---------------------------------------------------------- RV-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 10/13/06: 30 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 04:49 AM - Re: Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT) (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Mich=E8le_Delsol?=) 2. 05:44 AM - Training and judgement (glen matejcek) 3. 06:51 AM - Re: Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT) (Tim Olson) 4. 08:50 AM - GPS/COM For Sale (n621tm@comcast.net) 5. 09:25 AM - Re: Training and judgement (Rob Prior (rv7)) 6. 10:16 AM - Transitioning-Low Time (Jim Duckett) 7. 10:42 AM - N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (bertrv6@highstream.net) 8. 10:57 AM - Re: RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII FT (go_lancair) 9. 11:17 AM - Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (Bob Collins) 10. 12:12 PM - Re: Re: RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII FT (Jim Sears) 11. 01:02 PM - Re: Re: RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII FT (Jerry Springer) 12. 01:44 PM - Re: Re: RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII FT (Tedd McHenry) 13. 02:16 PM - Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (Larry Bowen) 14. 02:38 PM - Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (Bruce Gray) 15. 03:23 PM - Re: Re: RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII FT (Jerry Springer) 16. 03:35 PM - Cirrus & journalists (lyle tinckler) 17. 05:02 PM - Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (FLYaDIVE@aol.com) 18. 06:12 PM - Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (Bob Collins) 19. 06:14 PM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Bob Collins) 20. 06:36 PM - Re: Re: RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII FT (JOHN STARN) 21. 07:02 PM - Re: Re: RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII FT (Fiveonepw@AOL.COM) 22. 07:09 PM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Mark Grieve) 23. 07:15 PM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Ron Lee) 24. 07:25 PM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Bob Collins) 25. 07:29 PM - LOE day trip (Ron Lee) 26. 07:41 PM - catto 3-blade prop (sarg314) 27. 08:04 PM - Re: catto 3-blade prop (Jeff Orear) 28. 08:30 PM - Re: catto 3-blade prop (sarg314) 29. 08:39 PM - Re: catto 3-blade prop (Jerry Calvert) 30. 11:42 PM - Re: catto 3-blade prop (Jeff Point) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 04:49:30 AM PST US From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mich=E8le_Delsol?= Subject: RE: RV-List: Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT) --> RV-List message posted by: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mich=E8le_Delsol?= I have the same concern - also a low time pilot but with a fair amount of time in a Piper Cub. My plan is to get fully cleared on a CAP 10 (aerobatic 180HP tail dragger) for take offs and landings and to do the same on a plane with a CS prop. Once I have these two under my belt I should be OK to handle my RV8. My plan is to get this done within six months prior to my first flight. Transition training in an RV does not appear to be an option in France. Michele RV8 - Fuselage -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dwight Frye Sent: jeudi 12 octobre 2006 22:28 Subject: RV-List: Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT) --> RV-List message posted by: Dwight Frye On Thu Oct 12 15:18:35 2006, Bob Collins wrote : >Indeed, the accident in New York -- and the Cirrus accidents -- reminds me >that low-time Warrior/Cessna 172 pilots who are building RVs, need to spend >a LOT of time..... a LOT of time ... in transition training. > >Always makes me pause and think, "Am I *really* going to be able to fly this >thing safely." Interesting that you make this comment when you do. I have been pondering that very same issue lately. Similar thoughts (i.e. regarding the "ticket-in-Feb, Cirrus-in-July, dead-in-Oct" sequence of events) occurred to me about the NYC accident too. Regarding your particular point, we'll use my situation as an example. I am a low-time pilot. I have roughly 350 hours spread over a decade-plus. I have owned a plane (1967 Cherokee 180, and boy I miss it), gotten my instrument ticket, and have maybe 8 hours of tailwheel time spread over a few -years-. The tailwheel plans that I've flown are an RV-6 and a Citabria (by flown I don't mean just having gotten a ride in, but have done take-offs and landings with instructors). I'm a slow builder, so still have time to think about what to do, but I do get my engine in about a month and a half and think it is remotely possible I could have the RV-7 flying in as little as a year. (Imagine me crossing my fingers as I type that sentence ... not an easy thing to do, I'll tell you.) Two years max. (More crossing of fingers!) When I go talk to various local folks the response is "Don't sweat it, you'll do fine". Ok. Great. But ..... I'm left not entirely convinced. I have this vague worry that what I _should_ do is go out and buy me something along the lines of a Luscombe 8A for $20K, commit to putting 50 hours/year on it while I finish the RV, and -then- do the required type-specific RV transition training with Mike Seager. When I've got the RV flying, sell the Luscombe (for a tidy profit ... yeah, right) and start my flight testing. You see, I want to be SURE that I can safely fly my RV once I finish it ..... but when I talk to other folks I start to feel like a paranoid, and that my concerns are leading me in the direction of overkill. What say you experienced folks? Am I being overly cautious? What I do know is that if I bend this RV after all my _wife's_ help riveting, I'll be in deep deep trouble. :) -- Dwight ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:44:18 AM PST US From: "glen matejcek" Subject: RV-List: Training and judgement --> RV-List message posted by: "glen matejcek" Hi All- > but when I talk to other folks I start to feel like a paranoid, and that my > concerns are leading me in the direction of overkill. What say you experienced > folks? Am I being overly cautious? Probably. However, a little fear of the unknown can be a good motivator, and training is never a waste. It is better to be way over prepared than slightly under prepared. The fact that you acknowledge the gaps in your experience and want to address them already demonstrates good judgement on your part; keep up the good work and attitude. > As far as i'm concerned, all the RPP and > Sport Pilot permits do is "dumb down" the priviledge of getting a pilot's > license. It may get more people in the air, but it looks more and more > like the tradeoff is less capable pilots. Well, that's true. And a private is a dumbed down / less capable instrument pilot, is a dumbed down / less capable commercial pilot, is a dumbed down / less capable ATP. We can all get along safely as long as we all exercise the required judgement and self discipline to stay within our bounds, both legal and practical. As one old timer put it to me years ago, "The superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid using his superior skill". >... a plane being at fault... I have a totally unscientific opinion on this issue. First, some data points. Over time when speaking with the BRS folks, and reading some of their literature, they have claimed a 'save' rate that was a very significant percentage of the total number of GA fatal accidents. However, the fatal accident rate wasn't radically reduced by the introduction of their system. Also, as I understand it, Cirrus insurance rates are inordinately high due to all the hull losses incurred with BRS deployment. It seems to me that there are two potential reasons for this. First, there may be some number of people out there who would not embark on a flight in a Cessna under a particular set of circumstances, yet would attempt that flight with a BRS equipped airplane. This, of course, raises their exposure level markedly. Second, somewhere, someone is experiencing a high pucker factor circumstance in aviation. When that person is in a conventionally equipped plane, he generally has no choice but to continue the flight to a landing somewhere. But if that plane is a Cirrus, and the stress level gets high enough, there is always that Big Red Handle... > Similar thoughts (i.e. regarding the "ticket-in-Feb, > Cirrus-in-July, dead-in-Oct" sequence of events) occurred to me about the > NYC > accident too. Who remembers Thurmon Munson? glen matejcek aerobubba@earthlink.net > Do not archive ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:51:16 AM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: RV-List: Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT) --> RV-List message posted by: Tim Olson All we have to offer are opinions....I'll offer mine then I guess. I was a 475 hour in many GA planes pilot when I flew my RV-10 this past winter. Got 5 hours from Mike Seager. It was worthwhile getting the time, just to ensure you had some recent experience, supervised, in that make and model. I'm having a great time in the -10, as it flies and lands nicely. I think that the "speed factor" comments are probably part of the picture, and a definite complication with RV's. Don't bother defending them because they fly nice, they're still fast and easy to get behind. Mind you that this isn't ALWAYS the case...but it certainly CAN be. Currently I'm far away from home in El Paso for LOE. I've now taken the -10 to 3 of the 4 corners of the country. When your head is out the window in unfamiliar territory, and you're deciphering charts and getting vectors from controllers and being requested to report over "common" VFR points that you don't even know what or where they are, this speed becomes a factor. You're just plain a fish out of water. It's nothing to do with the plane, and all the pilot. Stick an even lower time pilot in a fast plane, in the complex airspace like a box canyon in New York....trying to sightsee at the same time, and make it a one-way box corridor and man, I see some possibilities. Part of the *problem* is the airspace and restrictions.....had it been a VFR corridor that was one-way only, defined with running altitudes and known GPS fixes, this might have been much prettier. Oh, and don't discount the weather that day. sure, the video I saw showed ok lateral viz, but it was drizzly and overcast that day. You can get many things taking your mind off from the flight. Now for one more twist... When have I felt the stupidest while flying? Probably when it was me and fellow VERY experienced (thousands of hours) pilot buddies, and we were just flying around VFR playing around. You have the tendency to be lax, and 2 pilots in the plane don't make it easier. I've felt the safest when flying IFR in hard conditions, with the same people by my side....so it's an attitude and attention thing, and I've personally seen how 2 heads can make worse decisions than one. Transition training, even only a minimal hour, should be a must. Recent experience in ANY plane is very valuable, so before first flights, get 5,10,20 recent hours under your belt...the more total time you have, the less recent required if you're like most people. Put on over 100 hours a year and you're likely to retain it very well for a few years. Sport pilot / Rec pilot? I'm not a fan. I really like the medical ideas, but the lack of overall training time sounds like a mess to me. To me, they're cheaper to fly so the goal could maybe be to let pilots get their 40 hours in cheaper planes, so it doesn't cost as much...but cutting the total to 20, well, lets just say there are times I wouldn't want to share the airspace with a 21 hour pilot who thinks they're ready. I'm now well over 600 and there are times that even with really good preflight prep that I could do better when I'm in unfamiliar places. The whole learn, buy a cirrus (or lancair, or rv-10, or...) and then pile it in, concept shouldn't be discounted too much either. A pocket of cash spent more on the toy than the time just isn't a good idea. Don't underestimate the value of *negative* experience in slower planes. I distinctly remember hopping the airports around MSP in a retract when I had only 75 or so TT and flying with another pilot. You're with your departure tower for 5 miles, have 2 miles until you must contact the other tower, and you're flying a faster plane than your trainer. I got turned around trying to visualize the runways as they told me to report over the "whatever" (that I had no clue what/where it was), and almost flew downwind to the wrong runway. It's when they bite your head off on the radio, and straighten you out, and you walk away only a little ego bruised that you start to gain "experience". The upside to living through the standard problems is the gain of experience....which is somewhat nice to get in slower, easy flying planes for a while. Remember that the insurance companies have mathematical reasons for setting rates, and pilot time and training requirements. Anyone priced insurance on a new SR22 lately? It's not the plane, it's the pilot....same with our RV's. Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive Bob Collins wrote: > Just projecting -- since I don't know for sure -- my guess is the big > difference in a trainer vs. an RV isn't the docile characteristics per > se, but the "speed factor." I assume things happen faster. Relating > this back to the Cirrus, I don't think it's an unsafe plane, I just > think it's probably a faster airplane. There are days when -- well, when > I *was* flying (I'm grounded at the moment) -- I'd find myself behind > the old truck and just oculdn't catch up. Can any of you who have > transitioned from a trainer to an RV report on that aspect of things? > > Do not archive. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Hopperdhh@aol.com > *Sent:* Thursday, October 12, 2006 7:37 PM > *To:* rv-list@matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: RV-List: Transitioning Low-time Pilots (was: Cirrus - OT) > > > > > Dwight, > > While I agree that lots of transition training would be a good thing, I > flew my RV-7A with practically none. I landed a friends RV-6A from the > right seat one time and decided that I could fly the -7A that my wife > and I built, and I did. I had about 450 hours in Cessnas and Warriors, > and about 100 hours in a Grumman AA1C. The Grumman was a good > "transition trainer." The RV-7A is much more docile than that little devil. > ** > > * > > > * ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:50:47 AM PST US From: n621tm@comcast.net Subject: RV-List: GPS/COM For Sale I have a Garmin (Apollo) SL60 GPS/COM and a MAP 360 for sale as a set. The two units come with a pre-wired tray and GPS antenna. The SL60 GPS/COM was yellow tagged at Flight Electronics in Dallas last week. These items were originally installed in a Cessna 140, but were removed prior to the plane being sold. The price for all items is $1800.00. If you have any questions or would like to see pictures, contact me at n621tm@comcast.net Thanks, Tom Moore Dallas, TX
I have a Garmin (Apollo) SL60 GPS/COM and a MAP 360 for sale as a set. The two units come with a pre-wired tray and GPS antenna. The SL60 GPS/COM was yellow tagged at Flight Electronics in Dallas last week. These items were originally installed in a Cessna 140, but were removed prior to the plane being sold. The price for all items is $1800.00. If you have any questions or would like to see pictures, contact me at n621tm@comcast.net
Thanks,
Tom Moore
Dallas, TX
________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 09:25:27 AM PST US From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" Subject: Re: RV-List: Training and judgement --> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior (rv7)" On 5:42:15 2006-10-13 "glen matejcek" wrote: > > As far as i'm concerned, all the RPP and > > Sport Pilot permits do is "dumb down" the priviledge of getting a > > pilot's license. It may get more people in the air, but it looks > > more and more like the tradeoff is less capable pilots. > > Well, that's true. And a private is a dumbed down / less capable > instrument pilot, is a dumbed down / less capable commercial pilot, > is a dumbed down / less capable ATP. Not quite. An instrument pilot is a private pilot who has learned specific additional skills to fly into additional conditions. He's not required to have any flying abilities or precision any greater than a private pilot. A Commercial pilot, on the other hand, has learned to fly to a higher standard, and i'll grant you that point. Carrying passengers for hire probably does require greater precision than someone out for fun. But the standards for the Recreational/Sport Pilot and the PP aren't really any different, other than the number of hours necessary to get your license. Furthermore, (in Canada, anyway) a Recreational Pilot can fly the same plane that a Private Pilot can, provided he only carries one passenger. There may be an upper weight limit that i'm not aware of as well, i'm not that knowledgeable about the permit. But I do know that an RPP can fly a Cessna 172 just like a PP can, as long as there is only one passenger. So the only difference between an RPP and a PP (or SP and PP, in the US) really, is how heavy an airplane you can fly. There are just too many other things that vary between airplane types, and the RPP/PP division doesn't address them. It's just an artificial division, to make an artificially cheapened license. And let's not even get into the discussion about pilots who are dropping their PP in favour of a RPP or SPP because it means they don't have to get a full medical that would invalidate their PP. -Rob Do Not Archive ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 10:16:46 AM PST US From: "Jim Duckett" Subject: RV-List: Transitioning-Low Time Hi Guys, Guess I'll chime in here too. Like some who have posted to this thread I have lots of hours in several different types, spread over many, many years. Have I flown any of these aircraft with any regularity within the past , say 2 years-no! Do I consider myself proficient in any of them right now -no! Point being - even though your ticket may show you have the rating ask yourself, "Am I really qualified"? Just because I can still rember the pre-flight check list sequence of a C-130 from the 60's and 70's doesn't convience me that I can still be safe doing it. Experienced, dare I say professional pilots (meaning their attitude, not who signs their paychecks) have always strived to imporve their skills or at least keep them honed. Some, not all, of the newer low time pilots (again attitude) seem to think, "hey I did it once...I'm good to go"! I'm not trying to flame anyone or get anyone mad, this has just been my humble observations. LSA is a great way for folks to get into aviation. Especially where there is wide open airspace but, for many parts of the country that airspace is rapidly shrinking and or gaining more restrictions. It's not the days of Sky King anymore, boys and girls! The FAA lets us as pilots somewhat self govern ourselves under the Regulations. There isn't some offical standing on the ramp with a clip board making sure I do 3 take-offs and landings to a complete stop. There's no one making sure I do a full pre-flight or pull the check list out each time before I fly. It's that reliance on our professional state of mind I refer to and the FAA relies on. Same reason we get so pissed at a smiley on a rivet that they claim is structurally okay - most of us are annal at being the best we can and do. It's when I overhear a LSA rep tell a perspective buyer that, "with the LSA all you need is a drivers license...it's just like owning a car...just get in and go" really send shivers down my spine. Or it's when a guy does a missed approach and then signs off as having done 3 full stop landings, you have to ask yourself, who's to blame? It's frustrating that even the best of us sometimes get caught with our pants down trying to keep up with the many changes, when now there seems to be a growing sense that as long as someone is VFR, low and slow, or in any LSA these professional attitudes are only options to be considered. So bottom line IMHO I beleive that transition training, or at the very least a well defined, methodical, flight testing and proficiency program should be developed and adhered to no matter what your flight log shows or the type of aircraft you operate. In the "old days" when our ships were called "home builts" and every phase of construction had to be offically inspected, approved, and signed off before you could move on to the next phase things were a lot different. After completion, and another inspection most DAR's required at least 10 hours of stage 1 taxi testing and ground runs before they would sign off for any flight tests. Initial flight tests were only allowed during daylight hours, had to be in the pattern and in sight of the tower, and generally governed to max of 1000' AGL. Often the first few flight hours were also wittnessed by the DAR. This was long before we considered, or had the ability for transition training in experimentals. Lots more hassle then but, at least you learned your ship. Jim Duckett Please Do Not Archive ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 10:42:41 AM PST US From: bertrv6@highstream.net Subject: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question --> RV-List message posted by: bertrv6@highstream.net Hi: No to add more on this, but would like to hear other comments, as to why two people make such mistake...Pilot error... A lot of the comments are that the plane is too fast, what a riduculous statement....so we have to fly only Piper J cubs?/ Many years ago, I flue, on my cherokee 140, the same route, over the river, and back to my Maryland base...I was a new pilot, with maybe 80 hours after getting my license.....I was no problem... of course we did not have all the stupid rules etc. as of today... All this about low time pilot, what is that means...he has to spent 200 hours on his home air port doing touch and go...?You get experience by flying cross country trips...what about when we have to do our first solo cross country....( I had to do 2 long ones, as a matter of fact one was to Newakr N>Y> back to Baltimore..and I did not have my license yet....people I understand by pilots making such commnents... But I digress,, why they didn't turn right or request climb.. Cirrus can fly very well at 100 MPH no? It is a shames this things happen....but if the Big boys make mistakes... with same consequences.. just my thoughts. Bert rv6a do not archive ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 10:57:07 AM PST US Subject: RV-List: Re: RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII FT From: "go_lancair" --> RV-List message posted by: "go_lancair" Ok, no one can resist this kind of question. Each person makes a good point, but most of you guys have not done enough research. In the same search I visited each facility, talked to the representatives and by the end of AirVenture 2006 had flown in each aircraft. To say the least Glasiar has lost interest in their FT's III's etc to go for the cash cow Sportsman. They sent me manuals for the FT which were completely out of date and poorly bound. I'd be surprised if they even sold one sport unit this year. The sales curve on that product is somewhere down there with the Cessna 150. Van's has a good product albiet I found their staff to be generally rude and little interested in me as a customer. I bought the empannage kit for the RV-8 (because it was cheap), built it and gave it to the recylcing center after flying the Lancair. Speaking of flying the RV(7) it flew just fine as an aircraft but noisy, not especially comfortable and somewhere the wind was whistling through with annoying prevalence. At take off time it rattled and shuttered as we approached Vr. The Lancair was incredibly smooth, fast climbing, and without a whisper of air in the cabin. Climb out was an easy 110 knots at 2000 ft p/min. I was sold in an instant. Did I mention Lanciar is the only build with solid controls? Yes, that makes me feel safer and it gives the plane a solid feeling. Did I mention Lancair is the only plane in the EAA museum and the NYC modern museum of art? The plane is totally responsive like I would expect from any good airplane. And no, you don't need to cross the numbers at 110. I found the staff especially professional and welcoming (will provide references). BTW I don't know about the Glasair dinner, but the ramp guy at Airventure was pissed as the demo did not leave the field all week. I guess that tells you something. So I will start my baby Lancair in March 07' and get the sniffles from fiberglass dust, life sucks. I have plenty of cuts from the RV empennage too. No one gets away clean. One thing Van's doesn't! promote is the fact that yes they have over 5,000 kits flying, but have sold over 100,000 kits (or pieces) to people that have no intention of finishing them. Lancair is no where near those numbers, but as far as I can tell has a strong family of high flyers. In the end it's your ass in the plane, your 100+k and it should be finished exactly as you like it. Happy flying. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=67531#67531 ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 11:17:51 AM PST US Subject: RV-List: Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question From: "Bob Collins" --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" bertrv6(at)highstream.net wrote: > Hi: > > A lot of the comments are that the plane is too fast, what a riduculous > statement....so we have to fly only Piper J cubs?/ > First, I never said we should only fly Piper J Cubs so that's a non starter that you've thrown in there for reasons I don't know and don't really care about since it has nothing to do with the issue. But let me give you my reasoning why I brought up the speed issue. First, I was bringing it up *for me.* As a low-time pilot, I'm aware of the pace at which things occur even at low speed. I'm aware of Rod Machado's old axiom that the two most important things about flying an airplane are the next two you have to do. A plane travelling faster, it seems to me has those two things happening closer together. And I said *I* have gotten behind a slower plane and it is logical to me that if I got behind a slower machine, there's a greater risk -- although I can't tell you how much greater -- of falling behind a faster machine. I don't think that's ridiculous. In fact I know it's not ridiculous *to me.* I think it's the sort of thing that leads a smart pilot to recognize his limitations (or her limitations) and get the appropriate amount of training. Saying one needs the appropriate amount of training to fly a high perforance airplane is not the same as saying one *can't* or even *shouldn't* fly a high performance airplane. Although it wouldn't surprise me a bit if a few folks don't see the difference . Be aware that when I post a message with a perspective, it's only *my* perspective. It doesn't have to be anyone else's. Last point: My kid, who got his driver's license last year, recently bought a motorcycle. I found out the other day he was zipping down the road at 85. The fact that the machine will go 85 and provide absolutely no protection isn't an indictment of the machine. The fact some bonehead will go 85 down the road with no protection -- and break the law in the process -- speaks volumes about the bonehead doing so. -------- Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. RV Builder's Hotline (free!) http://home.comcast.net/~rvnewsletter/ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=67536#67536 ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 12:12:08 PM PST US From: "Jim Sears" Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII FT --> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" Hmmm. Seems this person is on the wrong list. :-) I've found the RV to be to my liking, what I can afford, and a kit I'm not afraid to buy because the company should be around for a long time. I've found the staff to be helpful and usually cheerful to talk with. I'm building a third RV and have found improvements, at very little or no cost increases, with each new project. Granted, the Lancair is a mighty fine airplane; but, it's one that most of us can ill afford. One of my criteria was that the airplane had to be metal because I can't afford a hangar. I'm afraid a glass airplane would melt in the sun, over time. My RV has been outside for most of its flying life and is still holding its shape. Jim in KY do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "go_lancair" Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 1:56 PM Subject: RV-List: Re: RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII FT > --> RV-List message posted by: "go_lancair" > > Ok, no one can resist this kind of question. Each person makes a good > point, but most of you guys have not done enough research. In the same > search I visited each facility, talked to the representatives and by the > end of AirVenture 2006 had flown in each aircraft. To say the least > Glasiar has lost interest in their FT's III's etc to go for the cash cow > Sportsman. They sent me manuals for the FT which were completely out of > date and poorly bound. I'd be surprised if they even sold one sport unit > this year. The sales curve on that product is somewhere down there with > the Cessna 150. Van's has a good product albiet I found their staff to be > generally rude and little interested in me as a customer. I bought the > empannage kit for the RV-8 (because it was cheap), built it and gave it to > the recylcing center after flying the Lancair. Speaking of flying the > RV(7) it flew just fine as an aircraft but noisy, not especially > comfortable and somewhere the wind was whistling through with ! > annoying prevalence. At take off time it rattled and shuttered as we > approached Vr. The Lancair was incredibly smooth, fast climbing, and > without a whisper of air in the cabin. Climb out was an easy 110 knots at > 2000 ft p/min. I was sold in an instant. Did I mention Lanciar is the only > build with solid controls? Yes, that makes me feel safer and it gives the > plane a solid feeling. Did I mention Lancair is the only plane in the EAA > museum and the NYC modern museum of art? The plane is totally responsive > like I would expect from any good airplane. And no, you don't need to > cross the numbers at 110. I found the staff especially professional and > welcoming (will provide references). BTW I don't know about the Glasair > dinner, but the ramp guy at Airventure was pissed as the demo did not > leave the field all week. I guess that tells you something. So I will > start my baby Lancair in March 07' and get the sniffles from fiberglass > dust, life sucks. I have plenty of cuts from the RV ! > empennage too. No one gets away clean. One thing Van's doesn't! > promote > > is the fact that yes they have over 5,000 kits flying, but have sold over > 100,000 kits (or pieces) to people that have no intention of finishing > them. Lancair is no where near those numbers, but as far as I can tell has > a strong family of high flyers. In the end it's your ass in the plane, > your 100+k and it should be finished exactly as you like it. Happy flying. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=67531#67531 > > > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 01:02:47 PM PST US From: Jerry Springer Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII FT --> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer go_lancair wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: "go_lancair" > > Ok, no one can resist this kind of question. Each person makes a good > point, but most of you guys have not done enough research. In the > same search I visited each facility, > Did I mention Lanciar is the only build with solid > controls? Yes, that makes me feel safer and it gives the plane a > solid feeling. What dose that mean? Solid controls? Seems to me like my RV-6 has sokid controls. And guess what it does not even shake or rattle at takeoff. > Did I mention Lancair is the only plane in the EAA > museum and the NYC modern museum of art? Ii am supposed to be impressed becaue their airplane is in the NYC museum? LOL They have piss and crap in there also. > The plane is totally > responsive like I would expect from any good airplane. Most military pilots I know like the RV-** feel because it feel more fighter like and does aerobatics much beter than a Lancair ever could. > And no, you > don't need to cross the numbers at 110. No you don't but you have to be really cose to it. BTW I do have time in all three aircraft you mentioned. > I found the staff especially > professional and welcoming (will provide references). Van's also will provide you with information and help you find builders in your area. >BTW I don't > know about the Glasair dinner, but the ramp guy at Airventure was > pissed as the demo did not leave the field all week. I guess that > tells you something. ???????????????just what does that tell you? Maybe everyone got sick at the dinner. LOL > So I will start my baby Lancair in March 07' and > get the sniffles from fiberglass dust, life sucks. I have plenty of > cuts from the RV ! empennage too. No one gets away clean. One thing > Van's doesn't! promote is the fact that yes they have over 5,000 kits flying, but have sold > over 100,000 kits (or pieces) to people that have no intention of > finishing them. I really doubt that anyone buys a kit with the intention of not finishing them. > Lancair is no where near those numbers, but as far as > I can tell has a strong family of high flyers. In the end it's your > ass in the plane, your 100+k and it should be finished exactly as you > like it. Happy flying. > Yes Lancairs are pretty airplanes, yes they go fast. No they are nearly as much fun to fly as a RV. They are like owning a cessna etc. you get in and go from point A to point B not much fun in between. Any old airplane will do that. Jerry ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 01:44:46 PM PST US From: Tedd McHenry Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII FT --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry A hundred thousand kits or partial kits? That's got to be a troll. Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC, Canada DO NOT ARCHIVE ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 02:16:58 PM PST US Subject: Re: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question From: "Larry Bowen" --> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" I think the wx was intermittently quite low at the time of the accident. VFR flight into IMC is my initial thought... -- Larry Bowen Larry@BowenAero.com http://BowenAero.com bertrv6@highstream.net wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: bertrv6@highstream.net > > > Hi: > > No to add more on this, but would like to hear other comments, as to > why two people make such mistake...Pilot error... > > A lot of the comments are that the plane is too fast, what a riduculous > statement....so we have to fly only Piper J cubs?/ > > Many years ago, I flue, on my cherokee 140, the same route, over > the river, and back to my Maryland base...I was a new pilot, with maybe > 80 hours after getting my license.....I was no problem... of course > we did not have all the stupid rules etc. as of today... > > > All this about low time pilot, what is that means...he has to spent 200 > hours on his home air port doing touch and go...?You get experience by > flying cross country trips...what about when we have to do our first > solo cross country....( I had to do 2 long ones, as a matter of fact > one was to Newakr N>Y> back to Baltimore..and I did not have my license > yet....people I understand by pilots making such commnents... > > But I digress,, why they didn't turn right or request climb.. > > Cirrus can fly very well at 100 MPH no? > > It is a shames this things happen....but if the Big boys make mistakes... > with same consequences.. > > just my thoughts. > > Bert > > rv6a > > > do not archive > > ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 02:38:55 PM PST US From: "Bruce Gray" Subject: RE: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question --> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" It's my understanding that he was attempting a 180 to reverse course. The river is narrow at that point and he had about 2,000 feet of room. His turn wasn't tight enough, perhaps because he wasn't familiar with the higher speed of the Cirrus and the resultant larger turning radius. Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry Bowen Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 5:15 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question --> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" I think the wx was intermittently quite low at the time of the accident. VFR flight into IMC is my initial thought... -- Larry Bowen Larry@BowenAero.com http://BowenAero.com bertrv6@highstream.net wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: bertrv6@highstream.net > > > Hi: > > No to add more on this, but would like to hear other comments, as to > why two people make such mistake...Pilot error... > > A lot of the comments are that the plane is too fast, what a riduculous > statement....so we have to fly only Piper J cubs?/ > > Many years ago, I flue, on my cherokee 140, the same route, over > the river, and back to my Maryland base...I was a new pilot, with maybe > 80 hours after getting my license.....I was no problem... of course > we did not have all the stupid rules etc. as of today... > > > All this about low time pilot, what is that means...he has to spent 200 > hours on his home air port doing touch and go...?You get experience by > flying cross country trips...what about when we have to do our first > solo cross country....( I had to do 2 long ones, as a matter of fact > one was to Newakr N>Y> back to Baltimore..and I did not have my license > yet....people I understand by pilots making such commnents... > > But I digress,, why they didn't turn right or request climb.. > > Cirrus can fly very well at 100 MPH no? > > It is a shames this things happen....but if the Big boys make mistakes... > with same consequences.. > > just my thoughts. > > Bert > > rv6a > > > do not archive > > ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 03:23:06 PM PST US From: Jerry Springer Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII FT --> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer Tedd McHenry wrote: >--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry > >A hundred thousand kits or partial kits? That's got to be a troll. > >Tedd McHenry >Surrey, BC, Canada >DO NOT ARCHIVE > > > > I noticed no signature, plus the statement that he gave the completed emp kit to a recycler. Seem like if the workmenship was good he could have at least recouped close to purchase price. I believe it is a troll also but by a builder that could not do a good job of metal building. Jerry ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 03:35:10 PM PST US From: "lyle tinckler" Subject: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists The following only relates to RVs because the theme is about airplanes....sorry. As to the story about the Cirrus pranging into a building and all the moaning by journalists about the pilot, in general, the journalists of all stripes, TV, print, radio....make me want to puke. Extra, Extra TV show comes on with photos about " Celeb Pilots " who bought the farm, like Denver, Kennedy, Ricky Nelson !!!! wow, what a loss..and what that has to do with the New York thing beats me....so a baseball guy becomes a statistic of Darwin's Law....gee....why so little said about his pax who also left a wife and child ? Why no similar press about Scott Crossfield ( wha'...who he ??? ) who was lost recently in a weather related tragedy and who contributed light years more value to knowledge and aviation and space lore than a guy who merely tosses a ball ? This fixation that a life lost is only worth mucho press if they are a sport bum or celeb is lost on me....I mean, how many people actually knew the guys name until the discovery that he was a Yankee ? Worse still, you can bet there is going to be a lot more " expert " pronunciations that all those small airplanes and pilots are just nearly as bad a threat as terrorists are to the safety of the public. What I really love most is when the TV head declares with Basset Hound eyes is " we are awaiting to hear the cause of the crash ( of whatever airplane )" , when it is evident that the airplane crashed because it was pointed forthwith into a granite wall !!! Or better still..." the vehicle left the road ".. ( all by itself just because it wanted to ).. do not archive Lyle. ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 05:02:56 PM PST US From: FLYaDIVE@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question --> RV-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com In a message dated 10/13/06 1:47:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bertrv6@highstream.net writes: > ( I had to do 2 long ones, as a matter of fact > one was to Newakr N>Y> back to Baltimore..and I did not have my license > yet....people I understand by pilots making such commnents... [Barry] Do I understand you correctly ... You flew your Student Pilot Cross-country to Newark AP? The three APs EWR, JFK and LGA are in Class B with a NO SVFR and a NO STUDENT restriction and NO WAVERS. > But I digress,, why they didn't turn right or request climb.. > > Cirrus can fly very well at 100 MPH no? [Barry] YES, it can do 100 Kts or 100 MPH most acceptably. BUT! Here is my Hanger Flying synopses of the story: 1 - It was a MARGINAL VFR (MVFR) day. 2 - The instructor just wanted to build time. 3 - The instructor probably had minimal time in type. 4 - MONEY TALKS so they went flying 5 - I have flown the corridor at least 50 times and once even up the EAST RIVER. They did their flight up the Right Hand side of the river as required - BUT - they forgot one thing ... You need clearance from ATC to go beyond what is know as the second bridge. The instructor realized this at the last moment. 6 - How do you make a tight turn? A: Increase the bank and Decrease the power. 7 - There are some VERY strong winds that come between the buildings, sort of a venturi effect. So strong on a 9900 day I was jolted so hard that my head hit the ceiling of the plane and NOT lightly. I would have to call the winds/gust almost to a point of loss of control. The forward motion of the plane took it past the venturi between the buildings. 8 - So, I believe they got hit with this venturi wind/gust at the same time they were in a steep bank at low airspeed. 9 - There is an eye witness (BUNK TO THAT) account that said: it looked like they were doing aerobatics (DOUBLE BUNK)! JUST REMEMBER YOU READ IT HERE FIRST! O! I don't believe anything the media says and I have a VERY hard time believing what the NTSB says. Remember the flight the Boeing lost its vertical stabilizer on? Barry "Chop'd Liver" ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 06:12:02 PM PST US From: "Bob Collins" Subject: RE: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" Everyone should read Phillip Greenspun's theory at: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/ Phillip is a Harvard prof, an MIT grad, an SR-20 owner, and a CFI... In a cirrus. In fact his well-noted article on the qualities of the SR-20 is one of the finest ever written: http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20 //O! I don't believe anything the media says and I have a VERY hard time believing what the NTSB says. Remember the flight the Boeing lost its vertical stabilizer on? Well, since I'm in the media, this means that Phillip really isn't an SR-20 owner, a CFI, the writer of the article above or the blog listed. (g) Bob ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 06:14:32 PM PST US From: "Bob Collins" Subject: RE: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists // What I really love most is when the TV head declares with Basset Hound eyes is " we are awaiting to hear the cause of the crash ( of whatever airplane )" , when it is evident that the airplane crashed because it was pointed forthwith into a granite wall !!! Ah, so the cause, say, of the Challenger accident is because it re-entered the atmosphere? (g) One of my favorite lines from stories about crashes is, "witnesses said the plane was flying low shortly before the crash." Ya think????? Do not archive Bob (Journalist) ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 06:36:28 PM PST US From: "JOHN STARN" Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII FT --> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" And with better than a hundred of those RV "kits" flying as HR II Rockets. Van's does not count them in his "completed & flying" numbers but they are part of the "kits". KABONG Do Not Archive Gee, if ya'll adds just the HRII's & the F-1's flying together ya have a larger number than lots of the "other" recognized kit planes. (Sold or flying) Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII FT > --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry > > A hundred thousand kits or partial kits? That's got to be a troll. > > Tedd McHenry > Surrey, BC, Canada > DO NOT ARCHIVE ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 07:02:22 PM PST US From: Fiveonepw@AOL.COM Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII FT Yeah, whatever.......(snore) Mark - do not archive ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 07:09:05 PM PST US From: Mark Grieve Subject: Re: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists --> RV-List message posted by: Mark Grieve I recall hearing that a fire chief at the crash scene declared "good thing the plane's fuel tanks were empty or there would have been a big fire." MG Somebody already declared Do Not Archive Bob Collins wrote: > // What I really love most is when the TV head declares with Basset > Hound eyes is " we are awaiting to hear the cause of the crash ( of > whatever airplane )" , when it is evident that the airplane crashed > because it was pointed forthwith into a granite wall !!! > **** > *Ah, so the cause, say, of the Challenger accident is because it > re-entered the atmosphere? (g)* > ** > *One of my favorite lines from stories about crashes is, "witnesses said > the plane was flying low shortly before the crash." Ya think?????* > ** > ** > *Do not archive* > ** > *Bob (Journalist)* > > * > > > * > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 07:15:51 PM PST US From: Ron Lee Subject: RE: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists At 07:14 PM 10/13/2006, you wrote: > // What I really love most is when the TV head declares with Basset > Hound eyes is " we are awaiting to hear the cause of the crash ( of > whatever airplane )" , when it is evident that the airplane crashed > because it was pointed forthwith into a granite wall !!! > >Ah, so the cause, say, of the Challenger accident is because it re-entered >the atmosphere? (g) > >Bob (Journalist) Substitute Columbia for Challenger. Challenger broke up during ascent due to a problem with an SRB seal. Columbia broke up during re-entry due to damage from a strike from an object from the external tank shortly after lift-off. Ron Lee Do not archive ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 07:25:12 PM PST US From: "Bob Collins" Subject: RE: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists // Substitute Columbia for Challenger. Challenger broke up during ascent due to a problem with an SRB seal Of course. Stupid of me, which gives away what I do for a living. (g) I've gotta invent the next thing to sell to Google and get out of this business. Do not archive BC ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 07:29:01 PM PST US From: Ron Lee Subject: RV-List: LOE day trip --> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee I flew down to Santa Teresa (5T6) just for a quickie look. I flew east of White Sands and was able to cut the corner of the southernmost restricted area thanks to the ELP controller. This was not the first time I was able to do that. I was surprised to see so many RVs already there at around 130 PM. After getting gas then taking care of other details, I saw my two favorite people. No names but they seem to win something at the raffle every year. I strolled through about half of the RVs and there were beaucoup nice looking airplanes. If you want to get ideas on paint schemes this is a great place to do it. The day was clear, the ride smooth most of the time and I did not penetrate any active restricted areas. Plus I reached 1000 hours in an RV on the way down. The trip back was along I-25 then crossed over towards Las Vegas NM near Socorro NM then roughly north along I-25. Total around 700 nm in 6.6 hours (including taxi time) and about 44 gallons of gas. Considering that I did not start until 1000 local and got home before dark that is a nice day trip. Ron Lee ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 07:41:22 PM PST US From: sarg314 Subject: RV-List: catto 3-blade prop --> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 I just received a Catto 3 blade for my IO360. I just had to post a note to say it is a beautiful piece of work. If it flies half as good as it looks, I'll have a real hot rod on my hands. It will be a few months before I can start testing, though. I'll be sure to post some results when I have them. Craig Catto has a big backlog right now, but he's a good guy to do business with. -- Tom sargent RV-6A. ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 08:04:57 PM PST US From: "Jeff Orear" Subject: Re: RV-List: catto 3-blade prop --> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Orear" Just curious Tom.....How long did it take for you get your prop after you ordered it?? And yes, it does fly as good as it looks. I have an O320 with a 3 blade Catto. Just took some dual with a CFI that has RV time and he commented on how smooth the engine runs. You're gonna love that prop. Regards, Jeff Orear RV6A N782P Peshtigo, WI ----- Original Message ----- From: "sarg314" Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 9:40 PM Subject: RV-List: catto 3-blade prop > --> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 > > I just received a Catto 3 blade for my IO360. I just had to post a note > to say it is a beautiful piece of work. If it flies half as good as it > looks, I'll have a real hot rod on my hands. It will be a few months > before I can start testing, though. I'll be sure to post some results > when I have them. > > Craig Catto has a big backlog right now, but he's a good guy to do > business with. > > -- > Tom sargent > RV-6A. > > > ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 08:30:51 PM PST US From: sarg314 Subject: Re: RV-List: catto 3-blade prop --> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 Jeff: I placed the order in mid March. He specified a June delivery, which I did not believe at the time. I expected to get it in august or september. I actually got it on Oct. 12. Craig knew that my project wasn't stopped waiting for the prop. He gives priority to those who are in more immediate need. I can't really argue with that. I got mine in plenty of time. He seems to know his stuff and was always happy to talk to me when I called up. I can't wait to see what this thing will really do. Jeff Orear wrote: > Just curious Tom.....How long did it take for you get your prop after > you ordered it?? > > And yes, it does fly as good as it looks. I have an O320 with a 3 > blade Catto. Just took some dual with a CFI that has RV time and he > commented on how smooth the engine runs. > > You're gonna love that prop. > > Regards, > Jeff Orear > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "sarg314" > To: > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 9:40 PM > Subject: RV-List: catto 3-blade prop > > >> --> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 >> >> I just received a Catto 3 blade for my IO360. I just had to post a >> note to say it is a beautiful piece of work. If it flies half as >> good as it looks, I'll have a real hot rod on my hands. > > -- Tom Sargent, RV-6A ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 08:39:03 PM PST US From: "Jerry Calvert" Subject: Re: RV-List: catto 3-blade prop --> RV-List message posted by: "Jerry Calvert" I have a 3-blade Catto on my 0-320(150hp) RV6. Lot smoother than the Sensenich I did have on it and climbs much better, but the Sensenich is about 10 mph faster. I can only turn the Catto a little over 2500 RPM in level flight and 2475 RPM on the Sensenich. >From inside the cockpit, the Catto has a unique sound and is quieter. I like the Catto though for a good all-around prop. Jerry Calvert Edmond Ok RV6 296JC ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Orear" Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 10:04 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: catto 3-blade prop > --> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Orear" > > Just curious Tom.....How long did it take for you get your prop after you > ordered it?? > > And yes, it does fly as good as it looks. I have an O320 with a 3 blade > Catto. Just took some dual with a CFI that has RV time and he commented on > how smooth the engine runs. > > You're gonna love that prop. > > Regards, > > Jeff Orear > RV6A N782P > Peshtigo, WI > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "sarg314" > To: > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 9:40 PM > Subject: RV-List: catto 3-blade prop > > > > --> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 > > > > I just received a Catto 3 blade for my IO360. I just had to post a note > > to say it is a beautiful piece of work. If it flies half as good as it > > looks, I'll have a real hot rod on my hands. It will be a few months > > before I can start testing, though. I'll be sure to post some results > > when I have them. > > > > Craig Catto has a big backlog right now, but he's a good guy to do > > business with. > > > > -- > > Tom sargent > > RV-6A. > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 11:42:20 PM PST US From: Jeff Point Subject: Re: RV-List: catto 3-blade prop --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point Ditto on all the good things everyone else said about the Catto. Jerry, if you only turn 2500 then your prop is grossly over pitched (or your tach is off.) Jeff Point RV-6 flying RV-8 tail kit ordered Milwaukee do not archive