectly content by myself without
seeing or speaking to another human for three months (although going that long
without world news, and email or usenet is a bear).
But that's unusual -- and that's why there's a bigger delta between single and
two seat plane costs than might otherwise be justified. The normal humans want
to take someone along. Most of the humans I would take along would rather not
have their blue over green paradigm shattered, but they WOULD like a little
comfort and a secure feeling, so the extra $$$ for the new 172 rental are worth
it. When you want an acro two-seater, your options really thin out. Even many
2-seat acro homebuilts are only acrobatic at a weight which leaves one seat
empty :(
Along with the used Pitts, look at the older Zlins as well. Affordable, very
stylish, more practical all-round sportplanes than a Pitts. (More costly
maintenance too). Yet as much fun for the eager passenger while being less
intimidating for the diffident passenger. Just watch the certificates on any of
these aeroplanes, if they are exp-ehib read the operating limitations and make
sure you can live with them.
S O BOb
<ke...@useorganisationasdomainname.com> wrote:
>>He has no interest in single place aircraft.
>>PERIOD.
>>Hates flying alone, although like you say...
><snip>
>>Strangely, it is NOT a compromise that some folks can live with.
>
>Don't think it's all that strange, Bob. Some folks can hang on to womenfolk and
>all. And it's true that most people enjoy company.
>
>-=K=-
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hanging on to my share of womenfolk never was a problem.....
filling empty airplane seats for 40+ years, was.
The wife could never could find joy in flying even before we were married.
THAT should have been a tip off, eh? <g>
Oh well.
Do not statistics bear out...
That the 2nd seat is very little filled?
The 'STRANG'E to which I was alluding...
is how unwilling some folks are to COMPRIMISE.
It goes something like this for me....
1. I want to do aerobatics REAL BAD.
2. I want a 2 place Pitts aerobatic plane.
3. I can't afford a 2 place Pitts.
4. I CAN afford a 1 place Pitts.
5. Fuck it.
P.S.
My wife could not be happy with a new blue Rolls-Royce for $1000,
if her heart was set on a new red one that would cost $100,000.
Evidently, I am missing something and is a clue to my current bachelorhood.
P.P.S. Please don't explain how I could get a repaint for $xxx, etc.
BOb U.
Ed Sullivan
>The 'STRANG'E to which I was alluding...
>is how unwilling some folks are to COMPRIMISE.
>
>It goes something like this for me....
>
>1. I want to do aerobatics REAL BAD.
>2. I want a 2 place Pitts aerobatic plane.
>3. I can't afford a 2 place Pitts.
>4. I CAN afford a 1 place Pitts.
>5. Fuck it.
>
>P.S.
>My wife could not be happy with a new blue Rolls-Royce for $1000,
>if her heart was set on a new red one that would cost $100,000.
>Evidently, I am missing something and is a clue to my current bachelorhood.
>
>P.P.S. Please don't explain how I could get a repaint for $xxx, etc.
>
>
>BOb U.
No. 1 is real easy!
EBS
S O BOb
>>ok jerry, just leave it alone.
>>> >
>>> > chris
>>>
>>> Or else what?
>>>
>>> jerry
>>
>
>Jerry we all know you have a personal bias again Team Rocket for whatever
>reason and comments like "or else what" make you look like a spoiled little
>child who cant have there own way.
>
>chris wilcox
>F1 rocket kit 000
Really?
The inflammatory line and tone of...
"ok jerry, just leave it alone"
generatess it's own set of image problems for the poster.
AND....
Anybody that buys 'kit 000' from any source and advertises it to the world....
doesn't automatically go to the head of the class, either.
BOb U.
CW9371
>Anybody that buys 'kit 000' from any source and advertises it to the
>world....
>doesn't automatically go to the head of the class, either.
>
>
>BOb U.
Ok, so whats the big deal with buying the prototype. Its up to the same
standards as the kits they are shipping. Actually in some respects its much
better as it was intended to be the demostration aircraft for the company.
However one of the 2 owners left the company. The one who left owned my kit
and I bought it from him. Therefore its kit 000. Also then again whats
different about buying kit 1 or 2 or 3 and so on then. Everything has to
start somewere.
In regards to Jerry Springer there is a personal bias against the owner of team
rocket. Anytime team rocket is mentioned he chimes in on the negative. If you
don't like the owner fine be that as it may, but were discusing if the plane
will meet certain crtieria here and not that the owner is a great guy or an
asshole.
Chris Wilcox
F1 kit 000
Jerry Springer
I would hope that the kits are better than the display they had
at Sun & Fun a few years ago. As far as the owner I don't much
care for anyone that makes agreements then breaks them.
CW9371
>at Sun & Fun a few years ago. As far as the owner I don't much
>care for anyone that makes agreements then breaks them.
>
That was the protoype you saw that I know own that was completely redone. The
first kit number 1 was at Oshkosh last year. In regards to the agreement there
wasnt ever an agreement that was agreed to