The RV is a lot of work...

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.

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.

"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/

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.)

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

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...

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