Harmon Rocket II questions

[Jason Grass]

Does anyone here know much about the Harmon Rocket II?
I've been looking at it, and it concerns me in the fact that the
cockpit demensions look a little snug. It has enough room in width,
but the distance between the front and back seat seems too close, as
does the distance of the instrument panel from the front seat pilot.
Also, in looking at pictures of it, pilots seem to have their heads
right up against the top of the canopy. Is John Harmon a short guy?
I suspect it was designed by someone not so tall. I guess it would be
nice to go sit in one somewhere, but that's not always easy to find.
And I wonder if the wing is strong enough. His webiste says he did
nothing to the RV-4 wingspar to strengthen it. He only shortened it to
to reduce the bending moment on it, and reduced the rib spacing. Then
it says he sand bagged the wing to 6 G's. 6 G's isn't all that much
for an ultimate load test. So I'm a bit leery of the design. I wanted
to build one, but after doing a little research, I'm turned off by
what I've found out.

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, Jason Grass wrote:

> ...Also, in looking at pictures of it,
> pilots seem to have their heads right
> up against the top of the canopy...

It's pretty typical when flying under a bubble canopy to add seat
padding until your head is right at the canopy crown, or at least as
close as comfortable. Glider pilots do that all the time to improve
visibility over the nose and downwards over the cockpit rail.
Taildragger pilots tend to do that to improve visibility during takeoff
and landing.

> ...Then it says he sand bagged the wing
> to 6 G's. 6 G's isn't all that much for
> an ultimate load test...

As much as I'm not a particular fan of the Harmon airplanes, I can't
say I'd do much different. I think that a good static test to a
_design_ limit of 6g should give you enough deflection data to
extrapolate the stresses above that to a reasonable degree of
confidence, and should leave you a flyable aircraft besides. I don't
think I'd do a static test to ultimate limit unless I was doing
something unorthodox or was expecting to manufacture finished aircraft.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jason Grass" > wrote in message
...
> Does anyone here know much about the Harmon Rocket II?
> I've been looking at it, and it concerns me in the fact that the
> cockpit demensions look a little snug. It has enough room in width,
> but the distance between the front and back seat seems too close, as
> does the distance of the instrument panel from the front seat pilot.
> Also, in looking at pictures of it, pilots seem to have their heads
> right up against the top of the canopy. Is John Harmon a short guy?
> I suspect it was designed by someone not so tall. I guess it would be
> nice to go sit in one somewhere, but that's not always easy to find.
> And I wonder if the wing is strong enough. His webiste says he did
> nothing to the RV-4 wingspar to strengthen it. He only shortened it to
> to reduce the bending moment on it, and reduced the rib spacing. Then
> it says he sand bagged the wing to 6 G's. 6 G's isn't all that much
> for an ultimate load test. So I'm a bit leery of the design. I wanted
> to build one, but after doing a little research, I'm turned off by
> what I've found out.

Regarding the wing strength, I recall that Harmon "did the math" to confirm
the wing's strength at its reduced length. If I recall correctly, the
numbers said it was a 9+ G wing with the reduced span.

As far as cockpit dimensions go, it's a sport aircraft. The cockpits are
typically smaller than in spam cans. If you need a bigger cockpit, you
might look at an RV-8, although you'll lose a measure of performance.

KB

[Jerry Springer]

Jason Grass wrote:
> Does anyone here know much about the Harmon Rocket II?
> I've been looking at it, and it concerns me in the fact that the
> cockpit demensions look a little snug. It has enough room in width,
> but the distance between the front and back seat seems too close, as
> does the distance of the instrument panel from the front seat pilot.
> Also, in looking at pictures of it, pilots seem to have their heads
> right up against the top of the canopy. Is John Harmon a short guy?
> I suspect it was designed by someone not so tall. I guess it would be
> nice to go sit in one somewhere, but that's not always easy to find.
> And I wonder if the wing is strong enough. His webiste says he did
> nothing to the RV-4 wingspar to strengthen it. He only shortened it to
> to reduce the bending moment on it, and reduced the rib spacing. Then
> it says he sand bagged the wing to 6 G's. 6 G's isn't all that much
> for an ultimate load test. So I'm a bit leery of the design. I wanted
> to build one, but after doing a little research, I'm turned off by
> what I've found out.

I got a ride with John Harmon in his Rocket and it is a great airplane.
While I was not in the front seat the back seat has all kinds of room. I
am 6'3" tall and 200+lbs. and was not a bit crowded. One of my friends
just finished one and he is 6'+ and has a lot of room. You customize the
seats to fit your size. 6 G's is the load it could stand before it
could bend something, 9 G's is ultimate load. YOu might be turned off by
it but I would built one if I could afford one, but I will have to be
satisfied flying my 16 year old RV-6. :)

Jerry

[Jason Grass]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 04:16:40 -0800, Jerry Springer
> wrote:

>Jason Grass wrote:
>> Does anyone here know much about the Harmon Rocket II?
>> I've been looking at it, and it concerns me in the fact that the
>> cockpit demensions look a little snug. It has enough room in width,
>> but the distance between the front and back seat seems too close, as
>> does the distance of the instrument panel from the front seat pilot.
>> Also, in looking at pictures of it, pilots seem to have their heads
>> right up against the top of the canopy. Is John Harmon a short guy?
>> I suspect it was designed by someone not so tall. I guess it would be
>> nice to go sit in one somewhere, but that's not always easy to find.
>> And I wonder if the wing is strong enough. His webiste says he did
>> nothing to the RV-4 wingspar to strengthen it. He only shortened it to
>> to reduce the bending moment on it, and reduced the rib spacing. Then
>> it says he sand bagged the wing to 6 G's. 6 G's isn't all that much
>> for an ultimate load test. So I'm a bit leery of the design. I wanted
>> to build one, but after doing a little research, I'm turned off by
>> what I've found out.
>
>I got a ride with John Harmon in his Rocket and it is a great airplane.
>While I was not in the front seat the back seat has all kinds of room. I
>am 6'3" tall and 200+lbs. and was not a bit crowded. One of my friends
>just finished one and he is 6'+ and has a lot of room. You customize the
>seats to fit your size. 6 G's is the load it could stand before it
>could bend something, 9 G's is ultimate load. YOu might be turned off by
>it but I would built one if I could afford one, but I will have to be
>satisfied flying my 16 year old RV-6. :)
>
>Jerry

Thanks for the info ... I'm 6'2" so was naturally concerned with the
cockpit demensions. I'm flying a tandem homebuilt now with a 32" wide
cockpit, and it's comfortable. But the instrument panel is so close I
have to wear bi-focals to see it. The Harmon's panel looks even closer
to the pilot than my airplane's is. So I may need a new perscription
to see it :-)
9 G's as an ulimate load isn't all that much, but compared to spam
cans is plenty. Definitely not in the class of the unlimited acro
ships. But I don't do those types of maneuvers anyway, so would never
approach anything that would break the Rockets wing.
You know once I went through the FAA's exhibition hanger in Lakeland,
and the inspector was handing out accident info on homebuilts, and the
one plane that stood out among the rest in the list was the RV-3. It
had numerous wing spar failures, resulting in accidents. So I've
always felt the entire RV line has weak wings, since they are pretty
much similar in design. And there was an RV accident once involving
wing failure, and a fellow homebuilder I was talking to on the flight
line in Lakeland said he asked Van about that accident's cause, and
his reply was "I guess we'll never know". And that fellow told me "If
I were the designer of that line I'd sure as hell want to find out!"
He definitely didn't care for Van's answer to his question.
I guess aluminum just can't approach the strength in some of these
I-beam type of spars you see in the composite ships.

[comanche driver]

ive just got to respond to this.

1. the failures of RV-3 wings were fixed years and years ago, from what ive
been told it was not a design problem but a problem with the way people were
assembling the wing. Van redesigned it anyway, for added strength.
2. this my cousin knows someones brother that said---- crap, don't cut it.
Talk to Van. he will tell you exactly what you want to know. his web site
has all the details of the RV-8 wing separation and the testing that was
done after to re-prove the design.
3. check the FAA data base yourself, I have and there has NOT been one
in-flight failure of a wing on a RV-4.
4. with over 3000 planes flying and several thousand more in construction,
stating that the RV line has weak wings, is pure horsesh--.

yes , I am biased, but I will put my RV-4 up against anything out there. Van
is one of the most honest and talented designers out there and his success
more than proves his designs.

R. Burns
RV-4 N82RB


0> You know once I went through the FAA's exhibition hanger in Lakeland,
> and the inspector was handing out accident info on homebuilts, and the
> one plane that stood out among the rest in the list was the RV-3. It
> had numerous wing spar failures, resulting in accidents. So I've
> always felt the entire RV line has weak wings, since they are pretty
> much similar in design. And there was an RV accident once involving
> wing failure, and a fellow homebuilder I was talking to on the flight
> line in Lakeland said he asked Van about that accident's cause, and
> his reply was "I guess we'll never know". And that fellow told me "If
> I were the designer of that line I'd sure as hell want to find out!"
> He definitely didn't care for Van's answer to his question.
> I guess aluminum just can't approach the strength in some of these
> I-beam type of spars you see in the composite ships.

[Jason Grass]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:39:13 GMT, "comanche driver"
> wrote:

>ive just got to respond to this.
>
>1. the failures of RV-3 wings were fixed years and years ago, from what ive
>been told it was not a design problem but a problem with the way people were
>assembling the wing. Van redesigned it anyway, for added strength.
>2. this my cousin knows someones brother that said---- crap, don't cut it.
>Talk to Van. he will tell you exactly what you want to know. his web site
>has all the details of the RV-8 wing separation and the testing that was
>done after to re-prove the design.
>3. check the FAA data base yourself, I have and there has NOT been one
>in-flight failure of a wing on a RV-4.
>4. with over 3000 planes flying and several thousand more in construction,
>stating that the RV line has weak wings, is pure horsesh--.
>
>yes , I am biased, but I will put my RV-4 up against anything out there. Van
>is one of the most honest and talented designers out there and his success
>more than proves his designs.
>
>R. Burns
>RV-4 N82RB

The problem is, wing failures are not something builders and kit
manufacturers like to talk about. So the fact that the RV-3 wings were
fixed years ago hasn't been that widely publicized. So there are still
a lot of fears of those accidents. It's good to hear it's been fixed.
You won't find a word about that on Van's site. But being in the
business to sell kits, If I were in that position, I would just as
soon not bring that up either. So when the FAA hands out accident
reports showing RV-3 wing failures, there's no place to turn to that
has just as open information showing the problem has been fixed.
I would seem that ordering a spar built by Phlogiston would eliminate
builder inconsistancies and improve the saftey margin, and assuming
the design is good, the wing should be as good as one on a certified
plane. I might ask, where is the written information that tells about
the RV-3 wings being fixed? Certainly no place I've been able to find.
I've got the Sport aviation on CDrom, are there any issues that relate
to the fixes? Heck, your saying they've been fixed don't cut it
anymore than they guys on the flight line at Lakeland. So don't knock
what they say just because you are flying in an RV and don't want to
entertain the idea that maybe your wing "ain't so great" since your
rear end is at stake.

[Jason Grass]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:39:13 GMT, "comanche driver"
> wrote:

>ive just got to respond to this.
>
>1. the failures of RV-3 wings were fixed years and years ago, from what ive
>been told it was not a design problem but a problem with the way people were
>assembling the wing. Van redesigned it anyway, for added strength.
>2. this my cousin knows someones brother that said---- crap, don't cut it.
>Talk to Van. he will tell you exactly what you want to know. his web site
>has all the details of the RV-8 wing separation and the testing that was
>done after to re-prove the design.
>3. check the FAA data base yourself, I have and there has NOT been one
>in-flight failure of a wing on a RV-4.
>4. with over 3000 planes flying and several thousand more in construction,
>stating that the RV line has weak wings, is pure horsesh--.
>
>yes , I am biased, but I will put my RV-4 up against anything out there. Van
>is one of the most honest and talented designers out there and his success
>more than proves his designs.
>
>R. Burns
>RV-4 N82RB
>
I dug a little deeper and found an excellent article in the Jan.1983
Sport Aviaton, pages 51-55. It was written by R.Van. and is quite
detailed and revealing about the 4 fatal RV-3 wing failure accidents.
It brings up a lot of little known issues pertaining to the FAA's
oversight of homebuilts. Such as the issuance of a GENOT against the
RV-3 prohibiting any aerobatics in them. I never knew the FAA could
issue such a rule against a homebuilt. Since they are supposed to be
51% built by the homebuilder, each one should be viewed as an
individual plane, not related to others. But apparently not in the
FAA's eyes.
On another note, the RV-3 is in my opinion the only really
good-looking RV design. Until the Harmon Rocket came along that is.
The rest of them are, well, lets say they don't get me enthused enough
to want to build one. But then, some builders are more interested in
other things. The RV-4 looks pretty good too, but seems small for 2
people.

[Jason Grass]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 11:26:39 -0500, Jason Grass >
wrote:

>On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:39:13 GMT, "comanche driver"
> wrote:
>
>>ive just got to respond to this.
>>
>>1. the failures of RV-3 wings were fixed years and years ago, from what ive
>>been told it was not a design problem but a problem with the way people were
>>assembling the wing. Van redesigned it anyway, for added strength.
>>2. this my cousin knows someones brother that said---- crap, don't cut it.
>>Talk to Van. he will tell you exactly what you want to know. his web site
>>has all the details of the RV-8 wing separation and the testing that was
>>done after to re-prove the design.
>>3. check the FAA data base yourself, I have and there has NOT been one
>>in-flight failure of a wing on a RV-4.
>>4. with over 3000 planes flying and several thousand more in construction,
>>stating that the RV line has weak wings, is pure horsesh--.
>>
>>yes , I am biased, but I will put my RV-4 up against anything out there. Van
>>is one of the most honest and talented designers out there and his success
>>more than proves his designs.
>>
>>R. Burns
>>RV-4 N82RB

After some more research, I found another Sport Aviation article, in
the April 1998 issue, page 14, they report a total of 7!!! wing
failures in RV-3. Whew, I'm not stepping foot in one those things!
It seems after that one, Van offered the kit to fix the weakness for
free to anyone that hasn't had it done. Do you think that fix really
makes it safe? You know, it's not uncommon for a design to linger for
years that has a fatal flaw. Take the Questair Venture for instance.
Turns out that thing is an absolute deathtrap, but it sold for big
bucks for years, and I still see them for sale for high numbers. But I
was at Reno the year 3 of them were destroyed, one fatally, before
people finally started to see the light with that design.

[[email protected]]

Jason Grass wrote:
> ...
> You know, it's not uncommon for a design to linger for
> years that has a fatal flaw. Take the Questair Venture for instance.
> Turns out that thing is an absolute deathtrap, but it sold for big
> bucks for years, and I still see them for sale for high numbers. But I
> was at Reno the year 3 of them were destroyed, one fatally, before
> people finally started to see the light with that design.

Could you elaborate on that fatal flaw?

--

FF

[Jason Grass]

On 31 Oct 2005 12:51:13 -0800, wrote:

>
>Jason Grass wrote:
>> ...
>> You know, it's not uncommon for a design to linger for
>> years that has a fatal flaw. Take the Questair Venture for instance.
>> Turns out that thing is an absolute deathtrap, but it sold for big
>> bucks for years, and I still see them for sale for high numbers. But I
>> was at Reno the year 3 of them were destroyed, one fatally, before
>> people finally started to see the light with that design.
>
>Could you elaborate on that fatal flaw?

One of which is due to the short fulselage, the elevator is
underpowered. That's what killed Henry Boulet and the then president
of Questair. An engine failure on final in the landing configuration,
due to the subsequent loss of airflow over the elevator, the plane
noses over into the ground. It's also very unstable on the ground, and
will roll up in a ball on landing easily. I saw two which that
happened to in Reno at the races. Not to mention the one that the
elevator completely failed, causing the plane to crash, killing the
pilot. Elaborate enough?
You guys are dangerous, you're writing checks your body can't cash!

[Morgans]

"Jason Grass" > wrote

> You guys are dangerous, you're writing checks your body can't cash!

So since by your admission, you are not "one of us," why don't you take
your **** and get the puck out of here. You are a complete and total
dumbass, with out full comprehension of the issues involved.
--
Jim in NC

[Jason Grass]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:37:37 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Jason Grass" > wrote
>
>> You guys are dangerous, you're writing checks your body can't cash!
>
>So since by your admission, you are not "one of us," why don't you take
>your **** and get the puck out of here. You are a complete and total
>dumbass, with out full comprehension of the issues involved.


I admitt nothing. You make your own assumtions. What's the term for
someone that only wants to hear what he wants to hear. I think they
have a name for that. ....So what this is, is a discussion group, as
long as you stay within the strict confines of what a certian small,
narrow minded group want to hear 'eh? NOT!

[Jerry Springer]

Jason Grass wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:37:37 -0500, "Morgans"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"Jason Grass" > wrote
>>
>>
>>>You guys are dangerous, you're writing checks your body can't cash!
>>
>>So since by your admission, you are not "one of us," why don't you take
>>your **** and get the puck out of here. You are a complete and total
>>dumbass, with out full comprehension of the issues involved.
>
>
>
> I admitt nothing. You make your own assumtions. What's the term for
> someone that only wants to hear what he wants to hear. I think they
> have a name for that. ....So what this is, is a discussion group, as
> long as you stay within the strict confines of what a certian small,
> narrow minded group want to hear 'eh? NOT!

Jason while I do respect your concern for safety I have to wonder what
it is you have ever built or what it is you fly, or your motive? There
is more to the story about the RV-3 having wing problem than many
accident reports show. Many or may I say all of the RV-3 wing failures
were do to the pilots flying them beyond their design limits. Almost
all, not all airplanes can have a wing ripped off if flown beyond their
design.
It just happens to be that one of the RV-3s that lost a wing was a
neighbor and friend. He was pulling and turning way beyond the limits
of an RV-3. His G-meter was stuck on 11 G's. You also seemed to have
lumped the whole RV line into one lump, the RV-3 was a completely
different wing than the rest of the RV's. Also the accident you said you
talked to Van about was probably the factory RV-8 as that is the only
other RV that has had a wing failure. Trust me Van wanted to find out
what happened to that as it was his airplane and one of his employees
flying it. Also the pilot was my neighbor at the airport his hangar was
next to mine, so I did know a little bit about his flying habits. If you
read the accident report on it you should have a little better idea of
what the witness heard and saw, that should give you some idea about
what they were doing. You also are misleading about the Venture crash
with the owner when the engine quit. You were not in that airplane so
you don't have a clue, as an instructor I find that people have a
tendency to try to stretch their glide in engine out situations to try
to make an airport or a suitable place to land. I have another friend
that had a oil transducer break off his engine and he had to crash land
in the Sierras on his way to Las Vagas and he rolled the airplane into a
ball but came out with a few scratches. Everyone that I have talked to
said it is a very sweet flying airplane and I have never heard anyone
complain about lack of elevator.


As a neighbor of Van's and also as I am flying one of the oldest RV-6's
I could go on but this is getting lengthy. :)

Jerry

[Jerry Springer]

Jerry Springer wrote:

> Jason Grass wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> "Jason Grass" > wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>> You guys are dangerous, you're writing checks your body can't cash!
>>>

One thing that I wanted to add to my lengthy post is that most of us
flying scratchbuilt, kitbuilt aircraft understand that there
is a certain amount of risk involved, but we accept it because we love
flying and and building.

Jerry

[Jason Grass]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:51:39 -0800, Jerry Springer
> wrote:

>Jerry Springer wrote:
>
> > Jason Grass wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> "Jason Grass" > wrote
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> You guys are dangerous, you're writing checks your body can't cash!
> >>>
That line was a joke, but I see it sailed right over your heads. I
have to admit I stole it from a recent rendition of "Iceman, the later
years". If you didn't see it you should. One of the funniest aviation
video's I've seen in a long time. A Saturday night live skit. If
anyone wants it, I have a copy of it. It's in the real video format.
This group needs some humor it used to have. The last time I livened
things up was with the foil on my antenna. But like always, everyone
takes that one seriously too.


>One thing that I wanted to add to my lengthy post is that most of us
>flying scratchbuilt, kitbuilt aircraft understand that there
>is a certain amount of risk involved, but we accept it because we love
>flying and and building.
>
>Jerry

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jason Grass" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:51:39 -0800, Jerry Springer
> > wrote:
>
>>Jerry Springer wrote:
>>
>> > Jason Grass wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> "Jason Grass" > wrote
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> You guys are dangerous, you're writing checks your body can't cash!
>> >>>
> That line was a joke, but I see it sailed right over your heads. I
> have to admit I stole it from a recent rendition of "Iceman, the later
> years". If you didn't see it you should. One of the funniest aviation
> video's I've seen in a long time. A Saturday night live skit. If
> anyone wants it, I have a copy of it. It's in the real video format.
> This group needs some humor it used to have. The last time I livened
> things up was with the foil on my antenna. But like always, everyone
> takes that one seriously too.


I'd lay odds that most of the newsgroup participants (a pretty intelligent
group) saw that line, recognized it as an attempt at humor, and found it
completely forgettable.

KB

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:28:36 -0800, Jerry Springer > wrote:

>
> Jason while I do respect your concern for safety I have to wonder what
> it is you have ever built or what it is you fly, or your motive? There
> is more to the story about the RV-3 having wing problem than many
> accident reports show. Many or may I say all of the RV-3 wing failures
> were do to the pilots flying them beyond their design limits. Almost
> all, not all airplanes can have a wing ripped off if flown beyond their
> design.

For that matter, the Fly Baby (one of the more venerable homebuilt designs) has
had more than its share of wing failures...a quarter of the total reported
accidents!

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/safety/accid.htm#an

Like the RV-3, there is a lot of builder, owner, and pilot issues involved....

The Fly Baby was another homebuilt that the FAA started issuing operating
limitations forbidding aerobatics.

Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:24:28 -0500, Jason Grass > wrote:

> > >>>> You guys are dangerous, you're writing checks your body can't cash!
> > >>>
> That line was a joke, but I see it sailed right over your heads. I
> have to admit I stole it from a recent rendition of "Iceman, the later
> years". If you didn't see it you should. One of the funniest aviation
> video's I've seen in a long time. A Saturday night live skit.

It was originally in "Top Gun". Aimed at Maverick, not Iceman.

http://www.wavsite.com/sounds/48252/topgun04.wav

Ron Wanttaja

[Jason Grass]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 23:31:11 -0500, "Kyle Boatright"
>
>I'd lay odds that most of the newsgroup participants (a pretty intelligent
>group) saw that line, recognized it as an attempt at humor, and found it
>completely forgettable.
>
>KB
>
>

Intelligent, but no sense of humor, hmm. yes I know the type.

[Jason Grass]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:00:32 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote:

>
>It was originally in "Top Gun". Aimed at Maverick, not Iceman.
>
>http://www.wavsite.com/sounds/48252/topgun04.wav
>
>Ron Wanttaja

That was the original movie, but not in the "new" skit done by Val
Kilmer. He's an airline pilot 15 years later, and keeps calling his
co-pilot and flight engineer "dangerous".

[Jason Grass]

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 00:23:49 -0800, Bashir Salamati
> wrote:

>
>You're leaving out when you were Flavored Coffe Guy and wanted to
>build your own UFO, or when you were ManofSan and wanted to use sound
>waves for attached flow and electric motors for helicopters. And when
>you were Bret Lugwig and you had your halucination you were FAA
>commissioner and could change all the FARs. Or when you were smitty 2
>and thought that bullets fired backwards from a tailgun would fall
>harmlessly to earth. What's your schedule, about once a week?

Flavored Coffee guy, man of san, Bret Lugwig, and Smitty 2 were not
me. They were some other humorous fellows. But hey, I get tired of
reading endless pot shots at Zoom. Not that I'm on his side or
anything. But it does seem to be the "only" area of levity this
groups' regulars seem to be able to try and not be so serious about.

[Smitty Two]

In article >,
Bashir Salamati > wrote:

>
> Or when you were smitty 2
> and thought that bullets fired backwards from a tailgun would fall
> harmlessly to earth.

Hey, leave me out of this. I'm me, so please don't be associating me
with anyone else, crackpot or otherwise. And to which of my posts on the
tailgunner topic are you referring, anyway? I thought we had agreed on
that one, finally, after a few of you insisted on turning the topic into
one of semantics instead of logic?

An aside to the OP, whoever he is, the trouble with a dry sense of humor
in written form is that it takes a great deal of skill to write dry
humor. It's much easier to speak it. And, if you throw in one of those
idiotic emoticons so that people won't mistake your comments for
hostility or sarcasm or ignorance or stupidity, then you're smiling at
yourself, which wets that dry humor right down. Quite a dilemma.

[Smitty Two]

In article >,
Smitty Two > wrote:

> In article >,
> Bashir Salamati > wrote:
>
> >
> > Or when you were smitty 2
> > and thought that bullets fired backwards from a tailgun would fall
> > harmlessly to earth.
>
> Hey, leave me out of this. I'm me, so please don't be associating me
> with anyone else, crackpot or otherwise. And to which of my posts on the
> tailgunner topic are you referring, anyway? I thought we had agreed on
> that one, finally, after a few of you insisted on turning the topic into
> one of semantics instead of logic?
>
> An aside to the OP, whoever he is, the trouble with a dry sense of humor
> in written form is that it takes a great deal of skill to write dry
> humor. It's much easier to speak it. And, if you throw in one of those
> idiotic emoticons so that people won't mistake your comments for
> hostility or sarcasm or ignorance or stupidity, then you're smiling at
> yourself, which wets that dry humor right down. Quite a dilemma.

Correction: Not the OP of the subject line, just the OP of this fork,
Jason.

[Morgans]

"Jason Grass" > wrote
>
> Intelligent, but no sense of humor, hmm. yes I know the type.

You just don't get it. YOU may think you are funny, but that is where it
ends. You are about as funny as a screen door in a submarine!
--
Jim in NC

[Jason Grass]

On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 17:24:52 -0500, "Morgans" >
wrote:

>
>"Jason Grass" > wrote
>>
>> Intelligent, but no sense of humor, hmm. yes I know the type.
>
>You just don't get it. YOU may think you are funny, but that is where it
>ends. You are about as funny as a screen door in a submarine!

If I'm laughing, I'm happy, I really don't care what the rest of you
are doing.

[Jason Grass]

On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 21:35:24 -0500, "Morgans" >
wrote:

>
>Ahh, I see. You're part of the "ME" generation. Self gratification, at the
>expense of all others around you. Yep, that fits you about right. Once
>again, you have shown that you are not part of the group here.
>
>Move on. I know I am.

Oh I'll be around when I need some information about one of my
homebuilts. And with another name of course. Use the group for what
it's for, good info about homebuilt parts and techniques. Then when I
get the info I need, I dissappear until the next time. Really not
interested in using it as a morning coffee club on a daily basis like
a lot of the users do.

[Morgans]

"Jason Grass" > wrote

> If I'm laughing, I'm happy, I really don't care what the rest of you
> are doing.

Ahh, I see. You're part of the "ME" generation. Self gratification, at the
expense of all others around you. Yep, that fits you about right. Once
again, you have shown that you are not part of the group here.

Move on. I know I am.
--
Jim in NC

[Richard Lamb]

Never wrassle with a pig, Jerry...

[Ian Donaldson]

Never wrassle with a pig,

You will both get dirty but the pig will like it!


Ian

[Jason Grass]

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:21:44 GMT, "Ian Donaldson"
> wrote:

>
> Never wrassle with a pig,
>
>You will both get dirty but the pig will like it!
>
>
>Ian
>

You know, I strongly suspect the "pig" that loves to comment on every
post, is probably a fat, degenerated wheelchair bound do nothing. With
an oxygen canula around his face, at a computer that hasn't been seen
for over a decade, most probably equipped with a 2400 baud modem. From
that throne, he spats out his drivel, and entertains himself trying to
rile anyone he can. And the result is this newsgroup is just about
dead. The number of posts are in the single digits on a daily basis. I
just wonder if it's even possible to have a decent group like this and
keep that trash out of it.

[Matt Whiting]

Jason Grass wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:21:44 GMT, "Ian Donaldson"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Never wrassle with a pig,
>>
>>You will both get dirty but the pig will like it!
>>
>>
>>Ian
>>
>
>
> You know, I strongly suspect the "pig" that loves to comment on every
> post, is probably a fat, degenerated wheelchair bound do nothing. With
> an oxygen canula around his face, at a computer that hasn't been seen
> for over a decade, most probably equipped with a 2400 baud modem. From
> that throne, he spats out his drivel, and entertains himself trying to
> rile anyone he can. And the result is this newsgroup is just about
> dead. The number of posts are in the single digits on a daily basis. I
> just wonder if it's even possible to have a decent group like this and
> keep that trash out of it.

One shouldn't post one's autobiography in a public forum such as this.

Matt

[Tom Kudro]

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:39:28 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>Jason Grass wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:21:44 GMT, "Ian Donaldson"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Never wrassle with a pig,
>>>
>>>You will both get dirty but the pig will like it!
>>>
>>>
>>>Ian
>>>
>>
>>
>> You know, I strongly suspect the "pig" that loves to comment on every
>> post, is probably a fat, degenerated wheelchair bound do nothing. With
>> an oxygen canula around his face, at a computer that hasn't been seen
>> for over a decade, most probably equipped with a 2400 baud modem. From
>> that throne, he spats out his drivel, and entertains himself trying to
>> rile anyone he can. And the result is this newsgroup is just about
>> dead. The number of posts are in the single digits on a daily basis. I
>> just wonder if it's even possible to have a decent group like this and
>> keep that trash out of it.
>
>One shouldn't post one's autobiography in a public forum such as this.
>
>Matt

F U

[Matt Whiting]

Tom Kudro wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:39:28 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Jason Grass wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:21:44 GMT, "Ian Donaldson"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Never wrassle with a pig,
>>>>
>>>>You will both get dirty but the pig will like it!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ian
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You know, I strongly suspect the "pig" that loves to comment on every
>>>post, is probably a fat, degenerated wheelchair bound do nothing. With
>>>an oxygen canula around his face, at a computer that hasn't been seen
>>>for over a decade, most probably equipped with a 2400 baud modem. From
>>>that throne, he spats out his drivel, and entertains himself trying to
>>>rile anyone he can. And the result is this newsgroup is just about
>>>dead. The number of posts are in the single digits on a daily basis. I
>>>just wonder if it's even possible to have a decent group like this and
>>>keep that trash out of it.
>>
>>One shouldn't post one's autobiography in a public forum such as this.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> F U

Oh, there are two of you.

Matt

[Jim]

Jason et al

I know a lot about the Harmon Rocket II. I built and am flying one. The
cockpit is 31" wide whereas the RV4 is 27" wide. The cockpit has been
stretched 4" from the rear spar to the rear seatback. The instrument panel
has been moved forward from the 4 - I like it better. You can have the
seats built to your specs and sit on the floor if you don't want to see
where you're going. You can't see over the nose at the highest seating
position anyway. Kinda like I would imagine it would be taxiing a P51. As
for the wing - it is still Van's original RV4 wing, tested static to 14 G's.
It would be strong enough without shortening it. I don't see it being a
problem since I have seen RV8's a lot heavier than my Rocket which is 1174
pounds dry. I have owned and flown both, the 4 on a couple long trips. I
wouldn't trade the Rocket for anything but still like the 4 - you don't get
in it - it's more like you put it on. As for G loads - there is a pro
aerobat pilot flying a Rocket. I'm 6' tall and weigh 225 and am very comfy
in it.
Hi Jerry.
Man this thread deteriorated quickly didn't it. Seems there are a lot of
people looking for confirmation.
I forget - I haven't posted here for a long time - am I supposed to top post
or bottom..........

jim
"Jason Grass" > wrote in message
...
> Does anyone here know much about the Harmon Rocket II?
> I've been looking at it, and it concerns me in the fact that the
> cockpit demensions look a little snug. It has enough room in width,
> but the distance between the front and back seat seems too close, as
> does the distance of the instrument panel from the front seat pilot.
> Also, in looking at pictures of it, pilots seem to have their heads
> right up against the top of the canopy. Is John Harmon a short guy?
> I suspect it was designed by someone not so tall. I guess it would be
> nice to go sit in one somewhere, but that's not always easy to find.
> And I wonder if the wing is strong enough. His webiste says he did
> nothing to the RV-4 wingspar to strengthen it. He only shortened it to
> to reduce the bending moment on it, and reduced the rib spacing. Then
> it says he sand bagged the wing to 6 G's. 6 G's isn't all that much
> for an ultimate load test. So I'm a bit leery of the design. I wanted
> to build one, but after doing a little research, I'm turned off by
> what I've found out.

[[email protected]]

Jim wrote:
> ...
> Man this thread deteriorated quickly didn't it. Seems there are a lot of
> people looking for confirmation.

In that regard, do you care to comment on the earlier assetion that the

tail is too short, so that the nose drops precipitously if the engine
quits?

> I forget - I haven't posted here for a long time - am I supposed to top post
> or bottom..........

Bottom Post.

:-)

--

FF

[Jim]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Jim wrote:
> > ...
> > Man this thread deteriorated quickly didn't it. Seems there are a lot
of
> > people looking for confirmation.
>
> In that regard, do you care to comment on the earlier assetion that the
>
> tail is too short, so that the nose drops precipitously if the engine
> quits?
>
> > I forget - I haven't posted here for a long time - am I supposed to top
post
> > or bottom..........
>
> Bottom Post.
>
> :-)
>
> --
>
> FF



To begin with by deteriorated I meant went off on a tangent instead of
talking about the flying qualities of the HR2. No offense intended to
anyone.

I guess I got in a little late - I didn't see anything about a short tail or
the nose dropping. I haven't experienced either one of those. The tail
being short is subjective - it seems fine to me. It's four inches longer
from the rear spar back than the -4 and -6 (of which I've owned both). The
engine has never quit on me but I have pulled the power and it does glide
fairly steep but I believe that is due to an 80" prop out front acting like
a piece of plywood face into the wind. I'm not a hotshoe F15 pilot or a
multi-thousand hour airline pilot but I have managed to put 65 hours on an
HR2 that I built by myself (wife included) without crashing so it must not
be too hard to handle. I have only flown a 150, 172, 182, Pacer, Cub,
Champ, RV4, and RV6 but my HR2 is the sweetest one yet on takeoff, climb,
cruise, aerobatics, and landing. In fact to me the only negative is fuel
usage if you want to go fast, and you can feel the heavy nose at extreme
forward cg (not a problem to me).

If a person wants to find fault with the HR2 without flying one and
therefore decides not to build one I feel sorry for them and what they will
be missing.


Jim
2005 HR2