RV-7a baggage area

Hello All,
I am strongly considering the RV-7a and am interested in knowing the
dimensions of the baggage area behind the seats.

Thanks
David


"EUTNET" wrote:

Baggage 100 lbs
+++++++++++++++++

ARRRGH.

Go directly to jail.
Do NOT pass GO.
Do NOT collect $200.


Monopoly BOb --

And hence we have ANOTHER person who cannot tell the difference between
MASS and VOLUME.

I feel your frustration.

And.. whats sad is.. the person who said 100 pounds probably thought
they were being helpful by pointing out something "obvious"

Dave

RR Urban wrote:


Hello All,
I am strongly considering the RV-7a and am interested in knowing the
dimensions of the baggage area behind the seats.


Thanks
David



"EUTNET" wrote:


Baggage 100 lbs

+++++++++++++++++

ARRRGH.

Go directly to jail.
Do NOT pass GO.
Do NOT collect $200.


Monopoly BOb --

Dave S wrote:

And hence we have ANOTHER person who cannot tell the difference between
MASS and VOLUME.

I feel your frustration.

And.. whats sad is.. the person who said 100 pounds probably thought
they were being helpful by pointing out something "obvious"

Dave

Those that point out the mistakes of others would do well to mind their
own. Pounds (lbs.) are a measure of weight, not mass (which in the English
system would be slugs).

Van's own web page shows the baggage area to be "12+ cu. ft." If you need
a more precise number, I would suggest contacting Van's Aircraft directly.

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-7spe.htm

Russell Kent

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 09:59:10 -0600, Russell Kent
wrote:

Dave S wrote:

And hence we have ANOTHER person who cannot tell the difference between
MASS and VOLUME.

I feel your frustration.

And.. whats sad is.. the person who said 100 pounds probably thought
they were being helpful by pointing out something "obvious"

Dave

Those that point out the mistakes of others would do well to mind their
own.

Heed your own advice, fool.

Pounds (lbs.) are a measure of weight, not mass (which in the English
system would be slugs).

Where'd you get that idea?

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Gentlemen of the jury, Chicolini here may look like an idiot,
and sound like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: He
really is an idiot.
Groucho Marx

Russell Kent wrote:

Those that point out the mistakes of others would do well to mind their own.

Gene Nygaard responded:

Heed your own advice, fool.

On entirely too many occasions I am indeed a fool, but I don't see where
devolving to name calling improves the conversation. Besides gently (IMHO)
chastising the intervening poster's rant, I still provided a useful answer to
the original poster's question (12+ cu. ft.) and a reference to the source.

Russell Kent continued:

Pounds (lbs.) are a measure of weight, not mass (which in the English system
would be slugs).

Gene Nygaard responded:

Where'd you get that idea?

Uh, 2 years of high school physics (a jillion years ago). Perhaps a few web
references will help clear the cobwebs:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Slug.html

http://www.physics.ucla.edu/k-6connection/Mass,w,d.htm

Russell Kent

OK, I know it's bad form to follow-up one's own posting. So sue me. :-)

Gene,
I see from your signature that this "weight vs. mass" thing is a personal windmill
for you. Fine. And I see that slug isn't used anymore (pound-force is the term
now). And for non-technical conversations, pound is a unit of mass.

Here's a question though: is this forum a technical or non-technical conversation?

And look at the sequence of postings: EUTNET wrote that the baggage area dimension
was 100 lbs, obviously meaning *weight*, and Dave S. complained that EUTNET
"cannot tell the difference between MASS and VOLUME." [emphasis Dave's] So I
believe Dave should have instead written "WEIGHT and VOLUME."

Now I suspect that Dave S. was merely careless and really does understand the
difference between mass and weight, and I was trying to gently pass along the
advice that newsgroup corrections are invariably inspected for even the slightest
error (see this thread!). I welcome you (Gene) jumping in at that point to
correct the whole weight vs. mass, slugs, pound-force hullabalu, but I wish you'd
do it with a bit less hostility. Someone may well have ****ed in your cornflakes,
but I assure you it wasn't me. :-)

Russell Kent

Russell Kent wrote:

Russell Kent wrote:

Those that point out the mistakes of others would do well to mind their own.

Gene Nygaard responded:

Heed your own advice, fool.

On entirely too many occasions I am indeed a fool, but I don't see where
devolving to name calling improves the conversation. Besides gently (IMHO)
chastising the intervening poster's rant, I still provided a useful answer to
the original poster's question (12+ cu. ft.) and a reference to the source.

Russell Kent continued:

Pounds (lbs.) are a measure of weight, not mass (which in the English system
would be slugs).

Gene Nygaard responded:

Where'd you get that idea?

Uh, 2 years of high school physics (a jillion years ago). Perhaps a few web
references will help clear the cobwebs:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Slug.html

http://www.physics.ucla.edu/k-6connection/Mass,w,d.htm

Russell Kent

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:02:03 -0600, Russell Kent
wrote:

Russell Kent wrote:

Those that point out the mistakes of others would do well to mind their own.

Gene Nygaard responded:

Heed your own advice, fool.

On entirely too many occasions I am indeed a fool, but I don't see where
devolving to name calling improves the conversation.

I see that even that wasn't enough to get your attention, Chicolini.

How big a bat do I need to hit you over the head with to get your
attention?


Besides gently (IMHO)
chastising the intervening poster's rant, I still provided a useful answer to
the original poster's question (12+ cu. ft.) and a reference to the source.

Yes, you got that right. Too bad nobody will pat you on the back for
it, because you obscured it with irrelevant nonsense, and even worse,
an incorrect claim of error on someone else's part.

Russell Kent continued:

Pounds (lbs.) are a measure of weight, not mass (which in the English system
would be slugs).

Gene Nygaard responded:

Where'd you get that idea?

Uh, 2 years of high school physics (a jillion years ago). Perhaps a few web
references will help clear the cobwebs:

If you found those references, you also found many that got it right.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Slug.html

Slugs are units of mass. That's not what I'm calling you on.

But that little-used 20th century invention, which didn't even appear
in physics textbooks before 1940, are by no stretch of the imagination
_the_ units of mass in "the English system."

Pounds force also exist, but that's also beside the point.

Back up your claim that pounds are not units of mass. That's where
you falsely claimed that Dave S. was making an error.

--
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
"It's not the things you don't know
what gets you into trouble.

"It's the things you do know
that just ain't so."
Will Rogers

Gene Nygaard wrote:

I see that even that wasn't enough to get your attention, Chicolini.

OK, you got me there. Haven't a clue who Chicolini is. Should I be insulted? Do
you now feel better having insulted me?

How big a bat do I need to hit you over the head with to get your
attention?

Clear, intelligent statements usually work.

Besides gently (IMHO)
chastising the intervening poster's rant, I still provided a useful answer to
the original poster's question (12+ cu. ft.) and a reference to the source.

Yes, you got that right. Too bad nobody will pat you on the back for
it,

(I don't care)

because you obscured it with irrelevant nonsense,

Irrelevant? Wasn't to me. Nonsense? Um, nope.

and even worse, an incorrect claim of error on someone else's part.

Perhaps.

Uh, 2 years of high school physics (a jillion years ago). Perhaps a few web
references will help clear the cobwebs:

If you found those references, you also found many that got it right.

I just grabbed a few that looked to get to the point quickly.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Slug.html

Slugs are units of mass. That's not what I'm calling you on.

It wasn't clear in your earlier hostile response.

But that little-used 20th century invention, which didn't even appear
in physics textbooks before 1940, are by no stretch of the imagination
_the_ units of mass in "the English system."

I'm sorry, you're correct. I didn't mean to imply that they are the only unit of
mass. I was taught (perhaps incorrectly) that the unambiguous term for weight
(scientific meaning) in the English system was "slugs". Apparently it's also
"pounds force" now (it may have been them, too, and I've just forgotten it).

Pounds force also exist, but that's also beside the point.

sarcasm Whew. Glad we're past that. /sarcasm

Back up your claim that pounds are not units of mass. That's where you falsely
claimed that Dave S. was making an error.

Actually, I intended only to claim that Dave S. incorrectly stated mass when he
should have stated weight. From my perspective, the respondent about whom Dave S.
was complaining clearly intended "lbs" as a unit of weight.

The reference to the slug as the English mass unit was only intended as an offhand
remark. Pounds are units of mass in casual (non-technical) conversations, and
probably shorthand for "pounds force" in technical conversations.

For the record, I don't claim that slugs are the only unit of mass in the English
system, and I'm sorry to have inadvertantly made that implication.

Russell Kent