hey bob
as a direct result of your enjoying the rv3 I bought myself a set of
plans.
if I have as much fun as you after it gets built, it's on your head!
:-) :-) :-)

Stealth pilot

Stealth Pilot wrote:

>
> hey this thing is a pocket rocket! this must be one of the most
> overlooked, best handling, high performance designs of all time.


Huh? Overlooked??? There are almost 6700 flying RVs worldwide.
Granted, not all of those are the RV-3 model, but most RVs would be
considered "pocket rockets"....

Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
> Bob, truely, if you ask vans they will sell you the plans to scratch
> build the RV3. the RV3B plans are $us120.
> yes the RV3 is available as a kitbuild with those lovely anodised
> parts. trouble is that anodising halves the fatigue life of the
> components. as I explained to vans I'd rather scratch build.

> Stealth Pilot

Yes, anodizing has a detrimental effect on fatigue life, but so does
corrosion. If you are sure that you will never have a corrosion problem
(the airplane is kept in a desert), the not anodizing is probably a good
way to go. However, if there is any reasonable chance of corrosion, I
would take my chances with anodizing.

https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/327/1/Goetz_Thesis_SP05.pdf

http://corrosion-doctors.org/Forms-fatigue/fatigue.htm

In article >,
says...
>
> I want it as my across australia transit machine. the performance it
> gets out of an O-235 means that I can fly from one side of australia
> to the other side in a long day's flying. I've been after a machine
> with this capability for something like 10 years now.
>
>

Not wanting to spoile a party but if you have spent allready 10 years on
finding the RV-3, how many will you need building one from plans? Sadly
nobody is getting younger and very few of us get fitter in the process.

If a 1-day-Oz-transit machine is wanted, me thinks you should buy a
airline-ticket.

Van's are great, but the sheer amount of work equates to minimum 5 years
if all goes well (a plan build even longer), a major investement while
risking your mariage (when SWMBO finds out the RV-3 is single-seater).
Never imagine that because you don't count your time, the plane will be
'cheap' to make.

If you want to build, build. If you want to fly, buy.

Due to the actual economical climat good RVs go for less they cost to
make. Even a trip to the US, finding one and the aventure of getting
into Oz becomes interesting but not yearconsuming. Staggering is the
number of RVs people worked on for 5-10 years, finally get it done and
only to sell within the first 100 Hr of flight without even covering
their investement.

Before your RV-3 will outlive a bought one on basis of fatique, you will
need to log quite some hours over quite some years.

But nonetheless: good luck and all the best!

Tom De Moor

On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 13:19:05 -0400, Voyager >
wrote:

>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>
>> Bob, truely, if you ask vans they will sell you the plans to scratch
>> build the RV3. the RV3B plans are $us120.
>> yes the RV3 is available as a kitbuild with those lovely anodised
>> parts. trouble is that anodising halves the fatigue life of the
>> components. as I explained to vans I'd rather scratch build.
>
>> Stealth Pilot
>
>Yes, anodizing has a detrimental effect on fatigue life, but so does
>corrosion. If you are sure that you will never have a corrosion problem
>(the airplane is kept in a desert), the not anodizing is probably a good
>way to go. However, if there is any reasonable chance of corrosion, I
>would take my chances with anodizing.
>
>https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/327/1/Goetz_Thesis_SP05.pdf
>
>http://corrosion-doctors.org/Forms-fatigue/fatigue.htm

alodining and paint for aviation longevity.

On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 21:38:41 +0200, Tom De Moor
> wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>>
>> I want it as my across australia transit machine. the performance it
>> gets out of an O-235 means that I can fly from one side of australia
>> to the other side in a long day's flying. I've been after a machine
>> with this capability for something like 10 years now.
>>
>>
>
>Not wanting to spoile a party but if you have spent allready 10 years on
>finding the RV-3, how many will you need building one from plans? Sadly
>nobody is getting younger and very few of us get fitter in the process.
>

gee your post is a load of rampant pessimism.

I've been looking for a fast aeroplane for 10 years. trouble is that
most have absolutely deplorable flying characteristics.
Barnyard Bob did truely cause me to look at it just recently and I had
to agree with him. the RV3 is a little gem.

>If a 1-day-Oz-transit machine is wanted, me thinks you should buy a
>airline-ticket.
>
>Van's are great, but the sheer amount of work equates to minimum 5 years
>if all goes well (a plan build even longer), a major investement while
>risking your mariage (when SWMBO finds out the RV-3 is single-seater).

who cares what the bloody wife thinks. I own a W8 Tailwind and in 10
years she has flown with me once.

>Never imagine that because you don't count your time, the plane will be
>'cheap' to make.
>
>If you want to build, build. If you want to fly, buy.
>
>Due to the actual economical climat good RVs go for less they cost to
>make. Even a trip to the US, finding one and the aventure of getting
>into Oz becomes interesting but not yearconsuming. Staggering is the
>number of RVs people worked on for 5-10 years, finally get it done and
>only to sell within the first 100 Hr of flight without even covering
>their investement.
>

blah blah blah. how many people have you turned off building over the
years? must be quite a few now.
sadly your advise, the commonly held opinions of many who dont fly, is
********. I fly as a way of life. ...as a bum private pilot.
In the workshop is a J1B Auster under restoration, a Druine D31
Turbulent under construction, and I've been after a tin aeroplane to
build. The RV3 has what I'm looking for.

seriously, you want to get a life, go flying and stop the pandering of
bull**** advise. get active and get airborne.

Stealth Pilot

In article >,
says...
>
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 21:38:41 +0200, Tom De Moor
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> says...
> >>
> >> I want it as my across australia transit machine. the performance it
> >> gets out of an O-235 means that I can fly from one side of australia
> >> to the other side in a long day's flying. I've been after a machine
> >> with this capability for something like 10 years now.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Not wanting to spoile a party but if you have spent allready 10 years on
> >finding the RV-3, how many will you need building one from plans? Sadly
> >nobody is getting younger and very few of us get fitter in the process.
> >
>
> gee your post is a load of rampant pessimism.

Sure... and how many thousands of projects are hiding in cellars or
posted on Fleebay? Or simply sold for scrap metal?

>
> I've been looking for a fast aeroplane for 10 years. trouble is that
> most have absolutely deplorable flying characteristics.

Psst : RV3 is around a fair bit longer.

> Barnyard Bob did truely cause me to look at it just recently and I had
> to agree with him. the RV3 is a little gem.
>

As there are others: Personal Cruiser is one of the more recent.


> >If a 1-day-Oz-transit machine is wanted, me thinks you should buy a
> >airline-ticket.
> >
> >Van's are great, but the sheer amount of work equates to minimum 5 years
> >if all goes well (a plan build even longer), a major investement while
> >risking your mariage (when SWMBO finds out the RV-3 is single-seater).
>
> who cares what the bloody wife thinks. I own a W8 Tailwind and in 10
> years she has flown with me once.
>
> >Never imagine that because you don't count your time, the plane will be
> >'cheap' to make.
> >
> >If you want to build, build. If you want to fly, buy.
> >
> >Due to the actual economical climat good RVs go for less they cost to
> >make. Even a trip to the US, finding one and the aventure of getting
> >into Oz becomes interesting but not yearconsuming. Staggering is the
> >number of RVs people worked on for 5-10 years, finally get it done and
> >only to sell within the first 100 Hr of flight without even covering
> >their investement.
> >
>
> blah blah blah. how many people have you turned off building over the
> years? must be quite a few now.

Not quite as much as there are projects 'on hold', 'under indefinite
construction', under 'lost interest', under 'I have to move house' or
'my wife says sell'.


> sadly your advise, the commonly held opinions of many who dont fly, is
> ********. I fly as a way of life. ...as a bum private pilot.
> In the workshop is a J1B Auster under restoration, a Druine D31
> Turbulent under construction, and I've been after a tin aeroplane to
> build. The RV3 has what I'm looking for.

Yep, you confirm your keyword 'under construction'.

Mine is 'finished' (and quite often 'sold and paid for'), yet my
workshop has some projects left from over enthousiastic persons who
don't seem capable of understanding what '1000 Hr of work' implies.

I used to make racecars *for a living* which like airplanes have a high
glamour factor. Few understand the -very basic- economics and planning
of them. It is no other with homebuilts.


>
> seriously, you want to get a life, go flying and stop the pandering of
> bull**** advise. get active and get airborne.
>

With all due respect: you don't even imagine how stupid you make
yourself look.

I leave you in your beliefs as one of my rules is that you may never
stop somebody who is going to make a bitter mistake as you would so rob
them of a lesson.

But still: all the best and that you may be right.

So long.

Tom De Moor

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote

So, with all this talk of RV's and such, I gotta ask. Why are you yearning
after one of those, when you have a sweet Tailwind sitting out there ready
to ride?

Faster? Less fuel? View?

Kinda makes me go Hummm? ;=)
--
Jim in NC

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:12:02 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote
>
>So, with all this talk of RV's and such, I gotta ask. Why are you yearning
>after one of those, when you have a sweet Tailwind sitting out there ready
>to ride?
>
>Faster? Less fuel? View?
>
>Kinda makes me go Hummm? ;=)

I really do have a Tailwind. it is 25 years old. wouldnt sell it for
quids. I think I told the last offer that I wouldnt trade it for 10
spitfires.

faster is the reason, and my long term goal was to build in each
style for the experience except that I may forgoe compost on the basis
of not wanting the allergies.

the need for speed is because of the remoteness of where I end up at
the end of the first day in the Tailwind. 8,000ft and the top cruise
speed of the RV3 (or for that matter a sunderland T18) would see me in
civilisation at the end of the day. that is what is driving the issue.

the fastest I can get my O-200 tailwind to cruise at is 124 knots and
that is with a freshly painted and balanced prop. I rather like the
old girl and really dont want to flog her to death trying to get a
faster cruise. I'd like to be flying the Tailwind at age 99 so I need
to nurse her along for the next 42 years. Time to build something I
can flog along in. The Auster isnt capable. The Turbulent isnt being
built for speed. An RV3 fits the bill and I dont think it would take
forever to build.

does that make sense?
Stealth Pilot

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:01:29 +0200, Tom De Moor
> wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>>

Tom I hope that someday soon you find that person who appreciates you
being their new mother. until then enjoy yourself :-)

we have people in australia who only think of finished projects and
decry all those unfinished projects in workshops. they understand so
little of the pleasure of pottering, working and having something like
an unfinished project full of hopes and dreams to look forward to.

my projects all get completed as I solve the hiccups that occasionally
stop them.

Stealth Pilot

In article >,
says...
>
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:01:29 +0200, Tom De Moor
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> says...
> >>
>
> Tom I hope that someday soon you find that person who appreciates you
> being their new mother. until then enjoy yourself :-)
>
> we have people in australia who only think of finished projects and
> decry all those unfinished projects in workshops. they understand so
> little of the pleasure of pottering, working and having something like
> an unfinished project full of hopes and dreams to look forward to.
>
> my projects all get completed as I solve the hiccups that occasionally
> stop them.
>
> Stealth Pilot

Keep us posted when you fly the RV-3... within a few decades or when the
workshop inexplicably burns off or gets flooded.

Tom De Moor

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:02:16 -0500, Barnyard BOb
> wrote:



>
>The flight of N863WL from Seattle to Kansas City was a flight of 2
>until overnighting in Salt Lake City with Ric and Shari Lee. From
>there, it seemed like just a short hop the next day to KCMO at 200+
>mph ground speed. At 75% power, the fuel burn was near 9 gph with the
>airspeed hovering in the neighborhood at a tad over 185 mph on the
>trusty 150 hp Lycoming 0-320.

in my language that would be 161 knots burning 34 litres per hour.
for the distance travelled the Tailwind would burn about 32.5 litres.
(120 knots at 24 litres per hour)
so it is a pretty damn efficient aeroplane.
>
>The RV3 is without a doubt the most 'nimble' of all the RV models.
>With nearly 10 years under my belt with N863WL the honeymoon is still
>far from over, and I bore easily given my 56 years of licensed flight
>and 8000 hours of tailwheel time.. mostly acquired while crop dusting.
>
>P.S.
>If Yawn Jimenez, is reading this...
>eat your heart out, you Zoom ass kisssing BD-5 dip****!!!
>
>
>~Barnyard BOb~
>
>The more people I meet,
>the more I like my dog.
>

Bob
when you say "nimble" I'm not sure what you mean. it has a few
meanings.
is it really sensitive on the controls to fly or is it sprightly (high
performance) to fly?

does it fly like a Tailwind or more like an RV6 ?

what are the landings like?
squirrilly or docile?
Stealth Pilot

On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 10:17:57 GMT, Stealth Pilot
> wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:02:16 -0500, Barnyard BOb
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>The flight of N863WL from Seattle to Kansas City was a flight of 2
>>until overnighting in Salt Lake City with Ric and Shari Lee. From
>>there, it seemed like just a short hop the next day to KCMO at 200+
>>mph ground speed. At 75% power, the fuel burn was near 9 gph with the
>>airspeed hovering in the neighborhood at a tad over 185 mph on the
>>trusty 150 hp Lycoming 0-320.
>
>in my language that would be 161 knots burning 34 litres per hour.
>for the distance travelled the Tailwind would burn about 32.5 litres.
>(120 knots at 24 litres per hour)
>so it is a pretty damn efficient aeroplane.

FWIW: General pulic MPG claims are higher than mine.
I don't lean until at least one valve burns...
or fly so slow as to get 28 mpg. It's a fast
machine so I fly it that way.

>when you say "nimble" I'm not sure what you mean. it has a few
>meanings.
>is it really sensitive on the controls to fly or is it sprightly (high
>performance) to fly?

BOTH.
If you see the stick move...
you may well may be over controlling.

Roll and pitch rates ares not as high as purebred acrobatic ships,
but those use to such responses will feel right at home in an RV3.

>
>does it fly like a Tailwind or more like an RV6 ?

Never been in a Tailwind.

RV3 stability is NEUTRAL.
Turn it lose, and it eventually will go someplace else.

An RV6 flies like a truck compared to an RV3.

>
>what are the landings like?
>squirrilly or docile?
>Stealth Pilot

I hear the RV3 lands slower and therefore, shorter than a Tailwind.
Stall is a tad over 50 mph. Stall is gentle and very predictable.

Many RV fliers prefer wheel landings. It is NOT my technique of
choice. I go with the FAA position that the slowest landing is the
safest landing, therefore FULL STALL is my preference. However,
the RV3 has a quirk. IMO, the main landing gear is a couple of inches
too short. This means at full stall, you land tailwheel first. So, I
land just shy of full stall. Here's why....

Given that the main gear is stiff tubing, it is a bit jarring and not
good for the weldments where the landing gear tubing is welded within
the engine motor mount. This is a definite weak link for RV3's and
RV4's and cracks develop in this area more often than not for us
owners. It then follows the engine must be removed for most repairs
that generally are not permanent. This gear design, the implementation
and tubing thickness of my engine mount truly SUCKS BIGTIME!!!!! If
there is a practical and guaranteed way to fix this gear problem once
and for all, short of starting from scratch, I sure want to know about
it. I repaired my mount a couple of hundred hours ago and fly into
mostly rough grass strips. So far, so good. Could be my mods are
better than most through nothing more than dumb luck practiced via
shadetree eyeball engineering!

The squirreliest plane I've ever flown was a Piper Pacer that was
suffering tailwheel and main gear alignment problems. Beyond that,
I've not experienced any mechanically sound plane that I would label
as squirrelly.

WARNING: Given my years and hours, my opinion may not be of much use
to lower time pilots or zero time tailwheel guys. With this in mind,
I think the RV3 has mild ground and air manners and is less squirrelly
than most with one caveat for newbies.... the RV3 corrections need to
be made faster than say... an Aeronca Champ. Get behind on corrections
with any tailwheel craft and you could be in deep doo-doo.

I've heard of low time Champ pilots transitioning to tailwheel RV's
with no problems, but I recommend dual in any tailwheel RV just to be
on the safe side. With little mass in the ass end of an RV3... it
responds quickly and predictably and is easier to land than the other
RV's, IMO.

Quite unlike a Piper Pacer with 140? lbs on the tailwheel. :-)



~ Barnyard BOb ~

On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 07:01:47 -0500, Barnyard BOb
> wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 10:17:57 GMT, Stealth Pilot
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:02:16 -0500, Barnyard BOb
> wrote:
>>

>BOTH.
> If you see the stick move...
>you may well may be over controlling.
>
>Roll and pitch rates ares not as high as purebred acrobatic ships,
>but those use to such responses will feel right at home in an RV3.
>
>>
>>does it fly like a Tailwind or more like an RV6 ?
>
>Never been in a Tailwind.
>
>RV3 stability is NEUTRAL.
>Turn it lose, and it eventually will go someplace else.
>
>An RV6 flies like a truck compared to an RV3.
>
>>
>>what are the landings like?
>>squirrilly or docile?
>>Stealth Pilot
>
>I hear the RV3 lands slower and therefore, shorter than a Tailwind.
>Stall is a tad over 50 mph. Stall is gentle and very predictable.
>
>Many RV fliers prefer wheel landings. It is NOT my technique of
>choice. I go with the FAA position that the slowest landing is the
>safest landing, therefore FULL STALL is my preference. However,
>the RV3 has a quirk. IMO, the main landing gear is a couple of inches
>too short. This means at full stall, you land tailwheel first. So, I
>land just shy of full stall. Here's why....
>
>Given that the main gear is stiff tubing, it is a bit jarring and not
>good for the weldments where the landing gear tubing is welded within
>the engine motor mount. This is a definite weak link for RV3's and
>RV4's and cracks develop in this area more often than not for us
>owners. It then follows the engine must be removed for most repairs
>that generally are not permanent. This gear design, the implementation
>and tubing thickness of my engine mount truly SUCKS BIGTIME!!!!! If
>there is a practical and guaranteed way to fix this gear problem once
>and for all, short of starting from scratch, I sure want to know about
>it. I repaired my mount a couple of hundred hours ago and fly into
>mostly rough grass strips. So far, so good. Could be my mods are
>better than most through nothing more than dumb luck practiced via
>shadetree eyeball engineering!
>
>The squirreliest plane I've ever flown was a Piper Pacer that was
>suffering tailwheel and main gear alignment problems. Beyond that,
>I've not experienced any mechanically sound plane that I would label
>as squirrelly.
>
>WARNING: Given my years and hours, my opinion may not be of much use
>to lower time pilots or zero time tailwheel guys. With this in mind,
>I think the RV3 has mild ground and air manners and is less squirrelly
>than most with one caveat for newbies.... the RV3 corrections need to
>be made faster than say... an Aeronca Champ. Get behind on corrections
>with any tailwheel craft and you could be in deep doo-doo.
>
>I've heard of low time Champ pilots transitioning to tailwheel RV's
>with no problems, but I recommend dual in any tailwheel RV just to be
>on the safe side. With little mass in the ass end of an RV3... it
>responds quickly and predictably and is easier to land than the other
>RV's, IMO.
>
>Quite unlike a Piper Pacer with 140? lbs on the tailwheel. :-)
>
>
>
> ~ Barnyard BOb ~

sounds to me that it flies just like the W8 Tailwind ...something that
I'm quite happy with.

your main gear legs are solid Wittman style tempered 6150 tapered rods
if they are built according to the plans. they arent tubes.

relating Tailwind experiences here on the same sort of undercarriage
setup...
the thin 5.00x5 tyres that were originally on my aeroplane had to be
pumped to exactly 25psi or the aeroplane was a ******* to land.
I noticed a counter display showing a 5.00x5 tyre with almost twice
the tread thickness of the normal tyre. I swapped to using those just
to get longer times between replacements. they work well, really well.
I can now have tyre pressures anywhere between 22 and 30psi and I dont
notice any difference. the tendency for landing bounce is gone as
well.
if you get any shimmy in the main gear on landing the cause is
brinelling of the single bolt at the top of the leg causing it to
become a loose fit. sure sign of this is the shimmy vanishing on the
application of light braking. replace the bolt and it should be sweet
again.

the ground handling is interesting. I will not be using the tailwheel
chain arrangement on the plans. mine will be a solid rod as per my
Tailwind. Originally the Tailwind had the Wittman plans tailwheel
arrangement and was rated as a good flying aircraft but a nightmare in
the ground handling. When I first taxyied the aircraft I recognised a
problem with overgearing of the tailwheel immediately. I made a simple
change that halved the tailwheel movement and the aircraft has been a
pussycat in the ground handling ever since. the plans indicate the
same gearing problem on the RV3 but it is probably masked by the
sloppiness in the chain and spring arrangement.

I had an 18 year break in my flying so I'm not a high time pilot. I'm
still under 600 hours in the last 10 years but 450 of those are solo
W8 Tailwind time so I should have no problems with the RV3.

I'm half way through making the first part. (tailwheel spring)

Stealth Pilot

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote

> I really do have a Tailwind. it is 25 years old. wouldnt sell it for
> quids. I think I told the last offer that I wouldnt trade it for 10
> spitfires.
>
> faster is the reason, and my long term goal was to build in each
> style for the experience except that I may forgoe compost on the basis
> of not wanting the allergies.
>
> the need for speed is because of the remoteness of where I end up at
> the end of the first day in the Tailwind. 8,000ft and the top cruise
> speed of the RV3 (or for that matter a sunderland T18) would see me in
> civilisation at the end of the day. that is what is driving the issue.
>
> the fastest I can get my O-200 tailwind to cruise at is 124 knots and
> that is with a freshly painted and balanced prop. I rather like the
> old girl and really dont want to flog her to death trying to get a
> faster cruise. I'd like to be flying the Tailwind at age 99 so I need
> to nurse her along for the next 42 years. Time to build something I
> can flog along in. The Auster isnt capable. The Turbulent isnt being
> built for speed. An RV3 fits the bill and I dont think it would take
> forever to build.
>
> does that make sense?

Sorry for the delay. I have been having computer problems on this end, but
the second formatting seems to be taking. My advise to all with an older
machine is to stay away from Microsoft XP SP3 and IE 8. Especially if you
use AVG antivirus. You don't have to ask me how I know this! ;-)

It does make sense. I am surprised at your Tailwind speed, though. I had
always though they were quite a bit faster than that.

I too yearn for speed in this big country. There are a lot of things to
see, and to re-see. If I could get life to slow down so I could get started
on it!

I have had two back surgeries, and my wife has had one. The most recent
development is that my wife's newest problems she has been having with her
back haves not responded to any of the things they have tried, and it is now
time for surgery. They scheduled it for Monday. Wow. I hope it will be
more successful than other attempts in this family, but since it is in her
neck, my observation is that these type of surgeries are usually more
successful than lower back surgeries. I can only hope.

Good luck with your RV plans. Everyone I know with one gets the RV grin,
for sure!
--
Jim in NC

On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 14:35:19 GMT, Stealth Pilot
> wrote:
>
>sounds to me that it flies just like the W8 Tailwind ...something that
>I'm quite happy with.
>
>your main gear legs are solid Wittman style tempered 6150 tapered rods
>if they are built according to the plans. they arent tubes.

ARRGH!!!!
OLD AGE BRAIN FART!
Sorry.

You are 100% correct.
Van stole the whole setup from Wittman. :-)

>relating Tailwind experiences here on the same sort of undercarriage
>setup...
>the thin 5.00x5 tyres that were originally on my aeroplane had to be
>pumped to exactly 25psi or the aeroplane was a ******* to land.
>I noticed a counter display showing a 5.00x5 tyre with almost twice
>the tread thickness of the normal tyre. I swapped to using those just
>to get longer times between replacements. they work well, really well.
>I can now have tyre pressures anywhere between 22 and 30psi and I dont
>notice any difference. the tendency for landing bounce is gone as
>well.

The McCreary tires [tyres] furnished by Van's are NOT the way to go.

Remember the name... CONDOR.
They are priced about the same, but are twice the tire [tyre].
I'm told these are made by Michelin. No idea if specs are are same or
not. Cheap tires have weak walls, track poorly and wear fast. Not
Condors.

I use lower 22 lbs pressure... for better shock absorbtion.

>if you get any shimmy in the main gear on landing the cause is
>brinelling of the single bolt at the top of the leg causing it to
>become a loose fit. sure sign of this is the shimmy vanishing on the
>application of light braking. replace the bolt and it should be sweet
>again.

Thanks for the advice.
I'll definitely try that.

>the ground handling is interesting. I will not be using the tailwheel
>chain arrangement on the plans. mine will be a solid rod as per my
>Tailwind. Originally the Tailwind had the Wittman plans tailwheel
>arrangement and was rated as a good flying aircraft but a nightmare in
>the ground handling. When I first taxyied the aircraft I recognised a
>problem with overgearing of the tailwheel immediately. I made a simple
>change that halved the tailwheel movement and the aircraft has been a
>pussycat in the ground handling ever since. the plans indicate the the
>same gearing problem on the RV3 but it is probably masked by the
>sloppiness in the chain and spring arrangement.

From past experiences....
a bit of slop has normally produced best results for me.

However:
With my RV3, no slop has proven best. The springs tho, are anythiing
but stiff and stretch with little force/effort.

What I've been told that makes for a pussycat is TOW OUT.
With TOW IN... you have one mean TIGER.

ZERO would be best, if you can achieve it.

I don't mean to start a war with the above tidbit...
I mean it as a fact of life for taildraggers. <g>

>I had an 18 year break in my flying so I'm not a high time pilot. I'm
>still under 600 hours in the last 10 years but 450 of those are solo
>W8 Tailwind time so I should have no problems with the RV3.
>
>I'm half way through making the first part. (tailwheel spring)
>
>Stealth Pilot

Sounds like you would be right at home in an RV of any flavor.


~ Barnyard BOb ~

>
> sounds to me that it flies just like the W8 Tailwind ...something that
> I'm quite happy with.
>
> your main gear legs are solid Wittman style tempered 6150 tapered rods
> if they are built according to the plans. they arent tubes.
>
> relating Tailwind experiences here on the same sort of undercarriage
> setup...
> the thin 5.00x5 tyres that were originally on my aeroplane had to be
> pumped to exactly 25psi or the aeroplane was a ******* to land.
> I noticed a counter display showing a 5.00x5 tyre with almost twice
> the tread thickness of the normal tyre. I swapped to using those just
> to get longer times between replacements. they work well, really well.
> I can now have tyre pressures anywhere between 22 and 30psi and I dont
> notice any difference. the tendency for landing bounce is gone as
> well.
> if you get any shimmy in the main gear on landing the cause is
> brinelling of the single bolt at the top of the leg causing it to
> become a loose fit. sure sign of this is the shimmy vanishing on the
> application of light braking. replace the bolt and it should be sweet
> again.
>

Related to Tailwind gear, my W-10 main legs were 3" longer than the W8 specs.
I think Van lengthened the legs on the 4 and 6 as well.

That makes everything come together smoothly.

And the current way to build the W-10 adds a stout clamp to the mount where the
leg exits the engine mount tube. That helps keep the leg from twisting and
causing a loose fit at the retention bolt (top).

The Tailwind design has come a long way since the early days.

Jim Clement's hot rod W-10...
http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N169WH.html
Tricycle...
http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/379578.html

A metal wing tricycle!
http://www.eaa9.org/Members/Butts.htm

On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 15:35:51 -0500, Barnyard BOb
> wrote:


>The McCreary tires [tyres] furnished by Van's are NOT the way to go.
>
>Remember the name... CONDOR.
>They are priced about the same, but are twice the tire [tyre].
>I'm told these are made by Michelin. No idea if specs are are same or
>not. Cheap tires have weak walls, track poorly and wear fast. Not
>Condors.
>
>I use lower 22 lbs pressure... for better shock absorbtion.
>

Condor. yep they're the ones I was referring to.

>>if you get any shimmy in the main gear on landing the cause is
>>brinelling of the single bolt at the top of the leg causing it to
>>become a loose fit. sure sign of this is the shimmy vanishing on the
>>application of light braking. replace the bolt and it should be sweet
>>again.
>
>Thanks for the advice.
>I'll definitely try that.
>
>>the ground handling is interesting. I will not be using the tailwheel
>>chain arrangement on the plans. mine will be a solid rod as per my
>>Tailwind. Originally the Tailwind had the Wittman plans tailwheel
>>arrangement and was rated as a good flying aircraft but a nightmare in
>>the ground handling. When I first taxyied the aircraft I recognised a
>>problem with overgearing of the tailwheel immediately. I made a simple
>>change that halved the tailwheel movement and the aircraft has been a
>>pussycat in the ground handling ever since. the plans indicate the the
>>same gearing problem on the RV3 but it is probably masked by the
>>sloppiness in the chain and spring arrangement.
>
>From past experiences....
>a bit of slop has normally produced best results for me.
>
>However:
>With my RV3, no slop has proven best. The springs tho, are anythiing
>but stiff and stretch with little force/effort.
>
>What I've been told that makes for a pussycat is TOW OUT.
>With TOW IN... you have one mean TIGER.
>
>ZERO would be best, if you can achieve it.
>
>I don't mean to start a war with the above tidbit...
>I mean it as a fact of life for taildraggers. <g>
>

tailwheel gearing and toe out come into play at different times.
I think both are important.

directional control is definately made easier if the tailwheel
"ruddering" is made just right. on the tailwind the link rod sat
parallel to the tailspring and was overgeared to blazes.
I halved the distance out on the rudder arm which effectively reduced
the throw by half. I wouldnt use anything but a solid link rod because
it allows for such positive correction between the time that the
tailwheel is on the ground and the time that the mains touch.
you can completely straighten a gusted landing before the mains touch
and have a totally uneventful roll out.

toe out works.
if the aircraft is in a swerve to the right (as sensed by the pilot)
inertia will have the left side tyre pressed hard on the ground and
often the right side tyre will be almost off the ground. the right
side tyre could be pointing anywhere because it isnt contributing
much. if the left side tyre in this swerve is toed out then it will be
pointing almost in the direction of movement and it wont contribute
much adverse input.
if it was toed in it would be adding to the forces trying to roll the
aircraft over. ...not what you want.

swerve the other way and the situation is mirror imaged.

I once bent an undercarriage leg with the effect that the right leg
had something like 15 to 20 degrees of toe out. the left leg was
undamaged. on takeoff as you lifted the tail the aircraft would yaw
slightly until the drag off each wheel equalised and in this condition
would quite happily complete the takeoff. I flew back across australia
with the gear like that. it demonstrated to me that an aircraft can
have quite large amounts of toe out with no detriment to the ground
handling.

Stealth Pilot