The RV is a lot of work...

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 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.)

In article . com,
"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.

In article ,
john smith wrote:

In article . com,
"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.

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?

("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

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

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

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.)

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.