The RV is a lot of work...

Those who can't teach, consult!

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

The Monk

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

("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

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.

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




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

"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...

"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

"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...

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.)