The RV is a lot of work...

[Bret Ludwig]

It's a lot of work to build and you wind up with a skittish little
plane with either a piece of **** Lycoming or a lot of kludge work to
accomodate better.

[alexy]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote:

> It's a lot of work to build and you wind up with a skittish little
>plane with either a piece of **** Lycoming or a lot of kludge work to
>accomodate better.

I'm sure that for many people, some other plane better suits their
need than an RV. Obviously, for lots of people the RV is a good
choice. Sounds like you fall in the former group.

Just curious. What alternative is more attractive to you?

I know you are probably just trolling, but how about a serious answer?
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[Lou]

Those who can, do,
Those who can't, bitch.

[Jerry Springer]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> It's a lot of work to build and you wind up with a skittish little
> plane with either a piece of **** Lycoming or a lot of kludge work to
> accomodate better.
>
Once again your stupidity shows!!!! YOU ARE NOT EVEN A GOOD TROLL.
You obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about. It is
obvious with your comment about an RV being skittish that you are
probably a lousy pilot as well as being ignorant. Why don't you
tell us how many hours stick time yo have in an RV? Of course you won't
tell us because you are a bitter little jealous person.

[Bret Ludwig]

Jerry Springer wrote:
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
> > It's a lot of work to build and you wind up with a skittish little
> > plane with either a piece of **** Lycoming or a lot of kludge work to
> > accomodate better.
> >
> Once again your stupidity shows!!!! YOU ARE NOT EVEN A GOOD TROLL.
> You obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about. It is
> obvious with your comment about an RV being skittish that you are
> probably a lousy pilot as well as being ignorant. Why don't you
> tell us how many hours stick time yo have in an RV? Of course you won't
> tell us because you are a bitter little jealous person.

[Bret Ludwig]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> Jerry Springer wrote:
> > Bret Ludwig wrote:
> > > It's a lot of work to build and you wind up with a skittish little
> > > plane with either a piece of **** Lycoming or a lot of kludge work to
> > > accomodate better.
> > >
> > Once again your stupidity shows!!!! YOU ARE NOT EVEN A GOOD TROLL.
> > You obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about. It is
> > obvious with your comment about an RV being skittish that you are
> > probably a lousy pilot as well as being ignorant. Why don't you
> > tell us how many hours stick time yo have in an RV? Of course you won't
> > tell us because you are a bitter little jealous person.

I have only flown in one once: it was enough. Dick Van Grunsven TOLD
ME, personally, on the phone, 20 years ago (you could call him up then)
he builds a day VFR airplane and if you want a good stable instrument
platform you should buy a Bonanza like the one he has. I have no idea
if he still has a Bonanza, he probably has a King Air or Citation now
for all I know.

No I do not have a tape of the conversation: you will have to take my
word for it. Van Grunsven will probably confirm it: he's stubborn as a
son of a bitch, but he's honest. Most Dutchmen are.

Not everyone wants an RV! (I do lust after a T-6 though.)

[Kyle Boatright]

"Lou" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Those who can, do,
> Those who can't, bitch.

Even my wife got a laugh out of this one...

[john smith]

In article om>,
"Bret Ludwig" > wrote:

> I have only flown in one once: it was enough. Dick Van Grunsven TOLD
> ME, personally, on the phone, 20 years ago (you could call him up then)
> he builds a day VFR airplane and if you want a good stable instrument
> platform you should buy a Bonanza like the one he has. I have no idea
> if he still has a Bonanza, he probably has a King Air or Citation now
> for all I know.

Van designed and built the RV-10 to replace the Bo. A lot has changed in
the 20 years since you last spoke with him.

[ELIPPSE]

Hi, Bret! Some of these guys can be pretty vicious. I have to agree
that these little planes are not the best instrument platforms. I fly
with two of my friends in their Mooneys and you can move all over
without the plane changing course. On my little Lancair, if I put my
hand forward on the instrument panel, it descends about 100-200 FPM, or
if I put my hand behind my head, it climbs 100-200 FPM. When I used to
fly J-3s, we flew around in the evenings with the doors tied open and
steered the plane with our hands held out into the airstream. If I want
to turn my Lancair, I lean one way or the other. Now that I have a
TRUTRAK with altitude hold, I can look all around the cockpit for maps
or drinks or such, and the plane stays on course. I spoke with an
80-something fellow a couple of weeks ago who was selling his Lancair
235. He said it was dangerous until he increased the horizontal stab
and elevator area. And this from a guy who raced a very highly-modified
Unlimited Bell KingCobra in the 1971 Reno Air Races, and had it crash
in the Pacific on a test flight in 1972! I love my Lyc 235! It's a good
rugged engine with reasonable fuel specifics. And you just plug it into
the motor mount and run it. 'Course if you like to experiment, Subbys
and Mazdas and V-6s can can tickle your experimenter bone! They can be
very frustrating, but if you succeed, very rewarding! Paul

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
john smith > wrote:

> In article om>,
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote:
>
> > I have only flown in one once: it was enough. Dick Van Grunsven TOLD
> > ME, personally, on the phone, 20 years ago (you could call him up then)
> > he builds a day VFR airplane and if you want a good stable instrument
> > platform you should buy a Bonanza like the one he has. I have no idea
> > if he still has a Bonanza, he probably has a King Air or Citation now
> > for all I know.
>
> Van designed and built the RV-10 to replace the Bo. A lot has changed in
> the 20 years since you last spoke with him.

The RV-8 is the most popular homebuilt here at Spruce Creek -- we have
about 20 flying and at least another 10 in process. BTW -- most of those
have airline or retired airline captains (including the former #1 bid at
United) for owners.

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

[Jerry Springer]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>


>
> No I do not have a tape of the conversation: you will have to take my
> word for it. Van Grunsven will probably confirm it: he's stubborn as a
> son of a bitch, but he's honest. Most Dutchmen are.

I will do that as I have breakfast with him on Saturday mornings on a
pretty regular basis, and live about 6 miles from him, my guess he will
say Ludwig who? :)

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 28 Dec 2005 18:53:21 -0800, "Bret Ludwig" > wrote:

>
>Bret Ludwig wrote:

>> > Bret Ludwig wrote:
>> > > It's a lot of work to build and you wind up with a skittish little
>> > > plane with either a piece of **** Lycoming or a lot of kludge work to
>> > > accomodate better.
>
> I have only flown in one once: it was enough. Dick Van Grunsven TOLD
>ME, personally, on the phone, 20 years ago (you could call him up then)
>he builds a day VFR airplane and if you want a good stable instrument
>platform you should buy a Bonanza like the one he has.

Exactly where do you get the word "skittish" out of what VanGrunsven said? Just
because a plane isn't as stable as a Cessna 182 doesn't make it skittish.

I've got next to no high-performance time, but when I flew the RV-8 a few years
back, it was very easy to fly. It went where I pointed it, and didn't dance
around if I breathed on the stick.

Ron Wanttaja

[Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired]

Lou wrote:
> Those who can, do,
> Those who can't, bitch.
>

There's a variation of that:

Those who can do, those who can't teach.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Darrel Toepfer]

ELIPPSE wrote:
> Hi, Bret! Some of these guys can be pretty vicious. I have to agree
> that these little planes are not the best instrument platforms. I fly
> with two of my friends in their Mooneys and you can move all over
> without the plane changing course. On my little Lancair, if I put my
> hand forward on the instrument panel, it descends about 100-200 FPM, or
> if I put my hand behind my head, it climbs 100-200 FPM.

Cessna's through 177 do this once in trim. Didn't have enough time in
the C182 to experiment...

[Scott]

If YOU don't want an RV, why don't you just say so instead of saying the
design is, in your opinion, flawed and you have a thing against time
proven engines. Not sure what you mean by skittish...I think the word
you may have been looking for is "responsive". If so, yes, I would
agree that an RV is more "skittish" than an Aeronca Chief (which pretty
much flies like a barn door in comparison), but I sure had fun with my
old Chief. Yes, you have to match the airplane to your intended
mission. RVs "may" not be the best IFR plane (which it sounds like you
are looking for), but guys ARE doing it. Maybe Jerry was right...maybe
it's YOU that is the weakest link. Are your flight skills tuned to
perfection or do you want the plane to mask your inadequacies?

Scott

Bret Ludwig wrote:

> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
>>Jerry Springer wrote:
>>
>>>Bret Ludwig wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's a lot of work to build and you wind up with a skittish little
>>>>plane with either a piece of **** Lycoming or a lot of kludge work to
>>>>accomodate better.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Once again your stupidity shows!!!! YOU ARE NOT EVEN A GOOD TROLL.
>>>You obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about. It is
>>>obvious with your comment about an RV being skittish that you are
>>>probably a lousy pilot as well as being ignorant. Why don't you
>>>tell us how many hours stick time yo have in an RV? Of course you won't
>>>tell us because you are a bitter little jealous person.
>
>
> I have only flown in one once: it was enough. Dick Van Grunsven TOLD
> ME, personally, on the phone, 20 years ago (you could call him up then)
> he builds a day VFR airplane and if you want a good stable instrument
> platform you should buy a Bonanza like the one he has. I have no idea
> if he still has a Bonanza, he probably has a King Air or Citation now
> for all I know.
>
> No I do not have a tape of the conversation: you will have to take my
> word for it. Van Grunsven will probably confirm it: he's stubborn as a
> son of a bitch, but he's honest. Most Dutchmen are.
>
> Not everyone wants an RV! (I do lust after a T-6 though.)
>

[Matt Whiting]

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
> Lou wrote:
>
>> Those who can, do,
>> Those who can't, bitch.
>>
>
> There's a variation of that:
>
> Those who can do, those who can't teach.

You forgot the last part:

Those who can't teach, consult!

With apologies to my many consultant friends. :-)

Matt

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Scott > wrote:

> If YOU don't want an RV, why don't you just say so instead of saying the
> design is, in your opinion, flawed and you have a thing against time
> proven engines. Not sure what you mean by skittish...I think the word
> you may have been looking for is "responsive". If so, yes, I would
> agree that an RV is more "skittish" than an Aeronca Chief (which pretty
> much flies like a barn door in comparison), but I sure had fun with my
> old Chief. Yes, you have to match the airplane to your intended
> mission. RVs "may" not be the best IFR plane (which it sounds like you
> are looking for), but guys ARE doing it. Maybe Jerry was right...maybe
> it's YOU that is the weakest link. Are your flight skills tuned to
> perfection or do you want the plane to mask your inadequacies?

I have not flown the RV-8, but I want a plane that responds to
fingertips/toetips -- NOT one where I have to apply a lot of force to
get a response!

Some people confuse responsiveness with stability -- you can have both
-- or -- you can have neither in a plane -- it is a matter of control
effectiveness/control force.

It seems that Beech, Cessna and Piper have made a lot of planes over the
past 40 years that have stability, but handle like trucks. The early
Bonanzas, IIRC, had nice, light controls, but the recent ones have heavy
controls.

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Kyle Boatright says...
>
>
>"Lou" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Those who can, do,
>> Those who can't, bitch.
>
>Even my wife got a laugh out of this one...
We have a slightly different versions of this at Model airplane contests.

"those who can ,win and those who can't try to change the rules"

Happy New Year
Chuck (wind 'em up and launch on 3) S

[Wayne Paul]

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
news:NjOsf.69297$sg5.27745@dukeread12...
> Lou wrote:
> > Those who can, do,
> > Those who can't, bitch.
> >
>
> There's a variation of that:
>
> Those who can do, those who can't teach.
>
When I worked at an university, the school of engineering's variation
directed toward the school of education was:

Those who can do.
Those who can't teach.
Those who can't teach, teach teachers.

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/

[Wayne Paul]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> I have no idea if he still has a Bonanza, he probably has a
> King Air or Citation now for all I know.
>

Dick is active in soaring and competes in soaring contests with his DG-400M.
(Similar to the one shown in the link.)
http://www.yellowwings.com/DG400.jpg

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/

[Flyingmonk]

>Those who can't teach, consult!

Hey... How did you know I was a consultant? :^)

The Monk

[Matt Whiting]

Flyingmonk wrote:
>>Those who can't teach, consult!
>
>
> Hey... How did you know I was a consultant? :^)

In the immortal words of Sergeant Schultz, "I know nothing, Nothing!"


Matt

[Montblack]

("Jerry Springer" wrote)
> I will do that as I have breakfast with him on Saturday mornings on a
> pretty regular basis, and live about 6 miles from him, my guess he will
> say Ludwig who? :)


Add "Montblack who?" to your morning chat if you would. <g>


Single seat .....Everyone tell me this is a non-starter. I disagree.
RV-3("C") ..........The new 3B is still too fast.
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-3int.htm

COMFORTABLE cockpit tor a 6-4, 210# person. (I'm getting there!)

Removable wings - 15 minutes, tops.
5 ft wide fuselage piece to fit into a 6 ft wide trailer.

138 mph? <wink> ....Seriously, 175 mph - 200 mph is out. Drat

3 gals per hr would be great. 2 gals/hr would be better. Diesel?

(The current RV-3B plane weighs 750#)
We're trying to go S-L-O-W at 110 - 120 knots. So the added weight for the
(smaller) diesel might not be that much of an issue. "Total Performance"
might mean 2 gallons per hour - since the speed is capped at 120 kts/138
mph.

(LSA) RV-12? No thank you. It needs to lift too much because it has 2 seats.

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-12int.htm
"A 550 lb. payload - this equates to two 190 lb. people, 120 lbs. of fuel
and 50 lbs. of baggage. 750 empty weight"

So, in conclusion:

Small 2 gal/hr diesel (liquid cooled would be nice)

70 lbs. fuel --- 10 gallon fuselage tank
20 lbs. baggage
210 lbs. pilot (high bubble canopy please)

300 lb. payload
600 lb. plane
(350/650 would be ok, too)

1,320 lbs is LSA max

Also, I wonder if insurance is cheaper without that extra seat?


Montblack

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 14:03:40 -0600, "Montblack"
> wrote:

>
>Also, I wonder if insurance is cheaper without that extra seat?

Not in my experience. My insurance includes passenger liability coverage, and
the companies I've insured with won't write a policy without it...

Ron "I carry the highest-insured termite in the world" Wanttaja

[Bret Ludwig]

Scott wrote:
> If YOU don't want an RV, why don't you just say so instead of saying the
> design is, in your opinion, flawed and you have a thing against time
> proven engines. Not sure what you mean by skittish...I think the word
> you may have been looking for is "responsive". If so, yes, I would
> agree that an RV is more "skittish" than an Aeronca Chief (which pretty
> much flies like a barn door in comparison), but I sure had fun with my
> old Chief. Yes, you have to match the airplane to your intended
> mission. RVs "may" not be the best IFR plane (which it sounds like you
> are looking for), but guys ARE doing it. Maybe Jerry was right...maybe
> it's YOU that is the weakest link. Are your flight skills tuned to
> perfection or do you want the plane to mask your inadequacies?

Well, since I lost my medical, my flight skills are now probably
pretty bad. I do hope to get it back but that's another story.

I am not saying the RV is a "bad airplane". I think it is deliberately
designed with less dynamic stability than most production aircraft, and
my source on this is the designer himself, Mr. Van Grunsven. This is
because it is designed for day VFR operations primarily by hobby pilots
who will mostly fly it for short periods and find it fun to fly that
way.

The RV has become a VERY popular airplane. I question whether it is
the best choice for some or many of its builders. Those whom I have met
are mostly people in my estimation have questionable motives for
homebuilding.

I did not intend to make a personal attack on Mr. Van Grunsven. But I
do feel that the current trend for these airplanes, and a couple of
other designs, to be built in "factories" such as that described in the
earlier post is contrary to the intent of the _very liberal privileges_
accorded to Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft vis-a-vis other
Experimental certificate issuances. A lot of you all feel you should
be allowed to build and fly anything you want anywhere anytime.
Unfortunately the voters say NO each election cycle by a 99-1 margin,
and this IS a democracy, or more correctly a democratic (heavily
democratic) republic.

[Lou]

What are "questionable motives"?
How do the voters say no?




I know, I know, "don't feed the trolls"

[Robert Barker]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
>> Lou wrote:
>>
>>> Those who can, do,
>>> Those who can't, bitch.
>>>
>>
>> There's a variation of that:
>>
>> Those who can do, those who can't teach.
>
> You forgot the last part:
>
> Those who can't teach, consult!
>
> With apologies to my many consultant friends. :-)
>
> Matt

A consultant is someone who borrows your watch to tell you what time it is
and then keeps the watch...

[Kyle Boatright]

"Robert Barker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
>>> Lou wrote:
>>>
>>>> Those who can, do,
>>>> Those who can't, bitch.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There's a variation of that:
>>>
>>> Those who can do, those who can't teach.
>>
>> You forgot the last part:
>>
>> Those who can't teach, consult!
>>
>> With apologies to my many consultant friends. :-)
>>
>> Matt
>
> A consultant is someone who borrows your watch to tell you what time it is
> and then keeps the watch...

We've always said that a consultant is anyone who lives at least 200 miles
away and owns both a suit and a briefcase.

KB

[Kyle Boatright]

"Lou" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> What are "questionable motives"?
> How do the voters say no?
>
>
>
>
> I know, I know, "don't feed the trolls"


As Dirty Harry once said, "A man's gotta know his limitations."

Apparently, Brett knows his limitations so instead of building and/or flying
airplanes, he trolls newsgroups.

It is good that someone feeds him a bit o' troll chow occasionally so he'll
stay in front of his computer instead of doing anything that would get him
in over his head...

[Paul Folbrecht]

The factory doesn't like IFR RVs a ton because of the potential liability.

I have an hour left-seat in a 9 and several hours in other RVs. The 9
is absolutely as stable in pitch & roll as a spam-can and stick forces
are similar. At 152 speeds, it feels so much like my own 152 it's
uncanny. The 9 & 10 are plenty fine instrument platforms with a
single-axis AP (even that's not required, and I fly my 152 w/out one).
The shorter-wing RVs can do it to but I think you'd better fly a lot to
stay proficient.

~Paul
~9A QB #1176

> I have only flown in one once: it was enough. Dick Van Grunsven TOLD
> ME, personally, on the phone, 20 years ago (you could call him up then)
> he builds a day VFR airplane and if you want a good stable instrument
> platform you should buy a Bonanza like the one he has. I have no idea
> if he still has a Bonanza, he probably has a King Air or Citation now
> for all I know.
>
> No I do not have a tape of the conversation: you will have to take my
> word for it. Van Grunsven will probably confirm it: he's stubborn as a
> son of a bitch, but he's honest. Most Dutchmen are.
>
> Not everyone wants an RV! (I do lust after a T-6 though.)
>

[[email protected]]

With about 8 to 900 hours in my RV4 I can say that it definetly is a
"hands on" airplane. The one time I inadvertantly flew it into IMC with
the autopilot not working I absolutly had my hands full. It is tough to
read a map without it going "off". 'Skiddish' is, however, a subjective
term. The Sonari I had before made the RV seem like a brick by
comparison. The only 2 times my '****' Lycoming let me down was once
when I ran it out of fuel and once when I nosed it over into a mud pond
(don't ask). My wife's C-172 is a good instrument training platform but
like those similar I find it so "BOOORRREING" to fly that I feel "why
bother". For long distances I would rather take an airliner and annoy
the flight attendents for drinks. The results are the same; catatonic
stuper.
For all the things it can't do I just couldn't bare the thought of
selling my RV. If I can't get a rush each time I fly then there are a
lot cheaper forms of entertainment so why bother.

Jim